Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Judicial Philosophy: A Closer Look

Is Ketanji Brown Jackson really an “activist” judge? She seems to imply that she is. In a recent CBS News interview, she expressed her desire to engage in judicial matters, stating that she feels it’s an opportunity to share her perspective. “I’m not afraid to use my voice,” she said, which somehow sounds more like a podcast host than a judge.

Judges traditionally interpret the law as Congress intended and apply it to the cases before them. For instance, Chief Justice John Roberts likens the judge’s role to that of an umpire, one who calls balls and strikes without creating the rules. He has emphasized that he wouldn’t want a judge making rulings based on what’s deemed “good policy.”

Moreover, Justice Amy Coney Barrett criticized Jackson for straying from this conventional view in her rulings, particularly when it comes to imposing national injunctions. Barrett pointed out that Jackson’s view reflects echoes of Thurgood Marshall’s judicial philosophy, who believed that while the Constitution was significant, it was the role of lawmakers, not judges, to amend shortcomings.

Marshall regarded the Constitution as a “living document,” suggesting that its meanings can shift with contemporary interpretations. He stated, “I don’t think the meaning of the Constitution has been ‘fixed’ forever by the Philadelphia Convention,” indicating a belief that it evolves over time.

This raises the question: should judges strive to do the right thing while adhering strictly to the law, especially in debates over whether a conservative or originalist interpretation is more valid? Justice Antonin Scalia identified as an “originalist,” critiquing the philosophy of a living Constitution which has gained traction in recent decades.

Justice Elena Kagan also weighed in on this discussion, highlighting the significance of “public sentiment.” She warned that if courts lose their connection with the populace, it could pose a threat to democracy. Kagan suggested that maintaining the court’s legitimacy involves making decisions that don’t seem overtly partisan.

This viewpoint implies that the Supreme Court should consider public opinion in its decisions rather than solely relying on legislative intent. So, why fret about the Supreme Court? Perhaps it’s time to focus on voting instead.