A growing chorus of critics is raising questions about whether Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is struggling to find her footing on the nation’s highest court. Washington Gun Law president and attorney William Kirk opened his latest episode with a stark warning: “There is now a moment of reflection that we have to have.”
Kirk said this after a “terrible day” on the bench for Justice Jackson during oral arguments in Robinson v. Louisiana, a case testing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Her remarks comparing racial gerrymandering to disability discrimination, Kirk noted, “captured everybody’s attention – especially in the exosphere.”
During the hearing, Jackson drew parallels between voting access and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), suggesting Congress had a duty to address “current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities.”
She added, “They’re disabled,” using the term to describe black voters’ unequal access to the ballot.
The ADA Analogy Sparks Outrage
That single word – “disabled” – ignited a firestorm. Conservative commentator Glenn Beck, speaking with Megyn Kelly on The Glenn Beck Program, called it “unbelievable.” Kelly agreed, saying, “If one of the white justices had said that, it would be on the cover of every magazine.”
Kelly accused Jackson of “insulting black Americans,” claiming her comparison treated minorities as though they “had no rights.” She asked rhetorically, “How do you build a building so it’s black accessible? Because I think they already are.”
Beck and Kelly’s conversation framed the comment as emblematic of what they see as a broader cultural drift – judges prioritizing identity politics over substance. Their disbelief echoed through conservative media, amplifying calls for accountability.
William Kirk: “Is She in Over Her Head?”
For William Kirk, this wasn’t an isolated gaffe. He described it as “a pattern of conduct,” saying Jackson’s early behavior on the bench defied tradition. “Most new justices,” he said, “tend to stay quiet for a year or two to get the feel for things. Not her.”
He pointed to her unusually high number of solo dissents, 17 out of 20, arguing it reveals a disconnect even from fellow liberal justices. “Her reasoning,” Kirk said, “is not in sync with any of her colleagues whatsoever.”
Kirk also cited her “divisive rhetoric” in major cases like Trump v. CASA, where Jackson accused the majority of creating “law-free zones.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett directly rebutted her by name in the majority opinion – an uncommon move that Kirk said reflected growing irritation inside the Court.
The Case Behind the Controversy
Attorney Mark W. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, took a broader view. In his report, he explained that the Louisiana case at the center of Jackson’s controversial comments could reshape both voting law and Second Amendment protections.
Smith said the challenge to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act revolves around whether race-based districting violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. He described the law as “forcing states to discriminate in favor of blacks against whites,” arguing that the Court’s conservative majority may soon end this imbalance.
According to Smith, Jackson’s insistence on “remedying discrimination without intent” exposed her activist mindset. “She compares it to the ADA,” he said, “as if skin color were a disability. That’s not constitutional reasoning – that’s political.”
He suggested that if Section 2 is struck down, it could lead to redistricting that flips as many as 19 congressional seats, creating a “massive strategic victory” for conservatives and gun-rights supporters.
A Pattern of Solo Dissents
Even outside of the recent case, Jackson’s writing has drawn unusual attention. As The Hill reporters Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld noted, Jackson has developed “an independent streak” that sets her apart even from liberal allies Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
She has accused her colleagues of “helping Trump threaten the rule of law” and warned that unchecked executive power could render the Republic “no more.” Her dissents have been described as “fiery” and “fearless,” but they’ve also alienated her peers.
The Hill described one instance where Justice Barrett fired back with an unusually sharp response, writing, “That goes for judges too.”
Chief Justice John Roberts also appeared to push back at her style, telling lawyers at a judicial conference, “It’s your job to do the legal analysis to the best you can. I don’t start from what the result looks like and go backwards.”
The Telegraph Calls It “An Insult to the Supreme Court”
Perhaps the harshest rebuke came from The Telegraph’s Josh Hammer, who argued that Jackson’s appointment “on grounds of identity politics” has led to “intellectually indefensible balderdash.”
Hammer recalled Justice Clarence Thomas’s scathing response to Jackson’s dissent in the Students for Fair Admissions case, where he accused her of “labeling all blacks as victims.” He added that Barrett’s critique in Trump v. CASA was “brutal,” calling her reasoning “tethered neither to sources nor any doctrine whatsoever.”
Hammer didn’t hold back, writing that “serious countries do not elevate arguably unqualified dimwits to public positions of extraordinary prominence.”
The article sparked outrage and applause in equal measure – some praising his bluntness, others condemning his tone as personal and cruel.
Defenders See Boldness, Not Blunders
To be fair, not everyone views Jackson’s approach as reckless. Some legal scholars admire her willingness to challenge institutional norms. She told an audience in May, “Some have even called me fearless.”
Supporters say her forceful questioning brings energy to the Court’s oral arguments and that her solo opinions highlight issues often overlooked by consensus-driven rulings. In their view, she’s not “in over her head” but confronting the establishment head-on.
Still, the optics are hard to ignore. When your own colleagues publicly dismantle your reasoning, and your quotes dominate talk shows, the perception problem grows harder to contain.
From Glenn Beck’s incredulity to William Kirk’s concern and Josh Hammer’s scathing prose, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s image is being reshaped in real time. To her critics, she’s a symbol of ideological overreach.
To her admirers, she’s a brave reformer pushing against a conservative tide.
The truth probably lies somewhere between. Jackson’s bold voice has undeniably stirred the pot in a Court that often hides behind stoic tradition.
Her comments may have been poorly phrased, but they reflect a worldview that sees discrimination as an ongoing structural issue rather than an outdated relic.
When Passion Meets Power
What’s fascinating about this moment is how much it reveals about the modern Supreme Court itself. The Court isn’t just a chamber of legal minds – it’s a mirror of America’s divisions. Jackson’s intensity, Barrett’s precision, and Roberts’s restraint all show how personality now shapes law as much as ideology does.
Her remark about “disabled” voters will likely follow her for years. But it also raises deeper questions: How far can empathy go before it becomes activism? And when does boldness cross into recklessness?
Ketanji Brown Jackson may be facing one of the toughest moments of her career, but it’s also one of the most consequential. The backlash isn’t just about one justice – it’s about what kind of Supreme Court the nation wants to have.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.
