Staff Reports
In the glittering world of Hollywood, where celebrities dispense their wisdom with the seriousness of ancient oracles, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made a notable appearance at the recent Grammys. Attending because she was nominated for best audiobook—an honor she did not ultimately snag—Justice Jackson found herself in the spotlight for reasons beyond literary endeavors. In an event that is usually more about sequins and musical talents than political statements, the anti-ICE rhetoric took center stage, and Jackson’s applause seemed to ring louder than the highest notes of the night.
It appears that liberal room couldn’t resist a good pat on the back. Apparently, showing sympathy or disdain for controversial topics now doubles up as prime-time entertainment. But let’s look at this with a critical eye: Can a supposed neutral arbitrator of justice enthusiastically cheer for political statements without some conflict of interest raising its head? The same left that loves dissecting Justice Clarence Thomas’s vacation snapshots or counting Justice Samuel Alito’s wife’s yard flags seems to be missing their chance here. The double standards on display could have their very own award category if this trend continues.
The apparent silence from the left on Justice Jackson’s not-so-neutral display is deafening. Listening to her talk, as the newest Supreme Court justice, it is noted that Jackson loves to chime in—an impressive 76,000 words worth of chattering during oral arguments, out-speaking some of her bench mates by leaps and bounds. She’s certainly not shy about sharing her thoughts, which makes her silent critics even more glaring in their absence.
Now, let’s not forget the little matter of judicial recusals. They aren’t exactly rare, with plenty of justices stepping aside when a case comes too close to home. Yet, anyone hoping for a similar prudence from Justice Jackson on immigration cases might be in for a disappointment. When it comes to cheers for anti-ICE rhetoric, one would expect some circumspection. But the allure of the spotlight seems to have a gravitational pull that’s hard to resist for some members of the high court.
With political and popular culture becoming increasingly intertwined, perhaps it’s time for events like the Grammys to consider injecting a bit of parity. Imagine a world where conservative voices can have their day without being drowned out by a chorus of boos—what a radical thought. Until then, the debate rages on, with critics selectively mute when it suits them, leaving the rest wondering if the noise of applause has any bearing on the scales of justice.
