The worst Supreme Court Justices of all time are women... - Revolver News

revolver.news

Subscribe to the ad-free edition

Contribute

Sign up for the email list

Feminism has sold women a very rotten bill of goods. They’ve told them a lie that success means becoming more like men. They’ve been told to climb the same ladders, chase the same titles, enter the same institutions, and prove that anything men can do, women can do just as well, if not better.

That’s so untrue and has set women up for a string of massive failures.

READ MORE: Clarence Thomas Answers ‘What Is a Woman’…

Meanwhile, the things that actually make women powerful have been treated like backwoods liabilities. Nurturing is now seen as a weakness. Emotional depth is now shameful, and motherhood has been downgraded to something only “trad wives” do. Being the backbone of a family, a home, and a culture was rebranded as this outdated prison cell women needed to escape.

And all of these changes have caused a disastrous domino effect in this country and all over the world. After decades of pushing women into roles that require cold detachment, hard restraint, and an almost total removal of emotion, the results are a total chaotic mess. The nuclear family has been crushed, birthrates have plummeted, and kids are being raised by minimum wage daycare workers, not mothers, not to mention divorce and extramarital affairs are skyrocketing.

Women would prefer to throw their families to the wolves so they can “prove” they can do anything a man can do, only better.

But this is fan fiction created by feminists and bad actors who want to see tradition and family values die out. Meanwhile, it’s a double whammy because not only are unqualified women destroying families, they’re also destroying industries like law enforcement, military service, and yes, the judiciary as well.

As a matter of fact, in light of yesterday’s ghastly ruling on birthright citizenship, it’s high time to call out the U.S. Supreme Court as one of the institutions unqualified, overemotional women have ruined.

READ MORE: You’re 8X more likely to die of diarrhea in India than be killed by a gun in America…

Obviously, men on the High Court haven’t been flawless. John Roberts’s buffoonish and very “Deep State” moves could fill an entire blog. But one thing very different about men and women is that when it comes to business, men are far more calculated and make moves like chess kings. But when you look at the women who’ve served on the Supreme Court (and those currently serving), a pattern starts to emerge. Some of their most defining public moments weren’t just controversial rulings or legal disagreements… although there’s plenty of that to be found as well. What we’re talking about today is the very soul of what makes a woman a woman: her emotions and how they can spill over into personal grievances, political spectacles, and overall slow-simmering hysteria. And the reason this is so detrimental is because being a Supreme Court justice is a role that’s supposed to require discipline, restraint, and impartiality above almost everything else.

Supreme Court justices aren’t supposed to be CNN pundits, and they’re certainly not supposed to be activists, but many are. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and the law without turning the bench into an emotional cryfest or a therapy session or worse, a political stage.

So when people say some of the worst Supreme Court justices of all time have been women, they’re not just being provocative. They’re pointing to a record of emotion and unhinged thinking that deserves a much closer look.

Six women have served on the highest court in the land… and they all have something in common. They allow their personal feelings and emotions to get the best of them.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes a lot of heat from the left for refusing to retire during the Obama years, a decision that gave President Trump the green light to replace her. But one of the more  telling moments in her career came during the 2016 campaign, when she allowed her emotions and her politics to run wild. Ginsburg totally broke with the level of professionalism that Americans expect from a Supreme Court justice and publicly attacked then-candidate Donald Trump. Ginsburg went on a bizarre and unhinged media tour, calling Trump a “faker,” and went after his ego. Later, she was forced to admit that her remarks were “ill-advised,” and said that judges should avoid commenting on political candidates. But the damage was done. Ginsburg ended up being a glaring example of a justice allowing hysterical emotions and politics to gush out into the open, damaging the image of reputation the Supreme Court.

Sonia Sotomayor:

Sonia Sotomayor has built a reputation for emotional, politically charged dissents, but some of her recent behavior has taken that reputation to another level. In 2024, she publicly admitted that she sometimes cries in her chambers after major Court losses, a confession many on the left praised as “human,” but critics saw as another troubling sign that politics and emotion were bleeding into the work of the Court. Then came her sharp criticism of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in an immigration-related case involving ICE, comments she later apologized for after acknowledging they had crossed a line. Once again, the issue isn’t disagreement. Justices disagree all the time. The issue is whether a Supreme Court justice can maintain the restraint, discipline, and emotional control the role demands, especially when the law doesn’t bend in the direction she wants.

Say what you will, but these very emotional women are all dutiful soldiers in the progressive army.

Elena Kagan:

Elena Kagan’s career raises a different but equally important concern. When she was nominated in 2010, she became the first Supreme Court nominee in nearly 40 years with no prior judicial experience, which immediately sparked debate over whether she belonged on the nation’s highest court at all. Her background at Harvard and in Democratic administrations gave critics plenty of reason to view her less as a neutral legal mind and more as an institutional insider shaped by academia, politics, and activist legal thinking. That concern has followed her onto the Court, where her forceful dissents in major political and civil rights cases often read less like detached legal analysis and more like ideological argument. Her 2026 dissent in the Haitian deportation case, where she called out what she described as the “repellent and racially inflected” nature of past presidential remarks, is exactly the kind of moment critics point to when they argue that politics and emotion have no business bleeding into Supreme Court opinions.

These three women voted against every female athlete in America when they chose to keep men in women’s sports.

READ MORE: Loud, gas-guzzling old SUV’s are the ‘hot girl’ car of Summer 2026…

Ketanji Brown Jackson:

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s place on the Court was all political from the start, and that’s a huge part of the problem. Joe Biden made clear before the nomination was even announced that his pick would be a black woman, which immediately framed the seat around identity before temperament, or judicial excellence. That did Jackson no favors. Instead of entering the process as the strongest possible nominee who happened to be a black woman, she came in as Biden’s DEI promise. Then came the moment that has defined her public image for many conservatives… when she was asked during her confirmation hearing to define the word “woman” and responded, “I’m not a biologist.” For a Supreme Court nominee, that answer was straight up out of the activist playbook, totally political, and absolutely absurdly and out of step with common sense reality. Since joining the Court, Jackson has also drawn criticism for shaky, almost idiotic dissents and goofy sweeping arguments that critics say rely too heavily on politics and emotion rather than disciplined legal reasoning. For many Americans, this woman is a symbol of what happens when dangerous DEI identity politics infiltrates the highest court in the country.

Her logic is absurd, to say the least.

And many wonder why she’s still on the bench.

Amy Coney Barrett:

Amy Coney Barrett has become one of the most polarizing justices among conservatives, not because she consistently votes with the left, but because many of her votes have come in cases where conservatives expected her to stand firmly with the Court’s originalist wing. But in recent years, Barrett has joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberal justices in several really consequential decisions, including cases involving foreign aid, birthright citizenship, and mail-in voting. Those rulings have fueled criticism from many on the right, who argue that Barrett has developed a pattern of breaking with the judicial philosophy they believed she would bring to the Court. Many believe Coney Barrett is caught in that very typical place where conservative women often land, where they don’t want to appear too much one way. It’s as if she’s trying to ride the fence. Not to mention, the many people figured we were doomed on birthright citizenship because Amy Coney Barrett has two adopted children from Haiti. Nobody can prove that swayed her decision, but her record has left many of the conservatives who once championed her appointment very disappointed and disgusted.

Sandra Day O’Connor:

Sandra Day O’Connor was a historic figure as the first woman on the Supreme Court, but her legacy with conservatives is complicated, to put it mildly. Like Amy Coney Barrett decades later, O’Connor became known as a swing vote who often frustrated the very people who expected her to hold the line. The clearest example was Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, where many conservatives hoped the Court would finally overturn Roe v. Wade. Instead, O’Connor became one of the critical votes that kept Roe alive under a new legal framework, dragging out one of the most divisive and destructive constitutional battles in American history for another three decades. History eventually proved just how shaky that foundation was when Roe was overturned years later, but by then the damage had already been done.