Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasts 'narrow-minded'
judging on Supreme Court: ANALYSIS
ABC News,
by
Devin Dwyer
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
6/21/2025 10:02:04 AM
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unloaded on her Supreme Court colleagues Friday in a series of sharp dissents, castigating what she called a "pure textualism" approach to interpreting laws, which she said had become a pretext for securing their desired outcomes, and implying the conservative justices have strayed from their oath by showing favoritism to "moneyed interests."
The attack on the court's conservative majority by the junior justice and member of the liberal wing is notably pointed and aggressive but stopped short of getting personal. It laid bare the stark divisions on the court and pent-up frustration in the minority over what Jackson described as inconsistent and unfair application of precedent
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
padiva 6/21/2025 10:08:02 AM (No. 1967314)
Sometimes, it is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
70 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
FJB 2022 23 24 6/21/2025 10:09:49 AM (No. 1967317)
It says she stopped short of "getting personal". sounded kinda personal to me. HER interpretation on laws is suspect to me, she's a libera and hell she can't even define what a "woman" is!
63 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Quigley 6/21/2025 10:14:09 AM (No. 1967318)
She's too stupid to be cognizant of the vacuousness of her argument.
Her first clue might have been her inability to define a "woman."
51 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Heraclitus 6/21/2025 10:15:25 AM (No. 1967320)
Pretty bawlsey for a woman who can’t define or identify what a woman is. Clearly she marinated in a world of moral relativism and disregard for our Constitution.
41 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
bighambone 6/21/2025 10:18:18 AM (No. 1967322)
Maybe she should just stomp her foot and Quit!
51 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Vaquero45 6/21/2025 10:24:29 AM (No. 1967326)
Typical affirmative action/DEI nonsense. She could have just said “you be favorin’ the rich white folks” and saved her clerks from writing the other nonsense.
37 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
jalo1951 6/21/2025 10:28:00 AM (No. 1967328)
If you are incapable of defining what a woman is you have no right to speak on another person's intelligence. DEI might not care if you are a fool but I do especially sitting on the Supreme Court.
35 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
JunkYardDog 6/21/2025 10:28:02 AM (No. 1967329)
When IMPARTIALITY is replaced by IDEOLOGY you get this lady. She is chock full of preconceived notions about equality and race; if our society is so inherently racist and unjust, then how in the world did she, a black woman, ever become a Supreme Court justice? Her words suspiciously echo those of that racist Whoopi Goldberg who said on The View that, as a black person, living in the US was like living in Iran. I didn't know that Iran also had black rich females on TV shows talking about how bad their country was!
43 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Namma 6/21/2025 10:31:35 AM (No. 1967333)
This from a person who can’t define what a women is and actually is a women! Like I’d listen to what she has to say!
22 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
earlybird 6/21/2025 10:37:32 AM (No. 1967335)
A recent decision went 7-2, with Jackson dissenting and mindless sheeple Sotomayor tagged along. Does Kagan really want to be considered to be an ally of those two? One wonders...
27 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
wilarrbie 6/21/2025 10:38:34 AM (No. 1967337)
Well, ain't she just an angel of Enlightenment & Feels. That's not her job.
20 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 6/21/2025 10:39:22 AM (No. 1967338)
Soooo glad she DEI'd her way onto the Court so we could have a Wise Black Woman to tell us what is wrong with it.
24 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Lazyman 6/21/2025 10:41:09 AM (No. 1967339)
Those written words in our constitution interfere with her need for a socialist country.
33 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
mc squared 6/21/2025 10:44:01 AM (No. 1967342)
Not the first time she failed to hide her impartiality. She went off on Trump a few weeks ago.
18 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
mifla 6/21/2025 10:45:09 AM (No. 1967343)
I see the problem, Ketanji. You have never read the Constitution and you believe that it is your job to make laws, not enforce them.
31 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
valinva 6/21/2025 10:47:04 AM (No. 1967344)
She is displaying the same idiotic leftist mentality that allows her to say she can't define a woman because having either XX or XY chromosomes is to narrow of an interpretation.
14 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Californian 6/21/2025 10:48:10 AM (No. 1967345)
She's frustrated because they read and understand and follow the constitution and she doesn't.
Ok. Got it.
17 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
DaddyO 6/21/2025 10:51:26 AM (No. 1967348)
"The U.S. doesn’t have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”
Chief Justice Roberts. He couldn't be more wrong.
24 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
Italiano 6/21/2025 10:55:37 AM (No. 1967352)
Congratulations, Sonia. You have been out-moroned.
21 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
BeatleJeff 6/21/2025 10:57:48 AM (No. 1967354)
Justice Kentecloth Brown-Jackson throws a tantrum because a majority on the court won't let her have her own way.
9 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 6/21/2025 11:04:09 AM (No. 1967359)
Brown: "The law is what I SAY it is", ignoring the written law passed by Congress and approved by the president and observed by PRECEDENT, which means that MANY Justices, SMARTER than Brown, have agreed to follow the TEXT of the law, and its APPLICATION as PRECEDENT.
As others have pointed out, law is created by Congress and approved by the President. The SCOTUS' job is to sort out the fine nuances that come up with existing laws that lack clarity in some specific situations, NOT to make up law from whole cloth OR to solve society's' problems. Laws may not be fair or not "just right". THAT is not up to the Courts to fix.
Unfortunately, with our legacy of liberal SCOTUSes, that insanity was allowed to take root. Thus we got federal abortion laws that are CLEARLY out of federal bounds to decide. That has been addressed and we now have a, kinda, Conservative court.
Brown is a fish out of water and she is whining about it. Too bad. So sad. I would say the odds are that the next appointed justice will be Conservative instead of liberal so Brown will feel even worse. AWWWWWWW, put some ice on that ouch.
13 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
LC Chihuahua 6/21/2025 11:19:15 AM (No. 1967367)
The Commie Supreme Court judge has spoken! Says volumes about how she believes government should work. What she wants would be a dictatorship which really isn't government at all since it would benefit only a select few. Exactly what she rails against.
8 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
Venturer 6/21/2025 11:24:19 AM (No. 1967371)
What she is saying is that the other Judges read the law and go by it , not by their "FEELINGS"
8 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
chagrined 6/21/2025 11:28:12 AM (No. 1967374)
Ah yes. Our most DEI member of the Scotus who likely thinks Kwanzaa is more real than the Constitution. Get back to me when you can define yourself.
10 people like this.
A case of one of the appropriate and deserving individuals being aggravated and ticked off.
Welcome to flip side of the world so many of us MAGA folk have experienced for the majority of our lives, i.e., a world in which leftoid court decisions at all levels left us baffled and frustrated when they bore no resemblance to any of the language of The Constitution or relevant statutes.
Get used to it, lady. There will likely be a whole lot more coming; meaning freedom, meritocracy, and opportunity for the people and constraints upon government and technocrats.
8 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
Laotzu 6/21/2025 11:34:53 AM (No. 1967377)
It boils down to "doing good" versus upholding the law, with The Left always being the sole arbiter of what is good.
9 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
paral04 6/21/2025 11:40:55 AM (No. 1967382)
Does "Narrow Minded" mean they wat to follow the "Constitution"?
6 people like this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
JoElla Bee 6/21/2025 11:56:53 AM (No. 1967397)
Matthew7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
From the ultimate Book of Law.
7 people like this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 6/21/2025 12:05:50 PM (No. 1967398)
In other words, "Get some emotionalism, y'all."
Our, "Two Million Dollar Justice - Action Jackson," is all about throwing out that old text and looking into da gut for the next court ruling.
If Chief Justice Roberts had an ounce of spine he'd put this DEI hire on notice and make her attend remedial, night Law School in hopes she can figure out her job.
Also, if Chief Justice Roberts knows KJ was the one who leaked the Dobbs Decision and put Alito and other white conservative Justices in harm's way, then he needs to terminate her employment over it.
7 people like this.
Reply 30 - Posted by:
janjan 6/21/2025 12:15:17 PM (No. 1967400)
She’s an under qualified DEI hire who somehow thinks she’s in a position to scold the other justices. It won’t win her any friends on the Court.
12 people like this.
Reply 31 - Posted by:
snapper451 6/21/2025 12:24:01 PM (No. 1967406)
One has to seriously wonder if this judge even passed the bar exam. She was pushed on the DC Circuit, when they moved the horrendous Merrick Garland to AG, so she was on that circuit court for “a cup of coffee”. She should go to the DEI/ Affirmative Action Hall of Fame. Eminently not qualified. She’s so dumb she could not be a paralegal.
11 people like this.
Reply 32 - Posted by:
DVC 6/21/2025 12:41:38 PM (No. 1967416)
This dimwit is so 'open minded' that she cannot define what a woman is. Liar, idiot, obnoxious leftist fool, black female.....yep, she checks all the DEI boxes.
8 people like this.
Reply 33 - Posted by:
danu 6/21/2025 2:08:14 PM (No. 1967458)
investigate the entitlement hater for auto-pen abuse.
2 people like this.
Reply 34 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 6/21/2025 2:17:09 PM (No. 1967466)
So the quota (oops, I mean DIE) hire is upset that the majority actually followed the law and not their personal agenda. This is what we get with the quota, I mean DIE, hires in the world. As a quick update, Jacksons still hasn't admitted she has a clue what a woman is. That's how stupid quotas, I mean DIE, hires can be.
2 people like this.
She is nothing, nothing more than an AA/DEI hireling…as usual no worthwhile credentials anyone can see. PERIOD.
4 people like this.
Reply 36 - Posted by:
Scribelus 6/21/2025 3:45:33 PM (No. 1967518)
La Jackson clearly belongs on a shadow Supreme Court, matching the Shadow Cabinet touted by the Democrat mob.
2 people like this.
Reply 37 - Posted by:
cor-vet 6/21/2025 4:00:43 PM (No. 1967528)
Textualism? That's a mighty big word for a a DEI law school grad that can't define a woman.
3 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
"Everyone's out of step but me" says this vicious woman who mkes a point of being black... A former LDotter once said: "What Peter says about Paul says more about Peter than it does about Paul".... Quite an inappropriate rant...