A little snark, a little sarcasm: How dissenting opinions catch our attention

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissenting opinions have provoked criticism for their casual and even disdainful tone. She’s called colleagues “hubristic and senseless” and added sarcastic asides.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissenting opinions have provoked criticism for their casual and even disdainful tone. She’s called colleagues “hubristic and senseless” and added sarcastic asides. But she is not the first Supreme Court justice in recent decades to rouse the public with cheeky rhetoric. The late Justice Antonin Scalia was a master of the put-down, often in such memorable terms as his 2013 ridicule of the majority’s “legalistic argle-bargle.” The current debate brings to the fore how the nine justices communicate with the public and especially how those on the losing end get their message out as Americans are focused on the court’s response to the aggressive Trump agenda. When Jackson dissented from the majority’s decision rolling back nationwide injunctions against the Trump plan to end birthright citizenship, she wrote, “(I)n this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab—but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are … (wait for it) … the district courts.” Supreme Court opinions can be dense and difficult for non-lawyers to read. So, a conversational style draws attention, especially if it pitches a few insults with colloquialisms. As some commentators have noted, Jackson’s use of “wait for it” and, in separate instances, “Why all the fuss?” and “full stop,” particularly offended critics.