Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s grasp of the Constitution has come under scrutiny, drawing stark comparisons to the understanding typical of college sophomores. Critics argue that her performances during oral arguments highlight her limited comprehension and raise concerns about her constitutional interpretations.
On Monday, Jackson engaged in discussions surrounding the case of Rebecca Slaughter, a Federal Trade Commissioner who was dismissed by President Donald Trump. Slaughter’s lawsuit rests on a 1935 Supreme Court decision suggesting that the president cannot dismiss unelected agency heads without cause. However, courts appeared skeptical of this interpretation, emphasizing the president’s authority over federal bureaucrats. This sentiment aligns with a broader view that upholds the principles of self-government and limits bureaucratic independence.
During this hearing, Jackson made statements that unsettled critics. She referred to the role of “experts” within the federal structure, implying that their input should dictate actions taken by elected officials. “Presidents have accepted,” she urged, “that it is in the best interests of the American people to have certain kinds of issues handled by experts.” Such remarks provoke a historical analysis: how would the Founding Fathers have reacted to the notion of an aristocracy of experts overriding the will of elected representatives?
Moreover, her assertion that federal bureaucracies are “non-partisan” drew sharp backlash. In light of a series of perceived biases in federal agencies, particularly during the Trump administration, many question the validity of this claim. Legal analysts noted the inconsistency between Jackson’s statements and the reality of how federal agencies operate. Jonathan Turley characterized her argument as an invitation for a technocracy, which undermines democratic principles. Phil Holloway added a legal perspective, asserting that the Constitution provides no grounds for empowering unelected experts. “The Constitution doesn’t say a damn thing about any such ‘Experts’,” he stated, emphasizing the authority granted solely to the presidency.
Critics on social media echoed these sentiments, challenging the concept of non-partisanship among experts. The skepticism toward liberal experts, particularly after contentious narratives surrounding public health and social policy, reinforces the belief that many view these figures as politically biased. Comments reflecting this distrust highlight the divide between public perception and the claims of neutrality espoused by certain federal officials.
In essence, the Constitution was established explicitly by “We the People” to create a government rooted in the sovereignty of the populace, with clear separations between branches. The argument that an unelected class of experts could somehow take precedence over elected officials raises alarms about a potential shift toward authoritarianism. Jackson’s flawed reasoning, suggesting that these experts could hold authority over the elected president, reflects what many see as a dangerously inadequate understanding of constitutional governance.
Ultimately, these discussions illuminate a critical examination of how interpreters of the Constitution perceive the balance of power. As the nation grapples with challenges related to government authority and accountability, the real implications of Jackson’s views on the Constitution continue to provoke essential questions about the roles of elected officials and the unelected bureaucracies intended to serve them.
"*" indicates required fields
