Since her confirmation in 2022, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has established a legacy that is fast becoming one of the most radical in the Court’s history. Her sole dissents have drawn sharp criticism from both her conservative and liberal colleagues. However, for critics of some of these decisions, Justice Jackson continues to publish opinions that are not just, as she describes it, cathartic but chilling. Worse yet, the latest judicial jump scare was shared by her colleague, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion in United States v. Hemani.
At issue in the case was an effort to prosecute Ali Hemani for recreational use of marijuana, a prosecution that threatened up to 15 years and to strip him of his gun rights under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that the provision was not “consistent with the Second Amendment.” Gorsuch noted that Hemani was not alleged to be a drug addict or to have used his guns in a menacing manner.
Gorsuch wrote that the “historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways.”
However, Jackson used the concurrence to argue for overturning NYSRPA v. Bruen, a case critical to laying the foundation for interpreting the Second Amendment based on historical precedent. Jackson lashed out at the”‘history and tradition’ metric” and called for the Court to “revisit” the case.
Declaring Bruen “unworkable,” Jackson called for the restoration of the “means-end scrutiny—the approach courts applied before we adopted Bruen’s ‘history and tradition’ metric—offers a more rational way of assessing the constitutionality of firearm regulations.”
The reason for undoing Bruen? According to Jackson, “it imposes on judges the unfamiliar and difficult tasks of sifting through centuries-old evidence in order to answer ‘contested historical questions,’ and ‘applying those answers to resolve contemporary problems.'”
Justice Jackson added that “Given those challenges, it is unsurprising that Bruen’s test is vulnerable to inconsistent and arbitrary application, as judges draw different conclusions from the same historical evidence and reach divergent assessments of the same laws.”
The burden of actually seeking to understand the intended meaning of a constitutional provision is certainly greater than the more free-style approach of Jackson who focused on how to “resolve contemporary problems” under a living Constitution. However, to suggest that her outcome-determinative approach is less inconsistent and arbitrary is only true when you control the Court with justices who have like-minded “solutions” for contemporary problems.
That is precisely what many Democrats have in mind as they openly pledge to pack the Court with an insistent liberal majority if they can retake power. Moreover, Jackson is often cited as the model of the left, a justice who is unburdened by the language and history of constitutional provisions.
Just last week, liberal Wisconsin State Supreme Court justices heralded Jackson’s approach in arguing for the restoration of race-based gerrymandering. The state jurists lamented not being able to interpret the Constitution to address the “harms this country has caused to those who are marginalized, disempowered, or disenfranchised,” including the “preference for White Americans and to burden Black Americans and those of other disadvantaged races or backgrounds.”
These federal and state Supreme Court opinions are a glimpse into what awaits the country if Democratic leaders carry out their threat to take over the Supreme Court by adding four liberal justices in the image of Justice Jackson.
It is not simply the desire to immediately overturn prior cases but to establish a largely untethered jurisprudence driven by judicial fiat and impulse. It is certainly an easier way to write opinions and would clear the way for a stated agenda on the left to maintain power indefinitely.
Before voters “unburden” these jurists, they need to seriously consider the costs of eviscerating an institution that has been vital in maintaining this Republic for the last 250 years.
Here is the opinion: United States v. Hemani
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Biden Social Justice. “First Black Woman!” YAY! Picked for her color, not her legal abilities beyond social justice. Leftover Black Lives Matter.
Another Biden Legacy. It never ends.
Or audience ratings.
“Perhaps Mamdani just wants to make sure his acolytes know he’s read up on Marxist theory. More ominously, the lesson for the rest of us may be this: Listen carefully to what “democratic” socialists say about the true scope of their agendas. Because every now and then, they may be telling us the truth.”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2026/06/24/mamdani_marxists_and_the_rest_of_us.html
The majority opinion was the right one and the dissent sucks. She doesn’t like the Second Amendment and surprise, surprise neither does Sotomayor. Of course she is for gun control, and recommends facilitating it. And, she exceeds the usual scope of the subject by calling for it. She’s a scoundrel who wants the government to confiscate our firearms. bottom line, as do all these tyrants. As if all the other powers of government were not enough they want that one too.
Sal Sar
24 hours later and the 1st sentence of this article still says “Kentaji”, rather than the Justice’s given name Ketanji (meaning “Lovely One” in Swahili). That is so disrespectful, if not dyslexic.
I think “Kentaji” translates to “k**t – is she?”
Great set up. 😂
If that was the only typo here it might matter but it’s not and it doesn’t. The author Works tirelessly probably three times as much per day as you do. If you don’t like it leave
File a hurt feelings report.
Off on a tangent and IMO.
Jackson is the exact outcome inevitable from the Left’s incessant demand for affirmative action. Examine her history. She was unqualified for college admission but got in because she is the right race and gender. She was unqualified for law school but was again accepted for the same reasons. She couldn’t matriculate successfully but they found a path to pass her anyway. Ditto the bar. She was unqualified to be a judge, but again looked like what the Left wanted. She is incredibly unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, but Bidened her way in. Now she is incapable of comprehending the complexity of Constitutional Law, so she depends on the tenets of her Leftist ideology and the demands of her Democrat masters to daily threaten the liberties of Normal Americans.
Her record? All we see are words. proof goes a long way in believing.
You sound like a racist and misogynist.
Couldn’t Biden find a more gifted black female judge? Looks like DEI multiplied by laziness.
Evidently not. But I doubt she is lazy. Evil yes lazy no. We should pray that the evil ones are lazy. She likely isnt.
We definitely prefer our totalitarians lazy …
Someone in the mold of Janice Rogers Brown would have been fine, but Judge Brown or anyone like her is not a left-wing DEI neo-Marxist, so that idea was a no-go for the “Joe Biden” administration.
If the intent of what Madison wrote in Fed. Paper 49 about “constitutional limitations” protecting the rights of the People means anything, then if government is limited in enacting laws infringing the Right to Arms by the fact no such permission is granted, then what Madison wrote is proof all federal and state laws infringing the Right to Arms, are unconstitutional.
Speaking of DEI
Woman who emptied Knicks trashcan on street— then stole it — fired from JPMorgan Chase, was DEI exec.
Was that a woman?
Geez dustoff, got any intelligent to report? Got a problem with women? You forgot she earned $300k. That hurts eh. Shes’s fat and a big earner and all yoo can do his attack her job?
Ole Dusdtoff is a recipient of DEI himself. Lives in Seattle.
I don’t live in Seattle you fool. But I do pay attention what goes on there.
She got fired, Another DEI out the door.
She dumped a mountain of trash onto the streets, and stole other people’s property. That’s two crimes right there, but with Alvin Bragg I doubt she’ll be charged because she’s a DEI leftist. I’m glad she was fired. She is the type of liberal woman who destroys civilization.
DEI isn’t a job, it’s a political appointment. Like Commissar.
In the private sector, it’s intended as insurance to avoid leftist social pressure. Kind of like “Nice corporation you have there, bud. Shame if something happened to it.”
Add 4 jurists like KBJ and you usher in the post- constitutional era the Dems have been working towards. We may find ourselves longing for even a benign monarchy when we experience governance without boundaries under the tender mercies of a socialist, one party authoritarian rule. They have already demonstrated a proclivity towards violence to achieve their goals. No one will be safe or free then. We have the freedom to vote away our own freedom. A motivated minority can do that with the assistance of an apathetic, ignorant majority. Ironic that the death knell of this experiment in freedom and self-government may sound with the 250th anniversary of its founding.
Many of us have long expected the cold civil war to heat up into a hot one. Stacking the SCOTUS with leftists who will rubber stamp a socialist/communist Congress and the hammer and sickle comes down on half of America.
That’s when the III% of the patriots awaken and, well, we’ll see what shakes out? Personally I don’t see a way out since America ditched the gospel of Jesus Christ and the ignorant electorate put God hating socialists in power. Seems to most of us that the momentum of history is towards a real fight for our lives.
The SAVE Act passing would help but even that may not stop the totalitarian tide from rolling in.
Doubt it.
We must applaud Justice Jackson’s violations of the law as the Jackson creature pursues the goal of destroying the outmoded Constitution and replacing it with the superior IslamoCommuNazi Law. However, Justice Jackson’s credibility would be enhanced if the creature would prove what color and sex, if any, the creature actually is. When President Biden nominated Jackson, he did so with the understanding that Jackson was Black and a woman. But, so far, we have seen no evidence that Jackson is Black or a woman. Jackson’s color fails to meet established standards for Blackness and it’s still a mystery what Jackson’s actual sex is. I would like to see Justice Jackson clear up the public confusion using scientific methods, including the deployment of the world’s leading experts on race and biology, so that the creature can confidently tear down the Constitution and implement the beneficent, loving, and equitible IslamoCommuNazi Law during the creature’s remaining years on the SCOTUS bench.
The KKK rises again!
I’ll confess. I didn’t read JJ’s concurrence.
America the Beautiful will NEVER be a Communist Country!!! -President DJT
“America the Ugly will one day be a Communist country under the control of China, Russia, and Islam.”–Zorhan Mamdani, future President of the country formerly known as America.
Doubt it.
AI Brief:
National polling shows that roughly 56% to 60% of Americans support stricter gun laws. While general restrictions divide the public along partisan lines, broad consensus exists for specific measures.
General Laws:
Gallup Historical Trends indicates that 60% of adults want stricter laws covering firearm sales, 27% want them kept as they are, and 12% want them less strict.
…………………………..
This court once again disregarded public sentiment. Like ‘their’ interpretation, of the constitution, is all that really mattered. How narcissistic of them!
YAWN….
Typical dustoff, too stupid to comprehend and incapable of responding with more than one word.
Most shooting and mass shooting happen where there are the most strict gun laws. Places with the most gun rights have the least shootings. It just shows the majority of people are either stupid or ignorant, like you.
Is there that much difference? If so, I wasn’t aware of it. A smarter approach would be to look at countries that live with freedom and have much lower mass murder events, and understand their culture and their policies.
My sense is that responsible gun culture is the key, meaning the older gun owners pass along their cultural values and knowhow surrounding guns to rising youth. Instead, we allow sick youth subcultures to fester on social media imparting outlaw gutter gun culture laced with fantasies. If mature gun enthusiasts gained access to some of these chat rooms and video clips, they would vomit. When adults fail to supervise and guide youth, you get the kind of behavioral deviance that leads to 10,000 gun murders every year.
We should consider proposals that young adults under 25 need an older adult sponsor to co-sign for the weapon. If that sponsor had skin in the game (liability for illegal use of the weapon), I believe we could drive gun murders down dramatically. What mature adult is going to agree to sponsor a gangbanger, drug dealer or socially-isolated, internet-addicted misfit?
Yes, there is a significant difference.
As I addressed with X – there is not an example of ANY public safety law that has produced any deviation from prior trends
You raise culture – you do not change culture with laws.
Regardless people want plenty of things that they can not have and worse they want to constrain the liberty of others to acheive safety that will not come from those restraints.
Murder is murder – it is a crime committed by a person – the weapon is irrelevant.
Only 10-20% of homicides originate from a legally purchased gun. That cuts your homicide gun deaths to 1,000- 2,000. The gun isn’t the basic problem.
“AI Brief: National polling shows that roughly 56% to 60% . . .”
“Recent polling indicates 57% of U.S. voters do not trust AI to provide accurate and unbiased information regarding politics and current events.”
Live by AI and polls. Die by AI and polls.
AI is as good as the data it gets – Why would we expect that AI summaries of corrupt and biased sources to be anywhere near reliable ?
Well, it’s a good thing our Constitutional rights aren’t government by opinion polls then, huh?
What use are gun laws when they’re selectively enforced? You know like pardons for drug addled criminals?
Of course it did – a right is something that the majority can not take away.
All you are doing is demonstrating why we have a constitution,
Why the court got it right
Why democracy is a bad thing.
No one has any rights if your liberty is determined by the whim of the majority
@John Say – over the last 16 years, you might have missed the contradiction to “rights if your liberty is determined by the whim of the majority” with the “minority filibuster” which prevents legislation from ever even reaching the floor (much less enactment) or the notorious last 3 actually enacted budget bills in the reign of Uncle Joseph Biden where the Democrat Majority passed the house and then with Manchn’s vote (whose modification agreements were overturned in the reconciliation process) and the Senate President (VP Kamela Harris) cast the deciding vote on top of the tie. The remaining since then have been “continuing resolution” and “reconciliation bills” which extended them – NOT budget bills.
As 1932 German Parliament decided with a minority (43.9%) to allow all “opponents” to be arrested for trumped up charges and kicked out of the Reichstag, then the remaining 43.9% became effectively 100%. We know them today as the National German Socialist Workers’ Party (NSDAP).
On 23 March, just two weeks after the vote, the then ruling Chancellor passed the Enabling Act of 1933 with the support of the DNVP and the Centre Party, granting him the power to rule by decree. This act effectively dismantled parliamentary democracy and gave the Chancellor dictatorial authority.
Are yesterday’s elections in NYC starting to make any more sense to you now?
Welcome to America.
Mobocracy
Groups with the highest gun murders and crimes should not purchase guns. Any person having committed a crime with a gun should forever be infringed upon. The constitution does not forbid such.
There are a significant number of Americans who don’t give a flip if 99% of Americans want stricter gun laws or confiscation or whatever and would rather fight than succumb to the totalitarian steam roller that is our current government.
All of which is irrelevant. The Second Amendment removes public opinion from the legal debate. Public sentiment is irrelevant and immaterial. Trying to make it so is how we get a hot civil war.