Justice Jackson's dissent is a crystallization of the activist Justice wing's irrationality.
Justice Barret, who wrote the opinion for the Court, didn't mince many words in her addressal of Jackson's dissent.
The Court's ruling can be seen here; Barrett's dissection is in her section IIIC and runs for a couple of pages. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
Jackson's dissent is the last section of the ruling, beginning on page 98 of 119 according to my pdf reader's page numbering.
I will admit that while this is clearly what has been held as the law for pretty much the duration of the existence of our country, I have always thought it odd that a district court can rule on a Federal law, and have their ruling only take effect in their district- It's a Federal law, why doesn't the ruling affect the understanding of that law across the nation? But, that's not how it works, regardless.
2 comments:
Justice Jackson's dissent is a crystallization of the activist Justice wing's irrationality.
Justice Barret, who wrote the opinion for the Court, didn't mince many words in her addressal of Jackson's dissent.
The Court's ruling can be seen here; Barrett's dissection is in her section IIIC and runs for a couple of pages. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
Jackson's dissent is the last section of the ruling, beginning on page 98 of 119 according to my pdf reader's page numbering.
Eric Hines
I will admit that while this is clearly what has been held as the law for pretty much the duration of the existence of our country, I have always thought it odd that a district court can rule on a Federal law, and have their ruling only take effect in their district- It's a Federal law, why doesn't the ruling affect the understanding of that law across the nation? But, that's not how it works, regardless.
Post a Comment