Staff Reports
In a stunning display of cultural misalignment, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently took a break from interpreting the law to take center stage on Broadway. As if the world of politics wasn’t already resembling a high school drama club, Jackson jumped into the realm of stage acting, performing in a queer adaptation of Shakespeare’s classic tale, “Romeo and Juliet.” Her portrayal of Queen Mab in “& Juliet” marks a new low in the intersection of entertainment and governance, one that many would argue is more farce than artistic expression.
This latest escapade raises the question: should a Supreme Court Justice be participating in politically driven performances? The answer should be an emphatic no. One would think that the aura of the highest court in the nation demands a semblance of decorum, yet Jackson seems content to blur the lines between public service and personal theatrics. It’s hard to believe that this is the same individual who struggled to define what a woman is during her confirmation hearing. Yet here she is, fully embracing a character in a play that promotes untested gender ideologies while a critical case regarding gender and minors hangs in the balance before the Supreme Court.
For this performance, Jackson received applause from an audience eager for spectacle, but we must ask ourselves: what are we applauding? Is it a portrayal of true talent or merely an exhibition of progressive ideals dressed up in theatrical guise? Early glimpses of her performance show a disconcerting lack of ability, raising specters of cronyism and the idea that merit is being swapped for political correctness. Her participation in a play with themes that dangerously flirt with radical gender ideology while being a sitting justice isn’t merely unorthodox; it’s troubling, particularly when such ideas are being debated at the highest legal level.
Jackson has been hailed as a symbol of “female empowerment,” yet her rise to the Supreme Court has been more about meeting diversity quotas than showcasing judicial merit. It is astonishing how often she uses her background as an excuse for her elite status. Pretending she is breaking barriers while receiving preferential treatment is like being given an award for showing up. Her narrative of overcoming hurdles rings hollow when those hurdles were removed well before she reached the finish line.
While some might attempt to draw comparisons between Jackson’s flashy Broadway debut and former Justices’ extracurricular activities, such as attending the opera, it falls flat. The opera doesn’t involve enacting social manifestos or conflating entertainment with politics in a manner that undermines the credibility of the judiciary. The actions of Ketanji Brown Jackson serve not only to embarrass the Supreme Court but also to reflect an alarming trend in which elite figures feel entitled to flaunt mediocrity under the guise of representation and self-expression.
The culmination of these troubling events should spark indignation among the American populace. Justices should be held to a standard of seriousness, accountability, and respect for the rule of law rather than engaging in theatrical exhibitions of social justice. Otherwise, we risk morphing into a society that celebrates flash over substance, style over merit, and popularity over integrity. The unrelenting push for banal acceptance, wrapped in cultural progressivism, does not warrant a stage—much less the highest court in the land. The time has come to demand dignity in high office, ensuring that individuals who shape our nation’s laws uphold the gravity of that responsibility.
