This morning, Chief Justice John Roberts should get up, look into the mirror and declare “I deserve good things. I am entitled to my share of happiness. I refuse to beat myself up. I am an attractive person. I am fun to be with.” That mantra from SNL’s “Daily Affirmation with Stuart Smalley” seems appropriate after the former Smalley comedian (and former U.S. Senator) Al Franken declared Roberts a “villain” and his Court “illegitimate” in the latest attack on the institution.
Now that Franken has turned to a podcast as a public platform, the comforting sweaters are gone and the dark Stuart Smalley has emerged. Call it “Daily Condemnations with Al Franken.”
Franken declared that “The court is a very divisive entity now, institution right now. And the Supreme Court, to me, is illegitimate.” He added that Roberts is a “villain” for heading such a divisive court.
Roberts needs to keep in mind that Franken may be “a caring nurturer, a member of several 12-step programs, but he is not a [sitting Senator].”
Franken resigned from the Senate in 2017 amid sexual harassment allegations.
He is also not much of a constitutionalist.
The Supreme Court has long been the subject of public ire over unpopular decisions. It was designed to resist the demands of the public or politics to rule according to the rule of law. In other words, it is meant to be “countermajoritarian” — resisting the pressures of the majority of the country to protect constitutional values and rights.
The first Chief Justice, John Jay, was so hated for that he once remarked that he could travel the “country at night by the light of [my] burning effigies.” One editorial declared: “John Jay, ah! The Arch traitor — seize him, drown him, flay him alive.” Crowds burned Jay in effigy, including a Kentucky mob that stuffed its effigy with gunpowder, guillotined it, then blew it up.
Later, Chief Justice John Marshall also was burned in effigy after writing the famous opinion in Marbury v. Madison. During the desegregation period, Chief Justice Earl Warren was burned in effigy and an “Impeach Earl Warren” campaign launched across the country.
Today it is the left that is calling for court stacking and denouncing the legitimacy of the Court.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, has declared the Supreme Court illegitimate and has called to pack the Court for rendering opinions against “widely held public opinion.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., even questioned the institution’s value: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”
In 2020, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared on the steps of the Supreme Court: “I want to tell you, [Justice] Gorsuch, I want to tell you, [Justice] Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
In addition to controversies over travel and financial benefits for justices, Franken objects to decisions made by the Court that have “divided” the country. It is as comically superficial as his former skit. The country is divided on abortion rights. Yet, Franken believes that the Court was wrong to decide against his side. The earlier division in favor of abortion was perfectly acceptable. It is now “partisan” because it no longer rules with Franken and the left on core issues. Of course, it was not partisan or illegitimate before because it was . . . well . . . right.
What is particularly humorous is that Roberts did not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. He voted alone to preserve the doctrine while adjusting the standard.
Nevertheless, Franken declared “I think the Chief Justice is actually much more culpable for this division than people think. I think Roberts is much more the villain in this than people give him credit for.”
Roberts is a curious target for the left given his repeated votes with the left of the Court in major cases. He is the ultimate institutionalist who has a well-known aversion to the Court intervening into politically sensitive areas. Yet, he is also a conscientious jurist who will vote to do what is constitutionally right rather than what is politically popular.
I often disagree with members of the Court, but I have never questioned their integrity or their institution. Indeed, the public shows the same respect for the Court. It is in our DNA. Despite a constant call to stack or even eliminate the Court from the left on MSNBC and CNN, the public remains committed to the institution despite only half having a favorable opinion of the Court. However, the popularity of the President is even lower and the popularity of Congress stands at just 26 percent.
Despite these divisions and polls, few of us would call the President or Congress “illegitimate.” By these measures, the Supreme Court is a runaway hit with just 48 percent declaring favorable opinions.
Of course, none of this is easy for a Chief Justice who, like everyone, wants to be loved. That is why the Chief needs to go to the ornamental mirror near his chambers every day and say “I’m going to do a terrific [hearing] today! And I’m gonna help people! Because I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and, doggonit, people like me!”
This column ran on Fox.com
People like John Stewart and Al Franken blame Conservates for “dividing the country”. Although this is absurd considering the words and actions of Leftists, the more important point is that such criticism rests on the idea that it would be desirable if there were no division in the country. That would be impossible. Human differences lead to political differences. Unless we all become clones of some ideal human being, there will always be differences and “division.” The real question is not whether division exists, but how elites and the rest of us are able to keep a civil society going despite those divisions. Civility and temperate rhetoric would be good place to start. A respect for facts would be nice too.
Edwardmahl,
Well said.
Their idea of unity is forcing everyone to accept their ideology and their facts.
Anything outside of that and you are the one causing the division.
“I often disagree with members of the Court, but I have never questioned their integrity or their institution. Indeed, the public shows the same respect for the Court.”
That’s one way of saying ,”I suck up to the court regardless of the controversy because at this time I have no problem with the ethical improprieties of the court.”
Turley is trying hard to defend the court when it’s embroiled in a scandal around ethical behavior that everyone agrees needs to be addressed. Contrary to Turley’sclaim, the public shows little respect for the court in light of the increasing evidence of the court’s failure or more importantly Chief Justice Robert’s failure to hold the court to the high standard that it is expected to be.
Turley as usual ignores the substance of the problem and focuses on former Sen. Franken’s personal opinion which is exactly that, his personal opinion. Franken’s criticism are not without merit and everyone who is following the increasing ethics scandal knows this is a problem for the court. Leaks, unreported trips paid by billionaire friends, undisclosed purchases of land by individuals who have had cases before the court, even recent discoveries that Justice Gorsuch deliberately removed his name from an opinion he authored before his confirmation.
Turley’s loyalty to the court and his criticism of those who are demanding some reforms and accountability due to the string of scandals left out the most important thing the court is supposed to maintain. Impartiality. It’s been long known that judges and even justices are supposed to avoid any appearance of impartiality or favorability it’s strictly observed in lower courts, but the Supreme Court is left to it’s own devices when it comes to holding that standard and clearly it is not. This is what Turley is ignoring and he is mocking former Sen. Franken’s valid criticisms to deflect from the more serious issues facing the court.
It’s also clear that the majority of the conservative justices are handpicked by one entity and it was not the president or the senate. It was the federalist society. The appointment and confirmation were merely formalities. Turley complains about ‘stacking the court’, yet he is silent on the fact that the republicans did exactly what he opposes, they stacked the court in their favor. That’s the disingenuousness of Turley’s criticism of others about the court.
“Turley as usual ignores the substance of the problem and focuses on former Sen. Franken’s personal opinion which is exactly that, his personal opinion.”
We expect groomers to find favor with any sex offenders. Keep it up.
The court is not embroiled i9n scandal. All that is going on is the left is trying to pretend that the far less egregious conduct of others in government is somehow equal to Biden’s. It is not.
You equate spouses who are engaged in legitmate business with Sons who are paid fror god knows what and clearly unnelling money to Dad and the rest of the family.
We do not presume that the actions of one spouse create a conflict for the other.
If you would prefer we did – change the law. Regardless it is commonplace throughout government for the spouses of elected government officials to be politically active, and to be paid. If you do not like that change the law.
We also distinguish between gifts and bribes and influence peddling.
Again if you do not like – change the law.
You are free to argue that the Russian Oligarchs and Chinese spies are just friends of the Bidens, and that the millions they raked in were gifts.
But most people know the difference between a supreme court justice going to dinner with a billionaire and a chinese spymaster depositing Millions into your bank account which rapidly spreads to your entire familiy.
Franken is a washed-up comic and sexual deviant who now has to shout louder then his competition just to be noticed. The Democrats fit the definition of “traitor” — they’re willing to sellout their country for power. They use racial and gender division, and now attacks on the SC, to keep their power because they have no other honest means to do so.
“Few of us would call the President or Congress illegitimate.” First of all, the left spent Trump’s four years in office doing just that and they’re still calling him illegitimate both in the past tense and in the subjunctive tense. “If Trump were to run and win, he would be illegitimate.” Second, in terms of this “President,” of course, as long as we’re not allowed to question why voting stopped in four key states where Trump was way ahead and only started days and weeks later to magically find the Magic Biden winning, then yes, it’s a super duper legitimate President and all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. If the positions had been reversed, and voting magically stopped in New York and California with Joe Biden way ahead and then days and weeks later voting had recommenced with a Trump victory, would we then be allowed to question the results? We”ll never know. But I’m loving the unity of this administration. Unity unity unity. Promises made…
The right and turmp supporters have been calling President Biden illegitimate, even Republican senators due to their belief that the election was stolen. Turley has been naughty with the facts again.
“Two-thirds of Republicans still don’t believe Biden was elected legitimately”
That’s more than “a few of us”.
“Two-thirds of Republicans still don’t believe Biden was elected legitimately”
Yep, and more than 50% of the country.
The collusion duelusion when thoroughly investigated was exposed as a Hoax, the only people colluding with Russians was Clinton.
Conversely the more we mange to dig into the 2020 election the more is stinks.
It was important that people were able to trust the 2016 election.
The only reason that many did not – was because not just LIES, but because the Democrats were the ones caught in 2016 election fraud.
As to the 2020 election the more we know the stinkier it gets.
Which given what we saw in 2016 – should not surprise anyone.
Derschowitz is focussed on the election process in this clip – which is incredibly important.
But the is much more than the process itself that must be transparent, trustworthy and free of fraud.
It is also necescary that government stay out of the election. That we have no meddling by CIA/DHS/FBI.
That government not issue grants to organizations that are engaged politically in the election.
That the administration of the election is done entirely by election offiicals – not NGO’s bearing gifts.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ala9g8oYV_4
Al who? Someone who held an elected office until it was wise of him to resign? Someone who is no longer relevant to life in the USA so he is compelled to fool others into thinking he is (relevant)? ?
Al Franken has zero credibility. He is a looney as Elmer Fudd!
And the Supreme Court, to me, is illegitimate.
Okay, but not to me. This type of phrasing is typical of the relativistic era in which we live.
The beauty of Communism and Fascism is that you get to pack the courts with loyal party followers so every court “decision” is what you want. No wonder that AOC, Chuckie Schumer, and Lie-a-Watha Warren want to pack the Court and eliminate the Electoral College. Supreme Court decisions with which they disagree trigger a temper tantrum and a release of their true communist sympathies. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Al Franken has had more than his fair share of “fame” and is desperately trying to become relevant
It would be nice if Franken and others would delve into the law and constitution in support of their opinion. Dobbs? Gee, Roe was always a bad decision, based on Constitutional scholarship and precedent. That’s the opinion of those on the left of the political spectrum. I think even RBG faulted the law supporting Roe.
But that’s just one. Historically, SCOTUS has had some real clinkers, and time was the curative salve, used to get things right.
But the problem is not the Justices, deciding the cases. The problem is what they are using to make their decisions. The Constitution.
How many times have commenters here at this blog, label our gracious host a Conservative? Prof Turley is not a conservative. He is a staunch supporter of the Constitution, and rule of law.
Guess what? The Constitution protects the speech of its citizens from govt censorship. The Constitution, state clearly the right to bear arms preceded the founding of the Nation, and ratification of the Constitution. The Constitution requires due proccess before the Government strips citizens of their freedom and property.
The Constitution codifies the limited enumerated powers of the Federal Govt, while stating clearly the States or the People are sovereign.
Supporting those tenets of the Constitution, and many more, somehow gets you labeled as right wing extreme.
Iowan2,
It is part of the leftist propaganda to demonize anyone to the right of Mao as a right wing extremist. That way they can make it seem like there are radical right wing, neo-Nazi, white supremacists, around every corner.
If it were not for the Constitution, the current Supreme Court, the leftists could ram their ideology down everyone else’s throats and establish a one party system with absolute totalitarian rule. We see it with their totalitarian desire for censorship.
Turley frequently shows the ignorance and stupidity of commentators like Franken. Being from Minnesota, as was Franken, Professor Turkey’s reminder that Franken lives has ruined my day.
The huge network of non-profit foundations, so called “think tanks”, etc. funded by left wing billionaire’s have realized that their elected Democrat puppets are not going to commit electoral suicide and vote to expand SCOTUS. So the strategy now is to perpetually attack conservative SCOTUS members personally.
Try to delegitimize them by creating the false impression in the public consciousness that they are unethical. They push their bogus ethics claims to their media apparatchiks at Politico, WaPoo, etc. who publish the manufactured propaganda and disseminate it to the broader public to try to create the political will for Congressional investigations. The SCOTUS members targeted will be unable to do their jobs while under investigation. The goal seems to be twofold: 1) force recusals while the fake investigations are conducted and 2) force the SCOTUS members being falsely attacked to hire attorneys to drain them of their resources. That will signal to any other normal people being considered for SCOTUS in the future what Democrats plan to do to them if they accept.
Professor Turley, SCOTUS’s worries about being perceived as illegitimate are self inflicted. E.g. the questioning of Justices about the—horrors!—leak of the DOBBS opinion which none of the Justices could be bothered to do while under the perjury oath that us peasants would have had to do.
Let’s also stop; with the bunk that the DOBBS leak was UNPRECEDENTED!!! (the exclamation points show that this is REALLY SERIOUS!!!) DOBBS was merely an incremental step, in which the actual text of the opinion was leaked. instead of just an oral briefing. Two historical examples:
1. Chief Justice Taney briefed President Buchanan about the DRED SCOTT opinion, so Buchanan could make speeches saying that slavery was now settled and let’s move on. Source: THE DRED SCOTT CASE by Don Fehrenbacher.
2. Somehow the Solicitor General’s office got wind of the decision in KOREMATSU in 1944, and promptly rushed to SCOTUS to arrange for the decision to be released AFTER the presidential election, so FDR wouldn’t be bothered by it. That’s what happened. Source JUSTICE AT WAR by Peter Irons.
You would think Franken wouldn’t be loving himself some 1930’s German Fascism…just saying
Life is so easy when you are a liberal. Clean Water!! Climate Change!!
(To self: I am such a good person😊)
People like John Roberts try to appease the left and they never learn that they will not accept you unless you do exactly what they want on every issue.
The left’s opinions on almost every major issue would get destroyed in a plebiscite. Have a vote on whether the border should be as open as it is today, whether we should have no-bail laws, capital punishment, longer prison sentences, reparations and yes even abortions. Ask whether more people support bans after a certain period, the Republican opinion, or if it should be legal until the 9th month, the Dems opinion. Ask about taxes. Ask about free speech. Ask about trans men in women’s sports, locker rooms and bathrooms. Ask about having teachers telling 2nd grade kids about their gender. Ask about a trans man twerking in front of a 5 year old. Ask about not drilling for OUR oil. Ask about canceling our pipelines. Ask about being friendlier to Iran than Israel or Saudi Arabia.
Ask yourself why in most elections in 2022 it was the Democrat that fought against having debates and if you can’t deduce that this proves that their ideas aren’t popular than you are probably Svelaz or “Anonymous”.
One only has to remember that Franken rode to fame as a Clown and fell from grace because of his personal lack of ethics and morality
My Father taught me in life we make friends and enemies and we are judged by others based upon the kind of people who our friends…..and our enemies.
As much as I do not care for the current Chief Justice’s Opinions I still respect him and the position he holds
As burning some corn shucks in his name I fail to see what good that does beyond showing one’s ignorance and intolerance as well as a gross failure to grasp the role the US Supreme Court plays in our system of government so wisely crafted by the Founders.
Face it….ruling by simple majority or popular vote….is just mob rule dressed in fine linen.
That is why we have the Electoral College and the Supreme Court….to prevent just that.
Those that reject or attack those two facets of our system of government do so for evil reasons…..their quest for raw power and corrupt rule.
Bear in mind all those ranting are far left, i.e. Marxists. They are upset because the court is currently blocking their plans of world domination. When they say public opinion, they are only referring to those who agree with them.
they are Fascist…not Marxists. Democrats are fine with giant companies controlling society. Marx didn’t “Marx condemned capitalism as a system that alienates the masses. “
guyventner: Yes, and conservatives don’t seem to know the difference. Marx would be turning over in his grave to hear these “identity politics” fascists constantly denigrating the working class as “white supremacists,” and using relativist terms like “oppression” instead of the one word Marx based his entire objective economic theory on: exploitation. There’s no doubt that today’s “anti-fascists” are just the beginning of another Third Reich, brought to us by the World Economic Forum and its lackies, the Democrats and RINOs.
You can be both fascist and marxist.
The nazi’s were both fascists and socialists, as was Musolini
Those seeking to destroy faith in our institutions are not uneducated people. They must know the danger of having a public that does not respect its institutions.
This leads me to the horrifying conclusion that they know the unraveling of society will ensue. They know but they have a purpose for instigating it. They expect never to have to relinquish power.
Ti317,
I have often wondered why the leftists seemingly, willingly promote the destruction of the faith and confidence of the American public for various institutions. From the government at all levels, election integrity, government agencies, public education system, courts, and the MSM.
I think your conclusion answers my question: They wish to unravel society into chaos in order to seize power and impose their totalitarian rule.
I think the only justice not compromised or in fear for their family and acting accordingly, is Justice Thomas.