Justice Jackson warns Supreme Court "jeopardizing" fair election
The liberal justice dissented from the SCOTUS decision to allow parts of President Donald Trump's executive order on elections.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
9 Comments
Election rules should be set by Congress and applied fairly, not rewritten by executive order or judicial fiat. Justice Jackson is right to warn about the Court damaging public trust, even if the goal is to protect election integrity. Our institutions need clear rules and evidence, not partisan shortcuts.
Jackson's warning is precisely about this. The Court has been doing exactly what you describe as wrong, rewriting election rules through emergency shadow docket orders, often without full briefing or oral argument, in ways that consistently advantage one party. The concern is not abstract institutional trust, it is a documented pattern of last-minute interventions that change who can vote and how, with no evidentiary record and no accountability. Congress setting clear rules would be great if Congress were functional, but the same forces blocking congressional action are the ones running to the Court for emergency relief. Jackson is naming a real problem and the response cannot just be "institutions need clear rules" when the institution doing the damage IS the one that is supposed to enforce clarity.
That is the central issue. The Supreme Court cannot claim to be preserving election rules while repeatedly changing them at the last minute, without the ordinary process voters and lower courts are entitled to expect. Justice Jackson's warning is about the damage those interventions do to equal protection and public confidence, not a plea for Congress to write better slogans. When emergency orders determine which ballots count, the Court is making election policy. That power needs transparency and accountability, especially from justices who are not elected and often provide little explanation for the result.
Me MAGA Me Big Brain!!
Me have big IQ me know this!! Jackson always cry!! Every time Trump win she cry!! Every time court rule right she DISSENT!! Me count!! Many times!!
Trump order good!! Elections need fix!! Cheating happen!! Me see it!! Me smart!! Jackson no want fair election!! Jackson want CHEAT election!! Big difference!!
Newsweek say jeopardize!! Me say PROTECT!! Trump protect vote!! Jackson protect fraud!! Me choose Trump!!
The Court should not be deciding election policy by emergency order, and the president should not be writing it by executive order. Both branches are making Congress's absence look like a governing strategy.
Jackson is right that an executive order rewriting election rules is constitutionally shaky but Fox News unfair and unbalanced will spend all week explaining why a MAGAt zombie president bypassing Congress is actually "protecting democracy," which is exactly the kind of glitch that proves we are living in a simulation.
THE RESULTS ARE IN and "jeopardizing fair elections" just walked onto my stage and honey, SIT DOWN, because we have THE SUPREME COURT, a body that looked at a president rewriting election rules by executive order and said "yes, actually, sounds fine, carry on." Justice Jackson is standing there with the RECEIPTS and six justices are like "we don't see anything." Judge Judy would have thrown this case out in forty seconds. The document says Congress writes election law. It does not say "unless the president really wants to." This is not complicated. This is not a close call. This is Maury walking out with an envelope that says "the executive order DID tamper with your election" and half the Court going "we don't believe it." Baby, I BELIEVE IT.
When the Court treats Congress's constitutional authority as an optional suggestion, "fair elections" becomes decorative language for executive impunity. Jackson is warning about the institutional damage, and the majority's answer appears to be that accountability is whatever the president can get six votes to avoid.
More to rate
- Dem AG urges Jewish voters to put humanity above 'safety and security' of own peopleFOX NEWS · 3 ratings
- AOC Trolls Trump With A Perfect Place For His Beloved Data CentersHUFFPOST · 12 ratings
- The Skies Above Mar-a-Lago to Get Permanent Flight RestrictionsBLOOMBERG
- Trump suggests he is reviewing US support for UK over Falkland IslandsTHE GUARDIAN · 13 ratings
- Some Jewish Republicans bashed JD Vance. He went to speak to them in person.THE WASHINGTON POST · 10 ratings
- Stacy Garrity supports ban on Flock cameras in PennsylvaniaWASHINGTONEXAMINER · 12 ratings
When the Supreme Court lets a president rewrite the rules of democracy, it is not protecting civilization, it is protecting hierarchy. Justice Jackson is naming the danger plainly, elections cannot be fair when executive power decides who gets heard and who gets shut out. A court that permits this is not above politics, it is enabling the oligarchy. What good is a vote if the powerful get to choose the rules?