24 Comments
User's avatar
ron's avatar

I wonder just how much of an idiot the six actual justices think jackson is - and, for that matter, kagan and the "wise latina."

Their opinions don't ever appear to have much actual law in them - just lots of ranting emotion.

Expand full comment
John Stalmach's avatar

Hmmm... have you read today's Babylon Bee?

Expand full comment
sandy picard's avatar

No, but I read the WSJ version of the decision which brushed over the slamming the door on inferior federal judges playing God in one sentence and made it all about the non decision on birthright citizenship. And upwards of 2000 jerks who obviously hadn't read the actual decision promptly started fighting over the merits or no of birthright citizenship.

Expand full comment
ron's avatar

What did you expect? WSJ is very "progressive" and anti-Trump. The editorials section is better, but they still definitely have a little TDS problem.

Expand full comment
ron's avatar

I'm on it!

Expand full comment
sandy picard's avatar

Check Babylon Bee too. Hilarious

Expand full comment
Brian Ahier's avatar

Praise God for this decisive Supreme Court ruling affirming the limits of judicial overreach and restoring constitutional order—reminding us that true justice flows from God, not from activist benches. It’s especially encouraging to see ACB stand firm here, offering a glimmer of hope that righteousness can still prevail in our nation’s highest court. I look forward to hearing about the catfight 😄 😾

Expand full comment
Brian Ahier's avatar

"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." ☺️

Expand full comment
Brian Ahier's avatar

"No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.

Observing the limits on judicial authority—including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789—is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law. JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part."

🤣🤣🤣

Expand full comment
ron's avatar

That's a chick fight that's been simmering for a while.

Expand full comment
Robert Yates's avatar

It puzzled me for some time that a district judge, the lowest level of the federal judiciary, could issue a nationwide injunction blocking the entire executive branch but it took a minimum of two of three appeals court judges and five of nine Supreme Court justices to overturn it.

Expand full comment
War Eagle's avatar

Has there ever been a more unqualified Supreme Court Justice in our history than KBJ?

Expand full comment
Tami Johnson's avatar

This is the best thing I have heard today! Finally we are getting back to the Constitution and the separation of powers 🤞

Expand full comment
Rev. Karlan Fairchild, MDiv's avatar

Thanks for this brief piece, Julie. I'm really hopeful that this decision will severely hamper the Marxists-Wearing-Black-Robes in the lower tier of the federal judiciary. Although, as Justice Alito emphasized in his concurring opinion, there still is much to figure-out regarding the judicial coup we've witnessed and endured since the inauguration of President Trump 47. Again, I'm hopeful that this will put the brakes on these little tyrants. President Trump is the beneficiary of this momentous SCOTUS decision but the real winner is the United States Constitution. Hail the separation of powers with three co-equal branches of the Federal government!

Expand full comment
Jim Lane's avatar

Justice Jackson please make Justice Barrett a sandwich and calm down. 😂

Expand full comment
Michael Ryan's avatar

I checked your Substack first, before any news sites. Figured you would have your finger on the pulse, as usual.

Expand full comment
Tracy klovens's avatar

The only saving grace of this country is the Constitution. You look at the liberal three. They don’t base their words on the Constitution or the rule of law. It’s based on their base. Left leaning, anti constitutional nut jobs.

Expand full comment
Randy Hill's avatar

This ruling is as monumental to our constitutional rule of law as Marbury vs Madison.

Expand full comment
Dena's avatar

Justice Alito is wise to caution how the left will use class action status law to circumvent today’s ruling. I barely grasp his warning (I’m not a lawyer), but heard discussion today that that’s in the works.

Expand full comment
Diana Woodward's avatar

The ACLU has filed a class action lawsuit in NH.

Expand full comment
Anthony Latimore Jr's avatar

The ACLU needs to be sanctioned

Expand full comment
alan carpenter's avatar

🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸👍❤️🤍💙💥💥💥⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️🗽🦅✝️✝️✝️💯🇺🇸☝️☝️☝️☝️

Thank you MISS JULIE KELLY 🇺🇸🔥⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️⚖️❤️🤍💙✝️💯🌹

Expand full comment
Darci A Braz's avatar

Thank you for the details! I just read another article, I believe from Dr. Malone, bringing up this next phase of the deep state...expected Class Action suits. Your article helped solidify the seriousness of this plan.

Expand full comment
Evil Incarnate's avatar

The good guys are winning today, as shown by the flaming skull:

https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=415433

Expand full comment