In the whimsical world of judicial theatrics, Judge James Boasberg seems to have penned a new chapter, spinning to his own off-tune symphony. The Supreme Court, however, decided it was time to put the brakes on this dizzying spectacle by vacating Boasberg’s orders on jurisdictional grounds. They’ve suggested rejigging the theatrical display to fit within the lines of proper judicial proceedings.

While the court’s decision was delivered without the dramatization of ideological bickering, the interactions between Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson were seemingly misinterpreted in the media. The gossip hinted at a rebuttal but missed the finer notes of legal discourse and judicial professionalism.

On a parallel note, the framework for dissent eschews cosmic analogies in favor of firm procedural and due process arguments. Justice Jackson, in her dissent, adhered to these principles, rather than introducing extraterrestrials or fictional narratives.

Among the rest of this fictionalized tale was the mention of an imaginative “Jasmine Crockett standard” and other whimsical fictions that were none but a ludicrous diversion from actual legal standards or existing judges.

As the gavel falls, and the Supreme Court’s decision finds its place in history, we see that theatrics cannot replace the gravity of judicial process grounded in constitutional law.