Ketanji Jackson’s political agenda at Supreme Court triggers concern from senior justices

Ketanji Jackson, a far-left extremist appointed to the Supreme Court by Joe Biden, displayed her legal acumen during her confirmation hearings when she denied that she had the ability to define “woman.”

Her activism on the court has continued on that theme, and she often claims that her Democrat political positions actually are what the Constitution states.

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, whose perspectives on the Constitution actually have been used by Congress, pointed out Jackson has developed “a radical and chilling jurisprudence. Her often sole dissents and accusatory rhetoric have drawn not just the ire of her conservative colleagues but her liberal colleagues.”

Now she openly advocated for a completely political move on the part of the court and has been publicly rebuked by three more senior members of the court, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

It came following the court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais which banned racial gerrymandering in congressional redistricting.

The court, citing a lack of a requests for a delay, said the ruling could be transmitted to the lower courts right away, a move that might allow the state time to correct its problem before the 2026 elections. Jackson, however, had wanted a rule enforced that would have delayed that, forcing the state to use unconstitutional districts that favor Democrats this election.

An analysis at the Federalist explained Alito pointed out how Jackson wanted to “require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional.”

Alito explained Jackson’s agenda apparently was based on her political partiality in her insistence on “running out the clock” on behalf of those would “find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map.”

“The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power. … That is a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge,” Alito wrote. “What principle has the Court violated? The principle that Rule 45.3’s 32-day default period should never be shortened even when there is good reason to do so? The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?”

The report noted Alito “slammed the junior justice’s accusations that the court ‘unshackles itself from constraints’ by underscoring that it is her ‘rhetoric that lacks restraint.'”

The analysis noted Jackson has a reputation for opinions that are “often poorly argued and lack coherent legal reasoning.”

It explained Jackson’s latest “unhinged solo screed” argued against what she claimed was “a strong political undercurrent.”

But those claims, the trio of senior justices said, “cannot go unanswered.”

Alito pointed out how Jackson “would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional.”

Turley explained what apparently was Jackson’s impetus: “There is no reason why the decision should not be finalized except for a blatantly partisan effort to protect the Democrats from losing seats in the midterm elections. After all, if these districts are unconstitutional, why should states guarantee that voters are given representatives chosen free of racial discriminatory preferences?”

He said, “Jackson stood alone in demanding that the unconstitutional districts be effectively preserved for the purposes of this election — guaranteeing Democratic seats in the midterm that could be lost in non-racially discriminatory districts.”

Jackson has been known in interviews to boast about being proud to be on the Supreme Court bench because from there she can tell people what she thinks about issues, not necessarily what the Constitution states.