Skip to content
Breaking News Alert A Majority Of Likely Voters Believe The 2024 Election Will Be Tainted By Cheating, Survey Finds

Of Course Ketanji Brown Jackson Supports Affirmative Action. It’s The Only Reason She’s A Supreme Court Justice

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and President Joe Biden
Image CreditWhite House/Flickr

There’s no denying that the Biden administration handed Jackson a position on the highest court in the land based on her sex and race.


Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is not pleased with her judicial colleagues’ ruling that Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action admissions programs are unconstitutional.

“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” Jackson insisted in her dissent in the UNC ruling. “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.”

Jackson’s assertion that the Students for Fair Admissions decision is “truly a tragedy for us all” is not the least bit surprising considering that her ascent to the bench reeked of race-based choosing.

No matter how hard the left tries to paint Jackson’s rise as “monumental,” there’s no denying that the Biden administration handed Jackson a position in the highest court in the land based on her sex and race.

Even before he became president, Biden made it clear that nominating a black woman to Supreme Court was a top priority. When the time came to fill a spot on the bench, Biden did not offer a list of potential SCOTUS picks.

Instead, he reaffirmed his commitment to nominating someone based on her chromosomes and skin color.

[READ: Biden’s Pledge To Nominate A Black Woman For SCOTUS Is Racist And Sexist]

Jackson had a myriad of judicial shortcomings and a strong partisan background that should have disqualified her from a SCOTUS shortlist. Since she was only one of a handful of judges who fit the bill and the Biden administration had no problems with adding an activist to the bench, Jackson received the nomination.

During Jackson’s confirmation hearings, Democrats and corporate media pretended that Biden’s sexist and racist pledge was rooted not in identity politics, but in the search for merit and skill.

“It is about time that we have a highly qualified, highly accomplished black woman serving on the Supreme Court,” Sen. Mazie Hirono proclaimed at Jackson’s opening remarks.

It was in those same hearings that Jackson admitted she couldn’t define what a woman is because she’s “not a biologist.”

With the help of Republicans, who received praise from the president for flip-flopping on Jackson’s confirmation, Jackson was eventually installed on the court. Suddenly, the same Senate Democrats who shunned Republicans for calling out Biden’s race-baiting celebrated Jackson’s ascent as “historic” and ceiling-shattering because she was a black woman.

As the court’s majority demonstrated on Thursday, the affirmative action Jackson benefits from is destructive because, as Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “any sorting mechanism that takes race into account in any way … has discriminated based on race to the benefit of some races and the detriment of others.”

Jackson’s attempt to paint the “majority’s judgment” as something that “stunts that progress without any basis in law, history, logic, or justice” earned her several scoldings in footnotes penned by Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Both noted the shortcomings not just of Jackson’s dissent but also of her “race-infused world view” more than a dozen times.

Roberts pointed out that Jackson tried to “minimize the role that race plays in UNC’s admissions” even though she later “acknowledges that race—and race alone—explains the admissions decisions for hundreds if not thousands of applicants to UNC each year.”

Roberts also warned that Jackson’s assertion that the court “must ‘get out of the way,’ ‘leav[e] well enough alone,’ and defer to universities and ‘experts’ in determining who should be discriminated against” essentially “advocates abandoning the demands of strict scrutiny.”

“An opinion professing fidelity to history (to say nothing of the law) should surely see the folly in that approach,” Roberts retorted.

Thomas, similarly, said Jackson’s belief that “almost all of life’s outcomes may be unhesitatingly ascribed to race” actually “falls flat at each step.”

“As she sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of black Americans still determining our lives today,” Thomas wrote. “The panacea, she counsels, is to unquestioningly accede to the view of elite experts and reallocate society’s riches by racial means as necessary to ‘level the playing field,’ all as judged by racial metrics.”

Thomas “strongly disagree[s]” with that assertion.

“Then as now, not all disparities are based on race; not all people are racist; and not all differences between individuals are ascribable to race,” Thomas wrote.

Yet, that’s the exact ideology Jackson espouses in her dissent — and the exact ideology Democrats used to elevate her to the bench.

Access Commentsx