SCOTUS Justice Criticized For Controversial Stance On Constitution

Article III of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and its powers. You’d think it slightly nonsensical for a justice of said court to quibble with that very Constitution. Ketanji Brown Jackson has never much cared for sense.

In a scathing dissent, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accuses her colleagues of viewing a case through the “distorted lens of pure textualism.” Textualism is a school of interpretation that approaches the law, including the Constitution, according to its plain meaning. A textualist asks: What would an ordinary person understand this law to mean?

“I have no quarrel with relying on common sense as a general matter,” Jackson claims in another dissent issued Friday, which also took aim at textualist interpretations. “But we should acknowledge that what counts as a ‘commonsense’ inference to the Justices on this Court may not be viewed as such by others.”

Jackson comes just short of accusing her fellow justices of having a vested interest in the outcome of the case, writing, “this case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.” The case before the court, Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), concerned the energy company’s ability to challenge government mandates. Jackson expressed fear for the “reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests.”