Millions of Americans have come to accept the misconception that the Supreme Court holds exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution — a belief reinforced by decades of public education and institutional propaganda. Unfortunately, that misunderstanding allows unfit jurists, such as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, to wield far more influence than the Constitution ever intended.
During oral arguments on Wednesday in a case concerning President Donald Trump’s use of tariff authority, Justice Jackson suffered what could generously be described as an awkward lapse — confusing former President Richard Nixon with former President Abraham Lincoln in real time.
The exchange began when Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, referenced Nixon’s 1971 tariffs in response to one of Jackson’s questions.
“That wasn’t a tariff,” Jackson interjected in a clip later circulated widely on X. “It was a licensing agreement during wartime. It was a specific thing. A tariff, I’m talking about.”
Her response prompted a calm correction from Sauer.
“I’m referring to President Nixon’s 1971 tariffs,” he clarified, maintaining a respectful tone.
Realizing her mistake, Jackson backtracked.
“Oh, the president. I’m sorry. Excuse me. Yes. I thought you meant Lincoln,” she replied.
The brief but cringeworthy moment quickly made its rounds online, sparking ridicule from conservative commentators and social media users alike. The exchange, some noted, resembled the kind of comic misunderstanding that might leave even the Aflac duck puzzled — or, as one observer quipped, akin to Yogi Berra trying to explain constitutional law in a barbershop.
For critics of the justice, the gaffe served as yet another example of what they view as the intellectual unseriousness that has come to characterize the court’s liberal wing.
Jackson later complained that Sauer was “talking so quickly.”
Kentaji Brown Jackson is embarrassing herself once again in oral arguments:
“President Nixon’s 1971 tariffs…”
“That wasn’t a tariff!…”
“I’m referring to Nixon’s 1971 tariffs”
“Oh I’m sorry I thought you meant Lincoln haha… you’re talking so quickly.” pic.twitter.com/N6dJLw1VIr
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) November 5, 2025
Wednesday’s gaffe represented the latest in a string of embarrassments for Jackson, who has even clashed with her fellow liberals. That should come as no surprise, given her failure to understand the First Amendment, among other things.A silly and dangerous fool, Jackson behaves as if she thinks ultimate power rests with the judiciary. As for the larger question of Trump’s tariffs, legal analyst Jonathan Turley characterized the oral arguments as “interesting,” despite what he described as an uphill climb for Sauer.
It was an interesting oral argument on tariffs (at least for us dysfunctional law nerds). My view has not changed. I think that the odds favor the challengers. Sauer did a brilliant job, but he faced an obviously skeptical and discomforted Court…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) November 5, 2025
Put simply, two core constitutional issues are at play here.
First, the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to impose tariffs. Article I, Section 8 states, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” Whether tariffs are viewed as a form of taxation or as regulation, the authority clearly lies with the legislative branch.
Second — and this is where matters become complicated — the Supreme Court lacks the constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution on behalf of Congress or the president. Were it otherwise, the United States would effectively operate under a form of judicial tyranny. A close reading of Article III reveals no such power. The courts created this authority themselves, the legal establishment perpetuated it, and the public, misled by decades of misunderstanding, has largely accepted it.
The absurdity of this dynamic becomes clear when applied to real-world scenarios. If the Supreme Court were to rule against Trump, and the president chose to comply — though the Constitution does not require him to — it would suggest that elected presidents have the power to wage war and bomb foreign nations at will, but not to fight for American workers simply because unelected judges forbid it.
Such an arrangement would reduce the very idea of self-government to a mockery.
It’s worth remembering that James Madison, often called the “Father of the Constitution,” made tariffs central to his political philosophy. In the 1790s, long before his presidency, Madison championed tariffs as both a peaceful alternative to war and a strategic means to ensure fair treatment for the United States in foreign trade.
In short, Trump could lose the tariff case because of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and other ideologically aligned justices. Yet even if the Court issues an adverse ruling, the president would remain constitutionally justified in disregarding it.
Still, given decades of civic misinformation, many Americans continue to believe the Supreme Court holds ultimate authority over the other branches. If that belief persists, the best solution would be for congressional Republicans to finally assert the legislature’s rightful powers — securing Trump’s tariff authority and protecting it from any future constitutional challenge.
