Four years ago, Joe Biden made good on his 2020 campaign promise to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court — qualifications apparently optional — and gave us Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has since turned the highest court in the land into her personal struggle session with basic constitutional law. And now, after a string of embarrassing solo dissents and public corrections from her own ideological allies, even the left's cheerleaders are running out of excuses.
Remember, this is the same woman who told Senator Marsha Blackburn during her confirmation hearing that she couldn't define the word "woman" because — and I quote — "I'm not a biologist." Four years later, she still can't seem to figure out what the Constitution says, either. Progress.
The latest humiliation came in April 2026, when the Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v. Callais, a racial gerrymandering case. Jackson fired off a lone dissent — emphasis on "lone" — arguing the court should have waited the standard 32 days for rehearing petitions before implementing its decision. Every single other justice disagreed. All eight of them. That's not a principled stand. That's a woman lost in the parking garage of her own argument.
But Louisiana wasn't even the worst of it. Back in July 2025, the court handled a case involving Trump executive orders on federal workforce reductions. Jackson cranked out a breathless 15-page dissent that was so disconnected from the actual legal question that Justice Sonia Sotomayor — her liberal ally, mind you — felt compelled to issue a separate opinion gently pointing out that "the plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage." Translation: Ketanji, sweetie, you're yelling about something that isn't even in front of us right now.
When Sotomayor is the one pulling you aside to explain how courts work, you have a problem.
Then there was the March 2026 case involving a Colorado counselor and conversion therapy restrictions. The court ruled 8-1. Guess who the one was. Jackson stood alone again, and this time it was Justice Elena Kagan — the other liberal on the bench — who was forced to publicly correct Jackson's dissent. Meanwhile, Justice Amy Coney Barrett accused Jackson's reasoning of being "detached from constitutional history," which is the judicial equivalent of saying someone showed up to a chess match with a checkerboard.
And it wasn't just the liberals noticing. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch issued a joint response in the workforce case calling Jackson's arguments "baseless and insulting." Three words. That's all it took. When three sitting Supreme Court justices use their precious pen time to call your work "baseless and insulting," you're not advancing the law — you're vandalizing it.
Legal experts outside the court have been equally blunt. Cornell University Law Professor William Jacobson described Jackson as a "hand grenade" on the bench. Jonathan Turley, who has been analyzing the Supreme Court longer than Jackson has been practicing law, called her body of work "radical and chilling jurisprudence." As radio host Tony Katz put it, according to AMAC Newsline, Jackson isn't just the weakest justice — she's operating on a completely different frequency than the rest of the court.
And that's the real story here. This isn't about one bad opinion or one rough term. This is a pattern. Jackson has been on the bench since 2022, and the trajectory is clear: she writes emotionally charged dissents untethered from the legal questions actually before the court, she gets publicly corrected by justices on both sides, and then the media pretends it didn't happen.
The other liberal justices — Sotomayor and Kagan — may be wrong on plenty, but at least they understand how the game is played. They build coalitions. They pick their battles. They write dissents that future courts might actually cite. Jackson writes 15-page tantrums that her own team has to apologize for.
This is what happens when you pick a Supreme Court justice the way you'd fill a diversity quota at a mid-level HR department. Joe Biden didn't pick the best legal mind he could find. He picked a demographic checkbox. And the court — and the country — are paying for it every single term.
Eight-to-one. Even the liberals are embarrassed.
