You know it’s bad when Sotomayor starts looking like a voice of reason in the Progressive side of the bench.

For all of the Democrat’s attempts to declare the ‘unfit’ nature of the 6-3 court, it’s not the GOP-appointed judges who have been beclowning themselves.

Anyone claiming that the Thomas/Alito side of the ledger has led some kind of a partisan takeover of the court runs up against a hard wall of inconvenient facts — like the 9-0, 8-1, and 7-2 rulings on many issues, not a few of which had the dissent from among the ‘partisan’ GOP-appointees. There is the continuity of their rulings when it benefits opposite parties (California and Texas redistricting, for example) when there is apparent partisan discontinuity on the other side. And just this week, they gave the abortion pill producers leave to continue mail-order delivery until the court has had opportunity to hear the arguments, after going ahead with Louisiana’s case on Friday.

The latest ruling — one that really threw a wrench in the left’s designs — involves how to move forward with the ruling about explicitly race-based gerrymandering, which they ruled to be a violation of Constitutional protections. It just so happens that such gerrymandering has been the bread and butter of Eric Holder and the Democrats in their campaign to redraw maps along racial lines to maximize their party’s electoral advantage in every state.

Dems were incensed at the ruling, whipping up the same SPLC-style rhetoric that is intended to whip up public opinion against the courts so that any attempt to pack the court will seem like a ‘rescue plan’ rather than the political coup it would so obviously be.

But the activist left was still holding on to the hope that the lines currently drawn on the map (whether unconstitutional or not) would remain in place at least until AFTER the midterm elections.

That is NOT how SCOTUS ruled in that case. The original ruling was 6-3, but one that had been decided, there was one more thing to be decided. Should the case be immediately concluded, or should the court wait the 32 days before finalization. In an 8-1 decision, the court waived the wait and finalized their ruling. This allows the state to immediately begin the task of redrawing lines in a way that is not unlawfully predicated on race.

The one voice of dissent in this decision wrote a four-page dissent.

Keep in mind, there was no obligation to enter a formal written response in what might otherwise have been a simple procedural step finalizing an already-decided case. This was just a ruling on whether or not to waive the 32-day waiting period. But Justice Jackson would have NONE of it.

Her four-page dissent made sweeping allegations against her colleagues.And they were NOT taking it sitting down.(Source document for the ruling and the dissent can be foundhere.)

Source: Clash Daily