Jackson Writes Opinions For The Media, Not Everyday Americans
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, despite being the most junior member of the Supreme Court, has quickly become a controversial figure. Over her roughly three years on the bench, she has been criticized for openly opposing her colleagues and rejecting long-established court traditions and collegiality.Recently, she strongly dissented-in a lengthy and sharply worded opinion-against the Court’s decision to partially allow the Trump governance to pause a lower court ruling on the National Institutes of Health’s efforts to end certain diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) contracts.Jackson’s dissent accused the majority of abandoning proper jurisprudence and showed a confrontational tone uncommon for a junior justice, with no other dissenting justices joining her in that approach.
The article contrasts Jackson’s outspoken style with that of Justice Clarence Thomas, who emphasizes clear and accessible language in his opinions to inform the American public. The author suggests that Jackson writes more for a sympathetic media audience than for her judicial peers or the public, and argues that this undermines her credibility and respect as a Supreme Court justice.
In roughly three years, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has established herself as one of the most recognized members of the Supreme Court — and not in a good way.
Despite being the most junior justice on the high court, Jackson has regularly gone out of her way to thumb her nose at her colleagues for upholding America’s constitutional framework. Whether it be through public comments or poorly written opinions, the Biden appointee has shown little respect for the longstanding traditions and collegiality that have defined SCOTUS for generations.
The latest example of this came on Thursday, when the Supreme Court temporarily stayed (in part) a lower court block on the National Institutes of Health’s bid to terminate DEI-related contracts. The court’s ruling was 5-4, with Jackson joining Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in siding against the Trump administration.
In addition to signing onto Roberts’ opinion, Jackson penned a 21-page screed — which is longer than all the other justices’ opinions combined — denouncing the majority’s decision to partially grant the Trump administration’s request to pause the lower court’s order. Employing the writing style of a left-wing activist, the Biden appointee claimed that her colleagues’ decision is the “newest iteration” of the high court’s “lawmaking on the emergency docket.”
“Stated simply: With potentially life-saving scientific advancements on the line, the Court turns a nearly century-old statute aimed at remedying unreasoned agency decisionmaking into a gauntlet rather than a refuge,” Jackson wrote.
While it’s not uncommon for justices to explain their disagreements and problems with the opposing side’s legal rationale in their opinions, Jackson’s dissent (and this isn’t the first time) takes on another level of snide that’s unbecoming of a junior justice. She went on to effectively accuse her colleagues in the majority of abandoning all semblance of proper jurisprudence and respect for the law in order to bend over backwards for the Trump administration.
“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” Jackson wrote. “Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.”
It’s pretty telling that none of the other justices in the dissent signed onto Jackson’s tirade. While they may share ideological similarities, even Sotomayor and Kagan recognize the importance of respecting and getting along with their conservative-leaning colleagues — especially given that these are lifetime appointments.
But for Jackson, that seemingly matters very little.
What’s become vividly clear is that Jackson isn’t writing about her “feelings” to persuade her colleagues — or more importantly, the American people. She’s writing for a wholly unethical media that practically worships the ground she walks on.
The more ill-informed and incoherent her opinions get, the more fawning coverage the media provides her.
Contrast this apparent mindset with that of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who has often spoken about how his primary audience when authoring opinions is the American public. During a 2018 interview at the Library of Congress, for instance, the George H.W. Bush appointee emphasized the importance of using language in his opinions that is accessible to the everyday American, as they have a right to understand how the Court is ruling on any given subject.
“One of the things I say … is that genius is not putting a … 10-cent idea in a $20 sentence. Genius is putting a $20 idea in a 10-cent sentence. It is to make it [as] accessible as possible to average people,” Thomas said. “I think we owe it to people.”
That’s an example Jackson would be wise to adopt if she ever wants to be taken seriously as a justice. Until then, Americans will continue to treat her rambling temper tantrums as the jokes that they are.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
