Leah Litman on Supreme Court Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Lawlessness

The Supreme Court as Legislators of Grievance

• ⚖️ The book "Lawless" argues that Republican Supreme Court justices are fashioning law based on the political talking points and feelings of Republican elites, particularly the idea of conservative grievance.
• 🎯 This grievance frames core Republican constituencies as victims, justifying rules that grant Republicans more political power and social control.
• 🧠 The justices are accused of using this narrative to justify outlandish rules and to claim entitlements for themselves.

The Rise of Partisanship and Sloppiness

• 📈 The Supreme Court has always been political, but over the last few decades, it has become increasingly partisan and sloppy.
• 🗣️ Justices no longer feel the need to conceal partisan talking points within plausible legal arguments.
• 💡 Justice Scalia is identified as sowing seeds of this trend, with his dissents previewing how justices would form majorities around the idea that the Constitution protects their prejudices.

Bush v. Gore and the Dismantling of Rights

• 🗳️ Bush v. Gore is highlighted as a key moment where Republican justices halted a recount and risked disenfranchising minority voters, setting a precedent for future actions.
• 📉 This event emboldened the court to dismantle the Voting Rights Act, campaign finance regulation, and overrule Roe v. Wade with perceived impunity.
• 🏛️ The court's actions, including the misleading use of ellipses in a prior opinion to justify the rollback of the Voting Rights Act, demonstrate a significant degree of lawlessness and entitlement.

Fringe Theories and Institutional Decline

• 🃏 The Supreme Court has developed