Perhaps among the most annoying personality traits is that of the proverbial “know-it-all.” Fans of the television comedy hit “Cheers” (1982–1993)—which centered around a Boston bar, its employees and customers—would recall this persona. It was superbly depicted by patron Cliff Clavin (John Ratzenberger), who never hesitated to share his opinion with others, whether it was asked for or not.
While Clavin was obviously a fictionalized character, psychiatric analysis of his behavior might attribute it to concerns that failing to exhibit what he thinks he knows would leave listeners doubting his intellectual prowess.
This brings us to the Supreme Court of the United States and its newest member, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, 54, who just concluded her third term. While she has written fewer majority opinions than any other member of the Court, Jackson has demonstrated her Clavin-like persona, evidenced by her logging an “unusually large number of concurring and dissenting opinions, more than 20 in all.”
Ironically, Jackson’s progressive mindset was made clear during her nomination hearing. When asked to define what a “woman” is, the SCOTUS nominee avoided doing so, obviously in an effort to appeal to her liberal base. Yet in her dissenting opinions, she has accused the Court’s conservative majority of exercising “lawless bias” for opinions unaligned with her own, suggesting the group is simply pushing President Donald Trump’s agenda.
At an appearance in New Orleans to promote her book, Jackson, appointed by President Joe Biden, explained her Clavinesque tendency saying, “I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do.”
Her outspokenness was exhibited once again in her dissent written after a SCOTUS 6-3 Trump v. CASA, Inc. ruling concerning a lower court’s decision to block, by means of a universal injunction, Trump’s executive order concerning birthright citizenship. The ruling held that federal courts lacked the authority to extend relief to non-parties by using such injunctions.
It does not take a legal rocket scientist to accept the rationale for the SCOTUS ruling, but Jackson, whose opinions truly reveal her leftist mindset, disagreed, writing a separate dissent. She claimed the ruling was “an existential threat to the rule of law.”
Jackon’s dissent caused conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett to rebuke her for taking a position contrary to established legal norms—i.e., views that were “at odds” with a precedent firmly established long before Jackson was even born.
But it is not just conservative SCOTUS justices who have expressed opinions not falling in line with Jackson’s leftist legal sentiments. Even fellow liberal justices have left Jackson as lonely as the Maytag repairman portrayed in the television ad of long ago. This was reflected in an 8-1 SCOTUS ruling upholding Trump’s executive order to move forward with federal workforce reductions, overturning a lower court’s injunction.
Such isolated views by Jackson suggest, as did her SCOTUS nomination hearing before the Senate, that she is motivated more by liberalism than by constitutionalism.
Perhaps Jackson should spend more time studying legal precedent and less time promoting her book.
Image from Grok.