WorldNetDaily writer Bob Unruh has not only unilaterally truncated the name of Supreme Court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and refuses to admit that Joe Biden was the president, he’s also apparently refusing to admit that Jackson is, in fact, a justice by denying her that title. He wrote in a Feb. 5 article:
Ketanji Jackson, Joe Biden’s appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court, made clear her loyalty was to the LGBT agenda rather than the Constitution when, during her confirmation hearing, she either was unable or simply refused to define what is a woman.
Since then, she has delivered blunders one after another in and out of the court, appearing in a leftist theatrical production, and stunningly insisting that America should be run by bureaucrats, not those in-the-way elected officials.
But now she’s been hit with a new scandal, with the eruption of questions about her ethics and integrity, after she appeared at a leftist Hollywood production.
A report at Just the News explains the concerns are over her support for the 68th annual Grammy Awards last weekend, where she appeared for being nominated for a storytelling honor.
Unruh didn’t explain why Jackson appearing for an award for which she was nominated equates to signing off on everything anyone ever says at that awards ceremony.
Unurh raged further in a March 10 article, still denying that Biden was president or that Jackson is a justice:
Ketanji Jackson, Joe Biden’s lone appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, made absolutely clear her political and ideological agenda for the highest court in the nation during her confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate. And now she’s doubling down.
[…]Now, on the Supreme Court, Jackson has doubled down on her politics, most recently in a confrontation with Justice Brett Kavanaugh this week.
Jackson complained, during an annual lecture honoring a late Washington judge, that the president won cases on the high court’s shadow docket. That’s when cases are handled on an emergency basis, without the benefit of trials, hearings and appellate rulings.
According to a report at Fox News, Jackson complained, “The administration is making new policy … and then insisting the new policy take effect immediately, before the challenge is decided. This uptick in the court’s willingness to get involved in cases on the emergency docket is a real unfortunate problem. It’s not serving the court or this country well.”
She also said it was a “problem” that Trump could win cases at the court.
Rather than admitting that Jackson might have a point, Unruh sought to undermine her:
Actually, Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, explained that the court is handling emergency cases the same way it always has, but there were more requests now, and it is a fact that a multitude of district court judges have ruled against Trump’s agenda, many times in ways, like using nationwide injunctions, that are beyond their authority.
And President Trump is using more executive orders because Congress is passing less legislation, he explained.
Unruh returned to the “angry black woman” trope against Jackson for a May 5 article:
Ketanji Jackson, a far-left extremist appointed to the Supreme Court by Joe Biden, displayed her legal acumen during her confirmation hearings when she denied that she had the ability to define “woman.”
Her activism on the court has continued on that theme, and she often claims that her Democrat political positions actually are what the Constitution states.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, whose perspectives on the Constitution actually have been used by Congress, pointed out Jackson has developed “a radical and chilling jurisprudence. Her often sole dissents and accusatory rhetoric have drawn not just the ire of her conservative colleagues but her liberal colleagues.”
Now she openly advocated for a completely political move on the part of the court and has been publicly rebuked by three more senior members of the court, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
It came following the court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais which banned racial gerrymandering in congressional redistricting.
While referencing “Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch” as “three more senior members of the court,” Unruh continued:
Alito explained Jackson’s agenda apparently was based on her political partiality in her insistence on “running out the clock” on behalf of those would “find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map.”
[…]Turley explained what apparently was Jackson’s impetus: “There is no reason why the decision should not be finalized except for a blatantly partisan effort to protect the Democrats from losing seats in the midterm elections. After all, if these districts are unconstitutional, why should states guarantee that voters are given representatives chosen free of racial discriminatory preferences?”
He said, “Jackson stood alone in demanding that the unconstitutional districts be effectively preserved for the purposes of this election — guaranteeing Democratic seats in the midterm that could be lost in non-racially discriminatory districts.”
Unruh didn’t admit the obvious: that eliminating such districts effectively guarantees Republican seats.