In recent years, a chilling trend has emerged in American political discourse: the quietude of the Supreme Court’s role as a guardian of constitutional precedent clashes with the public’s growing belief that the Court can reinterpret laws beyond its borders. Matt Damon’s Saturday Night Live sketch, which imagines Brett Kavanaugh drinking six Bud Lights and three shots of Jamo, delivers a twist on this theme — not through satire, but through an unassuming yet powerful revelation about the Constitution itself. The joke hinges on the idea that the Court’s current image is less about preserving the Constitution than about finding a way to let Donald Trump serve a third term. What makes this particularly fascinating is how many Americans now see the Court as more open to creative interpretations after a whisky drink, a vodka drink, or even a lager — a shift that reflects a broader cultural shift toward embracing ambiguity rather than rigid adherence to the text. From my perspective, this trend suggests that the Court isn’t just applying law, but perhaps reimagining it. If you take a step back and think about it, what many people don’t realize is that the Constitution itself is evolving, and that sometimes, even when we don’t know exactly how, the rules can change. This raises a deeper question: How do we balance tradition with progress in shaping our understanding of justice?
