Correction: In the teaser for this piece, I incorrectly referred to the “nine” apex predators of the American legal trophic pyramid, otherwise known as the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. There are in fact only eight. As aforementioned, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a guppy, for now. But these things have a habit of changing.
Last time around, I proved that the undisputed Shark of The Court is Brett Kavanaugh. No need to revisit (or worse, relitigate) that one. It’s written, it’s published – it may even be admissible in court. So for argument’s sake, let’s call it precedence. I even told Susan Collins it’s settled law. Sharks will be sharks, right? Always have been. Always will be. She knows that.
After all, we can’t blame Senator Collins. Confirming Kavanaugh was an “honest mistake.” We all make those, but with varying implications, of course. I make a mistake and I’m blacklisted from the Spee. Senator Collins makes a mistake and abortion is banned in 13 states. Oops. Bygones be bygones… and enough about that. We’re not here to discuss abortion bans, the politics of the Spee, or the eating habits of acquatic species. We’re here because Harvard is waging perhaps the most consequential legal battle of its 386 year lifetime. And make no mistake: the altruistic Harvard Corporation®, LLC isn’t fighting for itself. It’s fighting for us. And our nation. It’s fighting for the Sandellian good.
Regrettably, King Khurana and Barrister Bacow are limited in this new domain. The Supreme Court cares not for our fancy titles and bloodlines – that’s Old World. This court is different, innovative, and just. This court thoughtfully considers the facts of cases, meticulously evaluates relevant legal arguments, constantly questions their own assumptions, and then—only then—issues its decision. Why six of them always align with the political right is only a mere coincidence. Question that and reveal your sheer ignorance. The court is like modern art: they tell you there’s underlying sophistication and nuance, but then you realize that the white-canvas-with-blue-line was thrown together in a Brooklyn attic-studio by some turtlenecked artist who thinks he’s the reincarnation of Steve Jobs.
In addition to better understanding the dynamics of our Supreme Court, I learned three things about the justices (robed god-kings) on my trip: First, “Rusty” Neil Gorsuch wasn’t popular in college. He revealed this much when he ranted about rowers, squash players, and legacies. Second, Clarence Thomas doesn’t “have a clue what [diversity] means.” Maybe he should check out a dictionary. And Amy Coney Barrett does this thing where she leads lawyers (gladiators) along with hypotheticals (easy opponents) only to flip their own logic against them (uno reverse) and obliterate their points (ego death).
But the lawyers themselves were pretty damn hilarious too. Mr. Cameron “Chuck” Norris, who represented Students for Fair Admissions, roasted Dartmouth when he said that the SFFA admissions plan (which would bring the average admitted Harvard student from the 99th percentile of test scores to the 98th percentile) would be like “moving Harvard [down] from Harvard… to Dartmouth.” And on the Harvard side, it was hardly frankfurter Mr. Seth Waxman’s first rodeo; from all his babbling you would have thought he was a justice. But good ol’ Roberts reminded him of his station when he went on a ramblin’: “Justice– Justice Alito would like to ask you a question.” This was surely a calculated move by Mr. Waxman, and he knows his true audience: the Crimson’s two courtroom reporters.
But as the resident Connecticut Yankee in this timeline, I’m not here to tell you about what happened. If you want to hear that, go read the Crimson. I’m here to tell you about what’s going to happen. That’s right, Oracle of Omaha – there’s a new sheriff in town. And you’re probably not gonna like it. But you know that whole thing about not shooting the messenger:
Harvard is going to lose.
The writing’s on the wall: a six-to-two decision—an edict, they may say— authored by the Shark (the guppy recuses). But like that time we lost to Yale, 16-17 (in overtime), Harvard fought valiantly until the bitter end. The 10,000 men may have left angry and annoyed, but they were thirsty for revenge.
This time, Harvard may have met its match: the soft-spoken litigious Longhorn lawyer Mr. Edward Blum carefully selected every aspect of this arena for battle. He chose the time (October 31st, 2022), place (Supreme Court), and weather conditions (a 6-3 court). He looks pretty friendly too, but don’t let that fool you: he’s a shifty, poisonous arachnid—and he’s been this way for a while. He’s even responsible for gutting major parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Just gonna go out on a limb and guess he’s not one of the good guys.
But hey, there’s always next time. The balance of this court ebbs and flows. Let’s check back in 2050. Maybe then King Khurana’s court will have fewer Sharks and more Connecticut Yankees.
It is so ordered.Charles Steinbaum ’24 (csteinbaum@college.harvard.edu) writes Forum for The Independent.