A lot has been said over the years about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson being the most intellectually void member of the Supreme Court in history. Tuesday was a reminder that it hasn't been nearly enough.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Little v. Hecox and another case involving whether states can limit "transgender" participation in women's sports. As expected, Jackson led the way in producing viral moments, once again stating she's "not a biologist" while uttering the word, and I use that term lightly, "cis-ginger."
Apparently, she's a fan of Southpark and didn't even know it.
Somehow I’d never seen this before, but holy crap did they nail transgender absurdity in two minutes.
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) January 13, 2026
pic.twitter.com/QQ6AuTtZV3
Jackson wasn't done beclowning herself, though. In another instance, she pushed back on the idea of sex being a valid distinction in sports by complaining that only those "girl-assigned at birth" qualify.
Ketanji Brown-Jackson: "We are now looking at the definition of a girl and we're saying only people who were girl-assigned at birth qualify."
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) January 13, 2026
Uhhh yes. pic.twitter.com/bm4U4byxPw
For the record, no one is "assigned" a sex or gender (but I repeat myself) at birth any more than someone is assigned ears or a nose at birth. Sex and gender, like those things, are self-identified by their physical realities. They simply exist. They are not a figment of a doctor's imagination, nor are they an arbitrary assignment done at the moment of birth.
Furthermore, even if gender were a social class and not an extension of sex, that would no more cancel out the role of sex-based biological advantages in sports than if someone started "identifying" as a chair. What someone, driven by mental illness, claims is not a substitute for reality. Jackson can't seem to process that, and every single time this topic comes up during oral arguments, she fumbles around basic definitions.
"I'm still struggling to understand" has become her motto.
You gotta be pretty bad as a Justice to get schooled this hard by a lawyer arguing in front of you pic.twitter.com/p7csCQSTb2
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) January 13, 2026
A person who does not understand basic legal concepts, as demonstrated above, has no business being on the Supreme Court, much less being described as the "most qualified" person to ever hold the position. To those struggling to catch their breath from laughing at that assertion, yes, her supporters actually claimed that with a straight face during her nomination process.
Liberals didn’t just argue Ketanji Brown Jackson was qualified for the Supreme Court—many claimed she was the single most-qualified nominee ever.
— Robert Sterling (@RobertMSterling) January 14, 2026
Look it up. I’m not exaggerating. This chart was frequently used to “prove” it.
4 years later, I wonder how many still believe it. https://t.co/LU0zGHyHqf pic.twitter.com/A2eVF367xa
Instead of looking at her record of legal works, we were supposed to believe that going to public school and being a public defender were overwhelming points of distinction, placing her above such incredible minds as Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. It was as dumb then as it is today.
But there's one thing Jackson's fan club still clings to while proclaiming her supposed brilliance: Her ability to ramble, often incoherently. As of mid-2025, she had spoken over 50 percent more than her next closest colleague, uttering an astonishing 75,535 words that term.
As Mark Twain once said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Jackson has apparently never heard that one.
Ketanji Brown Jackson with a total word salad: “Is treating someone transgender, but does not have, because of the medical interventions and the things that have been done, who does not have, uh, the same, uh….” pic.twitter.com/jf0tMUivU4
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) January 13, 2026
JACKSON: Is treating someone transgender but does not have, because of the medical interventions and the things that have been done, who does not have the same threat to physical competition and safety, and all the reasons the state puts forward, that's actually a different class, says this individual. So you're not treating the class the same. And how do you respond to that?
In response, Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst didn't seem to understand what she was asking. That's likely because it was a ranting mess of a question you wouldn't even expect from some backwater country judge. Yet, this person sits on the highest court in the nation. To drive that point home, here's another example from the same day.
DEI hire Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn't understand why the law needs to be changed to ban trans athletes in women's sports.
— DeVory Darkins (@devorydarkins) January 13, 2026
"We are asking whether even though this law is over broad, we're assuming its over broad because you have some people in there to whom it should not be… pic.twitter.com/P7vO9jHO4G
JACKSON: We are asking whether even though this law is overbroad, we're assuming its overbroad because you have some people in there to whom it should not be applied. What do we do about that? What's the remedy those people can get? What I hear you saying is they get no remedy unless they can demonstrate that there are enough people that this is sufficiently overbroad that it is no longer something the state can do. I don't understand why that is. Why wouldn't, when we identify people for whom this law operates unconstitutionally, that's the premise, I'm in remedy. The premise is you have a person who successfully made an as-applied case. To me, it's unconstitutional. You say, "Too bad," if you can say it's unconstitutional to a sizeable number of people.
Putting aside her argument, to the best that it can be ascertained from that word salad, it's clear Jackson sees herself as a mental titan, defined by her ability to "pushback" on those she deems political enemies. She's stated as much in the past, recently comparing herself to former President Harry S. Truman while accepting a ward that bears his name.
“Perhaps it is my general outspokenness on and sometimes off the bench. I am also told that some people think I am courageous for the ways in which I engage with litigants and my colleagues in the courtroom,” Jackson told the crowd gathered in Kansas City, Mo.
The ability to fill space with rambling nonsense is not a sign of courage. It's the sign of someone who doesn't do their homework, either because of sheer laziness or a lack of intellectual ability. Jackson routinely has to be schooled during arguments on historic cases and other facets of the law she should know. It's embarrassing, not a mark of greatness.
Unfortunately, she has a lifetime tenure, so there's a lot more where that came from. That may be good for producing mockery online, but it's a profound negative for the country.
Editor's Note: This article was updated post-publication for clarity.
