Jennifer Rubin Pens Fawning Op-ed About Ketanji Jackson’s First SOCTUS Performance, Gets Everything Wrong


Ketanji Jackson was once a Supreme Court judge. It would have been a “Road to Damascus moment.” Justice Jackson, however, showed Monday that she doesn’t understand the history and struggled to understand simple words.

She created a new kind of originalism and textualism that is in direct contradiction with close to 150 years of logic and precedence. Jennifer Rubin, a loyal leftist from the Washington Post, wrote a screechy editorial claiming Jackson was a “potent intellect force” and “blew up” the arguments made at the Merrill case by the “right-wing Justices.”

Jackson did not.

From what I have heard, Jackson isn’t a prominent legal figure and she is incorrect about the 14th and 15th Amendments. Rubin claims the majority will declare the second “black majority congressional districts” “unconstitutional”.

[Jackson] refuted this argument. This illustrates why she’s so intelligent and why fake originalists trying to reverse the effects of enduring racism are so dangerous.

Rubin has been a consistent voice of stupid and bombastic legal or cultural takeaways over a period of more than a decade. Thursday’s OpEd reveals that Rubin is still the queen among screeches.

Jackson claimed Monday during oral arguments that the 14th Amendment granted special rights and protections to post-war freed slaves. These are called “Freedmen”.

This was in relation to a former slave’s “value”. This was to do with a former slave’s “value”… That section nullified all claims of former slaveholders to compensation.

It also ended any confederate effort to “value people”.

It is clear that this was not the result of reconstruction. Plessy and Ferguson’s language “Separate, but Equal” was an infringement of The precedent that was overturned in Brown v Board of Education.

The Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v Holder that Section 4b (Chapter 1965 Voting Rights Act), was invalid. This was an egregious ruling.

Rubin continues:

“Republicans lie to themselves that racism has ended, and any attempt to teach about its enduring effects or correct persistent discrimination is unfair to White people and is unconstitutional. ”

I have never heard of these arguments from any Republican.

Rubin doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to make her own legal arguments. Both experts in this field are wrong most of the time.

Stern considered Jackson’s arguments to be “masterclasses in originalism”, and quotes Rubin:

“And that [Stern] means that it was historically pristine originalism and not the fake originalism that the right-wing majority picks from history to attain a political end. ”

Rubin said, through Stern’s brain, which was channeling Jackson, that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was intended to “ensure other citizens, the Black residents would have [the] same rights as the White citizens.”

It’s beautiful, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866 applies to everyone, even whites.

The Supreme Court.

The Supremes ruled the Act applies to whites in McDonald’s (McDonald’s v Santa Fe Trail Transportation, 1976). The Supremes ruled the 1866 Act was meant as a comprehensive statute that prohibited racial discrimination regarding fundamental civil rights.

Rubin quoted Jackson in a “gotcha!” moment:

Jackson stated, “Jackson was not a racist or racial-blind when he suggested the remedy. ”

Yes, it is.

Jennifer Rubin’s statement that the Supreme Court “blows down Jackson’s argument” is hers. The 1866 Civil Rights Act was not meant for blacks. In particular, the Amendment and the statute are “race-blind”, particularly in 2022.

Stern was Rubin’s “expert”. Hansen rightly pointed out that the Supreme Court will not be siding with plaintiffs. Alabama appears to have the votes to keep its redistricting map.

What’s the bottom line? Rubin will lose her cookies again over the Supreme Court, and the state, and she’ll claim that America, in general, and Alabama in particular, live in a Jim Crow South.

Rubin, and other media shills, will praise Jackson for her dissidents and progressive constitutional “originalism”, but condemn actual originalism.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here