If there was any lingering doubt about how ill-prepared and intellectually unserious Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can be, her exchange with attorney Eric Baxter in arguments for Mahmoud v. Taylor should put that to rest.
Mahmoud v. Taylor is a Supreme Court case that strikes at the heart of parental rights and religious freedom. In Montgomery County, Md., a coalition of religiously diverse parents is fighting back after the school district decided to push LGBTQ+-themed storybooks in elementary classrooms without allowing parents to opt their kids out.
This is obviously a blatant violation of both parental and First Amendment rights. At stake is whether parents have any real say in their children’s education or if government bureaucrats can force radical ideology into the classroom, no matter what families believe. The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday.
Baxter, representing a group of Maryland parents challenging a radical gender and sexuality curriculum imposed by Montgomery County Public Schools, came to the Supreme Court with a clear record: parents had identified specific books, specific harms, and specific objections. Justice Jackson, on the other hand, came armed with confusion and a complete inability — or unwillingness — to grasp the facts.
“We don’t, we don’t, at this moment, based on the record you’ve provided, know that these books aren’t just sitting on the shelves,” Jackson said, effectively pretending that sworn affidavits from parents who detailed exactly how and when the materials were to be used didn’t exist. It was a stunning display of either deliberate ignorance or an embarrassing failure to follow the basic facts of the case.
Recommended: New Poll Data Confirms the Democrats' Worst Fears
Baxter responded as patiently as he could, pointing Jackson directly to the district court transcript, where school counsel had already admitted that the books are used in instruction.
“The record is undisputed,” Baxter said, referencing a moment in the trial that established usage of the books.
Still, Jackson wasn’t done. She pressed on, parroting a claim from the Fourth Circuit: “We don’t have any information about how any teacher or school employee has actually used any of the books.”
Baxter again clarified: “The Court of Appeals did not dispute that some of the books have to be used.” He added that teachers' instructions, which the school board has not denied, support the parents’ case. But Jackson either wasn’t listening or wasn’t capable of comprehending the record because she returned to the same worn-out talking point, quoting again that “we don’t know what any child has been taught in conjunction with their use.”
“So are you saying that you do have affidavits and information about teachers in the classroom and what they've taught children of different ages about these books?” she asked.
“Yes, we do,” he replied. “The, all of our clients have, in their declarations, they describe which books were going to be read to their children, how they asked—”
“Were the clients in the classroom?” she interrupted and asked the dumbest question that she could possibly have asked.
At this point, Baxter had to explain what should be obvious to anyone: no, the parents weren’t physically inside the classroom, but that doesn’t mean that the injury isn’t real or imminent. That’s exactly what preliminary injunctions are for — to stop an injury before it happens.
“Our clients have, in their declarations, they describe which books were going to be read to their children,” he explained.
That’s right — according to Jackson, unless a parent is physically hiding under a desk during story time, there’s apparently no “valid” evidence that their child is being exposed to transgender ideology or sexually explicit material in school. This is the same justice who couldn’t even say what a woman is during her confirmation hearings because she wasn’t a biologist.
Baxter remained composed, but he had to explain basic legal concepts to someone who sits on the nation’s highest court.
“We don’t have to wait until the injury has happened to get relief,” he reminded her.
Bizarre moment yesterday -
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) April 23, 2025
Justice Jackson is stuck on the idea that the drag queen/sex books could just be sitting on shelves in the pre-school classrooms - but the suing families have made clear in their lawsuits that these books *have to be taught* in the curriculum,… pic.twitter.com/K8eyEAQO1m
Is Jackson intent on proving how incompetent she is?
