Posted on 01/21/2026 4:39:28 AM PST by DFG
Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson used legislation passed as part of the post-Civil War “Jim Crow” laws Tuesday to justify a Hawaii gun control law.
The Supreme Court heard a case challenging legislation passed by the Hawaii state Legislature after the Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Jackson questioned United States Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris regarding the constitutionality of a law that prohibited concealed carry permit holders from carrying a firearm on private property without permission.
“So I guess I really don’t understand your response to Justice Gorsuch on the Black Codes,” Jackson, a Biden appointee, told Harris. “I mean, I thought the Black Codes were being offered here under the Bruen test to determine the constitutionality of this regulation. And it’s because we have a test that asks us to look at the history and tradition.”
“The fact that the Black Codes were, at some later point, determined themselves to be unconstitutional doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruin is asking us to make. So, can you say more about that?” Jackson continued.
Merriam-Webster defines the Black Codes, which were also known as Jim Crow laws, as “racially discriminatory laws that were passed in 1865 and 1866 in states that had been part of the Confederate States of America and that were enacted in order to maintain white supremacy.”
Jackson’s question to Harris left some on social media stunned.
“Things I didn’t have on my bingo card today: Justice Jackson defending the racist Black Codes as precedent for what we should consider constitutional,” Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network posted on X.
“It was an honor to attend the SCOTUS hearing on this important gun case, and to see the amicus brief we co-authored @CivilRights argued VERY ably by Sarah Harris, deputy SG,” Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon posted. “It was interesting to hear Justice Jackson defend the invocation of ‘black laws’ that targeted African Americans during the reconstruction era, as an appropriate analogue for the constitutionality of Hawaii’s broad anti-2A laws.”
Democrats have decried Supreme Court rulings on abortion, nationwide injunctions, the Second Amendment, restrictions on child sex changes and free expression in recent years, prompting some to seek “reforms” of the high court.
Then-President Joe Biden proposed reforms to the Supreme Court in a July 2024 op-ed in The Washington Post, citing the court’s ruling in United States v. Trump that granted immunity from prosecution for a president’s official acts and claiming the reforms, including 18-year-terms for Supreme Court justices, were necessary to “strengthen the guardrails of democracy.”
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
How can she know what black is if she’s not an anthropologist?
She really is that dumb, isn’t she?
CC
She is the one who couldn’t define a woman..
As dumb as Jackson is, dumber still are the US Senators who voted to confirm her.
And that includes three so-called Republicans: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney.
Those aren’t Republicans, they’re assistant Democrats.
CC
She really needs to hire people to do her thinking for her.
Not Romney.
The poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect and Didn’t Earn It (DEI) hiring.
Not-a-biologist Ketanji with her unmistakeable verbal introduction: “I guess I really don’t understand”.
Does this mean that she could use this reasoning to justify the legal enslavement of white people? Because of a law that existed in the past but was ruled unconstitutional? Do I have that right or not? If not, ok, but otherwise, it sure sounds that way to me.
“How can she know what black is if she’s not an anthropologist?”
ROFLOL. That’s just flat out funny.
Anytime Justice Jackson starts her question with “I guess I don’t understand” be prepared for some ignorant drivel.
She truly doesn’t understand.....anything.
She understands how to race hustle well enough.
She’s even DUMBER THAN WE THINK!
Shame on the “Republicans” who voted for confirm her.
Always thought that was a missed hanging curveball, the follow-up question should have been, “so your saying biology determines one’s sex”?
In this case, as I understand it, the implication of the 2A is that the latter 'shall not be infringed' is directed to government as the presumed 'infringer.' After all, once a property owner denies entry (clearly a right) that in no way inhibits the right to self-defense. One can go on simply defending oneself somewhere else. So the restriction is NOT an infringement to bear arms, but of armed entry as a matter of permission of the owner. As much as I'm a fan of the 2A, philosophically I'm with the property owner here having that restrictive right. I think it only courteous to inform the owner that one is armed at the point of entry and/or for the owner to inform the entrant that he or she may not carry a firearm on the premises. So how to make this workable is the point of the question.
Yet the practicality of the idea is where it runs afoul. The simplicity of elevating the right to bear, even in the home of another, is obvious. OTOH, putting the boundary at the domicile is reasonably functional whence the carrier is to ask permission upon being informed of the choice to enter or not depending upon the willingness to surrender the firearm, as opposed to putting a lock box at the property line. The idea does place the responsibility for safe storage and return upon the property owner. Nobody had lockable automobiles when the 2A was written. So it's an interesting issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.