Staff Reports
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s recent remarks at a judicial conference have ignited a fresh wave of debate about the Supreme Court’s impartiality and the politicization of the bench. Without naming him, Jackson sharply criticized former President Trump and his supporters, claiming that their critiques of judges are “not random” but “designed to intimidate” and undermine judicial independence. Her speech, which received a standing ovation from the legal establishment, was lauded by the media as a courageous defense of democracy-yet the timing and selectivity of her outrage raise serious questions.
For years, Justice Jackson remained conspicuously silent as conservative justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito faced relentless attacks, threats, and even protests outside their homes. When left-wing activists called for court packing or smeared conservative jurists, Jackson offered no such “raw courage” in defense of judicial independence. But now, as Trump pushes back against what many see as activist judges obstructing the will of the people, Jackson suddenly finds her voice and issues dire warnings about threats to democracy.
This selective concern is emblematic of the double standard that has plagued our highest court. When Democrats criticize or even threaten the legitimacy of the judiciary-whether through talk of court packing, ethics investigations, or public intimidation campaigns-there’s barely a peep from Jackson or her liberal colleagues. Yet, when Trump exercises his First Amendment right to question the motivations and rulings of unelected judges, it’s treated as an existential crisis for the republic.
The irony is rich: Trump, for all his criticism, has complied with court orders, while the left routinely seeks to delegitimize the court whenever it doesn’t bend to their agenda. Jackson’s grandstanding does little to reassure Americans that the Supreme Court is above politics. Instead, it reinforces the perception that certain justices are more concerned with scoring points against political opponents than with upholding the Constitution impartially.
If Justice Jackson truly cared about judicial independence, she would have spoken up long ago-when conservative justices were under siege, when mobs gathered outside their homes, and when her own party floated radical schemes to undermine the court’s authority. Until then, her sudden activism will be seen for what it is: political theater, not principled defense of the rule of law. The American people deserve a judiciary that stands above partisan bickering, not one that joins the fray when it suits their ideological interests.
