Liberal Forum

On April 20, 2026, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a scathing solo dissent regarding a Fourth Amendment case (District of Columbia v. R.W.), stating she "[cannot fathom]" her colleagues' decision to intervene. The Court, in a 7-2 or 8-2 decision, reversed a lower court ruling, siding with police who stopped a driver without, according to Jackson, reasonable suspicion. 

Key Details of the Decision (April 20, 2026):

• Case Background: The case involved a Metropolitan Police officer who stopped a person ("R.W.") at 2 a.m. after seeing others flee a vehicle.
• The Decision: The Supreme Court majority ruled for the police, arguing the lower court did not properly consider the "totality of the circumstances".
• Jackson's Dissent: Jackson criticized her colleagues for using "summary discretion"—a fast-track process—to overturn a "factbound" decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals that found the stop violated the Fourth Amendment. 

The police received a report of a suspicious vehicle, when they approached, 2 occupants fled from the car, the car then tried to drive away with a car door open. When stopping the car, the officers noted a broken window and a destroyed ignition switch.....seems like a no-brainer, right? Not for the African Jungle Name Jurist....I wonder what color the bad guys were?

RebelGator » 21 Apr 2026, 7:12 am » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 7:12 am

On April 20, 2026, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a scathing solo dissent regarding a Fourth Amendment case (District of Columbia v. R.W.), stating she "[cannot fathom]" her colleagues' decision to intervene. The Court, in a 7-2 or 8-2 decision, reversed a lower court ruling, siding with police who stopped a driver without, according to Jackson, reasonable suspicion. 

Key Details of the Decision (April 20, 2026):

• Case Background: The case involved a Metropolitan Police officer who stopped a person ("R.W.") at 2 a.m. after seeing others flee a vehicle.
• The Decision: The Supreme Court majority ruled for the police, arguing the lower court did not properly consider the "totality of the circumstances".
• Jackson's Dissent: Jackson criticized her colleagues for using "summary discretion"—a fast-track process—to overturn a "factbound" decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals that found the stop violated the Fourth Amendment. 

The police received a report of a suspicious vehicle, when they approached, 2 occupants fled from the car, the car then tried to drive away with a car door open. When stopping the car, the officers noted a broken window and a destroyed ignition switch.....seems like a no-brainer, right? Not for the African Jungle Name Jurist....I wonder what color the bad guys were?

Ketanji Brown Jackson is another NB and a DEI hire. **** WORTHLESS.
 

RebelGator » 21 Apr 2026, 7:12 am » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 7:12 am

On April 20, 2026, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a scathing solo dissent regarding a Fourth Amendment case (District of Columbia v. R.W.), stating she "[cannot fathom]" her colleagues' decision to intervene. The Court, in a 7-2 or 8-2 decision, reversed a lower court ruling, siding with police who stopped a driver without, according to Jackson, reasonable suspicion. 

Key Details of the Decision (April 20, 2026):

• Case Background: The case involved a Metropolitan Police officer who stopped a person ("R.W.") at 2 a.m. after seeing others flee a vehicle.
• The Decision: The Supreme Court majority ruled for the police, arguing the lower court did not properly consider the "totality of the circumstances".
• Jackson's Dissent: Jackson criticized her colleagues for using "summary discretion"—a fast-track process—to overturn a "factbound" decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals that found the stop violated the Fourth Amendment. 

The police received a report of a suspicious vehicle, when they approached, 2 occupants fled from the car, the car then tried to drive away with a car door open. When stopping the car, the officers noted a broken window and a destroyed ignition switch.....seems like a no-brainer, right? Not for the African Jungle Name Jurist....I wonder what color the bad guys were?

Why do you, an uneducated illiterate, presume to offer commentary?

The GOP spent decades nominating SCOTUS candidates from one specific and dwindling minority, with the aim of achieving a limited goal on behalf of a constituency of imbeciles.


 

RebelGator » 21 Apr 2026, 7:12 am » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 7:12 am

On April 20, 2026, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a scathing solo dissent regarding a Fourth Amendment case (District of Columbia v. R.W.), stating she "[cannot fathom]" her colleagues' decision to intervene. The Court, in a 7-2 or 8-2 decision, reversed a lower court ruling, siding with police who stopped a driver without, according to Jackson, reasonable suspicion. 

Key Details of the Decision (April 20, 2026):

• Case Background: The case involved a Metropolitan Police officer who stopped a person ("R.W.") at 2 a.m. after seeing others flee a vehicle.
• The Decision: The Supreme Court majority ruled for the police, arguing the lower court did not properly consider the "totality of the circumstances".
• Jackson's Dissent: Jackson criticized her colleagues for using "summary discretion"—a fast-track process—to overturn a "factbound" decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals that found the stop violated the Fourth Amendment. 

The police received a report of a suspicious vehicle, when they approached, 2 occupants fled from the car, the car then tried to drive away with a car door open. When stopping the car, the officers noted a broken window and a destroyed ignition switch.....seems like a no-brainer, right? Not for the African Jungle Name Jurist....I wonder what color the bad guys were?

when an ancestor selects a social identity cradle tog rave rather than be honest about the ancestral lineage that added their time to life daily here, those that have gave away understanding of time living in plain sight daily here.

Every person serving their ancestral reality will never know what they are in real time until their brain says goodbye to what their mind believed true since birth.
I was never allowed to select the judge of my choice, just given the option between judges serving humanity.

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2026, 7:46 am » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 7:46 am

Why do you, an uneducated illiterate, presume to offer commentary?

The GOP spent decades nominating SCOTUS candidates from one specific and dwindling minority, with the aim of achieving a limited goal on behalf of a constituency of imbeciles.

Why does this uneducated illiterate continue to get the best of you.....is it because you have the common sense of a door knob?

RebelGator » 21 Apr 2026, 10:36 am » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 10:36 am

Why does this uneducated illiterate continue to get the best of you.....is it because you have the common sense of a door knob?

Show me where you believe you do so....

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2026, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 10:38 am

Show me where you believe you do so....

Poll the audience.

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2026, 7:46 am » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 7:46 am

Why do you, an uneducated illiterate, presume to offer commentary?

The GOP spent decades nominating SCOTUS candidates from one specific and dwindling minority, with the aim of achieving a limited goal on behalf of a constituency of imbeciles.

Anita Hill must be shaking her head..   @RebelGator  probably wishes it was his.

Clarence Sale of Freedom and Rule of Law Thomas should never have gotten the job.  It was one of Joe's biggest mistakes.
 
Jackson sees beyond color and sex. She has even ruled in Trump's favor?

RebelGator » 21 Apr 2026, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 10:41 am

Poll the audience.

When justice is administrated for defending context, the content of one's sole time alive is not considered part of the equation. Just the obedience to social consensus all around the globe.

RebelGator » 21 Apr 2026, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 10:41 am

Poll the audience.

post an example.

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2026, 10:50 am » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 10:50 am

post an example.

the post above yours.

Oh remember people get the same results if a justice is selected by political party and spiritual congregation. Community social rank and economic status.

Hiring based on color of skin or sex is Pure Racism. 100% Racism.

PhiloBeddo » 21 Apr 2026, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 11:05 am

Hiring based on color of skin or sex gender is Pure Racism. 100% Racism.

fify. gender bigotry isn't racism as it happen in every ancestral lineage and generation gap daily. sex from existing generations add next generation gaps or extinction happens the specific tomorrow 7 days a week in advance the event of this species not having anymore great great grandchildren replacing their previous 4 generations gaps lived so far.

JohnnyYou » 21 Apr 2026, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 10:44 am

 
Jackson sees beyond color and sex. She has even ruled in Trump's favor?

That's nice, but the issue is that Joe Biden did not.

RebelGator » 21 Apr 2026, 11:44 am » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 11:44 am

That's nice, but the issue is that Joe Biden did not.

BV was trying to point out that Trump only picks out white christian nationalist judges to you subtly.

If Joe can pick by race and color so can you.. What's the issue?  Anything Joe does you can do worse.. Am I right?


 

JohnnyYou » 21 Apr 2026, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 12:03 pm

BV was trying to point out that Trump only picks out white christian nationalist judges to you subtly.

If Joe can pick by race and color so can you.. What's the issue?  Anything Joe does you can do worse.. Am I right?

Did Trump advertise his requirements?

 Biden did.....how can you guys always miss the obvious?
 

Johnny You » 21 Apr 2026, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 12:03 pm

BV was trying to point out that Trump only picks out white christian nationalist judges to you subtly.

If Joe can pick by race and color so can you.. What's the issue?  Anything Joe does you can do worse.. Am I right?


 

what three old world religions does Christianity put into their Old Testament? Remember the political empire that created the doctrine of Christianity and its New Testament of a guy bringing in oriental philosophies from the three kings of orient are? Pagan Mythology, Torah, Quran.

East and west in the middle east of 3 continents having a common connection between pacific and atlantic oceans separating north and south americas and antarctica. there is the indian ocean to the south and east of Africa. What intellectually separates east and west in this atmosphere and what intellectually divides north and south hemispheres and the two hemispheres of time are AM And PM sustained by longitudes named Greenwich Prime Meridian is noon during a rotation of the planet while am starts international dateline manifesting 2 days a week passing dawn to dusk evolving sustains cycles of life ancestrally here since inception of the species and its primary 5 ancestral lineages.

the ME is the land mass bridge between three continents that is still home to 82% of the human global population in this atmosphere. 12.5%of the earth's surface and the other 87.5% has 18% left.

Now why in the hell would America what that over population problem on this continent. Now i bet you say this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread and it covers everything involved with how humanity corrupted this species from within this species 24 hours a day 7 days a week throughout history of civilizing ancestries into typecast social orders.

RebelGator » 21 Apr 2026, 7:12 am » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 7:12 am

On April 20, 2026, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a scathing solo dissent regarding a Fourth Amendment case (District of Columbia v. R.W.), stating she "[cannot fathom]" her colleagues' decision to intervene. The Court, in a 7-2 or 8-2 decision, reversed a lower court ruling, siding with police who stopped a driver without, according to Jackson, reasonable suspicion. 

Key Details of the Decision (April 20, 2026):

• Case Background: The case involved a Metropolitan Police officer who stopped a person ("R.W.") at 2 a.m. after seeing others flee a vehicle.
• The Decision: The Supreme Court majority ruled for the police, arguing the lower court did not properly consider the "totality of the circumstances".
• Jackson's Dissent: Jackson criticized her colleagues for using "summary discretion"—a fast-track process—to overturn a "factbound" decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals that found the stop violated the Fourth Amendment. 

The police received a report of a suspicious vehicle, when they approached, 2 occupants fled from the car, the car then tried to drive away with a car door open. When stopping the car, the officers noted a broken window and a destroyed ignition switch.....seems like a no-brainer, right? Not for the African Jungle Name Jurist....I wonder what color the bad guys were?

when you fill cabinet seats regardless of suitability...........................

jerra b » 21 Apr 2026, 12:55 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 12:55 pm

when you fill cabinet seats regardless of suitability...........................

Dress codes really change the outcome. Your brain has to navigate actual time alive to see my sarcasm.

RebelGator » 21 Apr 2026, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2026, 12:35 pm

Did Trump advertise his requirements?

 Biden did.....how can you guys always miss the obvious?

Oh, yeah..  So What?

NAACP sued the local town for discriminatory leadership.  The town settled, they said they would get some of the money back. The town got screwed and is in debt.   Maybe if they had tried to keep an Eye on the I in DE&I it would have never happened.