Remember Chatty Cathy? She was a toy doll manufactured between 1959 and 1965. Pull the string and she would talk. We have the 2025 DEI Supreme Court version today- Chatty Ketanji. You do not need to pull a string to get her to talk. All you need to do is present a case in front of her. She will talk non-stop for a long time without ever making any sense.
Ketanji Brown-Jackson was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2022. Since then, she has made herself stand out among her peers in her verbosity.
She spoke more words in her first eight arguments than all of the male justices put together. She finds it amusing that people find curious how much she talks.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: “It’s funny to me that people focus on how much I talk at oral argument…” pic.twitter.com/ZHHkea84vh
— ALX (@alx) July 9, 2025
She has also distinguished herself from her colleagues in another way, i.e. she doesn’t understand.
INBOX: If there’s one thing we know about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson this term – it’s that she doesn’t understand.
INCREDIBLE VIDEO pic.twitter.com/DQQ3q1mA8Q
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) June 25, 2025
She also doesn’t understand what a woman is:
But that hasn’t stopped her from issuing some pointed dissent.
She suggested that the Court’s recent majority conservative rulings are an “existential threat to the rule of law.”
In her first appearance since the High Court ruled that judges cannot abuse their powers by regularly issuing nationwide injunctions to halt an administration’s policies, Justice Jackson said she believes rulings from the court’s conservative majority pose an “existential threat to the rule of law.”
“Sometimes we have cases that have those kinds of implications, and, you know, are there cases in which there are issues that have that kind of significance? Absolutely,” Jackson told Davis.
But remember, Brown-Jackson uses the Court to tell people not how the law is decided, but how she feels.
Jackson then turned to the writing of SCOTUS opinions, saying that she feels she’s “been privileged to … use the writings that [she does], the work that [she does], to explain [her] views about the way our government does and should work; the way the court does and should work.” It is through this process, the Biden appointee noted, that she is able to tell the American people how she “feel[s]” about any given case and its outcome.
“I think the nice part about being on the court is you have the opportunity, whether you’re in the majority or in the dissent, to express your opinions,” Jackson said. “I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people, in my opinions, how I feel about the issues. And that’s what I try to do.”
Seeming to not understand her role on the Court, she harshly slammed Donald Trump in her most recent opinion
“For some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation,” she wrote. “In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”
This activism bent has earned Brown-Jackson criticism from the Court itself. Amy Coney Barrett blasted her in June:
In late June, the Supreme Court’s conservatives issued a far more scathing rebuke of Jackson, asserting that she sought an “imperial judiciary” and implying that her arguments were so frivolous as to be unworthy of significant regard.
“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” wrote Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
“JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by
law.’ That goes for judges too,” Barrett added.
This was seen as strong “smackdown” coming from another female judge.
But as I pointed out in a Post on X Friday morning, Barrett’s decision was written on behalf of herself and the five other justices in the majority. The fact that Barrett was assigned this opinion by the chief judge (the chief judge decides who writes the opinion when he votes with the majority) is a signal that the other five justices turned her loose on Jackson. Such an unsparing smackdown of the most junior justice with a vastly different view of the judicial function would have been received much differently had it come from one of the other five justices in the conservative wing of the Court.
Brown-Jackson also earned herself a specific rebuke from Justice Sotomayor:
“I agree with JUSTICE JACKSON that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates,” Sotomayor wrote. “Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law.’”
“The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law,” she added.
“What is at issue here is whether Executive Order No. 14210 affects a massive restructuring of the Federal Government (the likes of which have historically required Congress’s approval), on the one hand, or minor workforce reductions consistent with existing law, on the other,” Jackson argued. As Sotomayor wrote, the merits of the reforms were not the matter before the court.
Though a relatively soft rebuke, Sotomayor’s singling out of Jackson marks the latest incident of a Supreme Court justice feeling the need to explicitly slap down the Biden appointee.
And today…
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Thursday that the “state of our democracy” keeps her up at night, echoing a theme that has animated some of her recent public appearances and fiery dissents from recent decisions.
She’s supposed to be an intelligent woman lacking any real experience on the appellate court. I am not convinced she is more than a DEI project pushed along her entire career. But one thing is certain- she is an activist and has no business on the Supreme Court.
I suspect what keeps her up at night is her lack of understanding things.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: DrJohn
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, http://www.floppingaces.net and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
