Did you ever wonder if the Supreme Court tries to look like a bunch of political hacks? Apparently, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson thinks they do. And she’s not afraid to say it out loud.
This isn’t some abstract musing. Jackson, speaking at a lawyers’ gathering, pointed a finger directly at the court’s decision to expedite a voting rights case. Louisiana v. Callais. The rush, she argued, smacked of favoritism. It looked, dare I say, political. It cleared the runway for Louisiana Republicans to redraw their districts before the election. Convenient, isn’t it?
The Court’s Reputation: A Fragile Thing
This isn’t exactly a new concern, is it? The court’s legitimacy hinges on its perceived neutrality. A tight timeline, a decision that clearly benefits one party? It erodes that trust. The New York Times picked up on this, noting that Jackson is increasingly isolated in her willingness to critique the institution. Other justices — Chief Justice Roberts, for instance — trot out the same tired lines about being non-political actors who ‘get along.’ How reassuring.
Jackson’s stance is a sharp contrast. She’s willing to acknowledge the optics, the public perception. Because, let’s face it, perception is reality in these matters. And the court’s reputation has taken a beating. This expedited ruling wasn’t just about Louisiana; it’s a ripple effect. The NAACP is now calling for boycotts of university athletic programs in states enacting restrictive voting laws. It’s a messy, interconnected web, and the court just threw gasoline on the fire.
Court-Packing Fever?
And while we’re on the subject of court anxieties, Ian Millhiser at Vox points out something fascinating: court-packing, once a fringe idea, is gaining traction. Republicans in Utah already did it to their state supreme court. The feds? It’s apparently easier to just add seats to the Supreme Court via ordinary legislation than to pursue something like term limits, which would need a constitutional amendment. The irony isn’t lost on anyone, I hope.
History’s Long Shadow
Speaking of historical blunders, Damon Root at Reason flagged the 130th anniversary of Plessy v. Ferguson. A stark reminder of the court’s capacity for catastrophic error. He’s compiled a list of the ‘worst SCOTUS decisions,’ featuring heavy hitters like Dred Scott and Korematsu. It’s a good exercise, a necessary reminder that the court isn’t infallible. Far from it.
Adam White, in his ‘Major Questions’ column, also weighed in on Jackson’s comments. She’s advocating for a focus on “relative harms” in emergency petitions. White, however, argues this risks siding with those who want to block new policies, not with the unnamed masses who might benefit from them. It’s a valid point, but it doesn’t negate the fundamental issue Jackson raised: the appearance of political interference.
Will This Be the New Normal?
So, what’s the takeaway? Justice Jackson is shining a spotlight on the court’s performance. She’s not just a judge; she’s a critic. And in this era of intense political polarization, that’s a bold, perhaps even necessary, move. The court can’t simply hide behind tradition and expect the public to believe it’s above the fray. Jackson’s willingness to call out the optics is a sign that the pressure is mounting. And for those of us watching the legal landscape, it’s a story worth tracking. Because when the court loses public trust, everyone pays the price.
