When President Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, plenty of eyebrows went up — and for good reason. Many Americans questioned whether she was truly qualified for the role, but that clearly wasn’t Biden’s top priority. He made it plain from day one that he would choose a nominee based on race and gender, not judicial excellence.
In the end, Biden selected her because she was a black woman — a political checkbox he valued more than experience, judicial philosophy, or demonstrated competence. Diversity came first; merit came somewhere further down the list, if at all. Remember, she refused to define a woman during her confirmation hearings, and frankly, that should have disqualified her immediately.
Since her appointment, Brown Jackson has repeatedly shown that she’s out of her depth on the nation’s highest court. Her dissents often read less like legal reasoning and more like emotional, snark-laden blog posts. Even fellow Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor have publicly pushed back on her reasoning — and Brown Jackson herself has admitted she simply “doesn’t understand” many of the cases that come before the Court.
And now? She’s melting down during oral arguments involving President Trump:
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
“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,” Brown Jackson said. “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 interests of the citizens of the United States.”
“These issues should not be in presidential control,” Brown Jackson continued, “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.”
And again, Brown-Jackson said she doesn’t understand what’s going on. “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, why that is subjugated to a concern about the president not being able to control everything,” Brown Jackson said.
“I mean, I appreciate there’s a conflict between the two, but 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’s view, that we should be able to have independence with respect to certain issues should take precedence.”
She is talking nonsense.
There must be a way for the public to affect “independent agencies” or we live in a BUREAUcracy, not a DEMOcracy!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 9, 2025
Jackson’s legal philosophy is incoherent, illogical, and based entirely on vibes and emotions.
— Bad Hombre (@Badhombre) December 9, 2025
Mark Hemingway, a senior writer at RealClearPolitics, hit the nail on the head with his response to Brown-Jackson’s incoherent jibberish:
The retort here is so blindingly obvious—if not the president, who are these “independent”and “nonpartisan” agencies accountable to?
Surely there has to be an accountability mechanism… I thought we cared about democracy. It’s just insultingly stupid.
This would be funny if not so terrifying. ?
Ketanji isn’t even pretending to make a Constitutional argument. She basically declares that self-perpetuating government is superior to what we currently have, stated as a self-evident truth.
She also perverts the check and balance… https://t.co/Rom15XxTAa
— IT Guy (@ITGuy1959) December 8, 2025
It’s hard to imagine the framers envisioned government entities or agencies that were completely “independent” from any oversight. It’s even more mind-boggling that we have a Supreme Court justice who seems to believe that the head of the Executive Branch – that would be the president – has zero say over Executive Branch employees and agencies and individuals who make policy decisions on his behalf with which he has no control.
That said, as USA Journal reported yesterday, it sounds as though the sane justices on the high court are leaning towards the founders’ vision of an Executive Branch completely under the control of the head of the Executive Branch: The president.
