Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: A Theatrical Presence on the Supreme Court

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a groundbreaking figure as the first Black woman on the U.S. Supreme Court. Beyond that, she also embodies the vibrant spirit of a theater enthusiast.

A recent profile in The New Yorker highlights her unique approach, noting that “New Justices tend to hang back,” but Jackson, now in her third term, didn’t hold back at all. During her initial eight oral arguments, she spoke an impressive eleven thousand words—more than double that of the next most talkative Justice, Sonia Sotomayor.

This trend hasn’t slowed down; Jackson has reportedly spoken 75,535 words in oral arguments this term, significantly more than any of her peers.

Her willingness to express herself extends beyond the bench. The New Yorker references The New York Times, which pointed out that Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t issue his first solo dissent until sixteen years into his role, whereas Jackson managed three in her first term. Yet, the article doesn’t delve into why other justices may choose to be less vocal, particularly at the start of their careers.

Jackson’s strong presence is viewed as “assertiveness,” but it raises questions. While her verbosity might seem a sign of confidence, it doesn’t necessarily correlate with legal acumen. Historically, brevity has been regarded as a virtue in legal discourse.

In discussing tradition, G.K. Chesterton once remarked that it is “the democracy of the dead,” emphasizing the importance of honoring the wisdom of our ancestors. However, it seems that more progressive views often dismiss this concept, focusing instead on the present without regard for the past influences that shape our society.

Jackson’s vocal style has drawn criticism, with some justices describing her arguments as poorly executed and lacking respect for the Constitution. For instance, Justice Clarence Thomas remarked on her dissent in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, suggesting that Jackson sees society through a lens of inherent racism, which colors her interpretation of the law.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett also dismissed Jackson’s dissent in Trump vs. CASA, Inc., pointing out that Jackson’s stance contradicts centuries of precedent and underscoring her apparent hypocrisy in critiquing executive overreach while supporting judicial power.

Interestingly, these criticisms haven’t appeared to affect Jackson’s confidence. In a speech accepting the Harry S. Truman Good Neighbor Award, she noted that her outspokenness might be seen by some as courageous.

While some may interpret her theatrical flair as boldness, others could argue that it reflects poor judgment—an unsettling trait for someone in her position. Jackson once aspired to Broadway stardom, expressing her passion for theater in her memoir and a Harvard application, where she shared her desire to blend her legal aspirations with her love for performance.

Jackson often presents her dissents in a dramatic style, as evidenced by her lines in Trump vs. CASA, Inc., which feature dramatics akin to scriptwriting. This penchant for theatrics might suggest that becoming a Supreme Court justice is not just a duty for her, but also a stage for personal expression.

As she navigates her role, it seems she has achieved her long-held ambition, albeit with the risk of appearing as the comic relief on a much larger stage.