My interpretation of the comment made by Supreme Court’s Public Information Officer Patricia McCabe about Beyoncé differs from Josh Blackman’s reaction—I viewed it as likely just McCabe’s well-intentioned but peculiar comment, rather than evidence of a questionable arrangement between Beyoncé and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. However, I found a comment made by Josh that seems highly unlikely to be true:
Despite all the controversy surrounding Justice Thomas, there is no doubt that he and Harlan Crow are genuine friends. They have known each other for almost three decades and have developed a strong bond. Any generosity shown by Crow towards Thomas is based on a deep connection that has been cultivated over the years.
While I have no reason to doubt the close friendship between Justice Thomas and Harlan Crow, it seems inaccurate to claim that no one questions it. Many people do. This raises an intriguing question in my mind: Do Supreme Court Justices truly have friends? Specifically, how can a Justice discern who is a genuine friend and who may have ulterior motives for befriending them?
It is likely that longstanding friendships, such as those from childhood or with a law school roommate, are genuine. However, for new Justices, caution may be warranted when individuals seek their friendship. Many individuals involved in politics may seek to befriend Justices out of fascination with power and influence.
Some individuals may have an agenda in mind when befriending a Justice. Upon arriving in Washington D.C. or joining the Court, Justices may encounter individuals eager to befriend them who coincidentally hold certain views they wish to influence their new friend with. Skepticism towards new acquaintances may be prudent for a Justice.
In a somewhat related context, I ponder the experience of a Justice visiting a law school. It appears common for Justices to receive royal treatment during such visits. How does a Justice feel when the Dean arranges meetings with top-ranking 3L students who are preparing clerkship applications to the Court? While the Justices may understand the intentions behind such interactions, it must still be a peculiar experience.
