Uncategorized
John Roberts will not save us — but we might just able to save ourselves
One of the many virtues of Leah Litman’s lucid and blistering new book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes is that it, as the title suggests, reads almost like a pulpy crime story. But unlike most whodunits, we know at the very start of Litman’s tale who dun the crime. No less unusual, Litman ends her story with what can be dun by Americans who wish to resist this state of lawlessness.
Litman is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Michigan, and co-host of the popular weekly legal podcast “Strict Scrutiny,” which subjects the decisions made by SCOTUS to scathing wit and surgical analysis. (In Litman’s wide-ranging criticism of SCOTUS, she lambastes the hypocrisy of the Republican-majority’s skepticism on abortion cases presented by Jewish plaintiffs who argue that their religious faith compels them to perform, provide, or access abortion care. As she notes, this skepticism is a decidedly unusual response from a court that is usually keen on expanding, not retracting, religious exemptions from law.)
When I spoke to Litman over Zoom, she expanded on the Roberts court’s cultural grievances, crackpot theories, and overall “bad vibes,” a term she says she uses to draw a distinction between “what some people think of as law,” i.e. “something that’s objective or determinate.” Instead, it becomes something based on feelings and what “triggers them and what upsets them,” which she sees as reflective of the “talking points and zeitgeist of the Republican Party.”
In our conversation, Litman traced the historical origins of bruised feelings and bad vibes that passes itself off as conservative jurisprudence. We can see today, she emphasized, a reaffirmation of the Lost Cause movement following the Civil War, “this firm commitment to restoring and entrenching white conservative political power and shutting out racial minorities from the political process and treating the inclusion of racial minorities in the polity as an affront to white conservatives and as a form of discrimination against white conservatives. And these same ideas seed, you know, the opposition to the modern Voting Rights Act.”
“Bad vibes” is, of course, not a term often found in the footnotes of law review articles. Yet while Litman acknowledged the term is kind of “loosey-goosey,” she sees it as the driving force behind SCOTUS’ legal reasoning. One of the many problems with vibes, Litman observed, is that “while everyone has feelings, my feelings don’t govern what other people can do. I am allowed to have feelings and views about the world. But that doesn’t mean I get to declare that everyone must make me feel good.”
In the case of the court’s conservative majority, Litman says, this means that they get to feel good about expressing their cultural and social grievances. They can, like Martha-Ann Alito, do so by, say, flying an upside-down American flag outside their house in support of the men and women who invaded the Capitol on Jan. 6. But, more importantly, they can also bring those grievances to their legal reasoning and turn our constitution upside down. (Something that Mrs. Alito’s husband has done time and again as one of our nation’s nine sages.)
Yet, though the Roberts Court — which Litman refers to in her book as “the guys (and Amy)” — might be consumed by grievance, they are not blind to the need to garb these bad vibes in the guise of theories. This is the case for originalism, a seemingly neutral method to decide cases based on a literal reading of the Constitution. Yet, the absence of any mention of women in our founding document has allowed the Supreme Court, even after the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment, to continue to deny equal rights to women.
Hence the importance of the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade. As Litman drily observed, originalism offers conservatives and reactionaries a way to speak about issues without acknowledging the actual stakes involved. It provides a kind of plausible denial from positions that, in effect, declare, “Yes, we should take away women’s birth control pills, force them to go through childbirth, and not allow them to get divorced.”
Meanwhile, as Litman remarked, the Roberts Court often dons the guise of another supposedly objective theory, institutionalism. Her critique is particularly unsettling for those of us who would like to think that Chief Justice John Roberts is an institutionalist who, like the deus ex machina in ancient Greek tragedy, will suddenly appear over the stage set and lift us free of our tragic and fatal predicament.
On one level, Litman said, “anyone looks like an institutionalist when compared to Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. That John Roberts is more along the spectrum toward the median American voter than either of them is just obviously true and doesn’t tell us that much about whether John Roberts is actually a moderate or median. There are just so many examples where decisions by John Roberts have undermined our institutions and delegitimized our institutions.”
Consider all the decisions written or signed onto by Roberts on campaign financing, presidential powers, partisan gerrymandering, or voting rights to illustrate her claim. Clearly, Litman is not waiting for the Chief Justice to save us. “Look at all the things that Donald Trump is doing that defile our institutions and degrade our democracy. Those are things that John Roberts made perfectly clear that the president is constitutionally entitled to do. And there’s just nothing our lawmaking institutions like Congress or the federal courts can do about that,” she said.
What, then, are we to do? In her book, Litman urges the reader to “make them fight for their nihilism and obtain it at a cost.” In our conversation, she eagerly expanded on this call to action. The forces of democracy and decency cannot win this fight overnight, she told me. “There is no magic fix that will work. Instead, we need to make the case to our fellow citizens and our future elected leaders that in order to get ourselves out of this mess…and shore up our democracy so that we don’t run the risk of sliding back into autocracy and authoritarianism, we need to reform and democratize the Supreme Court.”
It is not what we might hope to hear, but it is the message we need to hear. In fact, as Albert Camus insisted, there is no reason for hope, but that is never a reason to despair. Or, as Litman concludes in her book, “the nihilistic take would be to throw up our hands and do nothing because it all seems too difficult. They’ve stolen a Court and they are practically daring anyone to challenge them. It’s time to call their bluff.”
The post John Roberts will not save us — but we might just able to save ourselves appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Tidbits: Taiwan opens its first Jewish cemetery
Tidbits is a Forverts feature of easy news briefs in Yiddish that you can listen to or read, or both! If you read the article and don’t know a word, just click on it and the translation appears. Listen to the report here:
אויפֿן אינדזל טײַוואַן האָט מען לעצטנס פֿאַרלייגט דעם ערשטן בית־עולם אין לאַנד, דרײַ יאָר נאָך דעם ווי אַן אָרטיקער ייִד האָט, בײַם גוססן, אויסגעדריקט צער, וואָס מע וועט אים נישט קענען באַגראָבן אין טײַוואַן.
הרבֿ שלמה טאַביב, אַ מיטגרינדער פֿונעם חב״ד־הויז אין דער טײַוואַנער קרוינשטאָט טײַפּיי, האָט געזאָגט אַז דער ייִד האָט אים געבעטן בויען אַ בית־הקבֿרות אין טײַוואַן, כאָטש ער האָט געוווּסט אַז ער אַליין וועט נישט דערלעבן דאָרט באַגראָבן צו ווערן.
„זײַנע ווערטער זענען פֿאַר מיר געווען אַ קול־קורא,“ האָט טאַביב געזאָגט. „איך האָב פֿאַרשטאַנען, אַז אויב איך וועל זיך דאָס נישט אונטערנעמען, וועט קיינער עס נישט טאָן.“
מיט אַ חודש צוריק האָט מען פֿאַרלייגט דעם בית־עולם און באַלד נאָך דעם האָט טאַביב אָנגעפֿירט מיט דער ערשטער לוויה על־פּי־הלכה אין דער געשיכטע פֿון טײַוואַן. 95% פֿון די מתים אין טײַוואַן ווערן קרעמירט.
דער בית־עולם געפֿינט זיך אין אַ וואַלד, בערך 40 מינוט פֿונעם חב״ד־הויז. פֿאַר טאַביב איז דער בית־עולם געווען דאָס לעצטע רינגל אין אַ קייט פּראָיעקטן לטובֿת דער אָרטיקער ייִדישער קהילה. אין 2021 האָט מען געעפֿנט אַ ייִדישן קהילה־צענטער, אַ דאַנק אַ מתּנה פֿון 16 מיליאָן דאָלאַר פֿון אַן אָרטיקן ייִדישן געשעפֿטסמאַן, דזשעפֿרי שוואַרץ. אינעם צענטער געפֿינט זיך אַ שיל, אַ כּשרע קיך, אַ יודאַיִקאַ־מוזיי, אַ מיקווה און אַ זאַל פֿאַר 300 מענטשן.
הגם דער נײַער בית־עולם איז דער ערשטער אין טײַוואַן איז ער נישט דער ערשטער אין כינע. אין האָנג־קאָנג האָט מען געגרינדעט אַ בית־הקבֿרות נאָך אין 1855, און אין שאַנכײַ — אין 1862.
צו זען דעם אַרטיקל אויף ענגליש גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ.
To see this article in English, click here.
The post Tidbits: Taiwan opens its first Jewish cemetery appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
EU seeks to advance trade ban on Israeli settlements
(JTA) — The European Union could be leaning toward banning trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Foreign ministers debated various tactics to respond to the settlements on Monday at their monthly council meeting in Brussels, against the backdrop of rising violence by settlers and efforts by the Israeli government to expand settlements in Palestinian territories.
In a press conference following the meeting, the EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said one possibility had stood out.
“The option that got the most support was banning the trade with illegal settlements,” she said. All 27 member states consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank to violate international law.
Kallas added, “We tasked the ambassadors to take this work forward, and probably will also have an extraordinary meeting on this.”
No decisions have yet been made, and the path forward is uncertain. Some EU member nations favor aggressive action against the settlements, while others are unlikely to back any measures that take aim at Israel. A number are in the middle and have not decided whether they support trade bans.
The level of agreement between European governments needed to enact a partial or full trade ban on Israeli settlements remains an open question. Kallas said it was the European Council’s legal opinion that voting on trade issues called for a qualified majority, meaning that 15 out of 27 states would have to vote in favor, representing at least 65% of the EU population.
But she also acknowledged that legal experts disagreed about how much backing was needed for a trade ban. “You can always find different lawyers who come up with different ideas,” she said.
Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar accused Kallas of an “obsessive campaign against Israel” in a post on X. “There was no consensus. There was no qualified majority. In fact, there was no majority at all,” he wrote, adding, “Tricks like this do nothing to advance our shared interests.”
The EU has hotly debated measures against Israel as settlements in the West Bank have expanded and settler violence has sharply intensified over recent years. The Israeli NGOs Peace Now and Kerem Navot said in a report last week that “the current Israeli government has advanced de facto annexation of the West Bank at an unprecedented pace.”
The ministers considered measures including a stricter export licensing system, higher tariffs and a partial or outright ban on goods produced over the pre-1967 lines. The options were first presented in a paper last week by the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, as pressure mounted from European governments.
Kallas said these potential moves were not “options against Israel,” but “options against the illegal settlements that undermined the two-state solution.” She told reporters before the meeting that member states had been pressing for a trade ban on Israeli settlements, saying, “Everyone agrees that the situation in the West Bank is really intolerable.”
In May, the EU sanctioned Israeli settlers over violence against Palestinians after Hungary’s new government, led by Peter Magyar, gave its approval and allowed the states to reach a consensus.
To protest the Gaza war, the commission last year proposed suspending the EU’s free trade agreement with Israel as set out under the EU-Israel Association Agreement, the cornerstone of economic and political cooperation between Europe and Israel. The proposal was not advanced because it lacked the majority support of 15 member states.
The EU is Israel’s largest trading partner, accounting for 33.1% of its imports and 29.4% of its exports in 2025, according to a summary on the European Commission website, which did not provide data on settler goods. The free trade agreement does not apply to goods originating from Israeli businesses located over the pre-1967 lines.
Revoking the association agreement requires unanimous approval from the EU’s 27 member states, while a partial suspension, such as freezing the free trade agreement, calls for a qualified majority. Germany, Italy, Hungary and Czechia have consistently opposed such suspensions.
Israel’s most vocal critics in Europe, including Ireland and Spain, have pushed for suspending the association agreement along with proposing their own import bans at the national level. Ireland now holds the rotating presidency of the European Council, a six-month term that ends in December 2026.
The legal basis of trade restrictions on Israel lies at the heart of debates in the EU. Support from a qualified majority is sufficient to enact a commercial policy, while changes in the common foreign and security policy — such as sanctions — require unanimity.
Some legal scholars have argued that an EU ban on imports from Israeli settlements should be imposed as a trade measure rather than a sanction, making it easier to pass.
A group of 40 scholars said in an open letter last month to Kallas, trade chief Maroš Šefčovič and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen that a blanket ban on settlement imports had a legal basis under the EU’s common commercial policy. Claims that unanimity was needed for the prohibition were “grounded in political rather than legal considerations,” they said.
The scholars also referenced an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice in 2024, which said that Israel’s military control of Palestinian territories in the West Bank constituted an illegal occupation.
“In that regard, it should be noted that the EU Court of Justice has ruled that, in its acts, the EU is ‘bound to observe international law in its entirety,’” they said.
Daniel Mariaschin, Honorary CEO of the pro-Israel Jewish advocacy organization B’nai Brith International, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that reducing trade “would only weaken one of Europe’s most important partnerships in the region.”
“There are those within the EU who are looking for any way to undercut Israel’s international standing, and this is yet another example,” Mariaschin said.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post EU seeks to advance trade ban on Israeli settlements appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
PEN America president, defending Israel’s critics, resigns after report warns of threats to Jewish authors
(JTA) — The president of PEN America resigned over the weekend in protest of a report on boycotts targeting Jewish and Israeli authors, part of yet another round of internal division over Israel at the literary free-speech institution.
Dinaw Mengestu, an Ethiopian-American novelist and Bard College professor, told The Atlantic he was stepping down because he believed the PEN report, “A Silent Moratorium,” failed to defend the free-speech rights of participants in the movement to boycott Israel.
“It’s the First Amendment that allows all of us to engage in boycotts, not PEN America,” Mengestu told the publication. “PEN America as a free expression organization is supposed to defend that right.”
The author did not respond to multiple Jewish Telegraphic Agency requests for comment, but in an Instagram post Monday alluded to an interest in creating a new organization to rival the prominent nonprofit, which defends the free expression rights other writers.
In response to an interview request, PEN sent a statement to JTA saying it was “grateful” for Mengestu’s leadership and would “respect” his decision. The statement also alluded to PEN’s own past turmoil: “We tell hard stories, in politically challenging moments, about writers from a range of perspectives, even when it’s uncomfortable for us given our own recent history.”
In its report, published on its blog, PEN described “Jewish and Israeli writers who feel that the mainstream literary world is increasingly shutting them out because of their identity, nationality, or views.” Interview subjects include several Israel critics, as well as literary agents who assert that they face more difficulties signing Jewish authors after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and amid the subsequent war in Gaza. The report also repeatedly cited a JTA report about a 2024 viral list of “Zionist” authors to boycott.
Among other details, PEN’s report revealed that Israeli novelist Etgar Keret and public radio host Ira Glass had cancelled a planned live event in Australia over fears of threats and protest.
“This silencing and exclusion of writers is a threat to what PEN America is fundamentally committed to defending: a culture of free expression for all,” according to the report.
In addition to the report, PEN also altered its institutional policy toward cultural boycotts, which the organization has long opposed. Although its report on Jewish authors asserted that boycotts “threaten the free expression rights” of their targets, the revised guidelines say that the group will also defend the right of writers to participate in boycotts.
Mengestu’s resignation comes at a perilous moment for Jews facing cultural boycotts, both within the standard-bearers of PEN and elsewhere. PEN’s Jewish former longtime CEO stepped down in 2024 following months of blowback from rank-and-file authors who felt the organization was insufficiently critical of Israel and caused PEN to cancel a festival for global authors.
Since the leadership change, PEN leadership has published and retracted a condemnation of a boycott effort trained at an Israeli comedian and also published a report cataloguing Israel’s “cultural destruction in Gaza.”
Mengestu had assumed the role of board president in 2025. But PEN’s report about Jewish and Israeli writers on Thursday, he wrote, “makes clear that [change] will not happen.”
The Anti-Defamation League said it was “deeply troubled” by Mengestu’s resignation Monday. “Freedom of expression means opposing efforts to boycott, silence, or exclude writers because of their identity or nationality,” the organization tweeted, saying that the author’s decision to leave PEN over his objections to the report on Jewish authors “sends a chilling message.” Jewish authors also objected.
“Imagine running a free expression org and resigning because it refuses to blacklist authors based on their nationality,” the author David Zweig wrote on X, musing whether Mengestu would object to boycotting authors from his birth country: “Ethiopia doesn’t exactly have a good human rights record.”
In response to The Atlantic’s story that quoted sources from inside PEN who were critical of his resignation, Mengestu wrote a lengthy Instagram post Monday in which he stated, “This piece is about trying to suppress constitutionally protected speech,” criticized past PEN reports critical of the BDS movement, and added, “What PEN America fails to understand is that boycott is a form of dialogue.”
He announced his intention to “help make something better,” receiving affirmative comments from notable authors including Viet Thanh Nguyen, Angela Flournoy, Jewish pro-Palestinian novelist Jess Row and Pulitzer Prize-winner Benjamin Moser, author of a forthcoming history of Jewish anti-Zionism.
Other Jewish authors on the left were among those defending Mengestu’s decision to step down.
“Dinaw is one hundred percent correct that this kind of fake victim propaganda can be used to support anti-Boycott legislation which violates the First Amendment and is everywhere as popular support for Palestinians grows,” author Sarah Schulman wrote on Facebook. Calling PEN’s blog about Jews “one of those fake anti-semitism pieces,” Schulman added, “If PEN wants to survive, they have to get out of the Israel/Zionism business.”
The post PEN America president, defending Israel’s critics, resigns after report warns of threats to Jewish authors appeared first on The Forward.
