The Justice Who's Worn Out Her Welcome

Added: 2026-05-19

[00:00:00]Hello again, everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law TV. I'm Washington Gun Law president William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Hey, do you ever have a situation where you have a visitor, house guest, maybe you're out for a dinner party, and that person is just simply wore out their welcome. Uh just really not that much fun to be around.

[00:00:19]It's either they don't see the world the same way as you, or more often, they're just, well, not very intelligent.

[00:00:25]Well, can you imagine having to work every day with a person like that? Cuz if you can, then you realize what it's like to be eight of the nine Supreme Court justices. We're actually going to talk about the ninth Supreme Court justice, because it appears that, well, patience is wearing thin across the bench with her. So, today, let's spend a few minutes, and let's talk about the justice who's worn out her welcome.

[00:00:51]Okay, America. We're going to be talking about a recent Supreme Court case has nothing to do with gun laws whatsoever.

[00:00:57]But, what we're really going to be talking about is all the shenanigans that's gone on since the ruling, the meltdown of a particular justice, and the response from another justice. The case we're talking about today is Louisiana versus Colley. This is a case that, if you look at mainstream media, will tell you that it has absolutely eviscerated the Voter Rights Act. Not true. Instead, what the case did was say that, "Hey, listen, you can't be using race as a method by which to racially gerrymander your districts to ensure that you have a predominantly certain minority group within a district. You can certainly play games based upon party affiliation, and that may encapsulate some elements of race to it.

[00:01:38]But, to actually do it outright because of race, which is exactly what the state of Louisiana done, yeah, that doesn't fly. Now, here's the deal. There is a rule, it's Supreme Court Rule 45.3. And, what it normally says is that the mandate of the court, that is, when they send it back down to the lower court to then issue orders consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling will happen 32 days following the date that the Supreme Court issues its final ruling. However, the rule clearly contemplates that in certain situations that time frame can be shortened or lengthened depending on if circumstances require it. Now, recognizing that the last election and the upcoming election in the state of Louisiana is now based on a congressional map which the United States Supreme Court has found to be unconstitutional, one would think that the sooner you could get this back down to the state of Louisiana, the better it would be. And that is absolutely the request that was made here is to expedite the remand back down to the lower court.

[00:02:42]A particular justice, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, had major exceptions to it. As a matter [clears throat] of fact, she believes that the court should have instead waited its sweet old time. Why? Well, to expedite it down, she believes, would actually create an appearance of impropriety, of partisanship. But to go ahead and just allow it to sit there and then send it back down in the normal course of time in which Louisiana may be stuck with an election utilizing an unconstitutional congressional map, well, that would have been the preferred method for this particular justice because that would have not shown partisanship. Now, to summarize this dilemma, there is a docket entry in this case on the Supreme Court docket that reads as follows: To permit the losing party time to file a petition for a rehearing, the clerk of the court ordinarily waits 32 days after the entry of the court's judgment to send the opinion and a certified copy of the judgment to the clerk of the lower court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 45.3.

[00:03:44]This period is subject to adjustment.

[00:03:47]The default applies unless the court or a justice shortens or extends the time.

[00:03:52]The Klay Appellees have asked for the court to issue the judgment forthwith so that in the event of a judicial remedy, the district court may oversee an orderly process.

[00:04:04]Appellant Louisiana does not oppose this application.

[00:04:07]And while the Robinson Appellants oppose it, they have not expressed any intent to ask this court to reconsider its judgment. Thus, the application to issue the judgment forthwith presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the court is granted. So, Justice Alito, who was assigned to this case, has sent this back down to the lower court in Louisiana, thus giving the state of Louisiana enough time to address through a new congressional map something that would be more constitutionally sound.

[00:04:35]Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, filed a dissenting opinion. And rather than focus on the law, she did what she oftentimes does, and why I believe she is wearing out her welcome here, which is she took personal cheap shots at the Justices. And again, as I've mentioned, this is not the first time it's done it.

[00:04:51]And rumor is is that even her two liberal colleagues, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan, are growing tired of some of her antics. Well, I will tell you who's had it completely up to here with her is Justice Alito. Because in his opinion, sending this case back down to Louisiana, he spends two and a half pages not even explaining why it's the right thing to do, but instead what a idiot that Ketanji Brown Jackson has been. And that literally is the summary of what he says here. This is how Justice Alito responded to Justice Brown Jackson. The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered.

[00:05:29]The dissent would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional.

[00:05:37]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.

[00:05:51]Instead, the descent offers two reasons for its proposed course of action.

[00:05:57]One is trivial at best and the other is baseless and insulting.

[00:06:02]Okay, and let us remember that Justice Coney Barrett also had to defend the integrity of all of the justices, especially her conservative colleagues, from some swipes that were taken by Justice Brown Jackson earlier in the year, in this case right here. Justice Alito goes on to critique Justice Jackson's opinion as follows. The first is compliance with the 32-day default rule set out in this court's rule 45.3, but as the court's order explains, there is good reason to depart from the default rule here. The principal reason for the 32-day default rule is to give a losing party time to prepare a petition for rehearing.

[00:06:40]But here, the Robinson appellees have not expressed an intent to file such a petition, much less set out any ground on which a petition might be based. And the need for prompt action by this court is clear.

[00:06:52]The date scheduled for the beginning of early voting in the primary election has already passed. The congressional redistrict map enacted by the legislature has been held to be unconstitutional and the general election will be held in just 6 months.

[00:07:05]So think about it. You have a congressional map which could be used in as soon as 6 months that the United States Supreme Court has ruled to be unconstitutional.

[00:07:14]Does it behoove everybody to get this mandate back down to the lower court right away so that problem can be fixed before the general election? It most definitely does. But you see, Justice Brown Jackson doesn't see it that way.

[00:07:26]The second reason offered by the descent is that we should allow the 32-day period to run out in order to avoid appearance of partiality.

[00:07:36]But the descent 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. Which essentially is Justice Alito calling BS on everything that Justice Brown Jackson has said. He concludes this way. The descent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power. That is a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.

[00:08:11]What principle has the court violated?

[00:08:13]The principle that rule 45.3's 32-day default period should never be shortened even when there is a good reason to do so?

[00:08:21]The principle that we should never take any action that might be unjustifiably criticized as partisan?

[00:08:28]The descent accuses the court of unshackling itself from constraints.

[00:08:33]It is the descent's rhetoric that lacks restraint. Listen, in Supreme Court legal opinions, that's about as close as you can get to seeing one justice tell the other justice to go F themselves.

[00:08:46]And that is why this justice has worn out her welcome. Okay, the case once again is Louisiana v. Clay. It's the Voter Right Act case. You should geek out on it for yourself so you can see what really happened there. It's linked up down below. So is all the brouhaha between these two justices. Now listen, if you got any questions about this or about the stuff we normally talk about here at Washington Gun Law, you should know how to get a hold of us by now, but if you don't, that's okay. That information's down there in the description box. If you got an idea for a video, some other topic you want to hear us discuss, cool. Click on that link right there. Tell us all about it.

[00:09:19]If you want to subscribe to our monthly newsletter, find out about all the cool stuff they won't let us talk about here, and meet all of our new sponsors, there's a link in the description box for you to do that. And then finally, and most importantly, let's everyone remember that part of being a lawful and responsible gun owner, like we talk about all the time here normally, is to know what the law is in every situation and how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself.

[00:09:39]Until next time, thanks for watching and stay safe.