In a landmark 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court saw Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson cross ideological lines, joining colleagues in their respective decisions in the US v. Fischer case. Justice Jackson's vote has been particularly noted for its demonstration of judicial independence, countering accusations of activism that were made during her confirmation. This ruling involved preventing defendants from being charged with 'obstruction of an official proceeding,' a point of contention in the January 6 cases. The decision has garnered attention for its implications on judicial impartiality and the broader political landscape.
Even if the majority was wrong, Justice Jackson showed her independence. As did Justice Barrett in her dissent. Kudos to both. https://t.co/Y3WrCVuATA
Although I would’ve voted with Barrett, Sotomayor, and Kagan in US v. Fischer rather than with Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, I think Stephen Rosenthal is right that Jackson’s vote destroys the smear by Cruz, Hawley and others who tried to depict Jackson… https://t.co/O2sj7t7QhS
"The judicial independence of Ketanji Brown Jackson." It should not go unnoticed that KBJ's vote in the Jan. 6 case disproves those who unfairly smeared her as an activist during her confirmation, especially Senators Cruz, Hawley, Lee, Blackburn, Graham. https://t.co/wPzdWEzsaA
The 6-3 ruling wasn't ideologically divided, with Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson switching wings of the court to join colleagues in their respective decisions. https://t.co/a4V2HhU7ay
Ketanji Jackson is probably familiar with lots of left-wing protests. She wants to prevent her side getting years in prison over “obstruction of an official proceeding.” That, rather than any concern for January 6 defendants, explains her anomalous vote in the Fischer case