Joe Biden’s sole nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, the radical leftist Ketanji Jackson, made her political agenda for the court clear even before she was confirmed.
That was when she aligned with the agenda of the LGBT promoters, including the extremists who advocate body-mutilating transgenderism, because she stated that she was unable to define “woman” during her confirmation hearings.
Most people can. But those who claim that a man who says he is a woman IS a woman have that obstacle.
Her political agenda also has had her demanding birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens and insisting that race be used by states to define congressional districts.
She’s also boasted of her authority to tell people what she thinks, not what the Constitution requires, in her court rants, distracted court watchers by participating in a Broadway show and offering untoward condemnation of other justices.
Now a report at the Federalist reveals she has suggested that district courts, below the Supreme Court, actually ignore what the Supreme Court rules at times.
During her appearance at the American Law Institute recently, she was discussing court actions with U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel of South Carolina.
He noted the sometimes quick rulings from the court that overturn established precedent, which the court does as a matter of routine.
She said it’s “absolutely a legitimate question” as to whether lower court judges should defy the Supreme Court or follow its emergency docket decisions.
Gergel complained to her: “I have found, as a district judge, it mystifying at times, where an emergency docket decision of maybe just two or three pages, appears to countermand longstanding Supreme Court precedent. Are we to apply the brief, the short stay decision, or denial of stay? Or are we to follow 50 years of precedent? It’s a perplexing thing to do.”
Jackson said that’s a concern: “I mean, what is a lower court judge to do after the Supreme Court has intervened early on to tell everyone who’s likely to win the case?”
She complained that the Supreme Court, at times, has stayed a lower court ruling even after that district judge had “made findings of fact” or held hearings, a result she opposes, the report said.
“Jackson’s comments are especially insane given that there is nothing new about lower courts being bound by the Supreme Court’s guidance (including an emergency order). But this wasn’t the only time Jackson was seemingly unaware how the court she sits on works,” explained the Federalist.
It explained Jackson apparently was referring to her outrage following the court’s recent Louisiana ruling that found Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is designed to enforce the Constitution’s ban on intentional racial discrimination, but cannot be used to “force states to engage in race-based discrimination by creating majority-minority districts.”
It was an 8-1 decision.
Then the court allowed the decision to take effect right away, rather than waiting a routine month, as election processes were ongoing at the time.
Jackson blasted the rest of the court, claiming, “Not content to have decided the law, [the Supreme Court] now takes steps to influence its implementation. The Court unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power.”
Other justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch responded by pointing out that under Jackson’s demands, the Supreme Court would be ordering a state to hold elections under a districting plan that has been confirmed as unconstitutional.
Jackson’s rants were “baseless and insulting,” they wrote.
And they pointed out Jackson’s political agendas: “It’s hard to ignore that Jackson is treating standard functions of the court as possibly illegitimate whenever they happen to produce an outcome she dislikes.”
Here’s Jackson insisting that the court be “careful” of rulings involving politics, after several decisions have gone against her politics.
🚨 More proof Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson should NEVER be on the Supreme Court:
And I do believe she took the Kamala Harris “word salad” course while she was in law school.
A lifelong DEI affirmative-action hire who couldn’t define what a biological woman is during her… pic.twitter.com/kw4dRdDcRJ
— GRANDPA’s FREE ADVICE (@GOP_is_Gutless) May 20, 2026
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued another signature sole dissent to prevent states from applying the recent ruling barring racial gerrymandering. https://t.co/YLtOw2S0hU These dissents would preserve unconstitutional districts for the midterm elections…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 18, 2026
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Monday amplified her concern about a rare extra step the court took after its blockbuster decision limiting the Voting Rights Act, saying she fears the appearance of partisanship.
“My view was it would be a more neutral way to… pic.twitter.com/pbnAAz2eG9
— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) May 19, 2026
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson amplified her concern about the appearance of partisanship in the court’s recent Voting Rights Act decision. https://t.co/IF44JiTcvg
— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) May 19, 2026
Jackson has been so extreme even the two other liberals on the bench, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, often have abandoned her. Jackson has charged other justices with being “overly sympathetic to corporate interests” and has alleged she wants the nation to see the court as “neutral.”
However, she’s also been considered to be a key advocate for Democrat-driven plans to “pack” the court, simply adding four more justices – all leftist and liberal – who then could overrule the six-justice conservative majority now and give leftists what they want.
She repeatedly has claimed that her Democrat political positions actually are what the Constitution states.
She’s been accused by others on the court of going completely political by demanding a sequence of events that would deliver an advantage to the Democrat party.
Alito said Jackson, in her writings about the Louisiana case, was working on behalf of those who would “find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map.”
Analysts have said Jackson is known for writings that are “often poorly argued and lack coherent legal reasoning,” and that she regularly unleashes opinions that are an “unhinged solo screed.”
