Justice Jackson Wants People to Focus on "What Is Happening in Our Country and in Our Government" (Updated)

Justice Jackson Sees Her Colleagues' Rulings As Threats to Democracy and the Rule of Law

From the Washington Post:

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.

"I'm really very interested to get people to focus, and to invest and to pay attention to what is happening in our country and in our government," Jackson said. . . .

On Saturday, at a different event in New Orleans, Jackson called the conservative bloc's decisions "an existential threat to the rule of law." . . .

On why she writes dissents as much as she does, Jackson commented:

"It's because I feel like I might have something to offer and add, and I'm not afraid to use my voice," said Jackson, noting that she's not offended by other justices taking issue with her opinions because she has a "thick skin."

Justice Jackson's comments echoed sentiments she has expressed in some of her opinions, including her dissent in Trump v. CASA, which drew a sharp response from Justice Barrett writing on behalf of the Court.

UPDATE: C-Span has posted video of the talk, and highlights this quote:

There are sometimes when, even after the principal dissent is written, I have a slightly different perspective or a different take on something or this is an issue of particular importance to me for whatever reason. Where I will say, 'Forgive me Justice Sotomayor, but I need to write on this case.' It's because I feel like I have something to offer, and something to add and I'm not afraid to use my voice.

Comments

[John F. Carr]

A few weeks ago I listed to "On the Media" describing the decline of democracy. Around the middle of the show they revealed that they didn't really mean democracy when they said democracy. They meant other values associated with Western liberal democracies. Some of Trump's legal excesses are what he was elected to do.

[Michael D]

"They meant other values associated with Western liberal democracies. Some of Trump's legal excesses are what he was elected to do."

One paradox of majoritarianism.

[John F. Carr]

Writing "excesses" here in the context of Trump reminded me of a movie quote:

"And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like, uh, General Ripper exceeded his authority."

(Doctor Strangelove, one of the great Cold War movies. Better than John Wayne chasing Russian skirt.)

[Randal]

So you're taking "On the Media" to task for using "democracy" in a way that includes the rule of law?

[JasonT20]

Some of Trump's legal excesses are what he was elected to do.

You know what I see libertarians and conservatives call it when elected officials violate law or the Constitution to do what they were "elected to do?" Tyranny of the majority. And they're right to call it that.

[kkoshkin]

Justice Jackson should focus on the arguments and questions presented in cases before her rather than on "what is happening in our country and in our government."

Courts are to decide cases brought by parties not to opine on "what is happening on our country and in our government."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

She is deciding cases involving the "government," and the cases involve core matters involving democracy. The stuff overlaps.

[Rossami]

In fairness, she retains her 1A rights just like any other politician. And I grant her non-judicial opinions precisely the same weight I give to any other politician's bloviating - that is, approximately zero.

[Sarcastr0]

Judges paying attention to the practical upshot of their judgements is not just legitimate, it's necessary for the long term legitimacy of the judiciary as an institution.

[MollyGodiva]

She does that as well. It is not hard because the majority options are so lacking in logic or basis in law.

[Riva]

And I don't know what she's complaining about. People are starting to focus on what is happening in our country and in our government. They're starting to recognize the radical judicial abuses of power as well as the gross incompetence of the S.Ct.'s embarrassing DEI appointment. Even some of her fellow democrats on the Court are starting to notice. How could they not?

[not guilty]

Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Toady and Katanji Brown Jackson were each affirmative action nominees. George H. W. Bush's 1991 pronouncement:

"The fact that he is black and a minority has nothing to do with this sense that he is the best qualified at this time. I kept my word to the American people and to the Senate by picking the best man for the job on the merits."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/07/02/bush-picks-thomas-for-supreme-court/943b9fda-e079-405e-974e-14c2d0cd999b/ remains the most egregious lie told by any President during my lifetime. Even more outrageous than "I am not a crook", "We did not trade arms for hostages with Iran" and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

[JonFrum]

Raised above her station. Again and again. This is the institutioinal adoption of the Peter Principle to the nth degree.

[ReaderY]

What exactly is her “station”? Planting cotton on the plantation? Cooking? Wet-nursing Massa’s children? Warming Massa’s bed?

Even for those who strongly disagree with Justice Jackson, an honest and unbigoted view of her merits shows her a smart, talented, and hard-working judge. Moreover, comments like these go a great way to explaining where whe is coming from and why she has reason to be concerned.

[Roger S]

She was only appointed because she is a Black woman. Her Scotus opinions have been terrible.

[wvattorney13]

I think that is grossly out of line. I happen to think that Justice Jackson is very much an intellectual lightweight. She makes no bones about not following the law but following her own feelings.

I say that without regard to her race and I don't believe the previous poster referenced her race or implied that it had anything at all to do with it.

If anyone is to blame for the belief that Jackson is an unqualified DEI hire, it is Biden who made it a point that he would exclude the 65% of candidates who were not female and the 95% of candidates who were not black. By definition he excluded a tremendous amount of talent. When you do that, you can't complain that people think you didn't choose the best.

[Randal]

Her opinions -- and especially her oral arguments -- are some of the best on the court. I don't mean because I agree, I mean because they are objectively smart and well-reasoned.

... an intellectual lightweight. [He] makes no bones about not following the law but following [his] own feelings.

You're obviously talking about Alito.

[mulched]

Why would Justice Jackson be making oral arguments? She's a justice, not a lawyer for either side.

[Randal]

Seriously? Ok her participation at oral arguments if that helps.

[mulched]

Makes sense. She does contribute a lot of words during oral arguments. Value per word not particularly high, but she does win on quantity.

[Incunabulum]

If they were so smart and well reasoned then why are other legal professionals - including *her own peers* - pointing out the myriad mistakes on legal reasoning she makes?

Also, are you a bit? Justices don't make oral arguments.

[Randal]

People who disagree often frame their disagreements as "pointing out mistakes." I'm not sure what you think that proves.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I don't mean because I agree, I mean because they are objectively smart and well-reasoned."

You're confused. It's my opinions that are objectively correct. Yours are objectively wrong, except in the rare case where we agree.

[Randal]

No, you're just pretty stupid is all. Take Thomas for instance. I disagree with him entirely, but I think his writing is relatively smart and well-reasoned, if occasionally pretty obviously outcome-oriented. Although rarely clear, Gorsuch can be logical, except, again, when he has an outcome in mind. And although I agree with Sotomayor's opinions, I find her approach to (questions during, since this is apparently confusing to people) oral arguments to be infuriating and her rhetoric to be almost as baldly political as Alito's.

So no, my appreciation for Jackson's intellect and writing is distinct from my take on the merits. I'm not that shallow.

[not guilty]

The current Justice Jackson may be mimicking the pattern set by Justice Clarence Toady, who wrote a lot of solo dissenting opinions and statements regarding denials of certiorari that he disagreed with, in order to lay the foundation to quote therefrom in future opinions.

I for one am glad to see a member of SCOTUS with prior criminal defense experience -- the first one since Justice Thurgood Marshall.

[Incunabulum]

No, an unbigoted views does not show that. Her own words tell us she is not interested in *judging* but in exercising political power.

Also, why do you guys have this slavery fetish?

[Snorkle]

There it is. I knew the racists wouldn't sit this one out.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Got a nose for it, do you?

[Riva]

It's not racist to point out that Jackson is incompetent and unfit to sit on the Court. It's what we call the truth.

[Sarcastr0]

Just say uppity, you racist fuck.

[Riva]

I can almost picture the spit flying as you pointlessly scream that aloud. I’m sure your neighbors are used to the deranged outbursts by now.

[santamonica811]

I am very interested in how people in 2055 will treat the words of Justice Jackson, and in how people of 2125 will treat the words of Justice Jackson.

I have very little interest in how the people of 2025 treat her words, as our feedback remind me too much of the murmurs of the crowd, "Shut up, kid. Stop telling our beloved emperor that he's not wearing any clothing."

I'd like to see if our analysis is the same, once some time has passed and our fever has broken.

[loki13]

Heck. Just read Justice Jackson (um, the other one) in his concurrence in Youngstown.

No, not the test people sometimes know vaguely. Not the bit snipped for the casebooks. Read his whole concurrence.

Now, after you do that*, the words of the current Justice have a decidedly different tone.

*Yeah, like the usuals will actually read an opinion. Since when should "actual knowledge" or "looking at source materials instead of what someone tells you is in those source materials" stop a person from bloviating.

[Rossami]

Well, it's more likely that people will read it if we make it easy - so here's a link. Justice Jackson's concurrence starts on page 56 of the pdf (page number 634 of the original printing) and runs for 19 pages.

[Rossami]

Incidentally, I do not think that test puts the current Justice Jackson's dissents in "a decidedly different tone". Much as I dislike many of Trump's policies, there is a decent argument that they are entirely in compliance with the older Jackson's grouping one - acts with either explicit or implicit authorization by Congress.

Congress has spent a century of so over-delegating away their authority. And they love weasel-worded statutes that can be twisted to whatever purpose fits the day. Trump is merely the most recent president to take advantage of Congress' laziness.

[loki13]

Incidentally, I made a point to say to read think about the whole Jackson concurrence.

Not just the test, or the little bit cribbed for casebooks. Justice Jackson was expressing something I think is quite valid today- and he was doing so at a time when Congress was much more powerful, functional, and jealous of its proper role in the Constitutional structure.

It's almost like these problems are easy to identify- and have been, repeatedly- but instead of acknowledging them, some people would prefer to shrug and say, "Whaddya gonna do? Amirite?"

There are, quite literally, so many things going on right now you can't keep track of them. Heck, think of the TikTok ban. Remember that? Whether you agree with it or not, it's an actual law. And the AG has told individual companies that they don't need to obey the law- civil laws- because the President said not to. That's an ability that was stripped away from the British Crown well before we split.

So it goes.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The author of a forthcoming book on his concurrence has a new Slate piece. One bit he quotes:

“I cannot be brought to believe that this country will suffer if the Court refuses further to aggrandize the presidential office, already so potent and so relatively immune from judicial review, at the expense of Congress.”

(There is a third Justice Jackson, but few care about him.)
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/07/greatest-supreme-court-justice-essay-no-kings.html

[MollyGodiva]

That dissent is as relevant now as it was then, possibly more so. He rips apart the unified executive theory.

[Absaroka]

Thanks, loki and Rossami. Well worth the read.

I especially liked this bon mot: "We may also suspect that they suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies."

That's some golden wisdom for the ages.

[wvattorney13]

When you join the left, are you taught that things are not merely threats, but existential threats? Because everyone left of center seems to have gotten together and agreed on that adjective.

[Randal]

Yes, actually, now that you mention it.

[Frank Drackman]

You know what keeps me up at night?
My Prostrate,
and I keep that (redacted) flushed, Nome, Sane? It’s like if you changed your cars oil every day.
Bad example, more like running the faucet for a few seconds before you drink (ever got a spider in your cup? They love faucets)
Oh, you might want to wash my cup before using it, fair warning (those crystals aren’t sugar)
I figure if I can still rub one out every day or so I’m good, gotta get rid of those toxins, RFK Jr said so

Frank

[Randal]

Is the takeaway here that Penis of Ugly Man, concerned about the commie plot against his precious bodily fluids, drinks a cup coffee with cream and sugar cum and crack every morning?

[IANNAL]

If she would like to step down from the Court and run for Congress in my District / State, I promise to vote for her.

[minus the clever name]

Anybody getting the funny connection here ???? Biden said she was one of the great legal minds of her generation.

Biden had a "C" average and was ranked 506th out of 688 in his graduating class. He went on to be in the bottom 10 of his law class.
Are you seeing the connection>

[thesafesurfer]

Remember that all criticisms of Justice Jackson are racist and misogynistic.

[Randal]

Just like all criticisms of Israel are antisemitic! And all criticisms of Trump are TDS! I get it now.

[Stephen Lathrop]

For Justice Jackson, it is far too soon even to guess what the verdict of history will be on her Court performance. The same cannot be said of her colleagues.

Jacson's colleagues have records which might later be reformed, but as a group, on the basis of what they have shown so far, they range across the entire gamut from terrible to mediocre. Even Kagan's performance has lately been in sharp decline. And there are entire classes of cases, especially about environmental issues, where Kagan has always been obtuse. She is habitually as inappropriately partisan as most of the other members of the Court, though not as corrupt about it as some.

Jackson seems to have at least a good chance to be noted in history as the best Justice on the otherwise disastrous Roberts Court. The commentary focus in this thread illustrates why. Jackson is insisting the Court take judicial notice of a series of cases which share the same bizarre context—an American Executive committed to emphasize lawless defiance of due process, separation of powers, and personal rights.

It is in fact the sworn obligation of the Justices to notice stuff like that, and for now Jackson is the only one fulfilling that obligation. That will look good in historical hindsight, and especially so in contrast to the derelictions of Jackson's colleagues.

[MollyGodiva]

Jackson's dissents will go on to become some of the most important dissents in US history. She is the only one loudly and clearly calling out our descent into fascism and dictatorship.

[Roger S]

Let us know when she figures out what a woman is.

[MollyGodiva]

Case in point. Instead of any reasonable reply, Roger S just spouted bigotry.