Ketanji Brown Jackson mocked after discussing need for justices to appear neutral — while on OBAMA’s podcast

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:

• insinuated in her lone dissenting opinion in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees that President Donald Trump was some sort of power-hungry menace and that those on the bench who failed to stop his “wrecking ball” were sycophantic enablers whose decision was both “hubristic and senseless”;
• claimed in her dissenting opinion for Trump v. CASA Inc. that the Trump administration’s request to address universal injunctions — which the high court found “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts” — amounted to a request “to engage in unlawful behavior”;
• accused her colleagues in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard of “let-them-eat-cake obliviousness” for their colorblind approach and claimed that race-based college admissions address “the well-documented ‘intergenerational transmission of inequality’ that still plagues our citizenry” to the “benefit of us all”; and
• echoed LGBT ideologues in her lone dissenting opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, claiming that “a robust professional consensus now acknowledges that sexual orientations and gender identities range widely” and that reality-affirming therapy for trans-identifying kids was ineffective and harmful.