Leah Litman is a law professor, podcaster, author, and on Wednesday, a fake news-peddling guest on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show. During her appearance with Michael Kosta, Litman came across as a profoundly unserious person who took quotes from conservative Supreme Court justices wildly out of context and was more interested in name-calling.
Kosta began by putting the ball on the tee, “Your book, How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes. Explain vibes to me.”
Litman responded, “Okay, so by vibes, I kind of mean feelings and the political talking points of the Republican Party that the justices are laundering into the law or sometimes just declaring to be the law.”
Amid booing from the audience, she then reached for an example, “So when they invalidated Joe Biden's student debt relief plan, they announce—boo indeed—they announced they didn't exactly have to follow the law, like, what Congress enacted, because student debt relief raised questions that were “personal and emotionally charged. i.e., it triggered them. So that became the law.”
Here is that quote in context:
Student loan cancellation ‘raises questions that are personal and emotionally charged, hitting fundamental issues about the structure of the economy.’ … The dissent asks us to “[i]magine asking the enacting Congress: Can the Secretary use his powers to give borrowers more relief when an emergency has inflicted greater harm?” … But imagine instead asking the enacting Congress a more pertinent question: ‘Can the Secretary use his powers to abolish $430 billion in student loans, completely canceling loan balances for 20 million borrowers, as a pandemic winds down to its end?’ We can’t believe the answer would be yes. Congress did not unanimously pass the HEROES Act with such power in mind. … As then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi explained: People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress' … The dissent insists that ‘[s]tudent loans are in the Secretary’s wheelhouse.’ Post, at 26 (opinion of KAGAN, J.). But in light of the sweeping and unprecedented impact of the Secretary’s loan forgiveness program, it would seem more accurate to describe the program as being in the ‘wheelhouse’ of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
So, not only was the quote Litman raised itself a quote, but the majority went on to make legal arguments about the statute and separation of powers. It wasn’t just “feelings.” If anything, that was the dissent’s problem.
Stubborn things like facts aside, Kosta asked, “Are you saying the Supreme Court can have feelings and is acting on those feelings?”
Litman quipped, “I am saying they are a bunch of snowflakes.”
Kosta was a fan, “Oh, burn notice! There is a lot of that in this, and it's very refreshing to read and hear on your podcast, Strict Scrutiny, to hear people just talk shit about the Supreme Court and—is that okay to do that?”
Naturally, Litman affirmed Kosta’s desires, “I think it is more than okay.” After Kosta invited her to explain why, Litman continued, “One is, I wanted to put this in a language that even Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch could understand. But second is, I think the Supreme Court is this incredibly powerful and not well-understood institution, and I wanted to make information about the Supreme Court accessible. I wanted to energize people—to get them involved in learning more about the Supreme Court and wanted to do something about it. I mean, I worry that the next several decades might look like a Hunger Games for a liberal constitutional democracy.”
In a democracy, people vote for representatives who then vote for specific policies, but Litman’s idea of a democracy appeared to be rule by judicial edicts, “So after abortion, I think they are likely to come after contraception.”
She also feared, “I think they are likely to come after what remains of the Voting Rights Act. I think they are likely to come after what remains of campaign finance regulation. And so I think that they are in a position to really undo a lot of what is foundational and important about our current democracy.”
If people really want to learn about the Supreme Court, based off this interview, there are better sources than Litman and her Strict Scrutiny colleagues.
Here is a transcript for the June 4 show:
Comedy Central The Daily Show
6/4/2025
11:22 PM ET
MICHAEL KOSTA: Your book, How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes. Explain vibes to me.
LEAH LITMAN: Okay, so by vibes, I kind of mean feelings and the political talking points of the Republican Party—
KOSTA: Yeah. Yeah.
LITMAN: — that the justices are laundering into the law or sometimes just declaring to be the law.
KOSTA: Yeah.
LITMAN: So when they invalidated Joe Biden's student debt relief plan, they announce—boo indeed—they announced they didn't exactly have to follow the law—
KOSTA: Yeah.
LITMAN: — like, what Congress enacted, because student debt relief raised questions that were “personal and emotionally charged. i.e., it triggered them. So that became the law.
KOSTA: Are you saying the Supreme Court can have feelings and is acting on those feelings?
LITMAN: I am saying they are a bunch of snowflakes.
KOSTA: Oh, burn notice! There is a lot of that in this, and it's very refreshing to read and hear on your podcast, Strict Scrutiny, to hear people just talk shit about the Supreme Court and—is that okay to do that?
LITMAN: I think it is more than okay.
KOSTA: Okay, tell me why.
LITMAN: One is, I wanted to put this in a language that even Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch could understand. But second is, I think the Supreme Court is this incredibly powerful and not well-understood institution—
KOSTA: Yeah.
LITMAN: — and I wanted to make information about the Supreme Court accessible. I wanted to energize people—
KOSTA: Yeah.
LITMAN: — to get involved in learning more about the Supreme Court and wanted to do something about it. I mean, I worry that the next several decades might look like a Hunger Games—
KOSTA: Yeah.
LITMAN: — for a liberal constitutional democracy. So after abortion, I think they are likely to come after contraception. I think they are likely to come after what remains of the Voting Rights Act.
KOSTA: Yeah
LITMAN: —I think they are likely to come after what remains of campaign finance regulation. And so I think that they are in a position to really undo a lot of what is foundational and important about our current democracy.
