{"id":22592,"date":"2026-04-02T02:57:09","date_gmt":"2026-04-02T02:57:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nationalgunowner.org\/index.php\/2026\/04\/02\/ketanji-brown-jackson-needs-to-be-impeached-this-dangerously-idiotic-dissent-is-proof\/"},"modified":"2026-04-02T02:57:09","modified_gmt":"2026-04-02T02:57:09","slug":"ketanji-brown-jackson-needs-to-be-impeached-this-dangerously-idiotic-dissent-is-proof","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nationalgunowner.org\/index.php\/2026\/04\/02\/ketanji-brown-jackson-needs-to-be-impeached-this-dangerously-idiotic-dissent-is-proof\/","title":{"rendered":"Ketanji Brown Jackson Needs To Be Impeached. This Dangerously Idiotic Dissent Is Proof."},"content":{"rendered":"<p> <br \/>\n<\/p>\n<div style=\"position:relative\" data-narration-container=\"true\">\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">If you\u2019ve ever made the mistake of installing a bunch of news apps on your phone, then you\u2019re probably familiar with the \u201cpush notification bomb.\u201d That\u2019s when breaking news happens, and within a few minutes, you get a dozen different alerts \u2014 all of which tell you the same thing. If a plane crashes or something, then you\u2019ll hear about it, over and over again, until you finally snap and delete the apps from your phone. (Or you could change your notification settings \u2014 if you can figure out the interface.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">But every now and then, breaking news involves a topic that isn\u2019t cut-and-dried, like a plane crash. Sometimes breaking news involves a Supreme Court decision, consisting of thousands of words, a majority opinion and a dissent. And in those cases, the \u201cpush notification bomb\u201d is actually pretty interesting. So take a look at this swarm of push notifications that were sent out yesterday, by several different news organizations, after a decision came down from the Supreme Court.<\/span><\/p>\n<div style=\"width:1180px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/pbs.twimg.com\/media\/HEv2A5kaEAEfTiR?format=jpg&amp;name=large\" alt=\"Screenshot: iPhone\" width=\"1170\" height=\"1544\"\/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Screenshot: iPhone<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">The New York Times reports, \u201cThe Supreme Court rejected a Colorado law banning sexual orientation or gender identity conversion therapy for minors.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Fox reports that the \u201cSupreme Court rules on conversion therapy ban challenged by Christian counselor.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">NBC says that the \u201cSupreme Court rules against Colorado\u2019s ban on conversion therapy aimed at LGBTQ youth. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">And the AP declares that, \u201cThe Supreme Court ruled against a law banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ kids in Colorado, one of about two dozen states that banned the discredited practice.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Meanwhile ABC ran this report. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Watch:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><div class=\"youtube-embed\" data-video_id=\"HgLGHHTm8e8\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Supreme Court rules against Colorado&#039;s ban on conversion therapy\" width=\"696\" height=\"392\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/HgLGHHTm8e8?feature=oembed&#038;enablejsapi=1\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/div>\n<\/p>\n<p>ABC News\/YouTube.com<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">What\u2019s remarkable is that, in that segment and every push alert, from every single outlet, the term \u201cconversion therapy\u201d is used \u2014 as if it\u2019s a real thing. None of the outlets tell you that it was an 8-to-1 decision in their push alerts, either. Instead, they strongly imply that this was a ruling by the conservatives on the court, to bring back a barbaric practice \u2014 or at least a \u201cdiscredited practice,\u201d as the AP put it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Every time this happens, you should take note of it. When the media starts using a euphemism like \u201cconversion therapy\u201d with strong negative connotations, it\u2019s important to unpack exactly what they\u2019re talking about \u2014 because in pretty much every case, they\u2019re lying. To be very clear about this, when they talk about \u201cconversion therapy,\u201d they\u2019re talking about telling a boy that he\u2019s a boy, and telling a girl that she\u2019s a girl. They banned talk therapy where therapists say things that are true. The state of Colorado, and several other states, made it illegal for counselors and psychiatrists to tell their gender-confused patients the truth about their sex. They tried to force medical professionals to affirm the delusions of their patients. And if they didn\u2019t go along with it, they\u2019d lose their license. It\u2019s as deranged as it sounds. And it\u2019s a flagrant attack on free speech, as we <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=QiysD0ZcmvY\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight:400\">discussed<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> a year ago.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/episode\/ep-1760-ketanji-brown-jackon-needs-to-be-impeached-this-dangerously-idiotic-dissent-is-proof\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-large wp-image-976065 aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2025\/09\/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg\" alt=\"DailyWire+\" width=\"1024\" height=\"171\" srcset=\"https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2025\/09\/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2025\/09\/Matt-watch-now-1-300x50.jpg 300w, https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2025\/09\/Matt-watch-now-1-768x128.jpg 768w, https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2025\/09\/Matt-watch-now-1-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2025\/09\/Matt-watch-now-1.jpg 1800w\" sizes=\"auto,  (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\"\/><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Of course, in a sense, every kind of therapy is \u201cconversion therapy.\u201d You\u2019re trying to \u201cconvert\u201d a patient from a bad mental state to a good one. But in Colorado, this \u201cconversion\u201d could only go one way. It was perfectly legal in Colorado for therapists to encourage patients to \u201cidentify\u201d as some other gender. But it wasn\u2019t acceptable for therapists to encourage patients to accept reality.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Just so there\u2019s no confusion about this, I\u2019m going to cite from the text of the Colorado law that the Supreme Court just struck down. This is what \u201cconversion therapy\u201d actually means, from a legal perspective. This is what the Left is demonizing. Conversion therapy, according to Colorado, is, \u201cany practice or treatment . . . that attempts . . . to change an individual\u2019s sexual orientation or gender identity,\u201d as well as any \u201ceffor[t] to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions toward individuals of the same sex.\u201d At the same time, the law also allows counselors to provide, \u201c[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for . . . identity exploration and development,\u201dand to assist persons \u201cundergoing gender transition.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">So the pro-trans \u201cconversions\u201d are totally fine, in other words. It\u2019s only the \u201cconversions\u201d back to reality that are the problem. Under the First Amendment, this is clearly unconstitutional. The government doesn\u2019t get to prevent people from saying things that the government doesn\u2019t agree with. It doesn\u2019t matter if those people are \u201clicensed counselors\u201d or therapists, or anyone else. The First Amendment applies to every American. As the majority opinion put it, \u201cThe First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views, reflecting a belief that each American enjoys an inalienable right to speak his mind and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for finding truth. Laws like Colorado\u2019s, which suppress speech based on viewpoint, represent an egregious assault on both commitments.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">It doesn\u2019t matter if the government thinks that the world would be a better place if certain people weren\u2019t allowed to speak. Unless someone is committing a very specific offense \u2014 like fraud or defamation, or making a credible and direct threat to harm someone \u2014 then the government has to stay out of it. This isn\u2019t the Soviet Union, or Canada. But in this case, Colorado effectively tried to suspend the First Amendment. When it came to gender issues, the state of Colorado declared that you can hold any viewpoint you want \u2014 as long as it\u2019s their viewpoint. They forced therapists to lie to their mentally disturbed patients. It\u2019s one of the most psychotic laws that\u2019s ever been passed.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">That\u2019s why eight Supreme Court justices \u2014 including two of the Leftists \u2014 just voted to strike down the law. (Technically, they voted to apply a much more strict standard to the law, but they made it clear that the lower courts need to strike it down.) So if you\u2019re keeping track, this is the third time in the past few years that Leftists in the state of Colorado have been shut down by the Supreme Court after attempting to force Christians to adopt Left-wing orthodoxy, with harassment and lawsuits. First they tried to force the Christian baker to make the cake for the gay wedding. Then they tried to force the Christian web designer to create gay wedding websites. Now they tried to force a Christian counselor to affirm the gender delusions of children. And once again, they\u2019ve lost. They caused enormous damage to these Christians, and they\u2019ve made it clear that they want to destroy Christians entirely. And yet every time, in the end, they\u2019ve lost.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">But there was one justice who wrote a dissent to this ruling. And you already know who it was. Of course, it was Ketanji Brown Jackson \u2014 the single dumbest individual to ever sit on the United States Supreme Court, who was selected by the Biden administration solely because of her race and gender. They set out to find a black woman for the job, and she was the most qualified black woman they could find, apparently.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">I\u2019m going to go through this dissent at some length, because you really need to understand how dangerously incompetent this woman is \u2014 and why it\u2019s important for conservatives to get serious about protecting their Supreme Court majority, which we\u2019ll talk about in a second. But for now, let\u2019s get to Ketanji Brown Jackson\u2019s<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/25pdf\/24-539new_hfci.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> dissent<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight:400\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">We\u2019ll start with the very beginning. This is the first line.<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em><span style=\"font-weight:400\">There is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the States. This was true 100 years ago, and it should be true today.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">This is truly an amazing passage, given the source. It\u2019s like a vegan opening their argument by saying: \u201cIt is obvious that animals have no rights.\u201d She just destroyed basically her entire ideological project.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">That\u2019s not to say that her statement is incorrect, in a vacuum. The idea is that, whatever a doctor wants to do, ultimately doctors are subordinate to the power of the government. If the voters in a state pass a law that restricts doctors in some way, in order to protect the public, then the doctors have to abide by that. Doctors are subordinate to the ability of the state to keep the public safe, is what she\u2019s saying. It\u2019s a very broad principle. As she says, it\u2019s a very traditional principle. And she opens her dissent with it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">That\u2019s obviously not an unreasonable position, by itself. The problem is that, in every other major case that\u2019s dealt with this issue, Ketanji Brown Jackson has taken the exact opposite position. She clearly doesn\u2019t actually believe the principle that state power (or the will of the voters) always trumps the opinions of the doctors. When it comes to abortion, for example, Jackson doesn\u2019t care about what the government or the voters want. She thinks abortion should be available on-demand. \u201cThe government shouldn\u2019t interfere with health care decisions.\u201d This is the mantra trumpeted constantly, for decades, by Jackson and her left wing counterparts. She definitely doesn\u2019t think that the \u201cState police power\u201d should override the woman\u2019s so-called \u201cright\u201d to murder her child. Or maybe she does? Maybe she\u2019s finally coming out in support of a total abortion ban. Based on this decision, that\u2019s the only conclusion you can draw.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">On top of that, Ketanji Brown Jackson just ruled, in the Skrmetti case, that people have no right to overrule the wisdom of doctors who want to sterilize and castrate children. She agreed with Sonia Sotomayor, who said that Tennessee\u2019s law against child castration would cause, \u201cuntold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Yes, that was a different case, with different issues. But without a doubt, in Skrmetti, Ketanji Brown Jackson did not endorse the principle that, \u201cThere is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the States.\u201d She didn\u2019t even mention that principle at all.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">So apparently with this so-called \u201cconversion ban\u201d case, we\u2019ve stumbled on the one area of medicine where, according to Ketanji Brown Jackson, the power of the states (and the voters) is really, really important. In every other area, she doesn\u2019t care what the voters think, or what lawmakers think. Already, this tells you that Ketanji Brown Jackson is not a real judge. She\u2019s an activist. She doesn\u2019t make rulings based on principle. She decides what outcome she wants, and then she works backwards from there.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">In this case, the outcome that Jackson wanted is clear: She wanted the state to have the ability to regulate speech, and to force people to accept trans ideology. Don\u2019t be fooled by the fact that this case is about therapy. The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just therapists. If Jackson can force a therapist to endorse gender ideology, then it\u2019s only a matter of time before she writes an opinion forcing everyone to do the same.<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"image\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-large wp-image-1070895 aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2026\/04\/Jackson-dissent-403x576.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"403\" height=\"576\" srcset=\"https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2026\/04\/Jackson-dissent-403x576.jpg 403w, https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2026\/04\/Jackson-dissent-210x300.jpg 210w, https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2026\/04\/Jackson-dissent.jpg 476w\" sizes=\"auto,  (max-width: 403px) 100vw, 403px\"\/><\/div>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Jackson writes: <\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Though these proscriptions certainly promote a certain viewpoint, in this context, that alone does not suffice to establish a First Amendment violation . \u2026 My colleague\u2019s conclusions are puzzling, for a standards-based healthcare scheme cannot function unless its regulators are permitted to choose sides.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">So she\u2019s just coming out and saying it. In her view, \u201cregulators\u201d should be able to \u201cchoose sides,\u201d and force everyone else to agree with them. In her view, that doesn\u2019t amount to a First Amendment violation. Let\u2019s continue.<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em><span style=\"font-weight:400\">In my view, it is obvious that the Minor Conversion Therapy Law is regulating professional conduct insofar as it prohibits providing a particular therapy; the aim of the statute is not suppressing speech.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">In other words, she\u2019s saying that, even though the Colorado government is explicitly banning speech by outlawing so-called \u201cconversion therapy,\u201d nevertheless, Colorado isn\u2019t actually \u201csuppressing speech.\u201d That\u2019s because, according to Ketanji Brown Jackson, the government is only banning speech in the context of some other \u201cconduct\u201d \u2014 the talk therapy session. So really, as Jackson understands the situation, the government of Colorado is really banning \u201cconduct,\u201d not \u201cspeech.\u201d She thinks the ban on speech is incidental to the ban on conducting therapy sessions in a certain way.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Let\u2019s think about this for a second. Every form of speech involves some kind of \u201cconduct\u201d in addition to the speech. If you send an email or post a tweet, you\u2019re engaging in both \u201cspeech\u201d and \u201cconduct\u201d at the same time. You\u2019re sitting in a chair, typing on a keyboard, looking at a screen on a computer, et cetera. All of that behavior amounts to \u201cconduct\u201d that\u2019s occurring alongside your \u201cspeech.\u201d Speech is conduct. By the same token, if you go to a protest and wave a sign around, you\u2019re engaging in both speech and conduct. You\u2019re saying things, but you\u2019re also waving a sign, walking down the sidewalk, and so on. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">This goes for all forms of speech. If you go out in public and yell and scream psychotically, and someone says they disapprove of your conduct, it wouldn\u2019t make any sense to reply: \u201cBut I wasn\u2019t engaging in conduct. I was only engaging speech!\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Speech is conduct, wo under Ketanji Brown Jackson\u2019s understanding, all speech could be banned, as a kind of \u201cconduct.\u201d But if you have an IQ above room temperature, then you understand how absurd this is. There needs to be some limiting principle. And as luck would have it, over the last 50 years, courts have established these limiting principles. And those limiting principles, in general, go like this: Whenever the government wants to ban speech, it can\u2019t discriminate against a particular viewpoint, while allowing others. Additionally, the government can\u2019t ban speech at all, unless it\u2019s closely related to some kind of unlawful conduct, beyond the speech itself.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">So for example, if the government passes a law that says no one can participate in a loud protest in the suburbs after midnight, that\u2019s completely fine. The government isn\u2019t discriminating against any particular viewpoint. Instead, they\u2019re shutting down all viewpoints. And they\u2019re doing it for a very important reason: a protest after 3:00 AM in the suburbs is very closely related to the separate crime of disorderly conduct, protesting without a permit, and so on. So in that case, someone could be prosecuted for creating a disturbance. But that\u2019s very different from saying that the government will only allow, say, pro-BLM or pro-trans protests after 3 AM. That would be a very different situation. It would be analogous to what Colorado is doing here.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">This is all very basic stuff. Again, this was an 8-to-1 decision for a reason. But the more you read Jackson\u2019s opinion, the more problems you find. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">So let\u2019s continue with her reasoning, or lack thereof.<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em><span style=\"font-weight:400\">The medical community has determined that efforts to change a patient\u2019s sexual orientation or gender identity will necessarily be ineffective. The American Psychological Association (APA), for example, has found \u201cno empirical evidence that providing any type of therapy in childhood can alter adult same-sex sexual orientation.\u201d And \u201c[n]o research has been published in the peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates the efficacy of conversion therapy efforts with gender minority youth, nor any benefits of such interventions to children and their families.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Notice what\u2019s happening here. She\u2019s saying that, because the Left-wing medical groups haven\u2019t written a study that specifically states that it will help children if you tell them the truth about gender, therefore we shouldn\u2019t allow counselors to tell children the truth about their gender. But here\u2019s the thing: There\u2019s no need for a study in this case, one way or the other. It doesn\u2019t matter if researchers at the Berkeley Trans Factory claim to discover that children become unhappy (or even depressed) when doctors tell them the truth. The emotional response of children, regardless of what that response may be, does not override the First Amendment.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Of course we have plenty of evidence \u2014 not to mention common sense \u2014 which tells us that it\u2019s a terrible idea to affirm the delusions of children. The ACLU\u2019s lawyer had to admit last year, before the Supreme Court, that they have precisely zero evidence that so-called \u201cgender-affirming care\u201d actually reduces suicide rates, even though they constantly claim otherwise. But again, whatever data or study you come up with, the truth is all that matters. In a free country, no one can be forced to affirm a lie. Period.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">We all know what\u2019s going on here, with this dissent. This is yet another attempt \u2014 one of many \u2014 to give the so-called \u201cexperts\u201d a veto power over what Americans are allowed to say out loud. First of all, even if the experts were always right about everything, which they aren\u2019t, this whole line of argument is un-American and unconstitutional. So-called \u201cexperts\u201d do not get to force other people to agree with them, which is what this law attempts to do. And as we all know, these experts are some of the most corrupt, least trustworthy people on the planet. Last year, as you may remember, The Daily Wire published footage of a private video call featuring the president of the AMA, which is the leading medical association on the planet. And in that call, the president of the AMA made it very clear that the organization is basically a rubber-stamp for other, smaller organizations. They aren\u2019t actually vetting anything. They\u2019ll endorse so-called \u201ctrans medicine,\u201d and then when they\u2019re asked about it, they\u2019ll claim total ignorance. And when the president of the AMA was informed that these smaller organizations \u2014 the organizations the AMA is relying on \u2014 are staffed by extremely biased activists, he simply didn\u2019t care.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">I won\u2019t go through everything else in Jackson\u2019s dissent. But I did want to mention this one paragraph as well, because it actually approaches an intelligent argument from Ketanji Brown Jackson. And for that reason alone, it\u2019s historic. We need to talk about it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">\u201cWhen a State establishes a standard of care, or punishes a doctor for providing care outside of that standard, it necessarily limits what medical professionals can say and do on the basis of viewpoint. A State can prohibit the administration of specific drugs for particular medical uses but not for others. So, too, may it prohibit a doctor from encouraging a patient to commit suicide\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">She\u2019s actually right there \u2014 at least in part. It\u2019s true that the government can punish doctors who \u201cencourage patients to commit suicide.\u201d And, at some level, that does count as a restriction on the free-speech rights of these medical professionals.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">But there\u2019s a very big difference between that situation, and Colorado\u2019s ban on so-called \u201cconversion therapy.\u201d Colorado was attempting to force counselors, in their official capacity, to lie to their patients, and to claim that gender ideology was settled science. Colorado was forcing doctors to take a specific position on a contested issue. And calling it contested is being VERY generous to the pro-trans side. It\u2019s actually not contested at all by reasonable people. On the other hand, in Ketanji Brown Jackson\u2019s example, doctors are telling patients to harm themselves \u2014 in other words, they\u2019re encouraging patients to commit a crime. That kind of speech can be regulated, for the same reason that I\u2019d get in trouble if I told all my viewers to commit a crime. It falls under a very narrow category of speech, which is incitement to violence. It makes sense for the medical profession to restrict doctors from encouraging their patients to commit crimes.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">This probably seems logical to you or me, but for Ketanji Brown Jackson, who spends most of her time on Broadway (or at the Grammys), logic is irrelevant. And for that reason alone, Republicans should impeach her. AOC tried to impeach Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, even though they\u2019re obviously competent and accomplished justices. She introduced articles of impeachment and everything, because they went on some vacations with their rich friends.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">If that\u2019s the standard, then by tomorrow morning, Republicans should introduce articles of impeachment against Ketanji Brown Jackson. She was nominated for a Grammy \u2014 supposedly because of her audiobook, but we all know the actual reason. That\u2019s a pretty big \u201cgift,\u201d from some pretty rich friends. But really, the reason to impeach Jackson is that she\u2019s a complete moron. She\u2019s dangerously stupid. She\u2019s not even attempting to be honest or fair in her rulings. We could go through her entire career and establish easily, as we\u2019ve done in the past, that she\u2019s grossly unfit and unqualified for the job she has. But really all we need is this ruling. A woman who believes that therapists should be forced by law to lie to confused children is not suited for the supreme court, or any other prominent position in society. She rejects the constitution. She rejects common sense. She is either insane or pretending to be insane. In either case, she shouldn\u2019t be on the court, and there is a much better argument for impeaching her than there ever was for impeaching Clarence Thomas, that\u2019s for certain.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">And once we\u2019re done impeaching her, we need to have a serious conversation about retirements. Clarence Thomas is 77. Samuel Alito is 75. John Roberts is 71. All three of them should give serious consideration to stepping down right now. That\u2019s not because they\u2019re bad at their jobs (except for John Roberts). Clarence Thomas is one of the greatest Supreme Court justices of all time. He\u2019s a brilliant man, and a good man, and it would be a shame to see him go. But he will go, one way or another, sooner than later. If Democrats retake the Senate in November, then we\u2019ll have no chance to replace them with conservatives. There\u2019s a very real possibility that Democrats take the Senate this year, and then the White House in 2028. If that happens, it would be catastrophic. Democrats might be able to swap three conservative justices for three Leftists, which would swing the balance of power on the court.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Thomas, Alito and Roberts know all of this. They saw what happened with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, after she clung to power for a bit too long. If this country is going to survive, we simply can\u2019t have any more Ketanji Brown Jacksons on the court. Birthright citizenship is the next big topic this court is going to decide. That could be the single most important case in American history. It could be the case that allows America to remove the foreigners who have invaded this country, and prevent them from coming back. It could restore America to Americans.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">So we simply can\u2019t tolerate any more radical far left insane justices, who are selected solely because of their race and gender. It would inflict far too much damage to the country. So as soon as possible, we need to give the White House the opportunity to replace at least some of these old conservative justices with three young ones. We have the power to do that right now. We should take advantage of the opportunity. And after reading this latest dissent from Ketanji Brown Jackson, it\u2019s hard to imagine that every conservative on the Supreme Court \u2014 and everyone in the White House \u2014 isn\u2019t thinking the same thing.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><br \/>\n<br \/><a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/news\/ketanji-brown-jackson-needs-to-be-impeached-this-dangerously-idiotic-dissent-is-proof\">Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>If you\u2019ve ever made the mistake of installing a bunch of news apps on your phone, then you\u2019re probably familiar with the \u201cpush notification bomb.\u201d That\u2019s when breaking news happens, and within a few minutes, you get a dozen different alerts \u2014 all of which tell you the same thing. If a plane crashes or [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":22593,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-22592","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-current-news"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationalgunowner.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22592","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationalgunowner.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationalgunowner.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationalgunowner.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationalgunowner.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22592"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nationalgunowner.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22592\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationalgunowner.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22593"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationalgunowner.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationalgunowner.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationalgunowner.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}