Did Ketanji Brown use AI to write her sloppy, poorly written and endless dissent in the Nationwide rulings case? It’s an interesting premise. It’s a word salad of extraordinary blather.
One thing is certain: it’s terrible, wordy and too informal.
How many “tells” of AI do you count in Ketanji’s writing? https://t.co/LxW0rHkxTt
— Joshua Lisec, The Ghostwriter (@JoshuaLisec) June 27, 2025
Here’s a fun section. “Full stop,” What?
—————— 16Acknowledging these problems, the principal dissent admits that “[t]here may be good reasons not to issue universal injunctions in the typical case.” Post, at 23 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). This concession, while welcome, is inconsistent with the position that the universal injunction is a “nothing to see here” extension of the kind of decree obtained on a bill of peace. Neither the principal dissent nor respondents have pointed to any evidence that such decrees presented any of the universal injunction’s systemic problems or that they were reserved for situations in which the defendant’s conduct was “patently unconstitutional” and risked “exceptional” harm. Post, at 22–23. It is precisely because the universal injunction is a new, potent remedy that it poses new, potent risks. Our observation in Grupo Mexicano rings true here:
“Even when sitting as a court in equity, we have no authority to craft a ‘nuclear weapon’ of the law.” 527 U. S., at 332. the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. In her telling, the fundamental role of courts is to “order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop.” Post, at 2; see also post, at 10 (“[T]he function of the courts—both in theory and in practice—necessarily includes announcing what the law requires in . . . suits for the benefit of all who are protected by the Constitution, not merely doling out relief to injured private parties”); see also post, at 11, n. 3, 15. And, she warns, if courts lack the power to “require the Executive to adhere to law universally,” post, at 15, courts will leave a “gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound,” post, at 12.
You can read it or scan through it below or go here:
I believe she doesn’t have the brain power to be a justice.
But… but… if we lose Catjammies then we won’t have any *real* blacks on the Supreme Court, right?
This may become an increasingly clear case of what happens when DEI mates with AI. Folks, you “Can’t fix stupid.”
“Mediocrity” instead of “Meritocracy”! Pathetic thinking instead of ‘Supreme’! The Democrats working at deconstructing instead of constructing the USA!
Democrats have always advocated for public schools where the curriculum was aimed at the lowest common denominator, with the intent being to ‘dumb down’ America.