Kentanji Brown Jackson Gets Corrected by Trump Admin Attorney in Awkward Moment During Tariff Hearing

Millions of Americans have absorbed the lie that the Supreme Court has exclusive power to interpret the Constitution. Public education and its attendant propaganda will do that to people.

Alas, this means that unfit jurists like Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can do far more damage than the Constitution intended.

During oral arguments Wednesday on a case involving President Donald Trump’s assertion of tariff power, Jackson had what impolite company would call a “brain fart” when she somehow confused former President Richard Nixon with former President Abraham Lincoln.

In response to a question from Jackson, Solicitor General D. John Sauer referred to Nixon’s 1971 tariffs.

“That wasn’t a tariff,” the confused Jackson said in a clip posted to the social media platform X. “It was a licensing agreement during wartime. It was a specific thing. A tariff, I’m talking about.”

A “specific thing,” huh? Talk about profound constitutional reasoning.

“I’m referring to President Nixon’s 1971 tariffs,” Sauer politely explained.

“Oh, the president. I’m sorry. Excuse me. Yes. I thought you meant Lincoln,” Jackson replied.

Cue the Aflac duck trying to make sense of baseball legend Yogi Berra in the barber shop.

Jackson later complained that Sauer was “talking so quickly.”

Kentaji Brown Jackson is embarrassing herself once again in oral arguments:

“President Nixon’s 1971 tariffs…”

“That wasn’t a tariff!…”

“I’m referring to Nixon’s 1971 tariffs”

“Oh I’m sorry I thought you meant Lincoln haha… you’re talking so quickly.” pic.twitter.com/N6dJLw1VIr

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) November 5, 2025

Wednesday’s gaffe represented the latest in a string of embarrassments for Jackson, who has even clashed with her fellow liberals.

That should come as no surprise, given her failure to understand the First Amendment, among other things.

A silly and dangerous fool, Jackson behaves as if she thinks ultimate power rests with the judiciary.

As for the larger question of Trump’s tariffs, legal analyst Jonathan Turley characterized the oral arguments as “interesting,” despite what he described as an uphill climb for Sauer.

It was an interesting oral argument on tariffs (at least for us dysfunctional law nerds). My view has not changed. I think that the odds favor the challengers. Sauer did a brilliant job, but he faced an obviously skeptical and discomforted Court…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) November 5, 2025

Put simply, we have two constitutional problems here.

First, the Constitution clearly vests the tariff power in the legislature.

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” per Article I, Section 8.

Thus, whether you call tariffs a tax or a regulation, it makes no difference. The power resides in Congress.

Second — and here things get dicey — the Supreme Court does not have the authority to interpret the Constitution on behalf of Congress or the president. If it did, we would live under a judicial tyranny. Read Article III. You will not find the authority there. Courts invented it, lawyers propagated the lie, and the duped public has acquiesced in it.

Worse yet, consider the absurdity of it all. If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, and if the president complies with the ruling (not required by the Constitution), it would mean that elected presidents somehow can go to war and arbitrarily bomb other countries, but cannot fight for U.S. workers because unelected judges say so.

A situation like that would make a mockery of self-government.

Speaking of which, it bears noting that James Madison, “Father of the Constitution,” made tariffs the centerpiece of his statesmanship. In the 1790s, long before assuming the presidency, Madison championed tariffs as both an alternative to war and a tool that could compel foreign governments to treat Americans fairly.

In short, Trump could lose the tariff case thanks to the dopey Jackson and other problematic justices. Should he receive an adverse judgment, however, the president would be well within his constitutional authority to ignore the court altogether.

Nonetheless, in light of the propaganda perpetrated over decades, Americans believe the Supreme Court does have the power to make a final ruling that binds the other two branches, in which case the ideal solution here would involve congressional Republicans finally doing something useful by exerting the legislature’s rightful authority and thereby securing Trump’s tariffs from all future constitutional challenges.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.