WorldNetDaily writer Bob Unruh has continued his war against Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, portraying her as an angry black woman while unilaterally deleting “Brown” from her name. He huffed in a May 19 article:
Ketanji Jackson, the Joe Biden-nominated Supreme Court justice who made her political agenda clear by aligning with LGBT activists and refusing to define “woman” during her confirmation hearings, has followed her leftist ideology in her written opinions, demanding birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens and insisting that states he ordered to keep their race-based congressional districts.
But it’s the majority, whose members have routinely been agreeing on the meaning and impact of the Constitution in various cases, who are making the public think the court is partisan, she has charged anew.
Jackson repeatedly has billed herself as a star in American jurisprudence, boasting about her authority to tell people what she thinks in court decisions, distracting court watchers by her participation in a Broadway show, offering untoward condemnation of other justices and more.
Jackson now is warning that the majority on the court, nominated by multiple presidents over many years, is making the public think it’s partisan because of a recent ruling limiting one section of the Voting Rights Act.
[…]Jackson, who was appointed by Biden in 2022, repeatedly has gone over the edge. In a presidential immunity case she fumed the court lit “a five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance.”
This over a decision that a president could not be prosecuted for his official acts in office.
When the high court curtailed nationwide injunctions by low-level judges, she said it signaled “our collective demise.”
Unruh whined about Jackson further in a May 27 article:
Joe Biden’s sole nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, the radical leftist Ketanji Jackson, made her political agenda for the court clear even before she was confirmed.
That was when she aligned with the agenda of the LGBT promoters, including the extremists who advocate body-mutilating transgenderism, because she stated that she was unable to define “woman” during her confirmation hearings.
Most people can. But those who claim that a man who says he is a woman IS a woman have that obstacle.
Her political agenda also has had her demanding birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens and insisting that race be used by states to define congressional districts.
She’s also boasted of her authority to tell people what she thinks, not what the Constitution requires, in her court rants, distracted court watchers by participating in a Broadway show and offering untoward condemnation of other justices.
Now a report at the Federalist reveals she has suggested that district courts, below the Supreme Court, actually ignore what the Supreme Court rules at times.
Unruh failed to disclose that the Federalist is a right-wing publication that is opposed to the mere existence of Jackson. He continued to whine:
Jackson has been so extreme even the two other liberals on the bench, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, often have abandoned her. Jackson has charged other justices with being “overly sympathetic to corporate interests” and has alleged she wants the nation to see the court as “neutral.”
However, she’s also been considered to be a key advocate for Democrat-driven plans to “pack” the court, simply adding four more justices – all leftist and liberal – who then could overrule the six-justice conservative majority now and give leftists what they want.
She repeatedly has claimed that her Democrat political positions actually are what the Constitution states.
She’s been accused by others on the court of going completely political by demanding a sequence of events that would deliver an advantage to the Democrat party.
Unruh didn’t explain why he refuses to use the proper name of the Democratic Party. He also didn’t disclose that he has previously endorse the ignoring of Supreme Court precedent: He wrote in a March 2025 article that the coiurt “stunningly and deliberately interfered in President Donald Trump’s management of the executive branch” by declaring: “There’s already a recent precedent for the president to ignore a Supreme Court ruling: Joe Biden did it with his massive cash-handout scheme in which he relieved borrowers of the responsibility of paying back student loans, instead demanding that taxpayers shoulder that financial burden.” Unruh failed to explain why he won’t admit Biden was, in fact, the president by including the word when talking about him.
Unruh ranted about Jackson again in a July 14 article:
There’s one justice on the U.S. Supreme Court who has been determined to be the most partisan of all, pushing a political agenda – against President Donald Trump – in 98 out of 100 cases.
The conclusion comes from a report in the Federalist about an analysis released to some readers by the Wall Street Journal.
That found Ketanji Jackson voted against President Trump’s plans and agendas in 98 out of 100 major cases.
Those often wrongly accused of being partisan – for President Trump – aligned with his arguments 89% (Samuel Alito) and 88% (Clarence Thomas) of the time.
The Journal, according to the report suggested, “Alito’s record was the real story behind this data.” It found, “In a term dominated by Trump-related disputes, [Alito] voted to uphold every significant Trump initiative that came before the court, and he wrote frequent, full-throated endorsements of some of Trump’s most brazen efforts to expand presidential power.”
But the “real story” from the data compiled in the analysis is that Jackson is so radical that it “sometimes even causes her to split with her left-wing counterparts on the court.”
Unruh failed to explain why Jackson voting against Trump makes her “partisan” whiler Alito and Thomas voting in Trump’s favor doesn’t make them partisan. He also failed again to disclose that the Federalist is a right-wing — and this anti-Jackson — publication.