Having served on the nation’s highest court for several years now, it’s become apparent that Ketanji Brown Jackson could use a lesson or two on how to act professionally as a Supreme Court justice. Her colleague Amy Coney Barrett appears to have given her just that.
On Monday, Barrett delivered rare public remarks while attending this year’s 7th Circuit Judicial Conference in Chicago, Illinois. The former Notre Dame law professor previously served on the 7th Circuit prior to being tapped by President Trump to replace deceased Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court nearly five years ago.
In her speech to attendees, Barrett reportedly offered praise for “collegiality” within the legal profession, suggesting this relies upon “zealous advocacy and professionalism, and careful and fair adjudication.”
“Law is a profession that, unlike some others, operates continually under the strain of disagreement,” Barrett said. “Doctors cooperate and coordinate to deal with patients. Engineers work together to build a bridge. But litigants and their lawyers are pitted against one another on opposite sides.”
“That doesn’t sound like an advertisement for law school, that sounds a little bleak,” she added, also noting, “We know how to argue … but we also know how to do it without letting it consume relationships.”
The Trump appointee’s speech did not touch on major political issues or “controversial” court decisions, according to Bloomberg Law and Politico.
Barrett’s remarks represent a stark departure from the highly partisan and unprofessional conduct of Jackson, who has regularly let her leftist flag fly while speaking at various public venues since joining the Supreme Court.
The Biden appointee wasn’t shy in expressing her apparent disdain for Trump and his administration during an interview at an Indianapolis Bar Association event last month. When asked by Obama-appointed District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson about “what keeps [her] up at night,” Jackson replied, “I would say the state of our democracy.”
It wasn’t the first time Jackson echoed the rhetoric of Democrat politicos and media activists to take an indirect shot at the sitting president — whose administration is facing multiple leftist-backed lawsuits making their way to the very Supreme Court Jackson sits on. In a not-so-subtle response to Trump and conservatives’ criticisms of the lower judiciary’s coup against the administration, the Biden appointee said in a May interview, “The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law.”
Of course, her remarks made no specific mention of the leftist-led threats and attacks that Jackson’s Republican-appointed colleagues have faced in recent years.
But partisan comments seemingly directed at the Trump White House are only part of the unbecoming conduct Jackson has demonstrated since arriving at the nation’s highest court. She’s also gone out of her way to thumb her nose at her fellow justices, even going as far as to classify the conservative-leaning majority’s recent decisions in high-profile cases as an “existential threat to the rule of law.”
[READ: DEI Hire Ketanji Brown Jackson: I Write Supreme Court Opinions To ‘Tell People How I Feel’]
As I previously wrote in these pages, while each justice is entitled to voicing his or her own opinion in any given case, it’s usually customary for the Supreme Court’s junior justices to offer a notable degree of deference and respect to the senior justices early in their careers. Such behavior falls in lockstep with longstanding traditions that have defined the high court for decades.
While Jackson’s break with these customs via girlboss-style opinions and comments may have earned her praise from America’s legacy media, it’s becoming clear that her antics are irking her SCOTUS colleagues. In response to the Biden appointee’s reality-challenged dissent in the court’s recent case (Trump v. CASA) on nationwide injunctions, for example, Barrett didn’t hold back in assessing that Jackson “chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.”
“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote on behalf of the majority.
For all her undignified bluster, Jackson would be wise to follow Barrett’s example in demonstrating how judges are supposed to conduct themselves. That is, putting one’s personal “feelings” aside and displaying a semblance of impartiality and respect for the institutions in which they serve.
But asking her to do so would require Jackson to abandon the primary reason she was appointed to SCOTUS to begin with: to advance left-wing orthodoxy from the bench.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
