The Brilliance of the First: Jasmine Crockett’s Defense of Justice Jackson

Let’s start with the framing.

“The first & only black woman to ever serve on the court.”

That is the lens. That is the context. That is the reality that Jasmine Crockett wants you to see before you consider anything else about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Not her opinions. Not her jurisprudence. Not her legal reasoning. Her identity. Her place in history. The fact that she is the first, and so far the only, Black woman to sit on the highest court in the land.

Crockett is not subtle about what she is doing. She is telling you that Justice Jackson operates under a different standard. That she has to be better than everyone else just to be considered equal. That her brilliance is not just a matter of intelligence but a matter of survival. That every word she speaks, every opinion she writes, every question she asks from the bench is scrutinized in ways that her colleagues never experience.

“She had to be 10 times better than most.”

That is a claim. It is not about Justice Jackson’s actual performance. It is about the burden she carries. The burden of being the first. The burden of representing an entire community. The burden of knowing that her failures will be attributed not to her own shortcomings but to the shortcomings of her race and gender.

Crockett says that Justice Jackson continues to flex her brilliance. In oral arguments. In dissents. In the everyday work of being a justice. She is not just competent. She is not just qualified. She is brilliant. And the meltdown over her presence on the court is proof that the people who oppose her know it.

The question is whether Crockett is right. Whether Justice Jackson is brilliant. Whether the criticism she faces is rooted in racism and sexism or in legitimate disagreements about her jurisprudence. The answer is complicated. But Crockett’s framing is not. She is defending a justice she believes in. She is calling out what she sees as a double standard. And she is using the language of identity to make her case.

The First

Being the first is hard. The first Black woman on the Supreme Court faces pressures that no other justice faces. She is a symbol. She is a role model. She is a target. Every decision she makes is watched not just by legal scholars but by millions of people who see themselves in her. Every mistake is magnified. Every success is qualified.

Justice Jackson knew this when she accepted the nomination. She knew that she would be held to a different standard. She knew that her critics would use her identity against her. She knew that her defenders would use her identity to shield her from criticism. She knew that she would never be seen as just another justice.

Crockett is speaking to that reality. She is saying that Justice Jackson has not only met the standard but exceeded it. That she is not just surviving. She is thriving. That her brilliance is undeniable, even to those who disagree with her.

The meltdown that Crockett references is the backlash. The criticism. The attempts to diminish Justice Jackson’s accomplishments. The people who cannot accept that a Black woman belongs on the Supreme Court. Crockett says that everyone needs to pay attention to this meltdown. Because it reveals something about the country. Something about who is allowed to succeed. Something about the standards that are applied to Black women in positions of power.

She is not wrong. There is a double standard. There is a racial and gendered component to the criticism that Justice Jackson faces. Crockett is right to call it out. She is right to defend her. She is right to celebrate her brilliance.

But she is also doing something else. She is using identity to deflect from substance. She is implying that any criticism of Justice Jackson is rooted in bigotry. She is suggesting that the only reason anyone would question her brilliance is because she is a Black woman.

That is not fair. And it is not true.

The Brilliance

Is Justice Jackson brilliant? She graduated from Harvard Law School. She clerked for Justice Breyer. She served as a federal public defender. She was a district court judge. She was a court of appeals judge. She is now a Supreme Court justice. Those are impressive credentials. They are not proof of brilliance. They are proof of hard work, of connections, of ambition.

Brilliance is a higher standard. It is reserved for the truly exceptional. The justices who change the law. The justices who write opinions that are cited for generations. The justices who shape the direction of the country.

Justice Jackson has not yet done that. She has been on the court for a few years. She has written opinions. She has asked questions. She has dissented. She has not yet left her mark. She has not yet proven that she is brilliant. She has proven that she is competent. That she is qualified. That she belongs on the court.

Crockett is praising her before the evidence is in. She is celebrating potential, not achievement. She is using the language of brilliance to defend against criticism that has not yet been proven wrong.

That is her right. She is a supporter. She is a defender. She is a member of Congress who believes in Justice Jackson. But her praise is not evidence. It is opinion. And opinion is not the same as fact.

The meltdown that Crockett references is real. There are people who cannot accept Justice Jackson. There are people who will never see her as legitimate. There are people who will always view her through the lens of race and gender. Crockett is right to call them out. She is right to defend Justice Jackson from their attacks.

But she is wrong to imply that all criticism of Justice Jackson is rooted in bigotry. There are legitimate disagreements about her jurisprudence. There are legitimate questions about her qualifications. There are legitimate concerns about her judicial philosophy. These are not evidence of a meltdown. They are evidence of a functioning democracy.

Crockett is conflating criticism with bigotry. That is a mistake. It is a mistake that hurts her cause. It makes her look defensive. It makes her look like she cannot engage with substance. It makes her look like she is using identity as a shield.

Justice Jackson does not need that. She is capable of defending herself. She is capable of answering her critics. She is capable of proving her brilliance through her work. She does not need Jasmine Crockett to tell the world that she is brilliant. She needs time. She needs space. She needs to be judged on her record, not on her identity.

The Meltdown

The meltdown is real. There are people who lost their minds when Justice Jackson was confirmed. There are people who still cannot accept that a Black woman sits on the Supreme Court. There are people who will never respect her, no matter what she does. They are wrong. They are bigots. They should be called out.

Crockett is right to call them out. She is right to say that everyone needs to pay attention to the meltdown. Because it reveals something ugly about the country. Something that we need to confront. Something that will not go away on its own.

But the meltdown is not the only reaction to Justice Jackson. There are people who disagree with her jurisprudence. People who think she is too liberal. People who think she is not qualified. People who think she was a political pick. These are legitimate opinions. They are not evidence of a meltdown. They are evidence of a diverse country with diverse views.

Crockett is painting with a broad brush. She is lumping legitimate critics in with bigots. She is implying that anyone who questions Justice Jackson is having a meltdown. That is not fair. That is not accurate. That is not helpful.

Justice Jackson deserves better. She deserves to be judged on her merits. She deserves to have her work evaluated honestly. She deserves to have her critics engage with her substance, not her identity. Crockett is not helping her by pretending that all criticism is bigotry.

The Last Word

Jasmine Crockett posted on X that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is brilliant. She said that the meltdown over her presence on the court is something everyone needs to pay attention to. She said that Jackson had to be ten times better than most. She said that Jackson continues to flex her brilliance.

She is a supporter. She is a defender. She is a member of Congress who believes in Justice Jackson. That is her right. That is her role.

But brilliance is not proven by identity. It is proven by work. Justice Jackson has not yet done the work that proves she is brilliant. She has done the work that proves she belongs. She has not yet done the work that proves she is exceptional.

Crockett is celebrating potential. That is fine. That is what supporters do. But potential is not the same as achievement. And achievement is the only thing that matters on the Supreme Court.

The meltdown is real. The bigots are real. The double standard is real. Crockett is right to call them out. She is right to defend Justice Jackson.

But she is wrong to conflate criticism with bigotry. She is wrong to imply that anyone who questions Justice Jackson is having a meltdown. She is wrong to use identity as a shield against legitimate disagreement.

Justice Jackson is a justice. She is not a symbol. She is not a martyr. She is a judge. She will be judged by her work. That is how it should be. That is how it will be.

Crockett’s praise is noted. It is appreciated. It is not evidence. It is not proof. It is opinion.

The brilliance of Justice Jackson will be determined by history. Not by Jasmine Crockett. Not by X. Not by the meltdown. By the opinions she writes. By the law she makes. By the legacy she leaves.

That is the only standard that matters. And that standard has not yet been met.