In an environmental case, the liberal justice questioned whether the high court treats business interests differently from "less powerful litigants."
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized her colleagues Friday in a scathing dissent in a case involving vehicle emissions regulations.
In her dissenting opinion, she argued that the court's ruling gives the impression it favors “moneyed interests” in the way it decides which cases to hear and how it rules in them. The court had ruled 7-2 in favor of fuel producers seeking to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of California clean vehicle emissions regulations.
She also said she was concerned that the ruling could have "a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests."
The supreme court might as well wear robes with logos all over them like in NASCAR. What would be the difference at this point?
Professional clarity and honesty.
Though, to be fair, if honesty were a requirement of being a Supreme Court Justice then Clarence Thomas would have been squarely out on his ass many, many years ago.