“Lovely One”: Justice Jackson Given Book Deal With a Notable Difference From Her Colleague Justice Barrett

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson just secured a major book deal from Random House. The book, entitled “Lovely One,” is aptly named given the sharp contrast to the reception to the book deal given to her colleague, Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett’s book, also with a Random House company, was opposed by publishers and editors including over 50 who publicly claimed to be working at Penguin Random House companies. She was deemed a persona non grata by editors who wanted to prevent readers from reading about her own personal views and history. 

“Lovely One” will tell Jackson’s life’s story and she will receive an advance of $1 million. I am delighted by the news of the book. Jackson has a fascinating life story to tell.

It is the reception to the book that is most striking. As discussed earlier, various publishers and editors publicly called for Barrett to be barred from publication due to her jurisprudential views. It did not matter that these views are generally shared not only by over half of the Supreme Court and hundreds of judges but arguably half of the voters. After all, why burn books when you can effectively ban them?

The public letter entitled “We Dissent” made the usual absurd protestation that, just because we are seeking to ban books of those with opposing views, we still “care deeply about freedom of speech.” They simply justified their anti-free speech position by insisting that any harm “in the form of censorship” is less than “the form of assault on inalienable human rights” in opposing abortion or other constitutional rights. Yet, the letter is not simply dangerous. It is perfectly delusional. While calling for the book to be blocked, the editors and writers bizarrely insisted “we are not calling for censorship.”

Among the “literary figures” who signed the public petition were Penguin Random house editors and staff.  This included over fifty individuals who listed their association with Penguin and Random House in publicly calling for the book banning. While we cannot confirm many of these signatories, they remain publicly posted and some claim senior positions at the company:

Listed in order on the petition:

  1. Michelle Lee, Assistant Editor/Penguin Young Readers
  2. Ada Fung, Editor, Penguin Random House  
  3. Mary, Penguin Publishing Group
  4. Isabella Biedenharn, Random House
  5. Estelle Malmed, Senior Associate, Ebook Dev Ops, Penguin Random House  
  6. Abbe Wright, Penguin Random House 
  7.  Bridget Sweet, Production Editor, Penguin Random House
  8. Maija Baldauf, Penguin Publishing Group
  9. Emily Schultz, Author with Penguin Random House
  10. Emily Hoffman, Assistant Managing Editor/Penguin Random House
  11. Megan Tripp, Senior Social Media Manager, Random House Group
  12. Emilie Mills, Subsidiary Rights/Penguin Random House
  13. Bridget [No Last Name listed], Penguin Random House
  14. Ty Nowicki, Director Creative Ops / Random House
  15. Emi Lotto, Production Manager, Penguin Random House
  16. Claire Yee, Senior editor / Penguin Random House
  17. James Akinaka, Digital Marketing Manager, Penguin Random House 
  18. Angela Sardella, Penguin Random House 
  19. Corina Diez, Marketing Associate/ Random House
  20. Anna Scheithauer, Copyright Associate/Penguin Random House
  21. Korra Saqqara (Christa Angelios), Copyright Associate, Penguin Random House
  22. Ashleigh Heaton, Assistant Director of Marketing, Penguin Random House
  23. Josh Luft, Sr. Manager/Penguin Random House
  24. Heather Lewis, Copyrights Assoc. / Penguin Random House LLC
  25. Gretchen Durning, Associate Editor / Penguin Random House
  26. Kate Bennion, Penguin Random House
  27. Lindsey Tulloch, Penguin Random House
  28. Casey Nugent, Penguin Random House
  29. Molly Humphrey, Penguin Random House
  30. Alex Cruz-Jimenez, Marketing Associate, Penguin Random House
  31. Sarah Blumenstock, Senior Editor/Penguin Random House
  32. Carole DeSanti, ex-VP and Exec Ed, PenguinRandomHouse
  33. Miranda Stinson, Penguin Random House (former employee, 2019-2021)
  34. Yunyi Zhang, Managing Editorial Assistant/Penguin Publishing Group
  35. Katelyn MacKenzie, Production Manager/Penguin Random House
  36. Maya Smith, Penguin Random House
  37. Sarah Turbin, Penguin Random House
  38. Kayla Steinorth, Penguin Random House
  39. Danielle K, Penguin Random House
  40. Kristine Swartz, Senior Editor, Penguin Random House
  41. Rob Holden, Penguin Random House
  42. Hope Ellis, Managing editor, Penguin Random House
  43. Dasia Payne, Managing Editorial, Penguin Random House
  44. Charlotte Lesnick, Penguin Random House
  45. Richard Wylde, Penguin Random House
  46. Alison Wallach, Penguin Random House
  47. Maggie Hinders, Penguin Random House
  48. Becca Brummett, Associate Manager/Penguin Random House
  49. Grant Griglak, Director / Penguin Random House
  50. Irene Gould, Penguin Random House
  51. Liz Lee, Managing Editor, Penguin Random House Canada

Again, the signatures of these petitions are not authenticated or confirmed. Indeed, some “literary figures” signed simply as “Barbara Hirsch, Avid reader” or only gave initials or first names (including two alleged employees identified only as “Mary” and “Bridget”).

Conservative, libertarian, or even contrarian writers often discuss how difficult it is to be published today due to the bias of editors and reviewers. This bias is often kept concealed and even denied in public. In this case, however, over 50 self-identified as Penguin Random House editors and staff members to expressly call for the banning of books by those who hold opposing views on issues like abortion.

For Barrett, the intolerance was nothing new. At her alma mater, Rhodes College alumni sought to strip references to Barrett from the college because they disagree with her views. Her college sorority was even forced to apologize for simply congratulating her for being one of a handful of women to be nominated to the high court.

No attack appears to be beyond the pale for media or the left. Barrett sat through days of such baseless attacks on her character and even had to face attacks referencing her children. Ibram X. Kendi, the director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, claimed that her adoption of two Haitian children raised the image of a “white colonizer” and suggested that the children were little more than props for their mother.

That is the difference between being the “Lovely One” or the “Evil One” in the eyes of editors and writers. Rather than transcending their own bias and working for a diversity of opinions in publications, these editors and writers want less free expression on the pages of Penguin Random House and other publications. They are not alone. The petition contains editors from the largest academic and commercial publishers.

This letter was not simply another manifestation of viewpoint intolerance. It is a statement would seem to constitute virtual self-loathing from people who work in the literary world; writers and editors who cannot abide the publication of opposing views.


247 thoughts on ““Lovely One”: Justice Jackson Given Book Deal With a Notable Difference From Her Colleague Justice Barrett”

  1. It’s a straight up pay off from leftists. It will never sell more than 5000 copies at retail. Leftist orgs will buy it in bulk to give away to donors. It will be in the bargain bin at Walmart for $3.00 inside of six months of being released.

    1. Yes, can’t believe after hearing her testify to Congress that she either has anything relevant to say, nor possesses the ability to write it down.

  2. The vast majority of the protesters are women. Evidently the Constitution is irrelevant to Womens Studies majors.

  3. Thanks for pointing this out. It fits right in among “things that are wrong, but nothing will be done about it”.

    1. CC:
      “Let’s face it. Democrats and their supporters have become despicable.”
      I usually go with “evil Dims.” It has all the connotations, imagery and nuance, I like. Also has the virtue of sounding a little Charlton Hestony, too:

  4. David Puttnam is a socialist Jew. Did you expect anything less. Those people just never learn. History will repeat itself as you see with the “burning” of opposing views and will lead to another war.

  5. it appears that 43 of the 51 signatories might be women, based on a cursory look at the first names…Hysteria?

  6. Ah, “The Fable of Action Jackson.”

    But that General Secretary and Dear Leader “Crazy Abe” illegally and unconstitutionally held a gun to America’s head to compel the violation of every statute, US Code and fundamental law in America, forcing the improper and unconstitutional ratification of “injurious” amendments through the liberal application of brute military occupation, oppression and force, ultimately compelling the employment of unconstitutional political emulsifiers to force the impossible mixture of political oil and water, the progenitors of the illustrious “fake,” “Affirmative Action Jackson Justice” would have been, by extant immigration and naturalization law, compassionately repatriated on January 1, 1863, most Americans not being desirous of leaving an adverse, 3 million-man, foreign, standing army on U.S. soil – whatever did the spirits of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Jay, Madison, Hamilton et al. think of that pernicious development, having spent eight long, onerous years defeating the British rendition?

    And they say, “Crime doesn’t pay!”

    Speaking of which, is it a crime to abrogate the Constitution and Bill of Rights in America and replace them with the Communist Manifesto?

    Apparently, crime does pay, and handsomely.

  7. Jonathan: Frankly, I think it is unseemly for government officials to get lucrative book deals while in office Besides. what do we really learn from their life stories? I’ve read a few and they’re not particular enlightening. That said I can understand why you are upset that Justice Jackson’s book is treated differently than Amy Coney Barrett’s memoir. The latter’s book was surrounded with controversy. Over 600 writers and employees of BRH publicly opposed Coney Barrett’s book. You call their letter “delusional”, “dangerous” and the signatories suffer from “virtual self-loathing from people who work in the literary world”. “Self-loathing”? Really? Such exaggerated hyperbole doesn’t help to explain the opposition to Coney Barrett’s book. So permit me to add some context that you have omitted in your column.

    In their letter the signatories said they opposed the book because of Coney Barrett’s role in “dismantling protections for the human rights of privacy, self-determination, and bodily autonomy along with the federal right to an abortion in the United States.” They also pointed out that PRH was violating the “Bertelsmann Code of Conduct”, to which PRH is an adherent. As such PRH is “committed to the principles” of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights that declares access to abortion is a human right. I have read the letter and the signatories took a principled position. I don’t consider the signatories “delusional” nor “dangerous” and certainly not involved in “self-loathing”. You can disagree with the writers of the letter but why resort to such harsh language to describe the signatories? I think it is because you have been a strong supporter of Coney Barrett and the Dobbs decision and any criticism of her is unacceptable. And why did you choose to publish the names of 51 of the BRH employees.? Didn’t add much to your argument–but maybe an attempt to “out” the signatories for retaliation?

    Actually, I am glad PRH decided to go ahead and publish Coney Barrett’s memoir. It reveals her complete hypocrisy. In her book she talks about “how judges are not supposed to bring their personal feelings into how the rule”. She is a member of a small secretive Catholic sect that opposes abortion. As a member Coney Barrett wants us to believe her “personal feelings” played no role in her decision to overturn Roe. Everyone knows that Trump put Coney Barret on the Court for one purpose. To overturn Roe. She did not disappoint and this demolishes any notion she could act as a fair and impartial justice when she joined the Court.

    What we forget is the real life consequences from Coney Barrett’s vote. In states that have abolished abortion as a fundamental human right after Dobbs, pregnant women and girls are facing difficult decisions. To get an abortion they have to travel another state or resort once again to “back alley” abortions. Women with ectopic pregnancies can’t make that choice. They need immediate medical care or they will die! So now an unwanted pregnancy can now once again be dangerous in the US. That’s the part lost on you and Coney Barrett.

    1. Ooo, she’s a member of a small secretive sect says DennisMcIntyre. They’ve got the cauldron bubbling as they add an eye of newt. The world may say that there’s a right to abortion but the world does not say like DennisMcIntyre that abortion should be allowed up to the moment of birth. Here it is Dennis. The Judge says bubble bubble toil and trouble and she does it in secret. What Hollywood magazine did you get that from.

      1. Thinkitthrough: and he apparently forgot how Justice Sotomayor, speaking to students at Tufts University, rallied pro-abortion activists to fight the new (at that time) Texas law. This was covered by several media sources at the time.

    2. DM:

      Well, Dennis we found an area of agreement on book deals for government offciials. Book deals like speaking engagements are the bribery method of choice. Leftist publishers gin up government salaries with this pure graft. If you wanna stop it you simply trust the money until the clown leaves office and then make them pay 60% in taxes on it. That would take out the incentive to screw us all over.

    3. Whoooh. I hope you took a breath with that cathartic piece. Turley, contrary to your perversion, actually did note Barrett’s role in Roe. However, it’s a subjective stretch, bordering self-serving hyperbole, to suggest Barrett dismantles, “protections for the human rights of privacy, self-determination, and bodily autonomy,” as suggested by the whiny babies who signed the dissent letter. Overturning Roe is not a return to illegal abortions. Rather, it sends the issue back to the states, which are quite a bit different in politics and culture to the days when Roe was first decided, something the shrill, outraged left (your political team) conveniently omits. Congress had several decades to codify Roe into federal law, but the cowards on both sides of the aisle opted to pass, and now they or their political allies at the state level don’t have a choice.

      Also, it is outrageous to ignore that PRH is a publishing house — not a specialty publisher like, say, a Christian or LGBT special interest publisher, but one of the country’s mainstream, premier publishers. These employees are like the petulant, coddled Zoomer imbeciles at Twitter who couldn’t stand to hear opposing voices on a platform designed to serve every voice. They are there to publish ideas, not act as judge and jury of them. Free speech is a pillar principle in American life and in mainstream journalism, yet recent generations have abandoned one of our core beliefs because they need safe rooms instead. Which is how you sound. Fair enough, find your safe room and leave adult life issues to actual adults.

    4. “personal feelings” Why do you condemn feelings? We all as free thinking humans have personal emotion, (even you seem to…).
      As for the “difficult decisions”. The termination of life should always be difficult, and the decision to kill an innocent baby should not be as easy as abortion on demand.

    5. All this for saying the decision on abortion belongs with the states? Really? You need to look up the word ‘federalism.’ People so in love with late term abortion (most states allow early term abortion) can vote with their feet and move to California, just like people who love freedom and low taxes vote with their feet and move to Texas or Florida. No matter how you try to justify it, the progressive left is censoring people for the heinous crime of holding a differing opinion, and that makes them tyrants.

  8. let me guess the thousandth book on hard black women have it…as they RAKE in Millions….it will be REQUIRED that EVERY Democrat school buys a copy. NO ONE WILL READ IT!

    Time to cut all federal aid and loans to colleges, also any non-profit that gives ANYONE $100k+ should be FULLY TAXABLE.

    Stop the Democrat fascism!

  9. I love it when Professor Turley gets all fired up. Thank you for defending Justice Barrett. She has been a disappointment to me and many conservatives but I still appreciate your crossing party lines to defend her.

  10. Chicken, or the egg. Do people that want to censor others, attain work, where they can decide what to print? Or do people in jobs deciding what to print, become censors. Justice Barrett may be hated, because people with #TDS, just hate any of DJT’s accomplishments.

Leave a Reply