Justice Jackson’s Grammy for Partisan Hackery
“There are serious questions regarding [her] participation in such a brazenly political, anti-law enforcement event and her ability to remain an impartial member of the Supreme Court.”
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a left-wing hack who seems to view her job as one of a Marxist subversive. She’s not terribly bright, at least based on some of her interactions with attorneys arguing cases, and her opinions are legendary for their descent into mindless rumination. Yet even in dissent, she is laying the groundwork for every Marxist idea that is increasingly prevalent on the Left.
But that’s not why KBJ stirred controversy this week.
She attended the Grammy Awards Sunday night, for the entirely legitimate reason of a nomination for best audiobook for narrating her memoir, Lovely One. Yet given that the ceremony predictably devolved into a vulgar left-wing protest of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies generally and ICE in particular, Jackson is under fire for participating and allegedly even applauding — though it’s not clear she ever clapped specifically for an anti-ICE rant.
Jackson also didn’t say “F*** ICE” or wear an “ICE Out” pin. Neither was she the rube who declared, “No one is illegal on stolen land.” That moronic pronouncement came from a singer by the name of Billie Eilish.
Still, when justices attend the president’s State of the Union, they sit on their hands, avoiding even the appearance of political behavior by not applauding the president’s agenda. By contrast, KBJ seemed to thoroughly enjoy herself with the left-wing protesters filling the Grammys.
On Thursday, Tennessee Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn wrote in a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts, “While it is by no means unheard of or unusual for a Supreme Court justice to attend a public function, very rarely — if ever — have justices of our nation’s highest Court been present at an event at which attendees have amplified such far-left rhetoric.”
It’s notable that the senator and the justice have a history. Blackburn sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and asked Jackson that famous question during her confirmation hearings: “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?”
KBJ replied, “I’m not a biologist.” Leftists, of course, insist that biology has nothing to do with the definition of “woman,” which means that KBJ was so intellectually deficient that she didn’t even get the ideology right.
As for the Grammys episode, I seriously doubt the Court will reprimand Justice Jackson. Blackburn also knows this isn’t going anywhere, but she’s giving Democrats a taste of their own medicine.
The Supreme Court adopted its own first-ever Code of Conduct in 2023 in response to Democrat grandstanding about “ethics.” They attacked Justice Clarence Thomas (what else is new?) because his wife, Ginni, expressed concerns about the 2020 election and attended the peaceful portion of the January 6 rally. They besmirched Justice Samuel Alito because his wife flew a Revolutionary War-era “Appeal to Heaven” flag at their beach house.
If these justices must supposedly recuse themselves from cases because of their wives’ political views, Blackburn reasons, surely Jackson must recuse herself from any cases involving immigration because she effectively participated in an anti-ICE protest.
“Congressional Democrats and the legacy media have spent years smearing Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices as corrupt, partisan, and having engaged in conduct that violates the Court’s Code of Conduct,” Blackburn noted. “These public smear campaigns orchestrated by congressional Democrats and amplified by the mainstream media were baseless and a pathetic attempt to influence the decision-making process of the Court.”
She continued, “Unlike [the] meritless claims against Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, there are serious questions regarding Justice Jackson’s participation in such a brazenly political, anti-law enforcement event and her ability to remain an impartial member of the Supreme Court.”
What goes around comes around, though Democrats never want to play by their own rules.
Blackburn’s effort likely won’t get anywhere, but clearly Jackson should be more circumspect about the company she keeps. As columnist Ian Haworth argues, “There are two options here and neither are good. Either Jackson didn’t understand the message her attendance would send — implying stunning ineptitude and wildly poor judgment — or Jackson understood the implications fully … and went along anyway, elated grin ready to shine.”
Ultimately, the problem isn’t Jackson showing up at the Grammys. It’s that she’s bad at her job — the epitome of a DEI hire chosen for skin color rather than merit. Worse, she’s a key player in undermining the Rule of Law.
