Supreme Court Declares Nation Officially Full of Critics—But What Does That Mean for You?

Am I the only one who feels like these days you can’t even rule on a constitutional crisis without someone passive-aggressively subtweeting you? Seriously—what would happen if Chief Justice Roberts just unplugged and disappeared to Aruba for a week? Would the think-piece machine finally slow down… or would the court just be roasted on Twitter anyway for not live-streaming sand dispute hearings? The Supreme Court just handed down a scorching 6-3 decision—yep, they essentially declared, on official record, that everyone’s suddenly an armchair justice with a JD from Google Law School . Yeah, you there, in the faded Harvard sweatshirt—put down the gavel. Let’s be honest, try on one of those black robes and suddenly half the country thinks you’re auditioning for Judge Judy. It’s a wild, ironic world when the most powerful bench in the land just wants a little gratitude and, instead, gets hot takes by the dozen . Wondering if the dissent’s going to let loose? Spoiler: It does. Want to read every sardonic word? LEARN MORE

WASHINGTON—In a provocative 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that everyone’s a damn critic these days. “It is this court’s opinion that apparently everyone has their own ideas about how this court should operate and is not shy about sharing their views—even when no one asks,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his 10-page majority decision, which cites numerous legal precedents of people being able to dish it out but not take it. “After a period of careful review, we have no choice but to uphold the Rehnquist Court’s 1993 ruling that there’s just no pleasing some people. My colleagues and I have pored over the evidence and believe that if everyone thinks it’s so freaking easy to do this job, they should put on a robe and try it for themselves. A little appreciation would be nice from time to time—that’s all we’re mandating here.” In an opinion joined by two of her colleagues, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a blistering dissent in which she argued that, sometimes, the court’s critics may have a point.