Below is my column in The Hill on the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson’s description of opinions as an opportunity for commentary on contemporary issues is a radical departure from long-standing traditions on the Court. While justices have occasionally strayed into extraneous issues, Jackson appears to view her position as giving her a license to vent, including questioning the principles and integrity of her colleagues.
Here is the column:
“I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity.”
Those words of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson came in a recent interview, wherein the justice explained how she felt liberated after becoming a member of the Supreme Court “to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues. And that’s what I try to do.”
Jackson’s sense of liberation has increasingly become the subject of consternation on the court itself, as she unloads on her colleagues in strikingly strident opinions.
Most recently, Jackson went ballistic after her colleagues reversed another district court judge who issued a sweeping injunction barring the Trump Administration from canceling roughly $783 million in grants in the National Institutes of Health.
Again writing alone, Jackson unleashed a tongue-lashing on her colleagues, who she suggested were unethical, unthinking cutouts for Trump. She denounced her fellow justices, stating, “This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins.”
For some of us who have followed Jackson’s interestingly controversial tenure on the court, it was crushingly ironic. Although Jackson accused her colleagues of following a new rule that they must always rule with Trump, she herself is widely viewed as the very embodiment of the actual rule of the made-up game based on the comic strip of Calvin and Hobbes. In Jacksonian jurisprudence, it often seems like there are no fixed rules, only fixed outcomes. She then attacks her colleagues for a lack of integrity or empathy.
To quote Calvin, Jackson proves that “there’s no problem so awful that you can’t add some guilt to it and make it even worse.”
Jackson has attacked her colleagues in opinions, shattering traditions of civility and restraint. Her colleagues have clearly had enough. She now regularly writes diatribes that neither of her fellow liberals — Justices Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan — are willing to sign on to. Indeed, she has raged against opinions that her liberal colleagues have joined.
Take Stanley v. City of Sanford. Justices Jackson and Neil Gorsuch took some fierce swings at each other in a case concerning a retired firefighter who wants to sue her former employer. The majority, including Kagan, rejected a ridiculous claim from a Florida firefighter who sued for discrimination for a position that she had neither held nor sought. The court ruled that the language of the statute clearly required plaintiffs to be “qualified” for a given position before they could claim to have been denied it due to discrimination. (Stanley has Parkinson’s disease and had taken a disability retirement at age 47 due to the progress of the disease.)
Jackson, however, was irate that Stanley could not sue for the denial of a position that she never sought, held, or was qualified to perform. Jackson accused the majority of once again showing how “pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences as ‘textual’ inevitabilities.” It was not only deeply insulting, but perfectly bizarre, given that Kagan had joined in the majority opinion. Kagan is about as pure a textualist judge as she is a pure taxidermist.
Gorsuch called Jackson out for once again ignoring the text of federal laws in order to secure the result she preferred in a given case. In other words, Jackson was playing Calvinball with the law.
Jackson, undeterred, has continued these diatribes, with escalating and insulting rhetoric. In Trump v. CASA, the court sought to rein in district courts issuing sweeping injunctions over the Executive Branch. Jackson went ballistic in her dissent, which neither Sotomayor nor Kagan would join.
Jackson accused her colleagues of blindly drifting toward “a rule-of-kings governing system.” She denounced the majority for “enabling our collective demise. At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.”
This is where Justice Amy Coney Barrett reached a breaking point, unleashing on Jackson in an opinion notably joined by her colleagues. Barrett noted that Jackson was describing “a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.” She added: “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.”
That is a slightly fancier way of describing Calvinball.
Jackson has also been criticized for making dubious or sensational claims, as in her opinion supporting affirmative action in higher education.
Jackson’s jurisprudence is the very model of a judiciary untethered from constitutional or institutional restraints. Not surprisingly, she is lionized in law schools for her rejection of judicial restraint and her pursuit of progressive outcomes. Yet, her approach is becoming increasingly lawless.
I truly believe that Jackson can leave a lasting legacy and bring an important voice to the court. However, this is one “wonderful opportunity” that Justice Jackson may want to let pass more often. Otherwise, she risks fulfilling that other lament from the cartoon Calvin: “I find my life is a lot easier the lower I keep everyone’s expectations.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Unbelievable. I choked upon reading Justice Kentnai Brown’s opening sentence,… “I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity wherein the justice explained how she felt liberated after becoming a member of the Supreme Court “to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues. And that’s what I try to do.” Since when who defines the Scotus Justice role “to tell people how she feels about the issues…. wow wow wow.
Danley Wolfe
I choked on near the last sentence. It is rare to read the level of absurdities and disregard for the law as noted coming from the opinions of a lunatic, then claiming the writer truly believes “that Jackson can leave a lasting legacy and bring an important voice to the court.” That is political correctness back peddling at its worse. Jackson’s consistent nonsense reveals she is a leftist lunatic. And lunatics do not bring an important voice to anything.
Not only was she put in power by a so called “president” put in place with ballot fraud and electronic voting flips etc, she is highly unqualified. Biden had no authority (fraud) to appoint any judge, and on that basis she needs to be quickly removed and replaced.
If the spouse of a GOP Supreme Court justice puts up a house flag that the neighbors dislike, the elite media go into full shame mode for days. Yet, Biden’s DEI choice (he bragged about it) for justice has admitted that she uses her position to advance her own political opinions to change public policy and personnel and even the crickets are silent. I am calling “shame” on Supreme Court activism. There. At least, I feel better. Bill Hill, Salem, VA.
Hear, hear!
Also, I wonder whether this commentor is, or is related to, Professor William C. Hill, Jr., who was once my undergraduate advisor and remains for me a model of intellectual rigor? If so, please accept the continuing admiration of your former student, Rick Jackson, class of ’97.
I agree…and I call shame on this writer for claiming someone as far left as Loony Jackson is an important voice on any court, much less the Supreme Court.
Clyburn wanted a person of African heritage on the US Supreme Court – and both Bidens wanted to live in the White House (part time, of course). So … the USA is stuck with this sad excuse for a justice on the highest court. And … don’t forget the blame that belongs to every person who voted for Biden in 2020!
Clyburn — like Bennie Thompson, the sainted John Lewis, and Sheila Jackson-Lee — was an election denier who claimed computer voting machines rang up votes for the wrong Presidential candidate. Yet nobody sued either the Congressional Black Caucus or Sen. Barbara Boxer for a billion dollars.
Not just a Black person, but a proud Vagina American
Apparently, there is a resurrect KBJ campaign — which includes: She was experienced, and some people at some time liked her.
Neither of those are arguments. But:
1) KBJ is experienced.
So was the captain of the Titanic, right before he crashed into an iceberg.
2) Some people at some time liked her.
Smith, the Titanic’s captain, was also very popular.
And yet there remains that pesky iceberg — and all those dead souls.
I guess what is going on with the Trump Adminstration as it deploys the National Guard, guts the Constitution and destroys the very essence of America enabled by apologists like you does not matter.
👎🏿
“I guess what is going on with the Trump Adminstration as it deploys the National Guard, guts the Constitution and destroys the very essence of America enabled by apologists like you does not matter.”
Care to cite any proof for any of this rant? Of course not.
The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Sometimes it finds a right to feticide; sometimes not.
Just like KBJ, opinio over law.
You are funny if you think the very essence of America should include being fearful of walking out at night or being mugged, raped or killed.
Blah blah blah. Cite a specific violation of the Constitution.
What doesn’t matter is silly posts by morons spewing out nonsense from severe TDS.
Those words of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson….“to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues. And that’s what I try to do.”
KBJ was confirmed by a vote of 53 votes in the US Senate with 47 votes against.
Justice Scalia was confirmed by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate in 1986. I didn’t always agree with Scalia on Catholic doctrine but he is sorely missed today.
What are the arguments usually made in favor of the Living Constitution? As the name of it suggests, it is a very attractive philosophy, and it’s hard to talk people out of it — the notion that the Constitution grows. The major argument is the Constitution is a living organism, it has to grow with the society that it governs or it will become brittle and snap.
This is the equivalent of an anthropomorphism equivalent to what you hear from your stockbroker, when he tells you that the stock market is resting for an assault on the 11,000 level. The stock market panting at some base camp. The stock market is not a mountain climber and the Constitution is not a living organism for Pete’s sake; it’s a legal document, and like all legal documents, it says some things, and it doesn’t say other things. And if you think that the aficionados of the Living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again.
– Justice Antonin Scalia speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., on March 14, 2005.
https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/centers/boisi/pdf/Symposia/Symposia%202010-2011/Constitutional_Interpretation_Scalia.pdf
There must be a limited number of Obama/Autopen judges and yet one of them is ‘randomly’ selected for nearly every case dealing with Trump or his administration.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/08/breaking-obama-temporarily-judge-blocks-trump-admin-deporting
Much of the judicial system smells of rot.
It’s rare for the normally reserved Justices to hit back at anyone in semi-sarcastic terms, so the fact they’re striking back at Jackson that way reveals she has lost their confidence. With her rhetoric and blatant politicization, she has marginalized herself.
On top of that she is an intellectual lightweight. Therefore, she will not have much of an influence on the Court beyond always voting for the left-wing result. Her vote will matter in some 5-4 cases, but she won’t have any intellectual pull. This contrasts with the sharper intellects such as Scalia who had a tremendous influence in transforming the way the other Justices approach legal decision-making.
I think Justice Ketanji-Brown is confused about the role of the Supreme Court. If she wants to be an influencer, let her resign and get a podcast.
I do not believe that that woman truly passed a Bar Exam.
Based on how embedded this DEI crap was and is within government and institutions across America, i would not be surprised to learn if she was graded on a massive curve.
Does anyone believe that Fani Willis did?? Or Leticia James??
Whole lotta cheatin’ going on.
Or Jasmine “Nail Tech” Crockett?
I can hear Crockett making her best case before a judge.
“Come on y’all, this here is some baby back bullshlt, and y’all need to get up outta here and stop hatin’ on the sistas”
*. She’s like a black woman who got a speeding ticket and files suit for racism. Is it possible 8 of the 9 members are telling her to pay the fine? She wants a SCOTUS opinion about racism , then the ticket dismissed? No, it’s not about racism if you were speeding? It’s about paying the ticket. Just like Fani Willis. It’s about perjury, Fan, and Nate coming over for scrabble.
*.
^^^ The point is there isn’t a SCOTUS case when there’s a lesser crime. It goes to claims court or to the principal’s office…
*. She’s a product of Obama and transformation. It’s not uncommon for humble people when put in very powerful, lifetime as officials to demonstrate the snow-white effect. Mirror, Mirror on the wall who is the wisest, smartest justice of them all.
It’s common. Didn’t Breyer float above the mountaintop? Kagan and the unwashed underlings? 😂
Enjoy
Feel free to complain about her Supreme Court opinions for the next 25 to 30 years! 😀
“Feel free to complain about her Supreme Court opinions for the next 25 to 30 years! 😀”
You mean her meaningless opinions that will have no weight in our jurisprudence? I, like everyone else, will just ignore her output, other than to laugh at it when necessary.
Not sure that a JT column, a JT blog post, and 144 comments and counting qualifies as ignoring her output!
It more likely fits into the category of “laughing at it when necessary.”
*. The justices are getting fatigued by her hogging and butting in during sessions. No one can get a word in. Roberts had to stop her by saying, I’d like to hear his answer. It borders on maniacal.
What she has done is make the court an eight member court on any issue that is Constitutional. If it is a social issue she will always vote with the leftist and probably Roberts.
DEI hire, watcha gonna do?
I don’t think her feelings has anything to do with the law. The fact that she thinks it does shows she is unqualified for this esteemed position. Seems to me that statements like this could be used to remove her from office for not following her oath of office or the US Constitution.
I blame the Republicans for this.
I know the Democrats are the crazy party and can’t help themselves.
But why didn’t the Republicans do something to block this half-wit from getting on the Court?
I guess the Republicans have their own halfwits.
Today Don Surber made a point I made here a little while back: the Democrats aren’t doing black people any favors by pushing radical and incompetent blacks into prominence. It encourages the thought that they are all stupid.
Meanwhile the Democrats ignore and try to erase brilliant people like Thomas and Sowell.
If a similar policy favored all redheads just because of red hair we would begin to think red hair was a sign of stupidity.
It is a policy made of poison.
Couldn’t agree more about Thomas and Sowell. Does anyone know which Republican Senators, if any, voted for her?
Romney, Murkowski and Collins
Collins, Murkowski and Romney all voted for her.
Daniel, Thanks! Useless RINOs.
Perhaps, but Jackson would’ve been confirmed without their votes. The only difference is VP Harris would’ve had to break the tie, which she assuredly would have.
P.S. While Romney is gone and Murkowski is a lost cause, I have slightly higher hopes for Collins. She was instrumental in moving Kavanaugh across the finish line. Her speech to the Senate on that was a watershed moment. For a brief, shining moment in the early autumn of 2018, Collins and Graham were my two favorite senators.
Oldman–
You have the truth of it, but the Republicans should fight even if the odds are against them. Who knows, maybe Kamala would fail to show and break a tie. That’s a long shot but a long shot is a tiny bit better than none. Even losing a difficult, well-fought fight would expose what an albatross Autopen was hanging around the neck of the Court.
The Democrats fight. That is something sane people could learn from them.
On the bright side, she is a continuing wonderful advertisement for ending DEI. Every opportunity she gives to ridicule her should be used. Democrats did this!
Young – agreed.
Romney voted for her because KBJ’s husband has a twin brother who is married to Paul Ryan’s wife’s sister. Got it? Paul Ryan is thrilled for KBJ. Romney’s former running mate assured him that Ketanji was great pick. Don’t let Paul Ryan’s good boy image fool you. Ryan is one of the biggest snakes in the Swamp who worked tirelessly to sabotage Trump’s first term.
I put the blame on the democrats. After all, it was Harry Reid who introduced the nuclear option for all judicial nominees sans nominees for the SC. And Mitch McConnell warned Reid not to do that lest the Dems would rue the day if the Republicans regain the Senate and up the ante. And regain the Senate the Republicans did.
What’s to be expected from someone who can’t even define what she is? She is the quintessential DEI hire.
@Anon
She really was. And this is who the dems would pack the courts with, while they dictate behind the scenes. Anyone that still think being a dem is being part of an American party is a fool. Wake up. Particularly if you aren’t college age and actually learned about these things at some point. Beginning to think that these older dems just don’t want to grow up, as their kids do not want to. Wish I were as privileged as they are to never even think about it prior to now.
Biden said he would nominate a black woman and only a black woman to SCOTUS. So despite her misgivings, apparently that is what “she” is. Sadly, she has proven to not be qualified in any other way for the position.
“Biden said he would nominate a black woman and only a black woman to SCOTUS.”
– Ironically, if a private business did that, it would be illegal to do so as it’s violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 🙃
Someone needs to start the impeachment process on Jackson. The reason is she does not know the constitution nor does she care about the constitution. All she cares about is her point of view. She is a prime example of DEI in action.
@Masimo
I keep hoping she’ll just step down. Her lot are quitters, and that’s what they do when they don’t get their way. The utter futility of her activism amongst sane people might produce that outcome as she is further marginalized. Not because she’s ‘black’, but because she is an infantile idiot. One in a position with far too much say than an idiot should have. That Biden made Carter look like a good POTUS by comparison – hoo boy. Jackson is just a sliver of the evidence. Real consciousness is a foreign concept to the modern left.
As nice as this would be, it is not a high crime or a misdemeanor… I don’t want to be like them, like Democrats…. It has to be correct andprovable…
But can’t her nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court consider as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? As Masimo had pointed out, Biden did promise to nominate only a black woman to sit on the highest court in the land.
it’s not Gigi. the writing is completely different voice than was gigi’s
Its exactly the same, gigi
Congressman Clyburn must be proud of his pick for the first black female justice on the Supreme Court, selected on the basis of gender and skin color instead of sound legal and judiciary knowledge. The nominating puppet can’t remember doing it.
This is what happens when a man vows to select a candidate from only 2% of the judiciary. It excludes a lot of more qualified candidates.
And what gets me was all the grids purporting to show that KBJ would be the most qualified jurist on the Court, because of her unique set of experiences.