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
Jewish witchcraft isn’t as weird as it sounds
Madonna, incongruously, may be largely responsible for introducing the public to a mystical, magical image of Judaism — one that went beyond old men bent over books, studying laws for keeping kosher or Shabbat. Her red string bracelet and her studies of kabbalah gave the religion a new air of mystery and occultism.
But Judaism has always been full of mystical, magical traditions. Jews made amulets to protect against the evil eye, or for luck and prosperity. They beseeched and pacified the dead. Rabbis wrote protective charms for their flock. Psychics and palm readers told the fortunes of Jews and non-Jews alike.
A new exhibit, “Jews are Magic: Occult Practices from Palmistry to Psychics” from YIVO and the Center for Jewish History, delves into the history of the occult in Ashkenazi Judaism. The display, which pulls from YIVO’s archives, has examples of occultism drawing from two Jewish communities: the shtetl and the city.
One side of the exhibit showcases letters to great rabbis asking for blessings and remedies, as well as written spells and amulets protecting against demons like Lilith. The other features photos and biographies of professional Jewish clairvoyants and fortune tellers, who worked mostly in urban areas serving both Jews and gentiles with seances, palmistry and the like, advertising in newspapers and performing on stages.
It’s a lot to cover, and it’s complicated not only by the history but by a quote from Deuteronomy, highlighted in the exhibit. It explicitly forbids those who “useth divination” as well as those who are an “enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard or a necromancer.” It is a comprehensive list, and doesn’t mince words, calling all of these magicians “an abomination.” Yet even great rabbis and Talmudists wrote charms. How could magic be so pervasive in Judaism when it is so expressly prohibited?
This is the fundamental question of the exhibit, but the show is small and has limited space to fully examine the contradictions. Its artifacts span so much time that it is difficult to intuit the connections between, say, Terfren Laila — a traveling psychic born Else Terese Frenkel who wore a ruby-adorned turban and pretended to be from Singapore by way of India (despite her Yiddish accent) — and letters asking a Talmud scholar to heal a loved one.
Thankfully, to open the exhibition, YIVO held a panel discussion between two scholars, Rokhl Kafrissen, an expert in Ashkenazi women’s folk magic, and Samuel Glauber, whose expertise is Jewish occultism in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Moderated by YIVO’s Eddy Portnoy, the panelists discussed the ways that superstitions arose in shtetls and were mined by those looking to make a few shekels.
Kafrissen explained that magic was a normal part of Jewish life for centuries, largely practiced by women; their domain was the home, encompassing everything from health to wealth, including charms and remedies. And just because these women’s rituals weren’t a “normative” part of Judaism — which is to say, institutional or recorded by official religious texts — they were certainly a normal part of life. Women led rituals such as cemetery measuring, a practice in which string was used to encircle the graveyard while praying and later used to make “soul candles” for Yom Kippur, and removed the evil eye from anyone concerned they had been cursed — what Kafrissen called “everyday Ashkenazi magic.”
But over time, these rituals — long central to Ashkenazi life — were pushed out as some Jewish leaders hoped to modernize their religion. Science rose to take the place of folk magic, and people began to dismiss these practices, which were rarely written down, as mere superstition.
This sense that Judaism was full of magic, however, fed easily into Christian suspicions about Jewish witchcraft, and perhaps encouraged some of the urban psychics and spiritualists to lean on Judaism to increase their mystery.
Glauber’s research focuses on this latter, urban category, a far cry from the shtetl folk magic. These Jewish men and women took part in a craze that enraptured far more than just Jews — seances and fortune-telling were trendy throughout the Victorian era and beyond, and its Jewish performers did not only serve Jews. (Though those suspected to be Jewish were covered hungrily by the Jewish press.) They worked magic on stage and sold their services to eager consumers hoping to speak to the dead or know the future.
Some of these performers tried to hide their Judaism, like the turban-wearing Laila, who managed to become famous enough to tell the fortunes of celebrity clients in Los Angeles and London. Another was trusted by Stalin.
Others, such as Abraham Hochman, were open about their Judaism; Hochman helped the Jewish immigrant community in New York by using his supposed psychic abilities to help women who had arrived in the city find runaway husbands. (The problem was so pervasive that the Forverts had a “Gallery of Missing Husbands” column to do the same.) One branded himself a mystical rabbi, leaning into Judaism’s mystique, which led to an audience, Glauber said, made up mostly of Christian barmaids.
Much of this information discussed by Glauber and Kafrissen is not included in the exhibit, which largely consists of fragments of papers from YIVO’s archives. The end of their discussion touched briefly on yet another rich source of magic: modern Hasidism. But neither the discussion nor exhibit had space to expand on this topic, making it hard to find the throughline between demon-warding amulets and today’s Judaism.
Still, no exhibit or discussion can capture the subject in its entirety. What “Jews are Magic” does best is spark curiosity, and a desire to learn more. That, in itself, is a kind of Jewish magic.
The exhibit ‘Jews are Magic’ is on display from May 26 to Dec. 31 2026 at the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research in the Center for Jewish History in New York City.
The post Jewish witchcraft isn’t as weird as it sounds appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Staunch Israel critic and Gaza trauma surgeon Adam Hamawy wins NJ-12 primary
(JTA) — Adam Hamawy, the staunch Israel critic who served as a trauma surgeon in Gaza, is expected to join Congress after winning the Democratic primary in New Jersey’s 12th district on Tuesday.
The political novice held a 12-point margin ahead of second-place candidate Brad Cohen with 86% of the vote in, even as he faced questions over his past ties to Omar Abdel-Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh” convicted on terrorism charges in 1995. Hamawy’s camp had called the questions “gross and bigoted” and said the attacks against him were “getting more desperate than ever.”
At a time when Israel is becoming increasingly unpopular among Democratic voters, Hamawy’s victory makes him the latest in a string of vocally pro-Palestinian progressives to win Democratic elections in blue districts in this year’s midterms, following fellow New Jersey candidate Analilia Mejia and Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania.
“The Democratic establishment just got a wake-up call!” wrote PAL PAC, a pro-Palestinian group that had endorsed Hamawy, on X. “This victory proves what we have known all along: Standing firmly and unapologetically for Palestinian freedom is a WINNING platform.”
Hamawy, who is credited with having saved Sen. Tammy Duckworth’s life during the Iraq War, was also boosted by $2 million in spending by American Priorities, a super PAC that aims to counterweight the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC by installing pro-Palestinian progressives in Congress. He was endorsed by a slew of left-wing politicians and campaigned alongside the streamer Hasan Piker, who’s been accused of antisemitic rhetoric. He is set to succeed Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, who is retiring at the end of her term.
As an opponent of Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system and a supporter of a complete arms embargo and the right of return for Palestinian refugees, Hamawy will become one of Congress’ sharpest Israel critics if he wins November’s general election, which he is expected to do in the deep-blue district.
Hamawy said that he finds antisemitism “abhorrent” and that he is “deeply worried about its continued rise” in a statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency last week.
“As a Muslim, I understand what it feels like to face bigotry, to feel unsafe in your community and to have your loyalty to this country questioned,” Hamawy said. “In this country, we have seen recent attacks at both synagogues and mosques. I see our safety as intertwined.”
Asked about Jewish constituents who disagree with his stance on Israel, Hamawy told JTA, “I hope we can still connect on shared values and goals, including peace, justice, safety and dignity.” He added that his door “will always be open.”
Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, did not mention Hamawy’s pro-Palestinian advocacy in a statement congratulating him on his win.
“As a veteran, combat surgeon, and small business owner, Adam Hamawy has continually served his community and our country. He is a proven fighter for working families,” Martin said. “We look forward to welcoming him to Congress, where he will continue the fight to lower costs, expand access to healthcare, and make life more affordable for New Jersey families.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Staunch Israel critic and Gaza trauma surgeon Adam Hamawy wins NJ-12 primary appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Scott Wiener wins spot in general election for San Francisco House seat as a Jewish critic of Israel
California State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced Tuesday as the frontrunner to succeed former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Congress, in a contest closely watched in Jewish politics after Wiener called Israel’s actions in the Gaza War a genocide and called for a halt to arms sales to Israel.
Wiener, a 55-year-old progressive Democrat who is Jewish, advanced with the most votes, with 42% of the ballots with about half counted as of Wednesday morning in California’s top-two primary for the deep-blue San Francisco district Pelosi has represented for nearly four decades. In November’s general election he will face the runner-up Democrat, San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan, who is backed by Pelosi.
In his victory speech, Wiener promised to fight the Trump administration’s “disaster of a regime” that has “commandeered this country, that is tearing down our democracy and the rule of law, that is getting us into disastrous wars.”
“I’m polite but not quiet,” he added. “I’m not going to wait my turn.”
Wiener’s possible arrival in Congress comes amid a broader reshaping of Jewish Democratic politics, as a more progressive and younger generation of Jewish candidates increasingly embraces a more critical approach toward Israel.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict became a key issue that defined his congressional campaign. In an interview with the Forward last year, after announcing his bid, Wiener said his approach reflects that of the “large majority of Democrats in Congress” who don’t want to sever ties with Israel but are critical of the policies of the right-wing government.
Wiener’s declaration in January accusing Israel of genocide caused an uproar among Jewish leaders and voters nationally and prompted his resignation as co-chair of the California Jewish Caucus.
For years, I’ve condemned Netanyahu and his extremist government and the devastation they’ve inflicted on Gaza. It’s why I’ve been clear I won’t support U.S. funding for the destruction of Palestinian communities. I’ve stopped short of calling it genocide, but I can’t anymore. pic.twitter.com/71nIt6K527
— Senator Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) January 11, 2026
Wiener had already positioned himself as a progressive on Israel. He was an early supporter of a bilateral ceasefire, called the war “indefensible” and said he would back congressional measures to halt the sale of offensive weapons to Israel. But his declaration of genocide came under duress, after he faced widespread backlash from progressive voters when he refused during a candidate debate to say whether or not he believed Israel was committing genocide.
The episode reflected both the political pressures facing Jewish members of Congress and the changing landscape of Democratic leadership.
Wiener is running in the company of Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, who is challenging incumbent Sen. Ed Markey in Massachusetts; Brad Lander, running against Rep. Dan Goldman in New York; and Daniel Biss, the Democratic nominee for the Illinois seat represented by retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky, all of whom promised not to take contributions from the Israeli government-allied American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
These Jewish candidates remain supportive of Israel’s existence and reject efforts to isolate the Jewish state. But they are now more willing to embrace language that would have been politically unthinkable for mainstream Jewish elected officials just a decade ago, when figures such as retiring congressman Jerry Nadler and the late Reps. Nita Lowey and Eliot Engel, all of New York, were the faces of progressive Jewish politics. Pelosi, who often spoke of her pride in her Jewish grandchildren and her father’s early support for Israel’s founding, led a generation of Democrats for whom unwavering pro-Israel support was a given.
Wiener’s election would signal the start of a new era. Notably absent from Wiener’s remarks on Tuesday were references to Israel, antisemitism or his Jewish identity.
Other California races
Other high-profile California races saw progressive candidates outside the bubble as centrist and conservative candidates advanced in open primaries where the top two vote-getters advance to the general election.
In Los Angeles, with about half of votes counted, Republican ex-reality TV star Spencer Pratt (29.5% of the vote) appears poised to advance to the general election, along with incumbent Democratic Mayor Karen Bass (36.5%). Nithya Raman — a democratic socialist who once won a pro-Israel endorsement — lags well behind them with about half the votes counted. Billionaire Democrat (and former synagogue president) Adam Miller was a distant fourth, with 4% of the vote.
And with a slew of Democrats splitting votes in the governor’s race, Republican talk show host Steve Hilton led all candidates with 27% of the vote, closely trailed by Xavier Becerra (26%), who was the health and human services secretary under President Joe Biden. Billionaire progressive Tom Steyer had just under 20% of the vote with about half of the votes counted.
Rep. Brad Sherman of Los Angeles will advance to the general election, staving off a challenge from fellow Democrat Jake Levine, a former Biden administration official.
Rep. Ro Khanna had 57% of the vote in his Silicon Valley district, meaning he will most likely win the office without a runoff. Khanna is one of the most outspoken critics of Israel in Congress.
The post Scott Wiener wins spot in general election for San Francisco House seat as a Jewish critic of Israel appeared first on The Forward.