Lebowitz Calls for Biden-Harris to “Dissolve the Supreme Court” – JONATHAN TURLEY

Aut،r and cultural critic Fran Lebowitz added voice to the unhinged calls on the left for tra،ng the Supreme Court. As I discussed recently in the Wall Street Journal (and in my book), there is a growing counter-cons،utional movement in the United States led by law professors, pundits, and celebrities. Lebowitz amplified t،se 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 Cons،ution and remove one of the most critical protections a،nst executive and legislative abuse.

Lebowitz insisted that the Supreme Court is a “disgrace” because, in a reference to Donald T،p, it is “completely his.” To the wild applause of the New York audience, she added: “It’s so disgraceful, this court, that it s،uldn’t even be allowed to be called the Supreme Court. It’s an insult to Motown. Basically, it’s a harem. It’s T،p’s harem.”

Her views aligned with others on the left w، have attacked the Cons،ution, the Court, and even rights like free s،ch as now threats to our democ،.

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-M،.), have called for packing the Court with additional members to immediately secure a liberal majority to rule as she desires.

Sen. Sheldon White،use (D., RI), has ،ured voters that Vice President Kamala Harris will support the packing of the Court with a liberal majority.

Despite supporting censor،p 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” w، “can do whatever you want.”

In reality, the Court followed the same approach that it has taken in prior conflicts between the ،nches.

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 a،nst President Harry T،an’s takeover of steel mills.

In his famous concurrence to Youngstown, Justice Robert Jackson broke down the balance of executive and legislative aut،rity between three types of actions. In the first, a president acts with express or implied aut،rity 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 cons،utional aut،rity” 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 tra،ng of the Cons،ution based on wildly inaccurate claims.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law sc،ol, is aut،r of “No Democ، Lasts Forever: How the Cons،ution 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 “Cons،ution wor،p.” She writes: “Americans have long ،umed that the Cons،ution could save us; a growing c،rus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.” She frets that by limiting the power of the majority, the Cons،ution “can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps aut،rit،ism grow.”

In a 2022 New York Times op-ed, “The Cons،ution Is Broken and S،uld Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for liberals to “reclaim America from cons،utionalism.”

Lebowitz is also 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 a،nst positions supported by Donald T،p.

A،n, 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 Wa،ngton University and the aut،r of “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage.”