Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Admits She’s Pushing Her Own Agenda—Not the Constitution

In a moment that laid bare the troubling philosophy guiding her time on the bench, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made it clear she views her role less as a constitutional interpreter and more as a platform for personal expression.

During a recent interview with ABC’s Linsey Davis, Jackson revealed a startling admission about how she approaches her work on the highest court in the land:

“I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do,” Jackson said.

That’s right — instead of grounding her judicial reasoning in the Constitution, Jackson believes her job is to share her feelings about major legal issues. For a justice sworn to uphold the Constitution, this is a glaring red flag.

One user on X captured the sentiment perfectly:

“Ketanji Brown Jackson seems to fundamentally misunderstand the role of a Supreme Court justice.”

Civil liberties attorney Laura Powell didn’t hold back either:

“Maybe she should have become an influencer instead of a Supreme Court justice,” she remarked.

Even liberal allies appear to be distancing themselves. Commentator Dinesh D’Souza noted:

“Even Kagan and Sotomayor are coming to terms with the fact that Ketanji Jackson has no interest in performing the role of a judge.”

That observation aligns with recent dissents and public comments made by fellow justices. In a June decision concerning federal judges’ authority to block actions by the Trump administration, Justice Amy Coney Barrett sharply criticized Jackson’s dissenting opinion:

Jackson’s legal position, Barrett wrote, was “at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.”
“We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” she continued.

Such harsh words from a colleague are rare and speak volumes.

Justice Jackson’s open disregard for constitutional constraints in favor of emotional activism is not just unorthodox — it’s dangerous. Americans rely on the Court to uphold the rule of law, not to channel the personal feelings of any one judge.

Whether Jackson’s actions are born from incompetence or ideology, one thing is clear: she is not fulfilling the duty entrusted to her by the American people.