Why Ketanji Brown Jackson is hell-bent on destroying the Supreme Court

The call is coming from inside the house. The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v.Callais has made progressives even more determined to delegitimize the court — and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is among them. In a dissent involving a post-decision procedural question, Jackson accused the majority of acting out of pure partisanship.Her opinion said that the court “unshackles itself” from all constraint and “dives into the fray” (meaning the partisan fray).In its jurisprudence, “principles give way to power.”It is acting with an “abandon” that is “unwarranted and unwise.”These harsh charges occasioned a stinging and well-deserved rebuttal from Justice Samuel Alito.But, merits aside, the tenor and substance of the Jackson dissent captures the mindset of a left that is increasingly determined to destroy the Supreme Court in order to save it. The technical matter under dispute was whether the court would wait 32 days to finalize its decision in Louisiana v.

Callais.This is the usual practice under the court’s Rule 45.3; the idea is to allow the losing party time to file a petition for re-hearing.But the rule is flexible, a default “unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time.”The winning side in the case petitioned to get the decision finalized as soon as possible, since time is of the essence for Louisiana.With the scheduled May 16 primaries rapidly approaching (they’ve now been delayed), the state wants to re-draw its maps in keeping with the court’s decision. Jackson’s dissent quotes a 2019 decision of the court in Rucho v.Common Cause for the proposition that courts should not “risk assuming political .

..

responsibility for a [partisan map-drawing] process that often produces ill will and distrust.”But that was a warning against courts involving themselves in minute questions of partisan gerrymandering.Here, the court has set out a bright-line principle that district lines can’t be race-based —...