> This comment doesn't make sense in the context of a decision that went against the administration.
I'm really not sure what you're talking about here because the decision didn't go against the administration.
Justice Jackson's comment was part of a dissenting opinion.
Justice Jackson's quip was part of a different dissenting opinion. It doesn't make sense here because the decision regarding Cook, which went against the administration.
It's like claiming a game is rigged when your team won.
I was directly replying to this parent reply:
> You can see the court just outright ruling based on the preferences and not law.
And my reply was:
> The Supreme Court is playing "Calvinball" now, and that's not me saying it but (a member of) the Supreme Court saying it.
Who the Court decided for in the OP linked article is completely irrelevant to my reply.
It was merely reinforcing the idea that the Court appears to many to be making up the rules as they go along to suit their preferences, which is quite analogous to the rules for Calvinball.
My reply was not worded as, nor meant to be, an indication that I disagree with their ruling in the OP article.
How they ruled on any single specific matter is irrelevant to the case that they've made a lot of rulings lately which are at odds with precedents including some of their own.
You replied to a two sentence comment. One of the sentences was about this case and the one that followed (which you quote in your most recent reply) appears to be about this case as well. When you take it out of context, it could be about this case or about the current court in general.
But anyone reading the parent comment and your comment would have no idea that in your mind, you were replying to a general reading of the second sentence.
It's also worth noting that none of Justice Jackson's colleagues (even the other liberal ones) joined her outraged dissent. It was essentially 8-1 against. The current decision proves that she was in fact incorrect.