Jackson sees the recent court decisions as an "existential threat to the rule of law". Ahem.

Jackson oddly suggests that in a democracy the "people" are supposed to be the rulers while suggesting that the policies that the people voted for should not be implemented.

I sometimes wonder what is going on in the mind of these people. I believe that they are so far engulfed in their circle-jerk cocoons that they truly believe that the popular opinion on these issues are all on their side. They seemed justified by a WaPo or Quinnipiac push poll that suggests something they believe might be more popular than not, and wham bam, that gives these judges license to overrule policy? As the old saying goes, the only poll that matters is the one taken on the first Tuesday in November. That was the poll that the left lost bigly, and they simply refuse to accept it.

Jackson is spiraling down right now. Obviously, there is animosity between her and at least six (and possibly) seven other Justices. The attacks from Justice Barrett were scathing (and to the point) and five other justices signed on. Meanwhile Kagan found herself in the majority opinions in this last session a remarkable amount of time, meaning we had plenty of 7-2 decisions to go along with the more ideological 6-3 splits. This suggests that even Kagan is having trouble agreeing with Jackson. Sotomayor is the only judge that seems to agree with most of her arguments, and even then, Jackson has still had to write single dissents for her most outrageous legal claims.

The sad part about all of this is that I doubt it will get better, and I doubt Jackson going on national television and attacking her fellow Justices is going to help her cause. As he most junior member of the court, and with the lowest arguable legal qualifications, she would have been better served being a bit more respectful of the high court in general as well as the members she works with. But she seems to believe that she is the only one who gets it and sees the "bigger points" while the rest of the court relies on silly legalese and dumb technical legal arguments. Ironic how legalese and technical arguments generally contradict the rulings that Jackson would like to see; but that seems to be the point with the judges on the left. It should not really be about the law (in spite of the fact that law school and passing the bar is what qualifies you to be a judge) but rather it should be about what these judges see as right or wrong. They are the superior branch, and their political opinions should carry more weight than those who are elected to actually legislate and execute laws.

I see Sotomayor and Jackson as two peas in a pod. They both openly believe (and will tell anyone who will listen) that being a woman of color makes their opinions matter more. As Sotomayor suggested, the court needs a strong Latina woman on the court. I am sure Jackson believes the same thing about being a black woman. Diversity is our strength as everyone knows, as if our understanding the law itself is something that changes based on skin color and reproductive organs. While that might be true to some degree, the idea of being a judge is to follow and rule on the law (it is the very essence of the judicial branch) and to leave the legislating and execution to the branches created to do those functions. What Jackson (or Sotomayor) think of policies shouldn't matter as to whether or not they are legal.

The logical problem with Jackson's arguments that the district courts are just the first step in the process. They are not designed to be anything more than a speedbump. The heavy lifting comes from the appeals courts and ultimately the USSC. If a Congress or a President is acting outside of the law, then there are real backstops along the way with the buck stopping at the highest court. There was never any real intention to have nearly 700 mini-supreme courts with the power to push Presidents and Congress around at their own whims. Deep down I would guess that Jackson knows this, but that she is living in the reality that these district judges are more in line (ideologically) with her than any circuit court and most certainly the USSC. It will always be more about ideology with liberal judges. It will ever be about the actual law or the constitution.

All that being said, the bigger problem with Jackson is how hard she is trying to undermine the very court she is supposed to represent. She is pouring fuel onto the fire, literally giving license to the far left to continue to attack the court as they have been doing since they lost the majority. Meanwhile, to most of the country it is not the USSC that is out of control, but the district judges who are exactly that. The recent ruling that Jackson is criticizing was almost universally celebrated by actual serious constitutional scholars and no WaPo or Quinnipiac push poll will change that reality.