Ben Sasse, the former Nebraska senator turned opinion columnist, has published a piece in the Wall Street Journal arguing against cameras in the Supreme Court.
The article has drawn widespread mockery, with critics suggesting its earnest arguments read more like satire than serious political commentary.
Legal commentators have noted the piece includes lines such as “good justices come to the bench with humility, cloak themselves in black robes, and set aside their personal preferences.”
Sasse also wrote that “in America’s constitutional system, judges don’t make laws; they apply them,” a claim critics found deeply ironic given recent Supreme Court activity.
The piece further states that “people talk about the justices as if they wear red and blue robes,” a line observers found particularly rich coming from Sasse specifically.
Critics have pointed to Sasse’s own political record as undermining the credibility of his high-minded arguments about judicial independence and impartiality.
When Justice Antonin Scalia died, Sasse publicly argued the only acceptable nominee should be a nonpartisan judge, before joining Senate Republicans in blocking hearings for President Barack Obama’s pick entirely.
When pressed on that position, Sasse offered what critics described as a characteristically evasive response rather than a clear justification for the Senate’s inaction.
“Well, I mean, I think we could have infinite theoretical and historical debates about the Biden rule and the Schumer rule and the so-called first term rule and the lame duck of a presidency rule,” he told NPR at the time.
Sasse later described himself as a “founding member of the ACB for SCOTUS club,” a reference to his vocal support for elevating Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, directly contradicting the principles he had previously cited.
The tension between his stated beliefs in judicial neutrality and his own highly partisan record on court appointments is what critics say makes the Wall Street Journal piece so difficult to read as anything other than unintentional comedy.
Legal commentators have argued the Supreme Court has spent recent years issuing rulings that create new legal frameworks without a corresponding act of Congress to support them.
Sasse’s argument that cameras would somehow politicise an already intensely political institution has done little to win over sceptics who see the piece as deeply disconnected from reality.
The broader debate over Supreme Court transparency and the role cameras might play in public accountability is a legitimate policy question, but critics argue Sasse is among the least credible voices to raise it.