Mark Levin praised Justice Amy Coney Barrett today for her scathing response to the lunacy of Biden’s DEI appointee, Justice Jackson.

Mark Levin writes:

What he’s referring to is Barrett’s rebuttal of Jackson’s dissent today in their ruling that put an end to these nationwide injunctions from district federal court judges.

Via PJ Media:

Justice Amy Coney Barrett has gotten a bad rap lately for siding with the leftist wing of the Supreme Court on a few cases, but if you ever needed a reminder of why ACB was such a pivotal addition to the Supreme Court, look no further than her latest majority opinion, which brutally destroyed Ketanji Brown Jackson for her moronic dissent in Trump v. CASA, Inc.

In a 6-3 decision that handed President Trump a major victory, the Court put the brakes on runaway district judges issuing nationwide injunctions — an abuse that’s become the left’s favorite tool for stalling any policy they dislike.

Jackson’s dissent veered into unhinged territory, and she wildly accused the administration of asking the court for “permission to engage in unlawful behavior” simply for challenging the use of universal injunctions. It was less a legal argument than a melodramatic outburst that was heavy on theatrics, light on logic.

Barrett, writing for the majority, didn’t just settle for a routine legal reasoning. She delivered a withering rebuke to Jackson’s dissent, slicing straight through the hollow rhetoric and exposing her radical rewrite of two centuries of constitutional law for what it was: ideological fantasy posing as legal reasoning. She didn’t hesitate, didn’t hedge, and delivered the blow with unflinching clarity:

The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity. JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.

Ouch.

As best we can tell, though, her argument is more extreme still, because its logic does not depend on the entry of a universal injunction: JUSTICE JACKSON appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands “universal adherence,” at least where the Executive is concerned.

Ooooh!

We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.

Bam!

JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.”

Brutal, isn’t it?

Absolutely. What a fantastic rebuttal.