Thwap! This is the sound heard in D.C. when Amy Coney Barrett smacked Ketanji Brown Jackson with a giant, dead mackerel. It was good and loud and satisfying. For far too long Brown Jackson has burped even more outrageously stupid emissions than Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Joe Biden’s Autopen DEI selection would be embarrassed if she had self-awareness. Spoiler Alert: She doesn’t. So she insulted smarter members of the SCOTUS with her flaming idiocy until today’s decisions were announced. Ooo-eee, what a satisfying thwap.

Two of the decisions announced this morning regarded the LGBTQ book case in Maryland and CASA related birthright citizenship case. From Newsweek:

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett took aim at Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissenting opinion in Trump v. CASA—a ruling related to President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.

The Court handed down its decision in the birthright citizenship case, one of its most significant of the current term, on Friday.

The 6-3 decision does not weigh in on the legality of birthright citizenship, the idea which ensures that children born in the U.S. are citizens regardless of whether their parents are. Instead, it delivered a procedural victory to the Trump administration, ruling that federal judges do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions that go beyond relief for individual plaintiffs on cases.

What you read next will make you wonder how tense the lunch room has been all session:

Barrett wrote the majority opinion, which sided with the Trump administration. In her ruling, the conservative justice said her liberal colleague’s “position is difficult to pin down.”

“She might be arguing that universal injunctions are appropriate—even required—whenever the defendant is part of the Executive Branch,” Barrett wrote. “If so, her position goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions.”

Thwap! It goes downhill from there:

This from the Western Journal was a solid gold mackerel thwap:

Writing for the majority in this 6-3 decision, Barrett wrote on her fellow justice, “Justice Jackson appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands ‘universal adherence,’ at least where the Executive is concerned.”

“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Coney Barrett wrote, giving a scathing criticism of Jackson.

She then put the bow on this wonderful gift to the American people, noting the hypocrisy of Jackson in her denunciations of Trump while wanting a limitless judicial branch.

“We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” Barrett said of her colleague.

Deputy assistant to the president and senior policy strategist May Mailman summed up the opposition against Brown well, highlighting the limitless scope the justice envisioned for her branch.

Somebody better get some ice for that bruise.

I don’t want to leave out Medina vs. Planned Parenthood South Carolina from the Daily Caller:

Dissenting, as per usual, was liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Jackson accused her colleagues of “stymying … the country’s great civil rights laws” – an accusation which the majority opinion refers to as an “extravagant charge.” The fight only heats up from there.

Jackson’s dissent begins by invoking the Civil Rights Act of 1871 – legislation which expanded the federal government’s power to defend citizens’ constitutional rights against “white supremacist violence,” in Jackson’s words.

She accuses South Carolina of asking the Court to “hollow out” provisions in the Civil Rights Act so “the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors. The Court abides South Carolina’s request. I would not.”

If you’re following Jackson’s logic, she’s just accused her colleagues of happily trampling on constitutional rights – in the manner of those who would object to post Civil War protections against racial violence. Ever so slightly unbefitting conduct for a judge in the highest court in the land.

snip–

The majority opinion of the court did not take kindly to Jackson’s remarks. They did express their displeasure more gracefully.

The majority notes, perhaps for Jackson’s benefit, that they “have explained at length” the legal rationale undergirding their decision. “We reach the unsurprising conclusion that it generally belongs to the federal government to supervise compliance with its own spending programs.” If you read closely, you can see Justice Neil Gorsuch’s eyes rolling back into his head.

Everybody’s eyes, especially law professor Coney Brown’s eyes were rolling back into her head.

Nothing to do with Amy Coney Barrett but oh so true. MacDuff’s butt is definitely smarter than Ketanji Brown Jackson:

My dog's butt is smarter than Ketanji…

— Dbldppr154 (@dbldppr154) June 27, 2025

MacDuff is sure that his butt is smarter than Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Thwap!

Featured Image: Fred Schilling/Wikimedia Commons.org/enhanced/Public Domain