This is the face of DEI. Corruption and lawlessness

Judges Are Not Kings: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Dangerous Judicial Philosophy
By Jonathan Gregory

Washington, D.C. — June 27, 2025
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has been hailed in some media circles as a voice for the people, but her recent judicial behavior suggests a far more troubling trajectory. Rather than anchoring her decisions in the clear, written text of the law, Jackson appears to believe judges should have the freedom to impose their personal interpretations, emotions, and social views in place of what Congress has explicitly enacted. This is not a minor difference in legal philosophy, it is a dangerous departure from constitutional governance. By discarding textualism in favor of subjective "intent," Jackson is not upholding the rule of law; she is attempting to redefine it, effectively positioning judges as rulers above the law rather than interpreters of it.

A recent Supreme Court case illustrates the risk her approach presents..The dispute centered on whether a retired firefighter could sue her former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, sharply criticized Jackson’s dissent, accusing her of rejecting the statute’s plain language in favor of abstract legislative goals. Gorsuch argued that this method undermines legal stability and veers dangerously into judicial policymaking. Jackson, however, defended her view, arguing that judges must look beyond mere text to what Congress "intended." But this reasoning opens the door for judges to selectively impose their own policy preferences, cherry-picking from legislative history and perceived social aims to produce whatever result they personally favor.

Such a judicial mindset erodes the very foundation of our republic. If a justice can ignore the text of the law in favor of how they feel it should have been written, then the Constitution ceases to be a restraint on government power, it becomes a blank check for judicial activism. In essence, Jackson’s philosophy elevates judges to the role of lawmakers, which is both unconstitutional and profoundly anti-democratic. This raises serious questions about her understanding of the judicial role and her fitness to serve on the Supreme Court. Judges are not kings, and when they begin to act like monarchs, the rule of law and the liberty of the people are both put at grave risk.

@newsmax