Justice Jackson MAKES STUFF UP in Affirmative Action Dissent

Supreme Court Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson has been exposed for including a patently false statistic in her heavily criticized dissent to the Supreme’s Courts recent decision striking down affirmative action.

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson argued strenuously in her dissent against the Court’s ruling to strike down affirmative action as violating the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Brown mainly focused on the sociological benefits she felt racial diversity provided.

Subscribe to Florida Jolt Newsletter!

Brown alleged that one of these supposed benefits came from healthcare, arguing black doctors lead to higher survival rates for black newborns.

“It saves lives. For marginalized communities in North Carolina, it is critically important that UNC and other area institutions produce highly educated professionals of color. Research shows that Black physicians are more likely to accurately assess Black patients’ pain tolerance and treat them accordingly (including, for example, prescribing them appropriate amounts of pain medication). For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die.”

There was only one problem: the statistic didn’t exist.

In an opinion piece on the subject in the Wall Street Journal, Director of Litigation at Hamilton Lincoln Law Ted Frank called the statistic “mathematically impossible,” even before digging into sourcing for the figure, or lack thereof.

“A moment’s thought should be enough to realize that this claim is wildly implausible. Imagine if 40% of black newborns died—thousands of dead infants every week. But even so, that’s a 60% survival rate, which is mathematically impossible to double. And the actual survival rate is over 99%”


So what happened? According to Frank, Jackson, or one of her clerks, “either misunderstood the paper or invented the statistic.”

“The study makes no such claims. It examines mortality rates in Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015 and shows a 0.13% to 0.2% improvement in survival rates for black newborns with black pediatricians (though no statistically significant improvement for black obstetricians).”

Frank continues, claiming the studies themselves were flawed from the start and taking a hammer at Jackson’s ideological priorities in general.

“So we have a Supreme Court justice parroting a mathematically absurd claim coming from an interested party’s mischaracterization of aflawed study. Her opinion then urges “all of us” to “do what evidence and experts tell us is required
to level the playingfield and march forward together.” Instead, we should watch
where we’re going.”


However, not just this section of the dissent has drawn fire. Jackson’s dissent overall has been attacked for its lack of an explicitly legal argument. Some have attacked it for its lack of acknowledgment of Asian students and the impact the decision will have on them.

Others laid into it for reading like a “college freshman sociology essay.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote a concurrence to the decision, blasted Jackson, explaining why the issues she brought up did not create a compelling enough government interest to pass the strict scrutiny test, a necessary feat for exceptions to the 14th Amendment.

Join your fellow patriots and subscribe to our Youtube channel.

Other stories you may want to read:

‘Gender Queer’ & ‘White Fragility’ Recommended by Teachers Union for Summer Reading

Share via
Share via
Thank you for sharing! Sign up for emails!
Making our country Great Again and keeping America First takes teamwork.

Subscribe to our newsletter, join our team of Patriots, and read real conservative news you can trust.

Invalid email address
Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime.
Send this to a friend