Some Real Talk About the Iran Deal
How Did ‘I’ll Fight the Jews’ Become a Selling Point For Democrats?
This Is America, FIFA
Wrong!
LA Does Not Love LA
Same S**t, Different Day
Pool Attacks Reflect the Left's Insanity
Your Castle, Their Plans: 21 Years After Kelo, the Government Still Holds the...
America Needs Fewer Performers and More Adults
No Ceasefire in the Islamic Republic’s War Against Women
Trump to Pardon 250 for 250: Will Paul Petersen, Imprisoned Victim of Lawfare,...
Colombia's Socialist Despot Blames Israel After Electoral Loss to Trump-Backed Candidate
More Than 20 Shot in Chicago Over Weekend As Trump Offers Help
This NYT Father's Day Article Will Make You Vomit
Sen. Gallego Under Fire for Using Campaign Cash on Super Bowl Tickets, Family...
Tipsheet
Premium

Amy Coney Barrett Was Just Asked About Those Jabs She Took at Jackson in Trump v. CASA Opinion

Amy Coney Barrett Was Just Asked About Those Jabs She Took at Jackson in Trump v. CASA Opinion
Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool

Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Thursday addressed her recent opinion on universal injunctions in Trump v. CASA, where she delivered a stinging rebuke of the dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In the 6-3 decision that gave the president a huge win, Barrett took aim at Jackson’s arguments, where she claimed the administration was asking the high court for “permission to engage in unlawful behavior” by challenging the use of universal injunctions. In line after line, Barrett called out Jackson for essentially having no idea what she was talking about. 

Asked about her rebuke on Thursday, Barrett said she believed Jackson's argument was made "in strong terms that I thought warranted a response." 

Barrett's remarks came during an event in New York City promoting her new book "Listening to the Law."

"I personally tend not to be spicy for the sake of being spicy, but I am from New Orleans and everyone likes a little Tabasco sometimes," she said of her opinion in Trump v. CASA.

The justice emphasized her respect for her colleague, noting that her sharp language in the majority opinion was not an attack on Jackson personally. "We just disagreed about the scope of judicial power," she explained. "I attack ideas. I don't attack people."

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement