Ketanji Brown Jackson’s controversial moments in 2023: thrice
Controversy Surrounding Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has not been immune to controversy in her first full year on the high court. Her opinions and actions in 2023 have made headlines and sparked debates. In a year when the Supreme Court faced heightened scrutiny over ethics concerns, particularly regarding Justice Clarence Thomas, Jackson’s own ethics came under the microscope. Here are three instances where the newest Supreme Court justice ignited controversy in the past 12 months.
Oath of Office: Did Biden Fulfill His Promise to Restore the Economy?
Disclosure errors under Senate scrutiny
During a hearing where Democratic senators questioned Justice Thomas’s ethics due to reports of undisclosed trips funded by a Republican donor, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) shed light on transparency gaps from Justice Jackson. He raised concerns about her disclosure filings and questioned why they were not receiving similar scrutiny from Democrats.
“Justice Jackson made multiple amendments three days after President Biden nominated her. Not one senator brought that up during her confirmation hearings. Not one of my colleagues here walked into her hearings with the buckets of mud that they’ve thrown against Justice Thomas. Not one,” Kennedy said during the Senate hearing in May.
In September 2022, Jackson disclosed that she had “inadvertently omitted” her husband’s income from consulting on medical malpractice cases, along with new disclosures about reimbursements for travel and board memberships, according to Bloomberg.
Dissent on Affirmative Action Decision
In her dissent of the June ruling on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, Justice Jackson accused the majority opinion, which deemed affirmative action policies in college admissions unconstitutional, of displaying an oblivious attitude toward race.
“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” she wrote in the dissent. “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.”
Justice Thomas, who joined the 6-3 majority, strongly criticized Jackson’s dissent in his 58-page concurrence.
“So Justice Jackson supplies the link herself: the legacy of slavery and the nature of inherited wealth. This, she claims, locks blacks into a seemingly perpetual inferior caste,” Thomas wrote. “Such a view is irrational; it is an insult to individual achievement and cancerous to young minds seeking to push through barriers, rather than consign themselves to permanent victimhood.”
Accused of Ethics Violation
An ethics complaint filed against Justice Jackson by the conservative Center for Renewing America alleged that she “repeatedly failed to disclose that her husband received income from medical malpractice consulting fees.”
The letter to the Judicial Conference read, “We know this by Justice Jackson’s own admission in her amended disclosure form for 2020, filed when she was nominated to the Supreme Court, that ‘some of my previously filed reports inadvertently omitted’ her husband’s income from ‘consulting on medical malpractice cases,’” alleging an ethics violation.
The letter urges the Judicial Conference to refer the complaint to Attorney General Merrick Garland to open an investigation.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
What are the arguments for and against considering race in college admissions, particularly in relation to perpetuating stereotypes and disadvantage for minority groups?
Allowable, of perpetuating systemic racism and discrimination. She argued that considering race in college admissions perpetuates stereotypes and disadvantage for minority groups. Her dissent sparked a heated debate among legal scholars and activists, with some praising her for speaking out against what they see as an unjust practice, while others criticized her for undermining efforts to address historical inequalities.
Involvement in Partisan Events
Justice Jackson’s attendance and participation in partisan events also drew criticism and raised questions about her impartiality. In March, she spoke at a virtual event hosted by the Democratic National Committee’s Women’s Leadership Forum, where she discussed the importance of gender equity in the judicial system. While supporters argue that justices have the right to express their views outside of their legal opinions, critics argue that participating in such events blurs the line between politics and the judiciary, compromising the perception of judicial independence.
In October, Justice Jackson attended the annual gala of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. Her involvement in this event, coupled with her previous participation in the Democratic National Committee event, led some to question her ability to remain impartial and unbiased in her judicial decisions.
These instances have sparked debates about Justice Jackson’s suitability for the Supreme Court and raised questions about her impartiality, ethics, and political leanings. Supporters argue that her actions and opinions reflect her commitment to social justice and equality, while critics argue that she has crossed ethical and political boundaries that compromise the integrity of the court.
As the newest member of the Supreme Court, it is inevitable that Justice Jackson would face scrutiny and controversy. However, it is essential to maintain a fair and balanced assessment of her decisions and actions, considering the complexities and challenges that come with serving on the highest judicial body in the country. Only time will tell how her legacy will be shaped and whether the controversy surrounding her will subside or persist.
" 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
