On 6/27/25 SCOTUS came out with multiple 6-3 decisions that confirmed to me that common sense still exists in the D.C. area.
One decision confirmed that parents have the right to filter what very liberal school boards want to make impressionable children listen to and read. In other words parents have control over those things that can affect the moral fiber of their children, not school boards … common sense.
Next from Coffee and Covid:
Justice Thomas wrote for the majority in another major First Amendment case published yesterday. CNN ran the story headlined, “Texas porn age verification law upheld by Supreme Court.”
What this means is that viewers of porn will have to validate their age. Again to me … common sense.
The third 6-3 decision was one that limited what activist liberal judges can do. Their injunctions can only apply to the parties before the judge. These injunctions will no longer be applied nationally … again common sense.
However the majority decision in this third case was written by Justice Barrett, who did not limit her opinion to just the facts of the case, but wrote a scathing rebuke of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
From BlazeMedia:
The headline … “Justice Amy Coney Barrett humiliates Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson over her apparent ignorance of American law”
“The former Notre Dame Law School professor tried to make sense out of Jackson’s position, though admitted that it was ‘difficult to pin down.’
Barrett suggested that Jackson either believes that universal injunctions are appropriate whenever a defendant is part of the executive branch — a position that ‘goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions’ — or, ‘more extreme still,’ that ‘ the reasoning behind any court order demands ‘universal adherence,’ at least where the Executive is concerned.’
“Barrett proceeded to insinuate that former President Joe Biden’s DEI appointee was ignorant of the relevant American legal history and precedent and may have skipped analysis of relevant readings because they involved ‘boring ‘legalese.’
‘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,’ wrote Justice Barrett.”
OMG! To me this sounds less like a scholarly opinion and more like the beginning of a “cat fight.”
6/28/25