Study: Jackson Is The Supreme Court’s ‘Most Talkative’ Justice
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is known for talking extensively during Supreme Court oral arguments, a trend highlighted by a recent study. Over the past two decades, she has become the most talkative justice, averaging 1,263 words per case, which is more than twice the amount spoken by othre justices like Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. JacksonS frequent speaking is believed too be a way to communicate directly with the public, especially when she anticipates unfavorable rulings due to the court’s conservative majority.Critics argue that her speeches often include nonsensical or leftist viewpoints, such as her confusing argument about Japanese law during a citizenship case or her comments on race and voting rights, which some see as attempts to advance ideological positions. The study also notes her tendency to monopolize speaking time in ways that suggest she aims to influence public perception and sways court decisions through her verbosity.
If there’s one thing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson loves to do more than anything during Supreme Court oral arguments, it’s talk — and talk, and talk, and talk some more.
On Thursday, The New York Times reported on a new study that found Jackson is “by far the most talkative justice” on the court over the past two decades. Spanning from October 2005 to April 2026, the analysis found that the Biden appointee spoke an average of 1,263 words per case in the four short years she’s been on the bench — a figure the outlet noted is “more than double the justices’ average.”
“According to the study, [Jackson] speaks 23 percent of the words uttered by the justices,” the report reads.
The study found that the closest justice to rival Jackson in the number of words spoken per case is her former boss and predecessor, retired Justice Stephen Breyer, who clocked in at 818 words per case. In the years Jackson’s been on the court, that second-place ranking belongs to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, at 791 words.
The Times offered three possible explanations for this trend. This includes the theory that Jackson, “understanding she will be on the losing end of many cases on a court where conservatives hold a supermajority, may view her questioning as an opportunity to reach beyond the courtroom and communicate with the public directly through the live-streamed arguments.”
As the Times alluded to, Jackson has often monopolized speaking time to advance leftist talking points and nonsensical arguments during the high court’s hearings.
During the Supreme Court’s Trump v. Barbara hearing on birthplace citizenship earlier this year, the Biden appointee “mused that if she stole a wallet while in Japan, she would be bound by her ‘allegiance’ to the country’s criminal laws and the consequences therein,” as The Federalist’s Matt Kittle reported.
“I was thinking, I, a U.S. citizen am visiting Japan. And what it means is that if I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me,” Jackson said. “It’s allegiance meaning can they control you as a matter of law. I can also rely on them, if my wallet is stolen, to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it.”
”So there’s this relationship, even though I’m just a temporary traveler, I’m just on vacation in Japan, I’m still locally owing allegiance in that sense,” she added.
Jackson’s nonsensical approach to birthplace citizenship ultimately carried the day, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining her and her fellow liberals in codifying it into the 14th Amendment.
Court listeners weren’t spared from the Biden appointee’s unintelligible commentary in the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais hearing, either. While considering the use of race in redistricting, the junior justice suggested in last year’s hearing that states should consider race in the process because black Americans are systemically “disabled” and don’t have legitimate access to voting systems.
The Democrat appointee also ran a full-court (no pun intended) defense of the runaway administrative state during last year’s Trump v. Slaughter hearing. This included fearmongering about what would happen if a duly elected president came into office and lawfully executed his constitutional authority by replacing unelected “nonpartisan experts” with “loyalists and people who don’t know anything.”
" 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
