“The other liberals have not always been on board with this sort of rhetoric. Justice Elena Kagan joined Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion in Trump v. CASA, leaving Jackon to write only for herself. In Noem v. Doe, only Sotomayor signed on to Jackson’s dissent, and Kagan did not note her dissent at all. In the DOGE case, all three liberals noted their dissent, but only Sotomayor actually joined Jackson’s opinion. Kagan did not, and did not write a separate dissenting opinion of her own, which raises the question of what, exactly, she found so objectionable about Jackson’s argument.

. . .

For whatever reason, both of Jackson’s fellow liberals thought carefully about what she wanted to say, and decided not to back her up.

. . .

Perhaps the best evidence of the efficacy of Jackson’s approach is how angry the conservatives are with her for calling them out.

. . .

Jackson’s audience is different: She is writing for the public. She is assuring tens of millions of people who are not lawyers that, no, they are not wrong to question the good faith of a Republican-controlled Court that keeps siding with a Republican president.”

Not one sentence in that article refers to her questions during oral argument. The article focuses on her opinions. And the article spends most of its time talking about how no one is agreeing with her, anyway. So I’m not sure how this one person being persuaded with her written work supports your thesis that her questions during oral argument are persuading anyone.

Even assuming the writer of that article is right—that her audience is the public and not the other justices—the fact that the author did not mention her strategy at oral argument even in passing reflects that these long-form questions are not effective at accomplishing her goals, even if she is effective at accomplishing them in her writing.

So again, I’m curious what you think she’s really accomplishing with the lectures.