Being a Supreme Court Justice is a cushy gig. In addition to having immense power, you gain access to opportunities that would have been unthinkable for an inferior court judge. This weekend, Justice Jackson acted out a role in the Broadway Musical & Juliet. To be precise, a speaking role was specifically written for her. Jackson had this to say:
"I think that it means that anything is possible. Five years ago, I was a district court justice; nobody knew who I was. To have both of the pieces of my fondest dreams come true in this little bit of time has been extraordinary for me."
"I'm overwhelmed with the joy of this experience. I'm so grateful to the staff and crew of '& Juliet' for helping my dream come true. It was phenomenal."
On one level, I'm happy for Justice Jackson. It is always rewarding for people to have their dreams come true. If you sense a but is coming, you're right. But I am somewhat uneasy about this unique opportunity.
To be sure, Justices have been invited for distinct honors. Several Justices have thrown out first pitches at baseball games, including Justices Stevens, Alito, and Sotomayor. Justices Scalia and Ginsburg had non-speaking roles in an opera. Justice O'Connor served as the grand marshal of the Rose Bowl parade. The Justices also routinely preside over classical moot courts, that often involve works of Shakespeare. They give commencement addresses. I'm sure there are other examples you can think of. But in each case, the Justices were offered an honorific that was available for other distinguished individuals. None of these roles were one-offs, created just for the Justice.
By contrast, in Justice Jackson's case, the show created a special role just for her, and wrote lines just for her. This was an experience that was not available to anyone else. And I've seen no suggestion that the producers of & Juliet had some sort of pre-existing friendship with Justice Jackson. It is true that Jackson was performing some work, but the show was clearly giving the Junior Justice something of value--indeed something that has no price tag. And this isn't the first time Justice Jackson has received priceless gifts. While concert tickets from Beyonce have a face value, receiving them directly from the artist, and being able to fraternize with celebrities in the Knowles suite, was priceless. And while the clothes provided from Vogue magazine have a price tag, being photographed by Annie Leibovitz is a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
Justice Jackson will surely be able to disclose these gifts, but whatever dollar amount she lists will not even come close to signifying the true value. How do you quantify a "dream come true"? And why are these strangers to Justice Jackson feting her with these gifts? Because she will rule on cases the right way. Make no mistake about that. Justice Jackson is celebrated as a cultural icon. And Justice Thomas barely gets a mention at the Smithsonian African-American Museum. If Justice Jackson pulled a reverse-Souter tomorrow, and became an arch-conservative, these opportunities would dry up quickly.
Speaking of Justice Thomas, by now, some detractors are screaming, What about Harlan Crow? Sure, let's play that game. Justice Thomas accepted certain travel from his actual friends, and did so when those trips were permitted by the rules. Those rules have since changed, and Thomas will now abide by those rules. Pro Publica and other outlets spent untold resources to track every destination Justice Thomas visited. And the Justice's good name has been dragged through the mud. What about Justice Jackson? She gets a standing ovation and yet another puff piece on CBS News. And silence from the so-called "watch dogs."
WHAT? Supreme Court Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson heads to Broadway to star in a queer 'Romeo and Juliet' play.pic.twitter.com/bNqG0fuBKF
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) December 16, 2024
One final note. During Justice Jackson's confirmation hearing, Senator Blackburn asked her to define the word "woman." Justice Jackson feigned confusion, and said she was not a biologist. We all knew the point of the question, and Jackson had no interest in engaging in it. Two years later, Justice Jackson showed some expertise about gender identity issues during oral argument in Skrmetti. Go figure!
For those who haven't seen & Juliet, the show created a dustup. The New York Times reported in 2023:
A principal performer in the new Broadway musical "& Juliet" has withdrawn from consideration for the Tony Awards rather than compete in a gendered category, shining a renewed spotlight on the question of whether major awards should continue to have separate categories for men and women.
The performer, Justin David Sullivan, is trans nonbinary and uses the pronouns he, she and they. In the pop-song-fueled musical, which imagines an alternative to "Romeo and Juliet" in which Juliet does not die, Sullivan plays May, one of Juliet's best friends. May — an adolescent, like Juliet — is still figuring things out.
Does Justice Jackson's participation in & Juliet, of all plays, cast any doubt on her participation in Skrmetti? Readers may recall that before Obergefell was decided, Justice Ginsburg officiated over John Roberts's same-sex marriage. (Yes, that was actually one of the groom's names.) Did anyone think that Justice Ginsburg's vote in Obergefell was not pre-ordained?
Justice Jackson should be grateful the Supreme Court lacks an enforceable ethics code.
The post How To Think About Justice Jackson "& Juliet" appeared first on Reason.com.
