Ketanji Brown Jackson has what used to be called “crust”. Having “crust” implies having effrontery or forwardness. Can you imagine being the newest SCOTUS Justice and having the “crust” to lecture any of your colleagues on anything? Being elevated to the Supreme Court of the United States doesn’t come with “institutional wisdom”. Especially when that Justice couldn’t define a “woman” two years ago.

Newsweek is reporting that our newest SCOTUS Justice has issued a “warning” to her Conservative colleagues:

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has warned that her conservative colleagues failed to show “reason and restraint” by allowing Idaho’s transgender youth health care ban to be enforced during an appeal.

BREAKING: Supreme Court rules Idaho can enforce a law banning s*x changes for kids.

The ruling allows Idaho to enforce a law that subjects doctors up to 10 years in prison if they provide hormones, puberty blockers or do s*x change surgeries on minors.

HUGE WIN! pic.twitter.com/1CjAxnwgeo

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 15, 2024

Because one and a half years into her tenure on the Supreme Court, Brown Jackson is a model of “reason and restraint”. More about her “reason and restraint” in a moment. Let’s learn more about what set KJB off:

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Monday granted a request from Idaho officials to allow enforcement of a near-total ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender youth while the case works its way through the courts. The ban had previously been temporarily blocked by a lower court.

The decision does not apply to the two teenage transgender girls whose families filed a lawsuit over the ban. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in his concurring opinion that “the plaintiffs face no harm from the partial stay,” while arguing that blocking the ban could prevent “Idaho from executing any aspect of its law for years.”

If I got this straight, the Majority decision allows the near total ban on “gender affirming care”. That is a ban on puberty blockers and elective radical mastectomies and the like. Right? For youths. Right? That seems reasonable and restrained to me. Not allowing children to permanently alter their bodies before they reach the age of consent.

Ketanji Brown Jackson further scolded:

Jackson and fellow liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan objected to the decision. In her dissenting opinion, Jackson argued that the court had failed to show “respect for lower court judges” and that Idaho had not shown that blocking the ban during the appeal would cause the state “irreversible injury.”

“We do not have to address every high-profile case percolating in lower courts, and there are usually many good reasons not to do so,” Jackson wrote. “Few applicants can meet our threshold requirement of ‘an exceptional need for immediate relief,’ by showing that they will suffer not just substantial harm but an ‘irreversible injury.'”

Jackson went on to argue that Idaho had already conceded that the new law, which was signed last year by Republican Governor Brad Little, was “likely unconstitutional, at least as applied to the plaintiffs.” The Supreme Court’s majority decision on Monday did not address whether or not the law was constitutional.

“The State takes this litigating position while defending a statute that regulates access to gender-affirming medical care for transgender children,” Jackson wrote. “That is a serious and consequential matter… [that] will have a significant practical impact on everyone it affects.”

“We should resist being conscripted into service when our involvement amounts to micromanaging the lower courts’ exercise of their discretionary authority in the midst of active litigation,” she added. “It is especially important for us to refrain from doing so in novel, highly charged, and unsettled circumstances.”

Jackson concluded by asserting that she had decided to dissent because she believes that the court “must proceed with both reason and restraint” regarding the case and “the majority demonstrates neither today.”

There’s that fecking crust again. And, this from the newest SCOTUS Justice who, less than two years ago, couldn’t define a woman:

Now, I realize that Tennesseans are considered backwards and uneducated, but down on the farm it’s kind of important to know male and female, if you want to eat. The Elites were torqued that Marsha asked Ketanji that question. There were lots of questions about Brown Jackson’s decisions especially concerning pedophilia and her sentencing. Our Lisa wrote about her years of slapping the wrists of pedophiles. You can read about her “reason and restraint” with pedos here.

These are the stakes, folks. Yes, we got Amy Coney Barrett with Trump, but Ketanji Brown Jackson? Lecturing those wiser and more experienced is such a low class thing to do. Plus, she’s flat wrong.

Featured Image: White House/Wikimedia Commons.org/Cropped/Public Domain