Ketanji Brown Jackson is fast becoming the Supreme Court Jester. Unfortunately, she can't be dismissed, banished, or imprisoned for not being funny, like court jesters of old. Instead, she has a lifetime appointment, despite the fact that she doesn't make us giggle, but grimace. Her lifetime appointment as Supreme Court Jester was given to her for three reasons, her gender, the color of her skin pigmentation, and her flagrant history of judicial political activism. The latter showed up in spades during her Senate confirmation hearing. For instance, she refused to define the word "woman," claiming she couldn't, since she wasn't a biologist. Other signs of her utter unfitness to serve on the highest court in our land were also made apparent during her confirmation hearing. For instance, it was repeatedly pointed out that she had imposed light sentences on convicted child pornographers, sentencing them to far shorter prison terms that statutory guidelines called for or prosecutors recommended. In one case, for example, she not only sentenced a convicted child pornographer to only 3 months in jail, when 10 years was the unanimous guideline proposed by Congress for such an egregious crime, but she also apologized to the convicted child pornographer, saying that she was sorry that her sentencing of him would cause him to be shunned by society.

We are not talking about an Oliver Wendall Holmes, a brilliant legal mind, when we talk about Ketanji Brown Jackson. Instead, we are talking about an ambulance chaser of progressive causes, who is willing to fight for them and forward them, even if it means disregarding legal precedent, the laws of our land, and the United States Constitution. This was made abundantly clear in “Jester” Jackson's recent absurd dissent to the Supreme Court's reining in of universal injunctions. According to Jackson, the court’s refusal to let distinct court judges rule over our country like emperors, by overruling the executive and legislative branches of our government, as well as the voices, votes, and will of the American people, spells doom to our democratic form of government. Of course, such an argument is crackbrained and contradictory on its face, since there can be no democratic form of government under the iron-fisted rule of an imperial judiciary.

In her smackdown response to Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dumb as a doorknob dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett put a judicial dunce cap on Jackson’s head; in fact, you might even say a judicial tinfoil hat. Backhanding Jackson’s balderdash, Justice Barrett deemed it unworthy of serious consideration, since it was “at odds with more than two centuries worth of [judicial] precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.” There you have it; according to Justice Barrett, “Jester” Jackson is not just out of her mind, but totally out of control, something proven by the fact that she sits on the highest court in our land with a total disregard of our laws and our Constitution. Indeed, this was clearly demonstrated in her dimwitted dissent, in which she called upon the court to disregard all of the “boring legalese.” In other words, she called upon her fellow justices to forget about what the law said and to do what she said.  

In spite of being poked fun at by a majority of her Supreme Court colleagues, not just Amy Coney Barrett, over her absurd and amateurish dissent in the Court's reining in of universal injunctions, Ketanji Brown Jackson has doubled down on dumb, dug in her heels, and again demanded that her politically partisan opinion take precedence over the laws of our land and the United States Constitution. This time, however, her absurdity has even drawn the fire of Sonia Sotomayor, who, despite being a radical political activist judge herself, finds Jackson's balderdash to be a bridge too far. 

With the lone dissent of brainless “Jester” Jackson, the Court recently handed down an unanimous no-brainer decision; namely, that no single district court judge can determine the size of the federal workforce. However, in her imbecilic and bombastic dissent to this otherwise unanimous and no-brainer decision, “Jester” Jackson accused her fellow justices of being “hubristic and senseless,” for not only daring to disagree with her, but also for not allowing a lone district court judge to prevent, as she put it, Donald Trump from taking “a wrecking ball” to our federal government. Such hyperbolic hyperventilation was even too much for Sonia Sotomayor to stomach. Consequently, she took Jackson to task, as Amy Coney Barrett had previously, lest Jackson’s lunatic ravings end up undermining the credibility of the Court, by leading all Americans to conclude that the highest court in our land has been hijacked by a court jester, who is anything but joking when she demands that her personal opinions are dictates that cannot be disagreed with, must be universally and unquestionably obeyed, and deemed to be the new law of our land.

Make no mistake about it; the danger of judicial despotism is one of the greatest present-day perils to our representative republic. It is breaking out all over our country in one courtroom after another, such as in a Massachusetts courtroom, where a single district court judge, Indira Talwani, recently took it upon herself to overrule both the executive and legislative branches of our government, by stopping the defunding of Planned Parenthood in Congress’ passed and our president’s signed “Big Beautiful Bill.” Still, there is no judicial despot more dangerous to our representative republic than one perched on the bench of the highest court in our land. In my opinion, “Jester” Jackson is not the least bit funny or entertaining, but may be the most dangerous judicial despot our country has ever seen. For this reason, I believe she needs to be immediately impeached, not only to prevent her from trying to force her political ideology down all of our throats with her Supreme Court gavel, but also to make sure that her tribe of court jesters never increases, lest the majority of our Supreme Court should one day go on the warpath against our laws and Constitution.