The conservative community has long held the belief that Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the least intellectually equipped member of the Supreme Court.
This perception has been fueled by numerous instances, including her infamous comparison of "gender-affirming care" for children to the act of taking an aspirin. However, the recent appointment of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson by former President Joe Biden has led to a shift in this perspective.
According to RedState, during her confirmation hearing, Jackson made the startling claim that she was unable to define what a woman is, stating that she was "not a biologist." This statement marked the beginning of a series of missteps that have raised eyebrows within the legal community. In a recent case concerning parents' rights to opt out of LGBT lessons in school, Jackson was accused of misrepresenting the basic facts.
In a dissent issued at the end of June, Jackson made a controversial statement regarding the role of district court judges in issuing nationwide injunctions. She referred to the assessment of the law as a "mind-numbing technical query," a comment that seemed to undermine the fundamental purpose of the Supreme Court. This led to an unprecedented response from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who criticized Jackson for her approach, which she claimed was not grounded in any established doctrine.
However, Jackson's most surprising moment came on Tuesday when she was publicly criticized by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a figure often associated with the far-left. Sotomayor took issue with Jackson's dissent, which addressed a question that was not currently before the court.
In her concurring opinion, Sotomayor agreed with Jackson's assertion that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates. However, she pointed out that the plans for such reorganizations were not currently before the court, and thus, there was no need to consider their legality at this stage.
There are two possible interpretations of Jackson's actions. One is that she lacks the legal acumen necessary to understand the basic responsibilities of her role as a Supreme Court justice. This theory is supported by her track record and the fact that her appointment was largely due to Biden's pledge to nominate a black woman for the position.
The alternative explanation is that Jackson's actions are driven by extreme partisanship, to the extent that she would risk undermining the judiciary to advance her left-wing ideology. Either scenario is concerning, given that she holds a lifetime appointment.
Jackson's actions have led to a level of alienation among her colleagues that is unprecedented in recent memory. Her apparent inability or unwillingness to grasp the basic facts of the cases before her has even drawn criticism from other left-leaning justices. This development is significant and suggests that Jackson's approach to her role on the Supreme Court may be causing more harm than good.
Login