quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.alternet.org/supre...t-moneyed-interests/

Supreme Court justice suggests her colleagues have been taken in by 'moneyed interests'

June 20, 2025

=============================================

Excerpt from the article linked in the OP:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unloaded on her Supreme Court colleagues Friday in a series of sharp dissents, castigating what she called a "pure textualism" approach to interpreting laws, which she said had become a pretext for securing their desired outcomes, and implying the conservative justices have strayed from their oath by showing favoritism to "moneyed interests."

The attack on the court's conservative majority by the junior justice and member of the liberal wing is notably pointed and aggressive but stopped short of getting personal. It laid bare the stark divisions on the court and pent-up frustration in the minority over what Jackson described as inconsistent and unfair application of precedent by those in power.

=========================================

Several years ago I studied up on the concepts of textualism, originalism, judicial discretion and abuse thereof, judicial activism, etc., and some of justice Scalia's opinions in particular.

I reached the opinion that Scalia was an activist who used the pretext of textualism. Call it whatever, the outcome was construed in advance and pretext was used to attain and justify the outcome.

IOW, I agree with Jackson.

quote:

That she SHOULD be reading words not present in the law to enforce the law?

that explains A LOT

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

That she SHOULD be reading words not present in the law to enforce the law?

that explains A LOT

Where did she say that?

An exact quote please.

I'm thinking that if you can't provide such a quote, then THAT explains a lot.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

That she SHOULD be reading words not present in the law to enforce the law?

that explains A LOT

Where did she say that?

An exact quote please.

I'm thinking that if you can't provide such a quote, then THAT explains a lot.

Oh honey. I get it, your aren't sophisticated, but click on the BLOODY link I provided and do this crazy thing. READ WHAT IS WRITTEN. This justice thinks adding words to laws is what's meant, not what is actually written.

Honey, notice NO LAWYER is backing you?