Despite having a conservative majority, the Supreme Court has come out with some questionable decisions recently. They got it right, though, by a 6-3 decision that affirmed Tennessee's right to ban "gender-affirming care" for minors. In May, though, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was reportedly "seething" over a court decision allowing the Trump administration to restart deportations of 530,000 migrants who had entered the U.S. on President Joe Biden's "parole" flights.
ABC News is treating us to an analysis of Brown Jackson unloading on her fellow Supreme Court justices, accusing them of "pure textualism," i.e., ruling by the text of the U.S. Constitution.
ANALYSIS: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unloaded on her Supreme Court colleagues in a series of sharp dissents, castigating what she called a "pure textualism" approach to interpreting laws. https://t.co/WMB4z5t9qI
— ABC News (@ABC) June 21, 2025
Look, they even put together a three-minute "Schoolhouse Rock" style video:
Devin Dwyer reports:
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unloaded on her Supreme Court colleagues Friday in a series of sharp dissents, castigating what she called a "pure textualism" approach to interpreting laws, which she said had become a pretext for securing their desired outcomes, and implying the conservative justices have strayed from their oath by showing favoritism to "moneyed interests."
The attack on the court's conservative majority by the junior justice and member of the liberal wing is notably pointed and aggressive but stopped short of getting personal. It laid bare the stark divisions on the court and pent-up frustration in the minority over what Jackson described as inconsistent and unfair application of precedent by those in power.
…
[Justice Neil] Gorsuch retorted that Jackson was simply complaining textualism didn't get her the outcome she wanted, prompting Jackson to take the rare step of using a lengthy footnote to accuse her colleague of the same.
Recommended
We read the whole piece, and there's no analysis involved. It's just an accounting of all the crying Jackson has been doing as case after case doesn't go her way.
Translation: You're doing what the Constitution says and that limits my ability to do whatever the hell I want.
— Pacheco the Ghost (@PMtalking) June 21, 2025
Versus an activist approach.
— Someone Important (@justimportant2) June 21, 2025
“Pure textualism”? As in, accurately interpreting what’s written? That’s bad?
— Captain Sunburst (@CaptainSunburst) June 21, 2025
We've been assured that "worship of the written word" is a component of "whiteness."
That's how you're supposed to interpret laws.
— AdamInHTownTX (@AdamInHTownTX) June 21, 2025
When Justice Jackson says “pure textualism,” you know someone’s about to get schooled.
— Eva (@cuti3va) June 21, 2025
wtf is “pure textualism?”. does it mean they stick to the words of the constitution as it is written? oh no. no. the horror.
— Dad Knows Best (@dadfocused) June 21, 2025
Textualism=following the Constitution as it is written.
— PatriotWC (@PatriotWC2) June 21, 2025
Oh the humanity!
ANALYSIS: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wants to usurp the Constitution.
— Stuck (@StuckInMiddleU) June 21, 2025
Textualism as opposed to pretending to see things in the Constitution that don’t actually exist via wishcasting by KBJ
— Thirteen O'Clock - Todd (@o_thirteen) June 21, 2025
The woman who can’t define a woman “because she is not a biologist” is upset her colleagues are making legal interpretations based on the plain meaning of words.
— Yogi (@gdctus) June 21, 2025
That is precisely the role of a supreme court justice. This woman is a disgrace.
— It's_All_PoliTricks (@OnlyPoliTricks) June 21, 2025
The analysis of people reacting to ABC News' analysis is that Jackson is an activist and a DEI hire. Dwyer must have felt bad that she's always on the losing side and decided to write a piece about her dissents.
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member