News/Commentary

Liberal media covers for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s embarrassing inexperience with this new glorified label

July 7, 2025 | | Print Article

Damage control over DEI found one corporate media outlet dropping a new descriptor to spin Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s “embarrassing” opinions.

In a sign of the times, few were surprised in 2022 when President Joe Biden’s quota-meeting nominee for the highest court skirted the question of “What is a woman?” by asserting she was “not a biologist.” Since then, an avalanche of judicial activism has culminated in scathing public criticism from fellow Justice Amy Coney Barrett who found The Hill defending what it dubbed an “independent streak.”

Following a quote from Jackson contending it to be a “perilous moment for our Constitution,” The Hill staff writers Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld asserted Saturday, “The Supreme Court’s most junior justice had pointed exchanges with her colleagues on the bench this term, increasingly accusing them of unevenly applying the law — even if it meant standing on her own from the court’s other liberal justices.”

“Jackson has had an independent streak since President Biden nominated her to the bench in 2022. But the dynamic has intensified this term, especially as litigation over President Trump’s sweeping agenda reached the court,” the piece continued before highlighting a recent dissent from the jurist that “accused her fellow justices of helping [President Donald Trump] threaten the rule of law at a moment they should be ‘hunkering down.'”

Further emphasized was Jackson’s position that “Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.”

The specific dissent came amid a 6-3 ruling from the court in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that determined activist judges had overstepped with injunctive relief. Just as Jackson saw fit to offer a solo dissent, Barrett saw fit to excoriate her colleague for decrying “an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

“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,” stated the justice in writing for the majority as she also remarked on Jackson’s disregard that, “analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese,’ … she seeks to answer a ‘far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?’ … In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The Hill writers also pointed out a rebuke from Justice Clarence Thomas who read his concurring opinion in ruling affirmative action unconstitutional for university admissions that he’d read from the bench as Jackson was made to listen.

Referring to her argument on “all blacks as victims,” Thomas stated, “Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds.”

“This lore is not and has never been true. Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color,” he contended as he slammed Jackson’s “race-infused world view.”

Noting that “for 11 minutes, Jackson stared blankly ahead into the courtroom,” as Thomas read his opinion, the piece continued to prop up, “Jackson’s boldness,” it argued, “comes across not only in the court’s decision-making. At oral arguments this term, she spoke 50 percent more than any other justice.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Those contributions seemingly missed the whole purpose of the First Amendment, as she seemed inclined to believe it protected the government from the people and not the other way around.

The effort at spinning Jackson’s reputation, as many believe she’s proven herself unqualified to remain on the bench, prompted further criticism of the judicial activist and The Hill itself with comments like, “A nice way of saying she’s wrong a lot and talks too much to try to justify it,” and, “Independent from what? The US Constitution?”

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT
Kevin Haggerty
Latest posts by Kevin Haggerty (see all)

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles