This essay is intended to be more than just a topic of intellectual interest. It is intended to be a warning of nothing less than the left’s corruption of American democracy and the rule of law.Almost weekly a rogue leftist judge issues an injunction against the Trump Administration exercising it lawful executive branch rights to govern. But, this essay is about Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson who was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022. [1]
Her scholarship seems to be afflicted by the double influence of existentialism, aka narcissism, and Marxist/Rawlsian Social Justice, which lend themselves to poor judicial objectivity, and which manifests itself in leftist political ideology, mental laziness, and pious rehashing of bankrupt conceptual thinking. I would then proffer that a lawful society cannot allow judges to read the law with a political temperament and survive. That is exactly, by her own words, what Justice Jackson brags about doing on the court.
In a US Supreme Court decision [2] (July 8, 2025), Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter in a Court opinion (8 - 1) that allows the Trump Administration and any future administration to go forward with reductions in force (RIF) in all federal agencies in accordance with applicable law. This decision overturned a San Francisco Clinton appointed judge's injunction in February 2025, and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold the lower court’s injunction (2 - 1).
JUSTICE JACKSON, in a lengthy rebuttal to the Court’s 8 - 1 decision, hence dissenting from the grant of application for stay, was an embarrassment to jurisprudence. In this case, even Justice Jackson's liberal colleague, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, corrected her to note that “Here, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force consistent with applicable law, and the plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law.” [3]
Additionally, last month (June 2025) the US Supreme Court ruled 6 - 3 that federal district court judges do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. [4]
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her majority opinion, took an unusual stance, and chastised Justice Jackson’s dissent as follows: “We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON's argument, which is 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.” [5] Justice Barrett’s cogent and insightful opinion goes further, but should be read in its entirety elsewhere.
Moreover, in a recent interview (July 9, 2025) with ABC News, Justice Jackson had this to say about being a Justice on the United States Supreme Court: “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.” Really?
Accordingly, it is argued here that Justice Jackson lacks rudimentary jurisprudence and should be removed from the Court. Yet, can a sitting judge on the United States Supreme Court be “fired.” The short answer is yes, BUT. And the “but” is a big one.
A clear analysis of this issue can be found on legalclarity.org. [ 6]
Essentially, Supreme Court justices cannot be fired in the conventional sense. The standard for removing a Supreme Court justice is found in the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 1 states that federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” While not explicitly defined, “good Behaviour” is understood to mean justices can only be removed for cause. This clause is the basis for the impeachment process.
The grounds for impeachment are not limited to indictable criminal offenses but can include abuse of power, serious breaches of public trust, or conduct that brings the judiciary into disrepute.
The removal of a justice is a two-stage process handled by Congress. The process begins in the House of Representatives, where a member introduces articles of impeachment, which are formal written accusations. The House Judiciary Committee investigates these articles, gathers evidence, and may hold hearings. For the justice to be impeached, the full House must approve the articles by a simple majority vote.
After the House impeaches a justice, the Senate conducts a trial. In this proceeding, the Senate acts as the jury, while designated House members serve as prosecutors. The impeached justice has the right to a defense, including presenting evidence and being represented by counsel. The Chief Justice of the United States presides over the trial of a Supreme Court Justice.
A conviction requires a super majority vote of two-thirds of the senators present. If the Senate reaches this threshold on any article, the justice is removed from office. The Senate’s judgment is limited to removal and disqualification from holding any future federal office. The individual may also be subject to separate criminal prosecution in the court system.
Justices more commonly leave the Supreme Court through voluntary retirement. A justice may also resign from their position, which is a formal step down without the benefits of retirement. Finally, a justice’s tenure ends upon their death.
Well, what’s it going to be Justice Jackson? It’s a retorical question. Leftist elitists never ever give up their government largesse, especially if it’s the right thing to do.
________________________________________
1. Jackson was generally viewed as a progressive. She has a DEI Ivy League education(Harvard). She had very little record for Republicans to attack during her Senate Confirmation Hearing. She had only been an appellate judge for about eight months and had only written two appellate opinions, both for unanimous courts. While she had written many trial court opinions, those were generally on dry, procedural issues. There was no record to indicate her views on abortion rights, affirmative action, voting rights, free speech or any other controversial constitutional issues that are often at the center of confirmation battles.
2. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: No. 24A1174; DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITEDSTATES, ET AL. v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, ET AL., ON APPLICATION FOR STAY[July 8, 2025].
3. Ibid.
4. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED States, TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. CASA, INC., Et AL. No. 24A884. Argued May 15, 2025—Decided June 27, 2025*
5.Ibid.
6. https://legalclarity.org/can-supreme-court-justices-be-fired
No comments:
Post a Comment