Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
NY Times takes Dems in Disarray to court [View all]
Today's NYT "The Morning" newsletter is all about a (self-described) scoop: The three liberal Supreme Court justices DON'T AGREE!! They are all angry with each other. Oh, and that new girl: She's totes out of line.
Supreme Court justices have a rule that they’re not supposed to insult their colleagues or the institution. It’s fine to express strong legal disagreement but nothing accusatory about other justices. Judges are supposed to be examples of stability, not figures who thwack each other over their disagreements. But that puts the liberal justices in a predicament: They’re outnumbered, three to six, and they are very worried about the court’s recent decisions. How can they vent their alarm?
Justice Kagan, appointed in 2010 to be a diplomat and strategist, is capable of punching hard, but she shows her frustration only in flashes. When the court rejected President Biden’s student loan cancellations in 2023, she deleted the most heated material from her dissent, I learned in my reporting. Justice Jackson aims directly at the right side of the court, accusing them of being clueless about racism, favoring “moneyed interests” and enabling “our collective demise.”
[snip]
The customary move would be for Jackson, the junior justice, to sign on and say no more. But sometimes she adds her own thoughts, going beyond the senior justice. “Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more,” she wrote earlier this spring when the court limited the power of federal judges to curtail Trump’s power.
Sotomayor and Kagan worry that their newer colleague’s candor and propensity to add her own dissents have diluted the group’s impact.
Justice Kagan, appointed in 2010 to be a diplomat and strategist, is capable of punching hard, but she shows her frustration only in flashes. When the court rejected President Biden’s student loan cancellations in 2023, she deleted the most heated material from her dissent, I learned in my reporting. Justice Jackson aims directly at the right side of the court, accusing them of being clueless about racism, favoring “moneyed interests” and enabling “our collective demise.”
[snip]
The customary move would be for Jackson, the junior justice, to sign on and say no more. But sometimes she adds her own thoughts, going beyond the senior justice. “Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more,” she wrote earlier this spring when the court limited the power of federal judges to curtail Trump’s power.
Sotomayor and Kagan worry that their newer colleague’s candor and propensity to add her own dissents have diluted the group’s impact.
As for the first of these paragraphs, apparently the ace reporter on this story has never read any dissents from Sam Alito or Nino Scalia. "Nothing accusatory about other justices" my ass.
As for the general characterization of Jackson, it seems she's...what's that word?...oh, yes: uppity.
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read