Jennifer Sung is like a puzzle wrapped in a mystery, all sitting courtside of contentious progressive politics. Appointed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in late 2021, by none other than President Joe Biden, Sung has quickly turned into a darling of the woke mob. The question is, what does she bring to the table besides her unmistakably partisan flair and how in the world did she become this cornerstone of liberal legal strategy?
Here’s some backstory for those who weren’t keeping tabs: Jennifer Sung was a part-time lawyer who went full-time in the political show business. Known primarily for her work in labor law, she spent significant years advocating for unions—a cause near and dear to any progressive heart. But we’re not talking about run-of-the-mill union stuff here; Sung has a record more colorful than a rainbow flag at a pride parade.
Sung emerged from law school ready to rally the troops against the capitalist machine. She took up cases for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), where she challenged corporate bogeymen at every turn. Her ideas about capitalism didn’t fall far from the ivory tower theories spouted across campus lawns, which makes her transition to the judiciary all the more intriguing. This courtroom warrior’s ethos was refined in the liberal epicenters of Yale and Harvard, where echo chambers have ceased to provide any challenges to one's beliefs if they're anything but conservative.
Fast forward to her Ninth Circuit seat. Her confirmation wasn’t a leisurely stroll through a tulip garden. It was more of a charged climate, teetering toward a political standoff. Yet, supported by a narrow 50-49 Senate vote, her allies ensured that impending conservative dissent remained just that—dissent.
Sung’s notable legal advocacy reads like a progressive’s wishlist. She represented workers fired for political speech in Tillman v. Wheaton Haven Recreation Ass’n. Combine her practice with previous clerkships under progressive champions like Sonia Sotomayor, and you have a clear picture of an advocate who ceased to separate personal ideology from courtroom pragmatism. Her judgments carry a weight, cleaving issues along predictably partisan lines thinner than tissue paper. So what’s her spice? She slides under the guise of "protecting civil liberties," a term too broad and too often misused.
Her nomination saw spirited opposition about her surtitles. These days, the line between labor law prowess and ideological zealot is as blurred as a Hollywood romance. Her allegiances to seemingly socialist doctrines should have been enough to raise red flags. But then again, the beltway loves a good funhouse when the liberals are in power, and Sung fit the puzzle piece snugly.
Her involvement in drafting a letter opposing Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation laid the foundation for fiery debates when her judicial nomination arrived. The letter denounced Kavanaugh with unchecked claims of sexual misconduct. Sung later on signaled some regret, but was it a mere necessity shrugged off as a "forget about it" ideology espoused to keep her wagon hitched to progressives in power?
Her representation of workers’ interests has been revered in circles that serenade big government input as gospel. Yet, her potential impact on the judiciary remains worrisome for any advocate of smaller government and individual accountability. The Ninth Circuit Court has long held the reputation of being packed with judges willing to engage in legal gymnastics that favor one ideology over another, and Sung was just the right athlete for their team.
Jennifer Sung’s appointment embodied the oscillating power dynamics of Washington D.C. It exemplifies how law isn't always determinant of truth, but often a matter of who controls the gavel. Her interactions with constitutional principles are interpreted with a conductorship akin to orchestrating liberal theater, one where unapologetic interpretation of the law is another show under the circus tent.
Still, credit must be given where it is due. She represents a new wave of court nominees who don’t shy away from stating their positions boldly—a hallmark of her career echoed in Trump’s more forthright appointment ethos. However, where courts used to err on the side of impartiality, Sung embodies what feels like fervor rather than reason. Whether this will ensure the sky-high ideals she envisions remains a dramatic plot twist entirely dependent on future legislative suits walking the tightrope.
Ultimately, one might feel a certain prudence, as her judgments inevitably continue to fall in line with a particular ideological slant masked under the guise of "justice.” Her impact on the judiciary isn’t about pushing boundaries of fair interpretation, but about being another cog in the larger political machine—just a more overt cog at that.