Impeach Ketanji Brown-Jackson

Ketanji Brown-Jackson, no matter what you think, is not an idiot by most accounts. 

She is something much, much worse: an ideologue who rejects the fundamental legal principles that underpin the Constitution. What most people interpret as stupidity is in fact a commitment not just to progressive outcomes, many of which could be accomplished through winning successive elections, but to the Wilsonian progressive vision of a technocratic rather than democratic, rules-based Constitutional order. 

Ironically, she even shares Wilson’s racist views, although she inverts them. Wilson was convinced that the white race was inherently superior to others, and society should be organized to ensure the dominance of whites over the other, inferior races. Jackson holds the opposite view, that white people are morally inferior and the rules of society should be employed to put them in their place. 

Jackson is famously fond of expounding on her theories of government, which even her most liberal colleagues appear to find tiresome and offensive. Despite being the most junior justice, she speaks more than any other Justice—1 1/2 times as much as the next most talkative Justice, and what she says sounds kooky to anybody familiar with the Federalist Papers and the plain meaning of the Constitution. 

The latest case in which she espoused the progressive notion that technocrats, not elected officials, should run the United States came yesterday in oral arguments about the legality of Trump’s firing of an FTC Commissioner. Trump’s argument is simple enough: as the Chief Executive, he was elected to run the Executive Branch. And you can’t run the Executive Branch if you cannot determine Executive Branch policy. 

Jackson’s argument against this contention is simple: if you allow democratically elected officials to make decisions, they may get it wrong. Or at least wrong if you are a progressive. Best to hand executive power over to “experts” who know better than the populace that elects the president. 

Justice Brown-Jackson is ridiculous, and I remain convinced that the other justices want her gone. https://t.co/godcT7WGZ5

— Tony Katz (@tonykatz) December 8, 2025

This theory is widely accepted by liberals, who strongly believe that democratically elected officials are incapable of running a modern polity. This was Woodrow Wilson’s contention in a nutshell, and is the fundamental governing principle of the European Union, where policies are made not by the European Parliament and certainly not by national governments democratically elected. 

There is a European Parliament, but the European Commission makes policy. Ursula von der Leyen never faced voters; she was “elected” as European Union “president” of the European Commission in a secret ballot of the MEPs, who do not vote on individual members but rather as a slate put forth by the dominant faction of the European Parliament. 

The Commission, in turn, basically runs the EU, and the Parliament is, to be honest, something of a joke. The commission, in turn, can browbeat national governments into following its policies. Hungary, for instance, pays a fine of a million dollars a day because it will not accept asylum seekers. 

Jackson’s Constitutional theory, if you can call it that, is guided by a vision of the United States run in much the same way, with the bureaucracy as the primary branch of government, and the elected President of the United States as their functionary. The voters should have no say. 

There is much to be offended by about Jackson’s jurisprudence, including her commitment to race-based policies founded in Critical Theory, of course. But it is essential to recognize that the common thread in her decisions is a fundamental contempt for the voters and their will. 

Everybody has the right to believe that the voters got it wrong. In fact, in an era where elections are generally close on a national level, after any election, half the voters are convinced that the other half were nuts to vote for the other guy. 

Jackson’s solution to this problem is to ignore the results of the election and get straight to implementing the “right” policies. So not only are her policy preferences horrible, but her theory of how the state should work is anti-Constitutional. She believes that judges and bureaucrats should replace elected leaders and often barely mentions the Constitution’s plain meaning, or rejects it altogether. 

In many ways, this is more dangerous than if she were merely stupid, as another liberal justice often appears to be. She has a coherent theory of government; it’s just based on a rejection of our Republican form of government. 

• Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at Hot Air, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve. Sometimes, however, we just point and laugh, and let the radical Left embarrass itself. This is one of those times.

  Help us continue to point, laugh, and expose the idiocy of progressive elites. Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership!