Intellectually, Ketanji is an Adolescent; Biden's Destructive (DEI) Insult to the Supreme Court

Like most US Blacks; intellectually, she's mentally an adolescent in an adult body.

From Josh Hammer is Newsweek senior editor-at-large via Yahoo News:

In January 2022, one year after Joe Biden assumed the White House, Justice Stephen Breyer of the US Supreme Court announced his impending retirement. Biden, who had selected the intellectually challenged Kamala Harris as his running mate two years prior, in large part on diversity grounds, sprang into action to fulfil a campaign promise to black political kingmaker Rep Jim Clyburn (D-SC) – that he would select a black woman for his first Supreme Court pick.

And so the Biden White House foisted upon us Ketanji Brown Jackson – a hitherto obscure jurist, nominated only because of her sex and race, but who ironically refused to provide a definition of the word “woman” when asked about it at her US Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing. Curious, that!

Alas, it has only been downhill from that rockiest of rocky starts.

I pondered, at the time of Jackson’s nomination, how a justice who knows she was selected on the basis of identity politics could be expected to fairly adjudicate cases that involve issues of race and sex?

My concern proved prescient. Barely a year after her nomination, Justice Clarence Thomas – the Court’s longest-serving member, who also happens to be black – excoriated Jackson’s “myopia” in his concurring opinion in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v Harvard, which ended the systemic racism of “affirmative action” in university admissions: “Justice Jackson’s race-infused world view falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything – good or bad – that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin colour to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.”

As part of her SFFA dissent, notably, Jackson also made a “mathematically absurd” claim about black infant mortality. Any decent law clerk – or any decent judge – would have caught on before publication. By missing the obvious, Jackson demonstrated precisely the sort of brazen nitwittery that should have cautioned political leaders away from allowing the search for one of the nine most important lawyers to be determined by identity politics.

Yet as satisfying as Thomas’s defenestration of Jackson in his SFFA concurrence was, Friday’s fusillade from Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her majority opinion in Trump v CASA, a case addressing the contentious debate over the legitimacy of so-called nationwide injunctions, was if anything even more fulfilling. Barrett took a mighty, acerbic sledgehammer to Jackson’s paean to unvarnished judicial supremacy.

“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

What’s more, Jackson “chooses a starting line of attack that is tethered neither to [historical] sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever”. And “among its many problems, Justice Jackson’s view is at odds with our system of divided judicial authority”. Perhaps most bitingly, Barrett mocked Jackson’s glossing over the all-important inquiry as to the historical “limits on judicial authority” as mere “legalese” (Jackson’s own ignominious word choice).

In a word: brutal. Notably, all six of the Court’s Republican-nominated justices, including the ever-mercurial chief justice, John Roberts, signed onto Barrett’s opinion in full. Call it a pile-on.

One cannot help but get the sense that Barrett, the normally mild-mannered former law professor and mother of seven, really just wanted to say: “Justice Jackson is unfit to serve on this Court.” And maybe she should have done so. Because it happens to be true.

The fact that Ketanji Brown Jackson was selected as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on the basis of her race and sex is offensive enough. But the fact she now routinely produces such intellectually indefensible balderdash that she is roundly mocked by her more senior colleagues, takes the level of offence to a different level. Simply put, serious countries do not elevate arguably unqualified dimwits to public p

The continued humiliation of Ketanji Brown Jackson at the nation’s highest court – at the behest of her colleagues – is a lagging social indication. It is a warning that something has gone deeply wrong in how the world’s pre-eminent superpower nominates the most prestigious constitutional officers and decides the most pressing constitutional issues. The America that just sent B-2 bombers to drop 14 “bunker buster” bombs on Iran’s nuclear facilities is a serious place. The America that counts Ketanji Brown Jackson as a Supreme Court justice? Less so.

Frankly, no one should be more offended at this appalling DEI idiocy than Jackson’s fellow black women. Because Jackson was nominated explicitly due to the fact she is a black woman. Ah yes – but we can’t possibly define what a woman is, can we? And therein lies the rub.