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
Iran Fast-Boat Swarms Add to Hormuz Threats for Shipping
A satellite image shows a fleet of small boats at sea, north of the Strait of Hormuz near the Kargan coast, Iran, April 22, 2026. Photo: European Union/Copernicus Sentinel-2/Handout via REUTERS
Iran‘s use of a swarm of small, fast boats to seize two container ships near the Strait of Hormuz could undermine suggestions US forces have disabled its naval threat and reveals the challenges facing reopening one of the world’s most important oil export routes.
US President Donald Trump on Monday acknowledged that while Iran’s conventional navy had been largely destroyed, its “fast-attack ships” had not been considered much of a threat.
He said any such vessels coming near a US blockade set up outside the strait would be “immediately ELIMINATED” using the “same system of kill” deployed in the Caribbean and Pacific where US air strikes have hit suspected drug boats and killed at least 110 people.
Those boats were not attacking large, unarmed commercial ships, however, nor nearly as heavily armed, with Iran‘s Revolutionary Guards packing heavy machineguns, rocket launchers and, in some cases, anti-ship missiles.
Speedboat attacks now form part of a “layered system of threats,” alongside “shore-based missiles, drones, mines, and electronic interference to create uncertainty and slow decision-making,” Greek maritime security company Diaplous told Reuters.
Iran was estimated to have hundreds, if not thousands, of these boats before the war, often hidden in coastal tunnels, naval bases, or among civilian vessels, according to maritime security specialists.
Some 100 or more may have been destroyed since the Iran war began on Feb. 28, said Corey Ranslem, chief executive of maritime security group Dryad Global.
CHANGE IN TACTICS
Before this week, Iran had relied on missile and drone strikes to hit shipping traffic around the strait, a route which normally handles 20% of the world’s daily oil and liquefied natural gas supply.
Those attacks had stopped with the April 8 ceasefire.
The seizure of the two container ships by Iran followed Washington imposing a blockade on Iran‘s trade by sea and the start of it intercepting Iran-linked oil tankers and other ships.
“The civilian shipping industry is not equipped to prevent Iranian armed forces from seizing vessels,” said Daniel Mueller, a senior analyst at British maritime security company Ambrey.
Typically, about a dozen boats are used in a seizure operation, he added.
Iran‘s fast boats now serve as the “backbone” of Iran’s naval strategy, able to deploy rapidly as part of its “asymmetrical war against the enemy,” a senior Iranian security official told Reuters.
“Because of their very high speeds, these boats can successfully carry out hit-and-run attacks without being detected,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
FAST BOAT LIMITATIONS
Including this week’s seizures, Iran has used small, fast boats at least seven times going back to 2019, Ambrey’s Mueller said.
High winds and swells in the waters off Iran during summer make it hard to conduct such operations, said one Iranian shipping source familiar with the waters.
“When it is very bumpy, they [armed forces onboard] cannot shoot,” the source said.
They are also ill-equipped to go head-to-head with a warship, and would likely suffer “very heavy casualties” in any direct assault on one, said Jeremy Binnie, a Middle East specialist at defense intelligence company Janes.
“Even if they tried to saturate the ship’s defenses by attacking from multiple directions, they would be extremely vulnerable to the air support that would be called in,” he said.
On paper, guided missile strikes would easily destroy these boats, but shoulder-fired missile launchers would pose a threat to low-flying US aircraft, Binnie said.
“It is going to be much harder to eliminate the small boat threat than it was to destroy Iran’s larger naval vessels, which were big targets that were relatively easy to find and track and, at most, only had a limited ability to defend themselves from air attack,” he said.
The reality for the shipping sector is further disruption as well as elevated insurance costs.
After the so-called “tanker war” of the 1980s, Iran increasingly used asymmetric tactics as the Iranian navy was effectively destroyed, much as it has been in the current conflict, said Duncan Potts, a director with consultancy Universal Defense and Security Solutions and a former British Royal Navy vice admiral.
“When the US Navy and the president say, ‘We’ve destroyed the navy, we’ve sunk a frigate off Sri Lanka’ – you’ve done that before, but you’ve forgotten that your opposition here went asymmetric. And they’ve perfected it.”
Uncategorized
UK’s Starmer Worried by Foreign-Backed Proxy Attacks on Jewish Sites in Britain
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and US President Donald Trump (not pictured) hold a bilateral meeting at Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland, Britain, July 28, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Thursday he was “increasingly concerned” about a growing use of proxies by foreign states to carry out attacks in Britain, pledging to bring forward new legislation following recent attacks.
London has seen a string of attacks – mostly arson – on Jewish-linked sites in recent weeks. Some of these are being investigated by counter-terrorism officers, although police say they are not currently being treated as terrorist incidents.
British authorities have increasingly pointed to hostile state activity as part of the backdrop to recent incidents, warning that foreign governments may seek to operate through criminal networks or proxies to maintain deniability.
“I’m increasingly concerned that a number of countries are using proxies for attacks in this country,” he said, speaking after meeting members of the Jewish community at Kenton United Synagogue, which was the target of an arson attack last Sunday.
The fire caused minor smoke damage to an internal room and there were no injuries. A 17-year-old British boy pleaded guilty on Tuesday to arson not endangering life in connection with the incident.
“We have to deal with malign state actors,” Starmer said, adding that it would require legislation by the government.
“I want this country to be a place where everybody feels safe and secure. This is not just a battle for the Jewish community,” Starmer said. “It is our battle. The Britain that I want is a Britain where people can practice their religion, their faith, in safety and security.”
British counter-terrorism police on Wednesday made two further arrests over an alleged plot to carry out an arson attack on a Jewish-linked site in London.
Detectives arrested two men aged 19 and 26 in Watford, northwest of London, on Tuesday, police said. Both remain in custody.
Police did not name a specific location but said the intended target was connected to the Jewish community.
Seven other people arrested earlier in the investigation have since been released on bail, London’s Metropolitan Police said.
British police have been investigating the string of attacks as part of a wider rise in antisemitic threats and criminal activity since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza in October 2023.
Uncategorized
Son of Former Shah of Iran Appeals to Western Countries for Support
Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last shah and an Iranian opposition figure, gestures as he speaks during a press conference at the House of the Bundespressekonferenz in Berlin, Germany, April 23, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Liesa Johannssen
The son of the former Shah appealed to Western countries to join the war against Iran and criticized the decision of the German government not to meet him during his visit to Berlin on Thursday.
Reza Pahlavi, whose father was deposed in the revolution that brought Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power in 1979, accused Europe of standing by and allowing the Tehran government to continue the bloody repression of protests that killed thousands at the end of last year.
“The question is not whether change will come. Change is on the way,” he told a press conference in Berlin. “The real question is how many Iranians will lose their lives while the community of Western democracies continue to merely watch.”
Demonstrations by both supporters and opponents were held in central Berlin and a person was detained after Pahlavi, who made an appearance, was spattered with some form of red liquid.
POTENTIAL OPPOSITION LEADER
Pahlavi, who has spent most of his life in exile, emerged as a potential opposition leader after anti-government protests erupted in Tehran and other Iranian cities last year.
But Iran‘s opposition movements are deeply divided and many Western governments have been cautious about offering their endorsement because it remains unclear what support he enjoys, almost half a century after his father’s reign was overturned.
European countries, including Germany, have ruled out joining the United States and Israel, which opened the war on Feb. 28 with a wave of airstrikes that killed Iran‘s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Pahlavi’s visit to Germany came as efforts to end the conflict appear to have stalled, with Iran and the United States both maintaining blockades of the vital Strait of Hormuz, the conduit for around a fifth of the world’s oil.
He said it was a shame that Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government had not offered a meeting during his visit to Germany.
“Exercise your prerogative. As democracies, you’re entitled to talk to whoever you want,” he said.