WorldNetDaily writer Bob Unruh continued to peddle his fantasy version of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as an angry black woman — while also unilaterally removing “Brown” from her name — continued in a May 2025 article:
The Supreme Court this week ordered the Democrat majority in the Maine legislature to dissolve its “censure” of a Republican member whose was being punished for expressing her opinions about a boy being allowed on a girls athletic team in the state.
Justice Ketanji Jackson, who infamously could not, or would not, tell a Senate committee the definition of a “woman” during her confirmation hearing, opposed that move.
Unruh raged at Jackson again — while continuing to edit her name — in an Aug. 24 article:
Ketanji Jackson, the newest member of the U.S. Supreme Court, appointed by Joe Biden, is complaining that her colleagues are allowing the White House to win court cases.
Fox News reports she wrote in a dissent this week that the “recent tendencies” of the court to side with the Trump administration are wrong.
“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins,” she scolded.
She claimed Laurel Libby, the state representative, has “not asserted that there are any significant votes scheduled in the coming weeks [or] that there are any upcoming votes in which Libby’s participation would impact the outcome.”
Calvinball, in fact, comes out of the hilarious comic strip and book creations of Bill Watterson, where Calvin, the precocious little boy, plays games with his pet, stuffed, tiger, and there are no fixed rules.
Jackson’s claims, however, fall apart when considering the dozens and dozens of court rulings that have gone against the Trump administration at various court levels, based on the hundreds of legal cases leftists have brought against him as he pursues his Make America Great Again agenda.
Those include refusals to let him cut spending as he’s planned, judges who insist that he bring deported criminals back to the United States, and many more.
Even if Jackson, whose personal ideologies clearly are being offended by the Trump administration’s agenda for a strong America, following the law, providing protections for Americans and calling for fair trade agreements, was referencing only the Supreme Court, those justices have been far from letting the Trump administration do all it wants.
Unruh continued his huffiness toward Jackson in a Dec. 9 article:
Ketanji Jackson, Joe Biden’s star appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court and already characterized by critics as the least qualified justice – ever – has made it clear she’d like America to be run by bureaucrats, not a president.
A technocracy, as described by constitutional expert Jonathan Turley.
He’s a law professor and commentator. He’s advised members of Congress on constitutional issues. He’s even represented them on those same issues.
[…]Turley explained the arguments “went poorly” for those who sought to sustain the 90-year-old precedent” that limits a president’s power to fire members of independent commissions.
Note that Turley got more of a rhetorical boost from Unruh than Jackson did. Also note that Unruh refuses to admit that Biden was president — apparently a lingering effect of WND’s election denialism.
Unruh is not alone, however. Larry Elder used his July 17 column to whine about Jackson — though, unlike Unruh, he doesn’t feel the need to truncate her name:
How can you tell if the newest Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is an “activist” judge? She admits it. Worse, she appears to think it is her job, if not her duty, to engage in (left-wing) judicial activism.
In an interview with CBS News, Jackson explained what she hopes to accomplish in her many dissents. “I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues,” she said, “and that’s what I try to do.” She added, “And I’m not afraid to use my voice.” This sounds like a podcaster rather than a judge.
You might be forgiven for thinking judges are supposed to interpret the law as intended by the legislature and apply the law to resolve disputes before the court.
[…]Jackson’s judicial philosophy mirrors that of then-Supreme Court Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall who described his judicial philosophy as follows, “You have to do what’s right and let the law catch up.”
Elder doesn’t actually prove Jackson wrong — he just cites other right=-wing judges who expressed dissenting opinions, which Elder presumably has no problem with.