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.
Jackson made her opinion clear in arguments Monday in a dispute over just exactly which bureaucrats President Donald Trump can remove from their positions.
A precedent, set in the Humphrey’s Executor case decades ago, suggests there are some he cannot remove, but commentators concluded after the arguments that is likely to fall soon.
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.
“As is increasingly becoming the case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stole the show with some of her comments on her view of the underlying constitutional issues. She suggested that ‘experts’ in the Executive Branch generally should not be subject to termination by a president,” he explained.
“It is a virtual invitation for a technocracy rather than a democracy.”
He said, “In confronting U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer (who did another masterful job) in a difficult oral argument, Jackson said she did ‘not understand’ why ‘agencies aren’t answering to Congress.’ Jackson simply brushed aside the fact that the president is given authority to execute the laws and that the executive branch is established under the Constitution,” he pointed out.
Jackson ranted:
I really don’t understand why the agencies aren’t answering to Congress. Congress established them and can eliminate them. Congress funds them, and can stop. So, to the extent that we’re concerned that there’s some sort of entity that is out of control and has no control, I guess I don’t understand that argument.
I guess I have a very different view of the dangers, and real-world consequences of your position than what you explored with Justice Kavanaugh. My understanding was that independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by non-partisan experts, that Congress is saying that expertise matters — with respect to aspects of the economy, and transportation, and the various independent agencies that we have. So, having a president come in and fire all the scientists, and the doctors, and the economists, and the PhDs, and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything, is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States. These issues should not be in presidential control. So, can you speak to me about the danger of allowing, in these various areas, the president to actually control the Transportation Board and potentially the Federal Reserve, and all these other independent agencies. In these particular areas, we would like to have independence, we don’t want the president controlling. I guess what I don’t understand from your overarching argument is why that determination of Congress — which makes perfect sense given its duty to protect the people of the United States, why that is subjugated to a concern about the president not being able to control everything.
Ketanji lost it today during oral arguments and went on a “No Kings” style rant about President Trump wanting to rule like a monarch, and how we should instead have many issues handled by “the experts and PhDs” like Dr. Fauci, Dr. “Rachel” Levine, and the gay bondage AIDS dude. pic.twitter.com/Z8qFZgZzsR
— Bad Hombre (@Badhombre) December 8, 2025
A report at the Gateway Pundit pointed out the dispute stems from the president’s decision months ago to fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoy, both Democrat commissioners, from the Federal Trade Commission, acting “squarely within Article II, which vests all executive power in the president.”
A panel of judges stacked with Barack Obama appointees reversed.
The report noted Jackson hates the idea of a president controlling, “Transportation authorities, Economic regulators, The Federal Reserve, Multimember agency boards, Vast sectors of federal policymaking.”
“She even insisted that ‘these issues should not be in presidential control.’”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh weighed in with a devastating hypothetical, the report explained.
“He asked what happens when a future president is intentionally sabotaged by the prior administration through strategic stacking of independent agencies with officials who cannot be removed.”
Kavanaugh said, “I want to give you a chance to deal with the hard hypothetical. When both Houses of Congress and the President are controlled by the same party, they create a lot of these independent agencies or extend some of the current independent agencies into these kinds of situations so as to thwart future Presidents of the opposite party.”
JUST IN: SCOTUS Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Sam Alito NUKE the “independent commission” scam, an apparent win for Trump
Their argument: Can Congress just make ANY Cabinet office an “independent commission,” thereby DESTROYING the presidency?
KAVANAUGH: “Independent agencies… pic.twitter.com/4dENQkZD56
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) December 8, 2025
It’s not the first time Jackson’s astuteness has been questioned. She, after all, during her confirmation hearings, was unable to define “woman.”
I will never forget Amy’s legendary takedown of Kentanji Brown
I’ve had increased respect for her ever since. pic.twitter.com/ZPmJs4C5fi
— The Conservative Alternative (@OldeWorldOrder) November 7, 2025
