The Gist: Episode Summary – "Getting on Leah Litman's Case"

Release Date: June 4, 2025
Host: Mike Pesca
Guest: Leah Litman, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan and co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast
Produced by: Peach Fish Productions

Introduction

In this compelling episode of The Gist, host Mike Pesca engages in an in-depth conversation with Leah Litman, a prominent law professor and critic of the U.S. Supreme Court. The discussion centers around Litman's new book, "Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes," where she explores the increasing ideological polarization within the highest court of the United States.

Leah Litman’s Perspective on the Supreme Court

Leah Litman articulates a critical view of the current Supreme Court, arguing that it has become a predominantly ideological body driven by conservative agendas. She contends that the Court's decisions increasingly reflect premeditated conservative strategies rather than impartial legal reasoning.

Leah Litman [12:11]: "There is a lot of criticism of how the court is coming to its conclusions. Not even necessarily the conclusions, but what I would like to do is could you Go back to the conservative justices on the court... and tell me why those conservative justices were, in your opinion, doing something quite different from these conservative justices today."

Historical Context and Evolution of Conservative Justices

Mike Pesca responds by drawing parallels between past conservative justices and the current bench, highlighting figures like Chief Justice Rehnquist as precursors to the modern conservative majority.

Mike Pesca [13:06]: "Justice Rehnquist was one of the dissenters in Roe vs. Wade... he is quite similar and was a sign of things to come."

Litman points out that while historical justices like Rehnquist laid the groundwork, today's conservative appointees are part of a more orchestrated judicial selection process, emphasizing predictability and alignment with Republican agendas.

Leah Litman [14:35]: "In the past, you might get a Republican appointee... but that doesn't describe the judicial selection machine as it has come to exist."

Ideological Polarization and Court Decisions

The conversation delves into the statistical breakdown of Supreme Court decisions, with Pesca highlighting that "9-0 decisions" are the most common and often underappreciated in public discourse.

Mike Pesca [16:00]: "Lat xx like SCOTUS blog stats... from 2010 to 2021, 43% of cases were decided 9-0, by far the most common outcome."

Litman challenges the emphasis on high-profile split decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Trump v. United States, arguing that these cases receive disproportionate attention compared to the majority of the Court’s unanimous or procedural rulings.

Leah Litman [18:21]: "It's important for the public to know what the Court is really doing and how often they do totally agree."

Media Portrayal and Public Perception

Both hosts critique how media coverage tends to focus on ideologically charged decisions, potentially skewing public understanding of the Court's overall functioning. Litman emphasizes the need for balanced reporting that also highlights the frequent non-ideological, unanimous decisions.

Leah Litman [19:10]: "There are a whole lot of really, really important cases that aren't decided... Just the Republican majority."

Pesca acknowledges this bias, noting that media retrospectives often highlight the few split decisions without contextualizing them within the broader landscape of unanimous rulings.

Mike Pesca [20:14]: "It gives the public a skewed perspective about what the justices are up to."

Notable Interactions: The Gorsuch Incident

A lighter yet telling moment arises when Mike references an incident involving Justice Neil Gorsuch’s reaction to the children’s book "Pride Puppy." This anecdote serves to illustrate the personal dynamics and occasional tensions within the Court.

Mike Pesca [21:07]: "Neil Gorsuch looking at this book... he was screaming at the Advocate."

Litman clarifies the incident, providing context that Gorsuch’s reaction was more about misunderstanding the book's content rather than overt hostility.

Leah Litman [22:44]: "It's a woman in a leather jacket... there was no yelling at all."

Closing Remarks and Future Discussions

As the episode draws to a close, Pesca reassures listeners of the depth of upcoming discussions, promising a continuation of the critical examination of the Supreme Court in the next installment.

Leah Litman [25:10]: "We'll be back with more of Leah Litman and more challenging questions..."

Conclusion

This episode of The Gist offers a thought-provoking exploration of the Supreme Court’s ideological shifts, as analyzed by Leah Litman. Through statistical insights and critical dialogue, Pesca and Litman shed light on the complexities and implications of the Court's evolving dynamics, encouraging listeners to reconsider commonly held perceptions shaped by selective media coverage.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• Leah Litman [12:11]: "There is a lot of criticism of how the court is coming to its conclusions..."

• Mike Pesca [13:06]: "Justice Rehnquist was one of the dissenters in Roe vs. Wade... he is quite similar and was a sign of things to come."

• Mike Pesca [16:00]: "From 2010 to 2021, 43% of cases were decided 9-0, by far the most common outcome."

• Leah Litman [18:21]: "It's important for the public to know what the Court is really doing and how often they do totally agree."

• Leah Litman [22:44]: "It's a woman in a leather jacket... there was no yelling at all."

For those interested in a deeper dive into the nuances of the Supreme Court and its influence on American jurisprudence, this episode provides a foundational understanding through Leah Litman’s incisive analysis.