Political Commentary<\/p>\n
If you were looking for a clear sign that the Supreme Court\u2019s latest ruling struck a nerve on the Left, you didn\u2019t need to scan cable news panels or activist social media feeds. You just had to read Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson\u2019s dissent.<\/p>\n
And according to Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), that reaction alone is proof the Court got it right.<\/p>\n
Speaking on The Faulkner Focus Friday evening, Kennedy reacted enthusiastically to the Supreme Court\u2019s 6\u20133 decision curbing the use of so-called \u201cuniversal injunctions\u201d\u2014a judicial invention that has allowed single district judges to freeze executive actions nationwide, often on ideological grounds.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Supreme Court has turned universal injunctions into fish food,\u201d Kennedy said bluntly. \u201cAs well it should have.\u201d<\/p>\n
That ruling, which arose in the context of challenges to President Donald Trump\u2019s executive orders\u2014most notably his birthright citizenship order\u2014may end up being one of the most consequential judicial decisions of the decade. And it has Democrats furious.<\/p>\n
What the Court Actually Did (And Didn\u2019t Do)<\/p>\n
Despite breathless headlines from the Left, the Supreme Court did not rule directly on birthright citizenship itself. Instead, the justices addressed a more fundamental constitutional question: Do federal judges have the authority to issue universal injunctions that bind the entire country?<\/p>\n
For years, activist judges have answered that question for themselves\u2014and the answer was yes, apparently whenever they disliked a president\u2019s policies.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court disagreed.<\/p>\n
By limiting injunctions to the parties before the court, the majority effectively dismantled a favorite tool of the progressive legal movement. Under the old system, one district judge in California, Hawaii, or New York could block a policy nationwide, even before higher courts weighed in.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s no basis in statute. There\u2019s no basis in Supreme Court precedent. There is no basis in English common law for universal injunctions,\u201d Kennedy said. \u201cJudges who just dislike what Congress and a president\u2014any president\u2014has done, just made them up.\u201d<\/p>\n
That\u2019s not hyperbole. Even liberal legal scholars have admitted universal injunctions are a modern invention, exploding in use only in the last decade\u2014coinciding neatly with the rise of conservative administrations.<\/p>\n
Justice Jackson\u2019s Dissent: The Real Tell<\/p>\n
Kennedy zeroed in on Justice Jackson\u2019s dissent, which ran long, emotional, and unmistakably ideological.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a very extensive ruling,\u201d Kennedy noted. \u201cYou can tell it from Justice Jackson\u2019s dissent. She\u2019s mad as a bag of cats\u2014and that\u2019s probably a good thing for the American people.\u201d<\/p>\n
That remark went viral, not because it was shocking\u2014Kennedy is known for his folksy bluntness\u2014but because it captured what many Americans were already thinking. Jackson\u2019s dissent did not read like a neutral judicial disagreement. It read like a political manifesto.<\/p>\n
Rather than grounding her objections in historical practice or constitutional text, Jackson framed the ruling as a threat to democracy itself\u2014a familiar refrain whenever the Left loses in court.<\/p>\n
Her dissent echoed the argument that judges must retain sweeping power to \u201ccheck\u201d elected branches, even if that means substituting their preferences for those of Congress and the president.<\/p>\n
In other words: trust the judges, not the voters.<\/p>\n
Why Universal Injunctions Were a Problem<\/p>\n
Universal injunctions were never meant to exist in a system of separated powers. Traditionally, courts resolved disputes between specific parties. If a policy was unconstitutional, higher courts would say so\u2014after proper review.<\/p>\n
But in recent years, that process has been short-circuited.<\/p>\n
Under universal injunctions, judges have:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Blocked immigration enforcement nationwide<\/p>\n
\u2022 Frozen regulatory reforms across all states<\/p>\n
\u2022 Halted executive orders before implementation<\/p>\n
\u2022 Effectively legislated from the bench<\/p>\n
And they\u2019ve done it fast\u2014often within hours of a lawsuit being filed.<\/p>\n
This turned district courts into shadow legislatures, accountable to no one and insulated from electoral consequences.<\/p>\n
As Kennedy put it, \u201cIf they disagree, I\u2019m sorry. Fill out a hurt feelings report. Buy a comfort rock.\u201d<\/p>\n
That line wasn\u2019t just a joke. It was a reminder: disagreement does not equal authority.<\/p>\n
Why Democrats Are Panicking<\/p>\n
The Left\u2019s fury over this ruling isn\u2019t about legal nuance. It\u2019s about power.<\/p>\n
Universal injunctions were a strategic weapon\u2014one that allowed Democrats to achieve through courts what they couldn\u2019t win through elections. When voters rejected progressive policies, sympathetic judges stepped in.<\/p>\n
Now that pipeline is drying up.<\/p>\n
Without universal injunctions:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Executive orders can go into effect while cases proceed<\/p>\n
\u2022 Conflicting rulings can be resolved by appellate courts<\/p>\n
\u2022 The Supreme Court\u2014not district judges\u2014becomes the final arbiter<\/p>\n
That restores constitutional order. And for Democrats accustomed to governing through litigation, it\u2019s a disaster.<\/p>\n
This is why Jackson\u2019s dissent mattered so much. It revealed how deeply embedded this judicial activism had become\u2014and how personal its loss feels to those who benefited from it.<\/p>\n
Trump, the Court, and the Bigger Picture<\/p>\n
While the ruling stemmed from challenges to Trump-era policies, its implications go far beyond any one president.<\/p>\n
Ironically, it may end up strengthening future Democratic presidents as well\u2014by preventing conservative judges from blocking left-wing policies nationwide.<\/p>\n
But that\u2019s not how Democrats see it. They see a Court slipping beyond their control.<\/p>\n
Trump, for his part, celebrated the ruling on Truth Social, calling it a \u201cmassive victory for the Constitution.\u201d And for once, the hyperbole may be justified.<\/p>\n
This decision reasserts a basic principle that has been eroded for years: judges interpret the law\u2014they do not run the country.<\/p>\n
Kennedy\u2019s Final Word\u2014and Why It Resonated<\/p>\n
Sen. Kennedy\u2019s remarks struck a chord because they cut through legal jargon and spoke plainly to public frustration.<\/p>\n
Americans have watched unelected judges override election outcomes, freeze policies they voted for, and lecture them about democracy\u2014while behaving in profoundly undemocratic ways.<\/p>\n
When Kennedy said \u201cgood riddance,\u201d he wasn\u2019t just talking about injunctions. He was talking about an era of judicial arrogance.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court didn\u2019t silence dissent. It restored balance.<\/p>\n
And if that leaves some justices \u201cmad as a bag of cats,\u201d as Kennedy put it, so be it.<\/p>\n
As the senator summed it up: \u201cI\u2019m proud of the Supreme Court.\u201d<\/p>\n
For millions of Americans who want judges to follow the law\u2014not rewrite it\u2014that sentiment is long overdue.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Political Commentary If you were looking for a clear sign that the Supreme Court\u2019s latest ruling struck a nerve on the Left, you didn\u2019t need to scan cable news panels … <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":28427,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28426","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28426","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=28426"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28426\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28428,"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28426\/revisions\/28428"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/28427"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=28426"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=28426"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=28426"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}