You know it’s bad when Sotomayor starts looking like a voice of reason in the Progressive side of the bench.

For all of the Democrat’s attempts to declare the ‘unfit’ nature of the 6-3 court, it’s not the GOP-appointed judges who have been beclowning themselves.

Anyone claiming that the Thomas/Alito side of the ledger has led some kind of a partisan takeover of the court runs up against a hard wall of inconvenient facts — like the 9-0, 8-1, and 7-2 rulings on many issues, not a few of which had the dissent from among the ‘partisan’ GOP-appointees. There is the continuity of their rulings when it benefits opposite parties (California and Texas redistricting, for example) when there is apparent partisan discontinuity on the other side. And just this week, they gave the abortion pill producers leave to continue mail-order delivery until the court has had opportunity to hear the arguments, after going ahead with Louisiana’s case on Friday.

The latest ruling — one that really threw a wrench in the left’s designs — involves how to move forward with the ruling about explicitly race-based gerrymandering, which they ruled to be a violation of Constitutional protections. It just so happens that such gerrymandering has been the bread and butter of Eric Holder and the Democrats in their campaign to redraw maps along racial lines to maximize their party’s electoral advantage in every state.

Dems were incensed at the ruling, whipping up the same SPLC-style rhetoric that is intended to whip up public opinion against the courts so that any attempt to pack the court will seem like a ‘rescue plan’ rather than the political coup it would so obviously be.

But the activist left was still holding on to the hope that the lines currently drawn on the map (whether unconstitutional or not) would remain in place at least until AFTER the midterm elections.

That is NOT how SCOTUS ruled in that case. The original ruling was 6-3, but one that had been decided, there was one more thing to be decided. Should the case be immediately concluded, or should the court wait the 32 days before finalization. In an 8-1 decision, the court waived the wait and finalized their ruling. This allows the state to immediately begin the task of redrawing lines in a way that is not unlawfully predicated on race.

The one voice of dissent in this decision wrote a four-page dissent.

Keep in mind, there was no obligation to enter a formal written response in what might otherwise have been a simple procedural step finalizing an already-decided case. This was just a ruling on whether or not to waive the 32-day waiting period. But Justice Jackson would have NONE of it.

Her four-page dissent made sweeping allegations against her colleagues.
And they were NOT taking it sitting down.
(Source document for the ruling and the dissent can be found here.)

Here are some of Jackson’s complaints:

JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting.
The Court’s decision in these cases has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana.
[…]
These post-Callais developments have a strong political undercurrent. Louisiana’s hurried response to the Callais
decision unfolds in the midst of an ongoing statewide election, against the backdrop of a pitched redistricting battle among state governments that appear to be acting as proxies for their favored political parties.
[…]
But, today, the Court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation.
[…]
The Court unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power. Because this abandon is unwarranted and unwise, respectfully, I dissent.

Not for the first time, and probably not the last, her arguments got absolutely torched by the majority positions.

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and
JUSTICE GORSUCH join, concurring.

The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered. The dissent would require that the 2026 con-
gressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional.* The dissent does not claim that it is now too late for the state legislature or the District Court to adopt a new map that complies with the Constitution. Nor does the dissent assert that it is not feasible for the elections to be held under such a map. Instead, the dissent offers two reasons for its proposed course of action. One is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting.
[…]
The second reason offered by the dissent is that we should allow the 32-day period to run out in order to “avoid the appearance of partiality.” Post, at 3 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). But the dissent does not explain why its insistence on unthinking compliance with Rule 45.3’s default rule does not create the appearance of partiality (by running out the clock) on behalf of those who may find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map.

The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power. See post, at 4 (“And just like that, those principles give way to power”). That is a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge. What principle has the Court violated? The principle that Rule 45.3’s 32-day default period should never be shortened even when there is good reason to do so? The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?

The dissent accuses the Court of “unshackl[ing]” itself from “constraints.” Post, at 4. It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint.

One more thing.

While Justice KBJ was showing the world just how petty she was in not getting her way on the bench, Governor DeSantis was signing a Floridian redistricting into law.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has signed into law a map he designed to give Republicans an edge in as many as four seats now held by Democrats.

State lawmakers approved the new boundaries just hours after the US Supreme Court issued a decision limiting the reach of the Voting Rights Act in redistricting cases. DeSantis had used the pending decision as one justification for pursuing a mid-decade redistricting in his state. — CNN

The post Key SCOTUS Redistricting Ruling Features EPIC Smackdown Of Biden’s DEI Hire… IN The Ruling appeared first on Clash Daily.