Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson just stirred up a storm with a candid remark about the state of American democracy.
According to the New York Post, at a recent event with the Indianapolis Bar Association on Thursday, Jackson’s comments about democracy keeping her awake at night sparked sharp criticism and mockery from conservative voices, who questioned her impartiality and judicial rigor.
During a casual Q&A session meant to be light-hearted, with questions about favorite books and tunes, Jackson took a serious turn when asked what troubles her most.
“I would say the state of our democracy,” she declared, shifting the tone of the room with a response that left little room for levity.
While she didn’t get the chance to expand on her specific fears, her words lingered, especially given her position as a Biden-appointed justice known for frequent dissents on the high court.
It’s no surprise that such a statement from a sitting justice would raise eyebrows, particularly among those who already view her judicial philosophy with skepticism.
Just this week, Jackson stood alone in an 8-1 Supreme Court order, dissenting against a decision allowing President Trump to trim down the federal workforce—a move that didn’t win her any fans on the right.
Late last month, she also penned a dissent in a significant birthright citizenship case, warning that “our beloved constitutional Republic” could vanish, a statement that drew a pointed rebuke from Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Barrett didn’t hold back, countering, “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument,” and accusing her of embracing an “imperial Judiciary” while criticizing an overreaching executive—ouch, that’s a judicial burn for the ages.
The backlash wasn’t confined to the courtroom; over on social media platform X, critics pounced, with one user snarking, “Having someone like her on the Supreme Court is what keeps me up at night.”
Another chimed in with, “Her unprofessionalism is an embarrassment to the bench,” suggesting that Jackson’s public remarks stray far from the expected decorum of a justice committed to impartiality.
These aren’t just idle gripes—many argue her dissents lack the legal depth expected of Supreme Court rulings, with one commenter noting, “Some of her dissents this term have been pretty embarrassing.”
The criticism cuts deeper with accusations that Jackson operates more as an advocate than a neutral arbiter, one user on X asserting, “She’s functionally an activist, not a judge.” They argue that justices dedicated to the rule of law shouldn’t be making what they call “incendiary” statements in public forums, a sentiment that resonates with those wary of judicial overreach.
While Jackson’s concern for democracy might stem from a genuine place, as she urged, “I’m very interested in getting people to focus and to invest and to pay attention to what is happening in our country,” the question remains whether such commentary belongs in a justice’s public repertoire.
