This week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson discussed with Michelle Obama, of all people, the importance of justices appearing impartial — and so far, the reactions to their conversation have been just about what you'd expect.
She told the hosts on the Wednesday episode of "IMO with Michelle Obama & Craig Robinson" that "we all have to believe that there is a judicial system that is going to be fair, that is going to be neutral, that when you bring your dispute to the court, that judge doesn't have any pre-existing stake in the particular issue."
'Can't make this up.'
It's a surprising take, considering Jackson's background.
For one thing, former President Joe Biden explicitly chose Jackson for the Supreme Court on the basis of her race and sex, though she said during her confirmation hearing that she could not define "woman" because she's "not a biologist."
Jackson has also made a habit of penning bias-saturated jeremiads that have in some cases been extreme enough to raise the eyebrows of even other liberals on the bench. For instance, she:
Despite these opinions, Jackson and Obama seem to believe that Jackson has been a relatively neutral jurist.
RELATED: Platner's replacement in Maine is a family man — just not in the way voters might expect
Obama pressed Jackson about whether she has to closely monitor her exposure to news, media, and other content "so that there isn't a bias."
After noting that certain individuals employed at the court screen her invitations for various appearances and events "to make sure that there are no ethical conflicts," Jackson replied that "there are lots of limits on what judges can do, and I try to be very, very mindful and scrupulous with respect to that because, as you say, our obligation is to be unbiased in our approach."
"And, so, you have to then navigate all the sources that could make for an appearance of partiality, which you want to avoid," the Biden nominee continued. "So there are lots of things that I end up not accepting for that reason. News sources, I think, you know, I don't have a lot of time — unfortunately, you know — but I do, you know, the normal, general media sources are made available, and I think it's harder when you're talking about — there's so much social media now."
Jackson's expression of concern about bias and perceptions of bias while in the company of a rank partisan like Michelle Obama struck some critics as insincere or at the very least tone-deaf.
House Republican Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) highlighted the cognitive dissonance, writing, "Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says SCOTUS must avoid even the appearance of political bias ... while appearing on Michelle Obama's podcast."
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) wrote, "Ketanji Brown Jackson finds a way to inject political bias into just about everything she does. Whether it's attending the Grammys, joining Michelle Obama's podcast, or refusing to define the word woman, she couldn't care less about remaining impartial."
"DEI hire justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says she's careful about which public engagements she accepts because she has to be impartial ... As she appears on MICHELLE OBAMA's podcast," Libs of TikTok tweeted. "Can't make this up."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled four years ago in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen that the Second and 14th Amendments protect Americans' right to carry handguns outside of their homes for self-defense.
Hawaii Democrats came up with an apparent workaround to curb gun rights in their state, passing a law in 2023 that banned the carrying of guns onto private property without verbal or written consent of the property owner. Those who ran afoul of this law faced up to a year in prison.
'Hawaii's law does not restrict the right to carry a gun at all,' Jackson wrote.
This didn't sit well with a trio of Maui County residents with concealed-carry permits who, with the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, sued on the basis of the understanding articulated again by Solicitor General D. John Sauer last year: "Because most property owners do not post signs either allowing or forbidding guns, Hawaii’s default rule functions as a near-complete ban on public carry."
To the great chagrin of liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court determined in a 6-3 ruling on Thursday that Hawaii's so-called "vampire law" is unconstitutional.
The court, which reversed a 2024 decision from the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Appeals Court, noted that law-abiding permit-holders "not only must ... take care to avoid all the territory where the possession of a gun is prohibited outright, but they may also be barred from entering many places that people routinely visit in the course of their daily routines, such as gas stations, restaurants, and stores."
While recognizing the right of establishments that are open to the public "to admit or exclude persons who are carrying guns for self-defense under either the common-law rule or Hawaii’s law," the court noted that the so-called vampire law "flips the default rule at common law, under which anyone has an implied license to enter property held open to the public unless the property owner withdraws consent."
Justice Samuel Alito noted in the opinion that the "regime" established in Hawaii "hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives."
RELATED: ‘Shall not be infringed’ — even if you're high, Supreme Court rules
Jackson was once again of a different mind than her conservative colleagues on the meaning of the "right to bear arms."
At the outset of her dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Jackson framed — in Orwellian fashion — Hawaii's infringement on Americans' constitutional rights as an effort to "protect the rights of its residents — both those who wish to carry guns and those who prefer that guns are not carried on their private property without their express permission."
Jackson —who repeatedly stressed that she still disagrees with the decision in Bruen, calling it a "grave mistake" — claimed that "the court's objective is protecting guns, not consistently preserving any principle of law."
According to Jackson, the vampire law that effectively requires law-abiding citizens to everywhere obtain consent before exercising their Second Amendment right not only "does not implicate the Second Amendment" — "Hawaii's law does not restrict the right to carry a gun at all."
The liberal justice apparently assigns state law and custom greater weight than federal law on the matter of guns, stressing that "recognizing state autonomy in this respect is especially appropriate here, since Hawaii has never had a custom of armed carry."
Jackson concluded her 32-page dissent with yet another attack on her colleagues, writing, "While purporting to constrain judges, the majority has unmasked the discretionary choices that lie beneath the court’s decisions regarding which analogues are 'vastly different' ... and whose historical experiences are worthy of inclusion."
Justice Elena Kagan wrote a separate dissenting opinion.
This ruling will reportedly impact a handful of blue states, including New York, Maryland, and California, which took a similar approach to Hawaii.
John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, said of the outcome, "Law-abiding gun owners will no longer be forced to beg for special permission simply to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms in public places."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
If there’s one thing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson loves to do more than anything during Supreme Court oral arguments, it’s talk — and talk, and talk, and talk some more. On Thursday, The New York Times reported on a new study that found Jackson is “by far the most talkative justice” on the court over […]
The real story this data tells is Jackson's radicalism.
Justice Jackson lied to the public in her ruling, something no member of any court can ever do.
Our 'theater-kid occupied government' routinely attains to new heights of absurdity, as shown in Ketanji Brown Jackson's antiracist screed.
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
What Amy Coney Barrett Told Congress Left Them Silent