The irony cannot be emphasized enough about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Joe Biden with great aplomb, and yet she appears to lack elementary understanding about the very symmetry of sex. In her confirmation hearings, she slipped into an embarrassing tangle when she confessed her inability to define the term ‘woman’. To justify herself she amusingly remarked, ‘I’m not a biologist’, hinting at an unnecessary annoyance measurably provoked by a logical question.
A consternation to many, this moment was nothing but a precursor to a series of unimpressive decisions. One such instance came into play during the oral argument of United States v. Skrmetti. This central question was whether the Tennessee law prohibiting minors from accessing puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex-reassignment surgeries was constitutionally sound. Its advocates argued that it was influenced less by sex and more by medical considerations.
However, Justice Jackson shattered this contention during her unsettling interaction with Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice. As he was articulating how an unsubstantial desire to avert the ‘development of breasts’, in both boys or girls, doesn’t hold a valid medical justification, Jackson intruded to deliver her opinion that it was the ‘same medical purpose’. Her audacious contention and overt impatience painted an unattractive impression.
Caught off guard, Rice explained to Jackson that Tennessee legislation doesn’t sanction doctors to prescribe drugs whimsically and without a sound medical basis. Regrettably, Jackson persisted with her deranged imagination where fancy and caprice are recast as a ‘medical purpose’. Her deviant perspective was baffling for even a prepared advocate like Rice—it was definitely not a credit to her capricious thought process.
In an ineffective attempt to make headway, she glossed over Tennessee’s legislation by loosely comparing it to the interracial marriage ban in Old Dominion, conveniently disregarding its dismissal by the Supreme Court in 1967’s Loving v. Virginia. It is evident that her arguments lack substance and amount to nothing more than political grandstanding.
When Rice calmly presented the argument that administering testosterone to ‘a boy with a deficiency’ did not compare to granting it to ‘a girl who has psychological distress associated with her body’, she quested for his rationale. It was a question even an individual with the most rudimentary logical skills would find ludicrous.
Her line of questioning served no purpose other than a distraction from the main issues, simultaneously showing her propensity to belittle the parties making cogent attempts to safeguard the American children. It seems like she is more inclined towards creating a spectacle than delivering justice.
The previous year, when the court struck down racially centered affirmative action in tertiary education admissions, Jackson notably omitted the predominant bias against Asian American aspirants. Regardless of the pervasive discrimination, she quite recklessly accused her peers of ‘let-them-eat-cake obliviousness’.
In her time, Jackson has repeatedly shown a lack of respect for citizen’s basic rights and an inclination towards endorsing government overreach. An absurdity she seems to hold sacred. She struggles, and usually fails, to put aside her partisan loyalties — and keep her composure — even during oral arguments.
Her appointment appears to be one of Biden’s regrettable blunders. Jackson is manifestly ill-suited to her position and is set to leave no significant legacy. Precisely, her lack of composure and competency makes her unpersuasive and unlikely to make any notable difference in the Supreme Court.
Jackson struggles with reasoning, displaying poor judicial skills that often give conservative legal observers a reason to cheer her rise to the Supreme Court. Their joy does not spring from her potential to bring about change, but for the neglect they predict she will bring to the progressive cause.
To the dismay of many progressives, they aren’t only condemned to be the less influential faction in the Supreme Court, but suffer the intolerable fate of having an ineffective member as part of their coalition. Given the evidence that Jackson has presented so far, their future in the court does indeed look bleak.
Biden’s promise to appoint a woman to the highest court fell drastically short given Jackson’s performance up till now. It was a poor selection that, rather than adding value, only contributed to unfavorability and incompetence. It also gives the impression that Biden’s choices are driven more by political maneuvering than an individual’s aptitude.
Jackson’s bumbled and confused approach to dealing with cases, evident from her conduct in United States v. Skrmetti, truly raises questions about her ability and suitability for the Supreme Court. Her incomprehensible reasoning and the lack of fundamental clarity are a clear indication of her poorly suited skills for the position she holds.