Democrats must cringe every time a major Supreme Court case rolls around. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson keeps turning oral arguments into embarrassing showcases of why she doesn't belong on the bench. We all know that she wasn’t qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. Biden picked Jackson explicitly because he wanted a black woman on the court, and that choice raised eyebrows from day one about whether credentials took a backseat to identity politics.
Since then, Jackson's track record has spoken volumes. She dishes out dissents packed with snarky, playground-level digs without a hint of solid legal reasoning. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and even fellow leftist Sonia Sotomayor have called her out. If you listen to her during arguments, Jackson often admits to not grasping key issues in cases, and perhaps the most significant thing going against her is that she frequently finds herself the lone dissent in what should have been unanimous rulings.
The last time I wrote about her embarrassing rants was in October, during oral arguments in the Louisiana v. Callais case. She made a nonsensical argument in the redistricting fight over whether Louisiana's map needed a second majority-black district. She not only spun it as straight-up discrimination if states don’t draw districts based on race, but she equated blacks to disabled people who lacked access to ramps before the Americans with Disabilities Act. Critics lit up social media, blasting her for comparing black voters to the disabled.
It was inevitable that we’d be talking about her again, since the Supreme Court is now hearing oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, which, if you don’t know, is the case about President Trump's power to axe FTC holdovers Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. Jackson insists presidents can't touch "experts" like economists, scientists, transportation bigwigs, or Federal Reserve types.
ICYMI: Bombshell Docs Suggest That Biden’s FBI Identified Pipe Bomb Suspect in April 2021 but Did Nothing
"Some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by non-partisan experts that Congress is saying that expertise matters with respect to aspects of the economy, and transportation, and the various independent agencies that we have," Jackson insisted. "So having a president come in and fire all the scientists, and the doctors, and the economists, and the PhDs, and replacing them with loyalists and people who don't know anything is actually not in the best interests of the citizens of the United States."
She added, “These issues should not be in presidential control.”
And it should come as no surprise that, once again, she admitted she did not understand the issue. "I guess what I don't understand from your overarching argument is why that determination of Congress, which makes perfect sense, given its duty to protect the people of the United States, why that is subjugated to a concern about the president not being able to control everything."
Imagine thinking that unelected bureaucrats should be able to run the country without any accountability.
“She is talking nonsense,” Elon Musk quipped on X. “There must be a way for the public to affect ‘independent agencies’ or we live in a BUREAUcracy, not a DEMOcracy!”
He’s right. Jackson's argument essentially suggests that executive authority shouldn’t exist, and the government should hand the reins to deep-state lifers over the voters who elected Trump twice. Lefties cheered Obama's pen-and-phone power grabs or Biden's endless edicts, but Trump's the tyrant? Spare us the selective outrage.
