Podcast Summary: The Commentary Magazine Podcast

Episode: Blind (Liberal Supreme Court) Justice
Date: January 14, 2026
Host: John Podhoretz (Editor, Commentary Magazine)
Panelists: Abe Greenwald, Seth Mandel, Christine Rosen, Eliana Johnson

Overview

This episode addresses three major topics:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court’s oral arguments involving transgender athletes in sports and the difficulties the justices—especially on the left—have articulating their positions.
2. The broader debates around protests, state violence, and responses both abroad (notably in Iran) and domestically (with a focus on Minnesota and ICE/policing).
3. Institutional cowardice and incentives in higher education, especially regarding how colleges handle disruptive protest actions.

The tone is brisk, often satirical, deeply critical of progressive inconsistencies, and woven with personal anecdotes and sharp asides.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Transgender Athletes in Sports

Intellectual Disarray on the Left

• The liberal justices displayed confusion or lack of understanding regarding transgender vocabulary and concepts.
  • Notable Moment (03:18): Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson misused “cis-ginger” instead of “cisgender.”
    • John Podhoretz: “Katanji Brown Jackson... referred yesterday to CIS ginger people, meaning cisgender people, which is another way that we say heterosexuals.”
    • Abe Greenwald (joking): “Cis ginger means you were born with red hair.”
• This highlighted a perceived lack of preparedness and clarity among liberal justices on technical issues.

The Law’s Need for Definition

• Justice Alito asked, repeatedly, for a concrete definition of “sex” for discrimination and equal protection purposes.
  • Mic Drop Moment (06:15, 06:31):
    • Alito (paraphrased by Eliana Johnson): “How can a court determine whether there's discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?”
      • John Podhoretz: “That is what we call good lawyering... he walked the ACLU lawyer into the buzzsaw of elementary logic.”

The Wedge Tactic and Depraved Incentives

• Liberal advocates seek “exceptional cases,” e.g., a child starting puberty blockers so early that they claim no “biological advantage.”
  • Christine Rosen (07:14): “They're trying to find a wedge issue which… will not be treated as an exceptional case. If this argument wins, they will say, well, look, they let this person go, so all should go.”
  • The safety of female athletes is given less attention than fairness, despite clear risks.
• Abe Greenwald (10:21): “They’re hunting, saying, look how young we interrupted their puberty, that’s the brass ring to win the case. I’m really unsettled that this is the sort of winning argument—that we came in so early, chemically.”

Public Unnerved by Child Transition

• The panel noted that mainstream Americans—across political lines—are disturbed by the idea of medicating or transitioning very young children for the purposes of sports participation.
  • John (12:25): “You’re drugging up a seven or eight-year old and doing stuff to that kid and that’s bad...most people in my experience...are unnerved.”

Federalism vs. National Decision

• The divided landscape: Over half of U.S. states have laws barring boys from girls’ sports.
• Justice Kavanaugh raised whether the Court should intervene before the states have sorted this out.
  • Christine (14:30): “There’s a path to saying, you know, the states decide on a state-by-state case basis.”

The Rule of Law and Definitional Precision

• Without precise definitions, laws lose their force and meaning.
  • Seth Mandel (22:50): “If you tell the Supreme Court you can’t define sex, then a lot of laws just disappear off the books.... We have a corpus of law that… has categories.”

Larger Themes: Radical Fluidity vs. Reality

• The radical push for “fluidity” in the definition of sex is portrayed as a deliberate campaign to muddy legal and social distinctions.
  • John (15:21): “You don’t want to define it because you want it to be fluid. And so it can’t be fluid. It is what it is.”

2. Domestic Unrest: Rhetoric, Protest, and State Violence

Minnesota as a Flashpoint

• The rhetoric of progressive officials is criticized for equating U.S. institutions with totalitarian states like Iran.
  • Eliana Johnson (27:38): Quotes Ken Martin (Democratic Party chair) comparing U.S. law enforcement to Iran’s regime: "From Tehran to my birthplace of Minneapolis, people are rising up against systems that wield violence without accountability. Solidarity across borders means opposing authoritarian power everywhere…"
  • John (31:20): “If we were living in a dictatorship...you say it publicly on television… you get off stage and a federal official shows up with a gun and arrests you…”

Sanctuary Policies and Red State/Blue State Divides

• Protests and ICE confrontations are most volatile in “sanctuary” jurisdictions due to the breakdown of routine, coordinated law enforcement.
  • Christine (33:08): “The cosplay happens as an intentional downstream effect of sanctuary city claims...The images are the point.”

Protest Tactics: Mission Creep and Legitimacy

• The panel critiques how the definition of “protest” has expanded to cover illegal or dangerous disruptions (e.g., blocking roads with cars).
  • Seth (39:11): “We say, everybody has the right to peacefully protest. But since when is using your car to block a road a protest?...”

3. Campus Cowardice and the Failure to Address Disorder

Administrative Inaction

• Campus unrest during pro-Hamas protests is blamed on failure by university leadership to enforce rules.
  • John (41:32): “There was never any reason for police departments to get involved…Those people should have been expelled and removed from campus, not by police officers but by the administrations of these private institutions.”

Rewarding Bad Behavior

• Permissive responses, negotiations, and incentives are seen as fueling further protest. Some campuses offered perks or scholarships for students to leave encampments.
  • Eliana (44:14): “At Brown, they did the same thing [as Northwestern]. As opposed to, at the first sign of behavior that violated school policy, removing students and indicating zero tolerance.”

The Erosion of Law Enforcement Legitimacy

• The campus climate is depicted as fostering widespread suspicion and hostility toward all forms of law enforcement.
  • Christine (47:02): “It is assumed that the forces that are there to keep public order are, by definition, illegitimate.”

The Shift from Persuasion to Provocation

• The panel laments the shift from morally persuasive protest (à la Martin Luther King, Jr.) to activist methods focused on generating disruption and media spectacle.
  • John (48:49): “Now we have training…by nonprofits…teaching protesters how to be provocative and confrontational and to try to push the buttons of law enforcement.”

4. The Role of Elite Foundations in Activism

• Major liberal foundations (Ford, MacArthur, Open Society, etc.) finance radical protest groups but avoid scrutiny.
  • Eliana (54:21): “...these foundations are not associated in the public mind with left radicalism...but people should know this is the work that the largest charitable foundations...are doing.”

Notable Quotes and Timestamps

• On the confusion of terms at the Supreme Court:
  • John Podhoretz (03:18): “Apparently, Katanji Brown Jackson doesn’t understand a lot of this modern technology terminology because she referred yesterday to CIS ginger people, meaning cisgender people…”
• On Alito’s “mic drop” moment:
  • Eliana Johnson (06:15): “Alito asked, how can a court determine whether there's discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?”
• On the strategy of wedge cases in transgender sports:
  • Christine Rosen (07:14): “They’re trying to find a wedge issue which...will not be treated as an exceptional case...If this argument wins, they will say, well, look, they let this person go, so all should go.”
• On the moral clarity of earlier protest movements:
  • John Podhoretz (48:49): “The country watched the civil rights protests and found a great dignity in the behavior of the protesters...Now we have training...teaching protesters how to be provocative and confrontational.”
• On foundation funding:
  • Eliana Johnson (54:21): “The Ford foundation...MacArthur...Open Society...are funneling loads of money into these, the most radical organizations in American life.”

Recommendations & Final Thoughts

• Christine Rosen’s Book Recommendation (55:57):
  • The Call of the Tribe by Mario Vargas Llosa.
  • Explores Llosa’s intellectual journey and the value of open intellectual debate across ideological lines.
  • Christine (60:39): “The Call of the Tribe is also very good at reminding conservatives...we share so much with liberalism, sort of classic liberalism, and both sides...need each other to...find those common threads.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court oral arguments on transgender sports eligibility reveal deep confusion and lack of rigor among liberal advocates and justices, especially around the need for precise legal definitions.
• The episode is critical of progressive rhetoric that equates U.S. law enforcement or policy actions with outright dictatorship or state repression, especially when contrasted with real violence abroad (e.g., Iran).
• Campus unrest is portrayed as a product of administrative timidity, misplaced incentives, and a larger cultural shift toward viewing law enforcement as inherently illegitimate.
• Major American foundations support radical activism, almost entirely outside public scrutiny.
• The right and classic liberalism, the hosts conclude, share core values—and the country’s polarization is due in part to a breakdown of shared ground and language.

For listeners interested in legal philosophy, public policy disputes over gender, campus activism, and the evolution of protest in American society, this episode provides sharp, often biting, and well-informed commentary.