Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has been getting “dressed down” and “put in her place” in recent orders from the High Court, former George W. Bush adviser Scott Jennings said Wednesday night.
Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court via email for comment.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued an 8-1 ruling to which Jackson countered in a blistering dissent, calling out the court for allowing President Donald Trump to take a “wrecking ball” to the federal government after it cleared the way for his administration to implement mass layoffs.
Jackson, nominee of former Democratic President Joe Biden, was recently ripped by fellow Justice Amy Coney Barrett in another ruling related to birthright citizenship.
Coney Barrett said Jackson’s position on the issue was “difficult to pin down” adding that her opinion “is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.”
What To Know
While speaking with CNN‘s Abby Phillip on Wednesday night, Jennings argued that Jackson “apparently has a fundamental disagreement with the rest of the court about what the role of a Supreme Court justice is.”
“People from the ideological right and the ideological left on the court have had to put her in her place a couple of times here in this term. I would guess internally it’s causing internal issues at the Supreme Court,” Jennings said.
Phillip then questioned if saying Jackson has been put “in her place” is fair, as a normal function of the Supreme Court is to disagree.
“Liberals disagree with liberals, conservatives disagree with conservatives,” Phillip said.
In the 8-1 ruling over federal layoffs presented by Justice Elena Kagan, Jennings argues that her wording in the order is a shot at Jackson’s argument for commenting on issues not before the court.
The court’s ruling presented by Kagan argued that “We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court.”
In her dissent, Jackson argued that the Trump administration rushed to the Supreme Court to get a ruling after a lower court ruled against the White House.
“Instead of directing its attention and resources to fully litigating the merits of the challenge to its authority in the courts below, the Government rushed up the chain of review, seeking an emergency stay of the District Court’s preliminary injunction from us,” she argued.
Trump has been outspoken on rulings in lower courts, specifically about his administration’s immigration policies, and has called for judges to be impeached for decisions against his initiatives.
What People Are Saying
Ana Navarro, CNN senior political commentator, on Wednesday: “And also listen, nobody puts baby in the corner, and nobody puts Ketanji in her place. She is a Supreme Court justice.”
She continued, “No, that’s not putting her in her place, that’s called disagreement, that’s called dissenting. It’s called a disagreement in the Supreme Court, which is perfectly OK. And if you’re expecting a melanated girl from South Florida to shut up and play nice and not ruffle feathers … you seem to have an issue with it,” she said in response to Jennings.
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court’s most recent term has ended, and the justices are not expected to make any new rulings in the immediate future.