Worst Supreme Court Justice Inadvertently Calls To Change Constitution

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is glued to her soapbox. 

In Monday’s oral argument in the case of Trump v. Slaughter, Jackson delivered an impassioned rant defending America’s unelected expert class. The case, brought by Rebecca Slaughter, concerns a federal law that cripples the president’s ability to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). President Donald Trump appointed Slaughter, a Democrat, to the FTC in 2018. She was removed from the commission in March. 

“Some issues, some matters, some areas, should be handled in this way by non-partisan experts, that Congress is saying that expertise matters with respect to aspects of the economy, and transportation, and the various independent agencies that we have,” Jackson began. (RELATED: Trump Implores Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito To Remain On Supreme Court) 

Ketanji lost it today during oral arguments and went on a “No Kings” style rant about President Trump wanting to rule like a monarch, and how we should instead have many issues handled by “the experts and PhDs” like Dr. Fauci, Dr. “Rachel” Levine, and the gay bondage AIDS dude. pic.twitter.com/Z8qFZgZzsR

— Bad Hombre (@Badhombre) December 8, 2025

Her primary mistake is assuming the non-partisan, independent nature of these agencies. But fish can’t comprehend water. To Jackson, liberalism is self-evidently true, not a matter of politics. Jackson is essentially proposing amending the Constitution to add a fourth branch of government: The Bureaucratic. 

“So, having a president come in, and fire all the scientists, and the doctors, and the economists, and the PhDs, and replacing them with loyalists, and people who don’t know anything, is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.”

Experts are made so by their credentials, which are conferred by institutions. Nearly every American institution has been captured by the left. Those scientists Jackson reveres are required to craft “diversity statements” if they want a shot at getting promoted, published, or otherwise recognized. Institutionally-granted expertise is available to two types: lefties, and those good at faking it. 

Anyone remember the experts of the Biden administration? We had an Orgy Czar at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A genderfluid drag queen accused of stealing women’s clothing was in charge of nuclear waste disposal. Etc. 

That being said, Slaughter is not a PhD economist. She is not a doctor, nor is she a nuclear physicist. She has an undergraduate degree and a law degree from Yale University. She is former chief counsel to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York. Is her expertise really so gargantuan?

“These issues should not be in presidential control. So, can you speak to me about the danger of allowing, in these various areas, the president to actually control the transportation board, and potentially the Federal Reserve, and all these other independent agencies. In these particular areas we would like to have independence, we don’t want the president controlling,” Jackson continued. (RELATED: Trump Reveals Litmus Test For Next Fed Pick) 

“I guess what I don’t understand from your overarching argument is why that determination of Congress, which makes perfect sense, given its duty to protect the people of the United States, is subjugated to a concern about the president not being able to control everything,” Jackson said.

Jackson frequently, obnoxiously, asserts her beliefs in the guise of ignorance. See: The below compilation. 

🚨 INBOX: If there’s one thing we know about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson this term – it’s that she doesn’t understand.

INCREDIBLE VIDEO pic.twitter.com/DQQ3q1mA8Q

— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) June 25, 2025

“One would think, under our constitutional design, given the history of the monarchy, and the concerns that the framers had, about a president controlling everything, that in the clash between those two, Congress’ view, that we should we be able to have independence with respect to certain issues, should take precedence,” Jackson concluded. 

As Mark Hemingway of RealClear Investigations wrote in response, “The retort here is so blindingly obvious—if not the president, who are these ‘independent’ and ‘nonpartisan’ agencies accountable to?” 

It’s probably fine. I’m sure our nonpartisan experts would never dream of abusing their power.

Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatSandovalDC