Conservative and progressive law experts recently converged to discuss the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging a chatbot’s cautionary advice. Kristi Jobson, assistant dean for admissions at Harvard Law School, relayed ChatGPT’s suggestion to keep the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society seated apart to avoid potential conflict. Abbott LaPrade, chair for the American Constitution Society, humorously referenced the AI\u2019s warning while introducing the panelists for the event titled \u201cIs the Roberts Court Legitimate?\u201d<\/p>\n
The discussion was part of Harvard’s \u201cFrom Dissent to Dialogue\u201d series, funded by the President\u2019s Building Bridges Fund across various schools. The event aimed to foster debate among legal scholars with differing viewpoints about the Supreme Court. Law School Dean John C.P. Goldberg noted that the event embodied the fund\u2019s goal of encouraging dialogue between opposing sides.<\/p>\n
Goldberg, as moderator, referenced a distinction made by the late Professor Richard Fallon, between the Court’s legal and moral legitimacy. He questioned whether the Supreme Court was facing a legitimacy crisis, citing its lowest public favorability ratings in 50 years. Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, argued that the Court is legitimate in its law-making role but questioned public acceptance of its decisions.<\/p>\n
Nancy Gertner, a former U.S. District Court judge, argued that legitimacy alone is insufficient for the Court. She stressed the expectation for judges to avoid partisan divisions and uphold longstanding precedents. Gertner emphasized the need for fundamental changes in how judges are selected and held accountable.<\/p>\n
Garrett West, a Yale law professor, expressed skepticism about the Court being influenced by public opinion. He noted that the Court is not adept at assessing public sentiment and that presidents have generally respected its judgments. Nikolas Bowie highlighted the importance of understanding public expectations of the Court, drawing parallels to the Reconstruction Congress\u2019s efforts to rebuild democracy post-Civil War.<\/p>\n
Bowie criticized the Supreme Court’s practice of horizontal review, which he believes undermines laws protecting democracy. He cited the Court\u2019s invalidation of significant legislation like the Voting Rights Act as contributing to its diminished public standing. Gertner criticized recent Supreme Court decisions that overturned precedents, arguing they were not based on new evidence.<\/p>\n
Muller countered Gertner, stating that the Court reverses precedents at a lower rate than during the Warren Court era. He defended the overturning of major statutes like Roe v. Wade as the result of lengthy legal efforts. Gertner, who served on President Biden\u2019s commission on the Supreme Court, advocated for traditional Court reforms.<\/p>\n
West questioned the potential consequences of Court expansion, while Muller humorously suggested a massive increase in justices but was open to considering age limits. Bowie emphasized that reform efforts should focus on enhancing democracy.<\/p>\n