Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has developed quite a reputation, and it is not exactly one of quiet restraint from the bench.
The Biden appointee is known for sprawling questions, emotional flourishes, and opinions that often sound less like constitutional analysis and more like a graduate seminar in progressive grievance politics, as reported [1] by Red State.
That is why her latest media moment landed with such a thud. Jackson appeared on Michelle Obama’s podcast to talk about impartiality, because apparently nobody in the room spotted the flashing irony sign.
The episode of IMO with Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson debuted Wednesday after being recorded in May. Jackson sat for more than an hour with the former first lady and her brother, offering thoughts on judging, public life, and the need to avoid looking biased.
“You really have to be focused on that.”
That was Jackson’s message on judicial neutrality, delivered while sitting across from one of the most recognizable Democratic political figures in America. The optics were not subtle, unless one is paid to pretend Washington power circles are somehow above politics.
“There are lots of limits on what judges can do, and I try to be very, very mindful and scrupulous with respect to that because, as you say, our obligation is to be unbiased in our approach.”
She added, “And, so, you have to then navigate all the sources that could make for an appearance of partiality, which you want to avoid.”
That last line is the one doing all the work here. If a justice truly wants to avoid the appearance of partiality, a warm media sit down with Michelle Obama may not be the first stop on the public relations tour.
Jackson’s defenders will no doubt insist this was just a harmless conversation. Of course they will, because the same crowd that screams about institutional norms whenever a conservative breathes near a microphone tends to discover nuance when a liberal favorite is involved.
The trouble for Jackson is that this was not happening in a vacuum. Her record on the Court has already drawn sharp criticism from colleagues who appear less than enchanted with her approach.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett previously brushed aside one of Jackson’s arguments with a stinging line that said plenty. “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.
Justice Samuel Alito has also taken issue with Jackson’s rhetoric, calling one dissent “baseless and insulting” and saying it “lacks restraint.” Those are not exactly glowing peer reviews from inside the marble palace.
The podcast title added another layer of absurdity. “Move Through the Hard Times With Ketanji Brown Jackson” made the justice sound like some struggling outsider rather than a lifetime power player sitting on the highest court in the land.
Let us also remember how Jackson arrived at the Court. Former President Joe Biden openly promised that his nominee would be chosen by race and gender, and Democrats then demanded the country treat the result as above political scrutiny.
Now the same justice is lecturing Americans about the importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias. It is the kind of Washington theater that would be too on the nose for parody.
Reaction online was swift and brutal. One widely shared response put it plainly: “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can’t be real. She says it is important to be neutral as a Supreme Court justice……..while she is literally on MAJOR leftist Michelle Obama’s podcast. Make it make sense.”
That is the core problem. Jackson can insist she is scrupulous and unbiased, but public trust depends on more than polished words in a friendly studio.
A Supreme Court justice does not have to live like a monk, but judgment matters. Choosing a partisan celebrity platform while preaching neutrality is not merely awkward, it is a gift wrapped exhibit for every American who already suspects the left’s idea of impartiality means progressives get to do whatever they want.
Jackson wanted to talk about the dignity and limits of the judiciary. Instead, she reminded the country that some of Washington’s most powerful figures still cannot hear themselves over the applause of their own side.