The liberal justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson express dissenting opinions that reject the norm of traditional constitutional law. They highlight a departure from established legal practices, stating that the majority is not following the law as traditionally understood. Kagan critiques the majority's flawed reasoning, Sotomayor points out its morally wrong implications, and Jackson situates the majority's decisions within broader oppressive systems. The pattern of dissenting opinions reflects a significant shift, indicating a belief that the Court is operating in a new reality, unbound by previously accepted legal principles.
Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson's dissents signal a rejection of traditional constitutional law practices, highlighting a new reality where the Court seems unmoored from legal restraint.
Kagan frequently critiques the majority's poor reasoning, while Sotomayor highlights their wrongdoings, and Jackson contextualizes decisions within wider systems of oppression.
Collection
[
|
...
]