Author and cultural critic Fran Lebowitz added voice to the unhinged calls on the left for trashing the Supreme Court. As I discussed recently in the Wall Street Journal (and in my book), there is a growing counter-constitutional movement in the United States led by law professors, pundits, and celebrities. Lebowitz amplified those calls in a radical demand to simply get rid of the Court.
Lebowitz called for President Joe Biden to “dissolve the Supreme Court” despite the fact that it would violate the Constitution and remove one of the most critical protections against executive and legislative abuse.
Lebowitz insisted that the Supreme Court is a “disgrace” because, in a reference to Donald Trump, it is “completely his.” To the wild applause of the New York audience, she added: “It’s so disgraceful, this court, that it shouldn’t even be allowed to be called the Supreme Court. It’s an insult to Motown. Basically, it’s a harem. It’s Trump’s harem.”
Her views aligned with others on the left who have attacked the Constitution, the Court, and even rights like free speech as now threats to our democracy.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer previously declared in front of the Supreme Court, “I want to tell you, [Neil] Gorsuch, I want to tell you, [Brett] Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) announced that she wants the impeachment of all six of the conservative justices. She was immediately joined by other Democratic members.
Previously, Ocasio-Cortez admitted that she does not understand why we even have a Supreme Court. She asked “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”
Other members, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have called for packing the Court with additional members to immediately secure a liberal majority to rule as she desires.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., RI), has assured voters that Vice President Kamala Harris will support the packing of the Court with a liberal majority.
Despite supporting censorship to combat “disinformation,” many on the left now eagerly spread disinformation about the Court and its rulings. Lebowitz repeated false claims about the Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, stating that the decision makes the president a “king” who “can do whatever you want.”
In reality, the Court followed the same approach that it has taken in prior conflicts between the branches.
As it has in the past, the Court adopted a three-tiered approach to presidential powers based on the source of a presidential action. Chief Justice John Roberts cited Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, in which the court ruled against President Harry Truman’s takeover of steel mills.
In his famous concurrence to Youngstown, Justice Robert Jackson broke down the balance of executive and legislative authority between three types of actions. In the first, a president acts with express or implied authority from Congress. In the second, he acts where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area). In the third, the president acts in defiance of Congress.
In this decision, the court adopted a similar sliding scale. It held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial or private actions.
None of this matters. Facts do not matter. Many on the left are calling for the trashing of the Constitution based on wildly inaccurate claims.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, is author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States,” published last month. In a 2021 Los Angeles Times op-ed, he described conservative justices as “partisan hacks.”
In the New York Times, book critic Jennifer Szalai scoffs at what she calls “Constitution worship.” She writes: “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us; a growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.” She frets that by limiting the power of the majority, the Constitution “can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps authoritarianism grow.”
In a 2022 New York Times op-ed, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for liberals to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
Lebowitz previously said that Trump should be killed with the help of the Saudi government.
Lebowitz is demonstrably wrong about the voting record of the justices. In reality, the Court continues to rule largely by unanimous, or nearly unanimous decisions. After April, unanimity stood at 46 percent of cases.
Of the 22 6-3 decisions, only half broke along ideological lines. That is the same as the 11 such cases last term.
The average for unanimous decisions has been roughly 43 percent. The rate is back up to 48 percent for the last term. When you add the nearly unanimous opinions, it is the vast majority of cases. Moreover, Sotomayor agreed with Roberts in 71% of cases Kavanaugh and Barrett agreed with Sotomayor roughly 70% of the time.
In critical decisions, conservative justices like Gorsuch and Barrett have joined their liberal colleagues and the Court has repeatedly voted against positions supported by Donald Trump.
Again, none of this matters. Lebowitz and others are falsely telling the public that the Court is dysfunctionally and ideologically divided. Of course, even if you accept the false premise, the problem is not with the liberal justices always voting as a block but the conservatives doing so. The liberals are not robotic, they are simply right.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Fran Lebowitz should be careful to remove a group that is sometimes the last backstop for individual rights. I understand she is not happy with this court. Yet, history teaches again and again what happens when rights do not get protected.
Fran Lebowitz has a right to her criticism and she also has the right to be wrong. Does She think people will just be nice if the Court goes away? I wonder how she would feel if she was attacked and justice was not done because the Court is gone.
Just because you do not the outcome of a case or an opinion on the law does not make it wrong. It just means you disagree and that is your right.
Twice I’ve gotten “Notice verification failed”
Test
Johnny Kerry has joined those who admit wanting to eliminate the First Amendment. To think he once asked us to trust him with the reins of government.
So many on the left are attacking our system of laws that it almost seems like coordinated prep of a battle space.
Perhaps Musk is right when he says the next election may be our last if the Democrats prevail. The arguments for taking extreme measures for whatever ’emergency’ is concocted are already being laid out to infect the public mind. The last words of Madame Roland standing before the guillotine come to mind.
“Lebowitz called for President Joe Biden to “dissolve the Supreme Court”
She probably belongs to the John Birch Society. Years ago, they called to dissolve the Supreme Court as well.
For the dumb leftists who think she is a part of the JBS, she isn’t. Everything you leftists complained about from extremist groups is what the left is willing to do now.
“Lebowitz called for President Joe Biden to “dissolve the Supreme Court” despite the fact that it would violate the Constitution and remove one of the most critical protections against executive and legislative abuse.”
Professor Turley needs to understand that the left wants to remove the protections of executive and legislative abuse. They openly promote executive and legislative abuse. That is the nature of leftism.
You lost me there Jonathan. It is virtually always predictable which way the liberals will vote, and it is almost universally wrong. Not so with the so called conservative justices. By your own admission, they are all over the map and completely unpredictable, with the possible exceptions of the only two originalists on the court. And even Thomas comes out with an occasional curve ball.
Please stop calling them liberal. They are the opposite of liberal.
The founding fathers created the US Constitution, including the later amendments known and the Bill of Rights, to create a governable structure for government. The Constitution was also designed as the citizen’s bulwark against any future, arbitrary, even tyrannical governments. What’s missing from most critical arguments against the USSC is the acknowledgement of that the founders created the Constitution as a LIVING, BREATHING document, in words that leftist’s seem to prefer. In other words, there are provisions for LEGALLY amending it, and it HAS been amended before. It would be most instructive if Mr. Turley reviewed those provisions (re: Constitutional Convention). Why do the Democrats prefer abolishing the Constitution, over amending it legally? Because in practice, when elected they rule, not govern. The rule lawlessly and against the will of the American people. The Democrats democracy, re: “our Democracy” (as if it belongs exclusively to the their leftists) looks nothing like the democracy of the founding fathers. Their “democracy” in practice, is a lawless oligarchy, one that has no need for the US Constitution, one where the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are obstacles to their intentions, their “democracy”, their “progress”. The first thing I learned from my Communist professors in college, way back in the 1970’s, was that they do not use the same lexicon that defines the English language. Their lexicon is an “evolved” Marxist lexicon, where words like “democracy” are subjectively refined. The Democrats’ anti-Supreme Court, and anti-constitution tirades are not pro-democracy. They are pro-anarchy.
Who cares what Lebowitz says? She is an over rated, super liberal, gay dimwit from NYC. She is the tip of the spear when it comes to NYC liberal nut jobs. Her academic credentials are weak. She ended up working for Warhol and becoming part of the perverted Studio 54 crowd. She’s a nobody who ended up being famous because of her famous, perverted friends. She is a NYC cat lady who writes idiotic, bombastic articles.
I’m going back
Why do Democrats demand democracy that only favors their views and opinions? Comes across as disingenuous and morbidly conceited.
AND incredibly dangerous!
Not surprising in the least. Just another facet of the neo communist uprising.
You disgusting commies really ought to realize, this won’t end up the way you desire. USA is not 3rd world Asia or central/south america. If you somehow achieve your goal you will receive exactly what you deserve. It won’t take long. I sincerely hope you get everything you have coming.
* Watched the Maher program with liebowitz, Yuval etc and pseudointellectuals have free speech, too. TDS campaign commercial.
For like the millionth time, Jon….they don’t want to pack the court, they want to unpack it. Your refusal to acknowledge this is like a kid with their hands over their ears chanting “nananananananana”…
And it’s odd because, by far, your most insightful and least vomit inspiring written position was your plan to expand the court in the 90’s. Of course that was with the hope of the right taking over the court as has happened through the Federalist Society. This leaves you in the unenviable position of having to actively ignore your career’s best suggestion in order for you to shill for the right as you’ve chosen to do….
Hope the money feels good, because you’ve become quite the tragic figure…, and that’s actually putting it kindly.
Anonymous wrote, “[Turley’s] plan to expand the court in the 90’”
This is the first time I’ve read this claim – have you any references?
Trump didn’t “pack” anything. He appointed the best people he thought would abide by the US Constitution. Unlike any Democrat has ever done, and Biden chose DEI appointee, JUST like Obama did. For their skin color and gender, NOT the best for the job.
So go cry elsewhere Skippy.
Anonymity is the act of a coward…
Lol….you got the TDS
Hopefully it’s terminal, should be quicker than cirrhosis of the liver!
Yet another celebrity, basking in self-importance and self-righteous rage, sharing her views with us on the Court and the Constitution–views that are unencumbered by any knowledge of either.
Obviously tuned to the vibe that can be, and unencumbered by any enlightenment from what’s happened before…
Am I the only one who remembers all those years when, in response to conservative protests against our previously left-wing Court, the Left insisted upon the sacred majesty of the Law? It seems that those were also the many years when the Left was fiercely defensive of free speech. Further, any suggestion that a politician supported Russian initiatives was an attack on that politician’s patriotism. One might even ask, “Have you no decency, Sir?”
Watched the McCarthy hearings, as a 9 yr old, every afternoon with my mother, a legal (1943) immigrant, and became a US citizen before I was born in 1944. One of the most difficult things for her, for her entire American life, was witnessing the utter gullibility of Americans, AND the dishonesty of the press. She was ‘interviewed’ shortly after her arrival, and was appalled by the many ‘made up’ quotes, that portrayed her in a negative way, for no apparent reason. (This is but one of many family stories about the press.). No doubt influenced by my mother’s war stories at the time, have always believed McCarthy was correct, though the leftists beat him back with their counter charges. If Americans had been taught to recognize and access the facts, and separate the wheat from the chaff, without emotion, perhaps we would not be the corrupt, nearly 3rd world country, that we are today. The infiltration of Marxism, in every sphere is complete, and Americans, for the most part, are clueless.
A lot of us are not entirely clueless. I’ve watched this Country turn from a very good place to live and raise children to a Country where we have to watch our kids all day, we dare not let them play outside after dark In the cities for fear they’ll be kidnapped and Americans are carrying weapons all the time because of theft and murder. I saw the change begin in the 1960’s in colleges all across the Country when young people were led by Marxist professors into protesting the Vietnam war and that led into the Free Love era. Since then Marxism has become common on college campuses and indoctrinated students have infiltrated all parts of our society including Congress. The Democrats are always talking about “our Democracy” yet almost all the marxists are Democrats. Marxism and Democracy are two different ideas that
cannot co-exist so I’m puzzled why the Democrats are so eager to use the term unless it’s to mislead the public. We need to, as a country, get back to the ideals of our forefathers and ban the marxists to the pit of Hell where they belong.
It’s so tiresome to constantly hear of the left defending free speech. The reality is, they were pushing for free communist speech. I’m old enough to remember that after the Supreme Court found for their “free speech” is when the radicals and communists were allowed to start their, very fast, takeover of the universities. Pushing radical or communist propaganda on the young was no longer grounds to boot them from the schools because of their right to “free speech”. It didn’t take them long to take over and eradicate those who fought for the constitution and our culture. It never was about free speech, but about their march through every one of our institutions.
The Political Left, Satan’s first team, wants Democracy because they want tyranny by them. The founders of the USA wisely feared and despised Democracy controlled Government for its ability to oppress minority rights and opinions.