3:50
BREAKING 🚨: Justice Amy Coney Barrett ripped apart liberal Justice...
Dr Charlie Ward@DrcharlieWardQ
6 views
Aug 24, 2026
~1 min read
BREAKING 🚨: Justice Amy Coney Barrett ripped apart liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissenting opinion after the Court ruled 6-3, limiting U.S. District Judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.
Barrett wrote in the majority opinion: “JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a ‘mind-numbingly technical query,’ post, at 3 (dissenting opinion), she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. In her telling, the fundamental role of courts is to ‘order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop.’”
“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
“JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese.’”
Barrett wrote in the majority opinion: “JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a ‘mind-numbingly technical query,’ post, at 3 (dissenting opinion), she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. In her telling, the fundamental role of courts is to ‘order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop.’”
“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
“JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese.’”
