The past few election cycles have been objectively tumultuous. The political branches of government, whether fueled by the entry of edutainment into the political sphere or simply a cultural shift, have gone from their status on page three of morning papers of my childhood to the shrieking headlines of the 24 hour news cycle of 2025.
And while court decisions are treated no differently by the news, announcing procedural decisions with the flourish of a cage match, the fact is that by comparison, the court has not changed all that much over the years. It is designed to be as slow moving as an ox-cart covered in winter molasses, because someone in the government needs to move slowly.
In years when change is needed, we bemoan the conservative nature of the Court. It is slow to recognize the emergence of cultural shifts, relying often on precedent that can be hundreds of years old. And while there are days when this can be hair-pullingly frustrating, when the political branches start to play paintball with our most sacred legal principles and documents, having a branch that doesn’t allow for such things can prove remarkably useful.
In the case discussed in the above video, I highlight what is, frankly an unremarkable event. After the prior week’s sweep of unanimous decisions, this case from last week included a concurring opinion from Justices Jackson and Thomas, an odd couple by any standards. But it draws attention to the fact that the Court mostly makes decisions based on legal principles, logic, and other incredibly incredibly boring and non-newsworthy procedures. And so, this case was not a front page news story. You’d be hard pressed to find many news stories on it at all.
By contrast, commenters on my videos frequently bemoan the Court’s constant bickering, Real Housewives style backroom brawls, exciting alleyway intrigue and general untrustworthiness as an institution. But this is based on a view of the Court resting entirely on the rare case where an entirely ideological decision is made (which often divides on legal ideology more than political ideology anyway).
And so, I have presented this video. Not as an outlier, and not to prove that Justice Thomas is secretly a teddy bear. Rather, to demonstrate that the Court, as an institution is boring, and slow, and conservative (meaning slow to change) in its nature. And while that holds us back in periods of progress, it also acts as an achor, slowing the ship of state as it is steered into an iceberg.
Presented for your consideration:
Parrish v. United States
Share this post