There are myriad reasons why Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. Indeed, her primary qualifications — according to President Biden, who nominated her — are that she's Black and a woman. Since she took her seat in June 2022, she has spent every day proving she wasn't selected for her jurisprudence.
This shows especially in her dissent in Chiles v. Salazar, today's Supreme Court ruling that found Colorado's ban on talk-based conversion therapy likely violates free speech. The ruling was 8-1, and while it didn't rule Colorado's law unconstitutional outright, it did say that the lower courts therefore applied the wrong standard in reviewing it and reversed and remanded for the lower courts to apply strict scrutiny.
Where to begin? pic.twitter.com/znHnImo1Bd
— Mike Fragoso (@mike_frags) March 31, 2026
Justice Jackson quotes Lambert v. Yellowley in her opening sentence: "'There is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the States."
Perhaps Justice Jackson has forgotten that, less than a year ago, she also dissented in United States v. Skrmetti, the case that upheld Tennessee's state ban on "gender-affirming care" for minors. In that dissent, she objected to the state of Tennessee using its "police power" to protect children from procedures that render them sterile and mutilate their bodies in the name of trans ideology.
Justice Jackson dissents. The opening line of her dissent is hard to reconcile with her dissent in Skrmetti. If States have absolute power to regulate medical treatment, why are anti-Christian bans on talk therapy OK but bans on experimental sex change surgeries for kids are not? pic.twitter.com/HuVRsmXj8v
— Eric W. (@EWess92) March 31, 2026
It's (D)ifferent when states ban conversion therapy, of course. That same question applies to state-level bans on abortion, which would also fall under being "subordinate to the police power of the States."
Somehow, I doubt that Justice Jackson would rule in favor of state-based abortion bans.
Back in January, Justice Jackson argued in favor of the unconstitutional and racist Black Codes as they applied to gun control. Those laws were enacted after the Civil War to restrict the freedoms of Black Americans. Much as I doubt Justice Jackson would uphold state-based abortion laws (we already know she opposes state-based prohibitions on "gender-affirming care"), I doubt she'd uphold the Black Codes in any other legal context.
I would call this behavior rank hypocrisy, but it's much deeper than that. As I wrote last year, Justice Jackson adheres to a Calvinball definition of jurisprudence. Justice Jackson believes rulings by the conservative majority are an 'existential threat to the rule of law '; she uses unprofessional colloquialisms in opinions; she 'doesn't understand' a lot of her job; worries the First Amendment hamstrings government; and has been called out in opinions by both Justice Sotomayor, Justice Coney Barrett, and Justice Kagan.
Justice Jackson herself said her seat on the bench is a chance to "use [her] voice" while she ignores jurisprudence and the Constitution.
KBJ: “I’m not afraid to use my voice."
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) July 12, 2025
*Applause* pic.twitter.com/IetlBeZUoB
During these remarks, Justice Jackson said if she had "a different take on something or this is an issue of particular importance to me, for whatever reason ... it's because I feel like I might have something to offer and something to add and I'm not afraid to use my voice."
And use her voice she did. Justice Jackson wrote a 35-page dissent, which was longer than the majority opinion of the court.
Justice Jackson wrote a 35-page dissent in Chiles v. Salazar about how it should be constitutional to ban counselors from telling a boy he is not a girl.
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 31, 2026
It was longer than Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion and Justice Kagan's concurring opinion combined.
Justice Jackson also took aim at Justices Sotomayor and Kagan for siding with the conservative majority.
Notably, Justice Jackson trains her fire on Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. In a footnote she basically accuses them of being dupes for the conservative majority. Kagan responds, basically accusing Jackson of not understanding longstanding law. 👀 pic.twitter.com/paR4XOKZMv
— Eric W. (@EWess92) March 31, 2026
That explains why Justice Kagan opened fire on Justice Jackson in her concurrent opinion. I wonder how tense things are behind the scenes at the Supreme Court, as even the Leftist Justices appear done with Justice Jackson's behavior.
I shudder to think of a Supreme Court filled with more Justices like Jackson.
Of course, using one's voice is not how Supreme Court Justices should operate. They are not activists, and they are not legislators in black robes. They are meant to interpret our laws in the framework of the Constitution, and that interpretation should be devoid of their own personal opinions on the issue before the Court.
And by continuing to do so, Justice Jackson proves she's unfit to sit on the Supreme Court.
