By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a solo opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the Supreme Court’s handling of the Trump administration’s legal battles, likening it to a game of “Calvinball” where the administration always prevails. Jackson described the NIH case as the latest instance of the court favoring the Executive Branch, highlighting the potential consequences for both the law and the public. This statement marked a departure from her colleagues, as she did not have the support of the other Democratic appointees. Jackson expressed hope that affected parties could maintain their claims long enough for the court to reconsider its stance.
Read the original article here
Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson accuses the right-leaning justices of playing Calvinball for Trump. Is she right? The immediate gut reaction is a resounding “yes.” The use of “Calvinball” is spot-on, a perfect analogy for the way some see the current Supreme Court operating. It’s as if the rules of the game – the very foundation of legal precedent – are being rewritten mid-play, often to the benefit of one particular team. The issue of precedents being reinterpreted, or even discarded outright, is a significant one. When established legal principles can be flipped simply because of a change in judicial perspective, it undermines the stability and predictability of the law.
The timing of these shifts is also critical. When changes seem to conveniently benefit a specific group or political agenda, especially after the previous interpretation served the majority for a long time, it raises serious questions about the integrity of the process. There’s a sentiment that, in essence, only one side on the Court is making up the rules, while the other is expected to adhere to established law. This creates an uneven playing field and fuels the perception of judicial bias. The fact that Justice Roberts is reportedly facing disapproval within his own community hints at the degree to which the court’s actions are impacting the broader public perception.
The essence of “Calvinball” – making things up as you go along – mirrors the actions of Trump and his allies. There’s a feeling that power is being sought for its own sake, a disregard for established norms and a willingness to bend or break rules to achieve desired outcomes. The very need to question the Court’s actions, to even ask if Justice Jackson is correct, feels almost absurd. The level of agreement is nearly unanimous within the context it was posed.
The historical context is also relevant. Some would argue that the Supreme Court has often favored the wealthy and powerful, with civil rights victories being viewed as exceptions to the rule, making it the outlier. This perspective views the Court’s actions as a return to a historical pattern. This sentiment is amplified by the perception that lower courts are also under threat, solidifying the feeling of a system being manipulated.
The blatant disregard for precedent, coupled with rulings that contradict previous sworn statements, further validates Justice Jackson’s assessment. Many agree that it’s an obvious observation. The feeling of frustration is palpable, with some individuals expressing anger at those they perceive as complicit in enabling this shift, whether through ignorance or fear.
Furthermore, the focus on certain legal doctrines, like the “major questions doctrine,” feels tailored to obstruct Democratic administrations while giving broad latitude to Republicans. It’s seen as a deliberate attempt to limit the scope of government actions based on political allegiance. There is a sense that this is a high-stakes game where the ends justify the means.
Some find the situation reminiscent of characters, and games like “I win” from the movie “Big Daddy.” The question of who watches the watchmen is a valid one. Justice Jackson is a key witness to the inner workings of the court. To suggest she might be incorrect feels almost insulting. The fear that the Supreme Court is being compromised, along with the question of how far this will go in dismantling institutions, is prevalent. The feeling of watching democracy be undermined by the court is what is being expressed. The predictability of decisions, the reliance on obscure or outdated legal reasoning, and the overall sense of rot within the system contribute to a profound feeling of disappointment and disillusionment.