White House Shaken – Legal Scholar Slams Justice Jackson Over Trump Comments
During an interview on Newsmax’s The Record With Greta Van Susteren, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz criticized Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for what he described as a lack of historical perspective in her recent comments condemning attacks on the judiciary by former President Donald Trump and his allies.
“This is not new,” Dershowitz remarked, referencing past presidents who also clashed with the judicial branch. “Thomas Jefferson attacked judges appointed by John Adams much, much more ferociously. [Abraham] Lincoln attacked judges, indeed, suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Franklin Delano Roosevelt intimidated judges, threatened that he would pack the court, and that resulted in the switch in time that saved nine.”
Justice Jackson had addressed the issue during a speech at a judges’ conference in Puerto Rico, where she argued that recent criticism of the judiciary is “not random” but intended “to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity,” according to Politico. She characterized such rhetoric as a threat to “our democracy, on our system of government,” and warned that it could “ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law.”
However, Dershowitz noted that Jackson failed to reference earlier instances of similar behavior from the Democratic side, such as when then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer openly threatened Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch ahead of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, or the calls to expand the court under President Joe Biden’s administration.
“Arguments between the judiciary and the executive are as old as our nation,” Dershowitz emphasized. He argued that Jackson's statements lack weight “unless she puts her criticisms in historical context” and acknowledges that such tensions have come from both political parties.
Dershowitz, known for his long-standing legal career and outspoken opinions, acknowledged that he too has harshly criticized judges in the past. “I say rotten things about judges,” he said, adding, “I’ll continue to do so as long as judges do rotten things and don’t obey the Constitution.” He insisted that judges are not beyond reproach and should be held accountable like anyone else in public office.
Referring to Trump’s recent trial in New York, Dershowitz didn’t hold back: “The judge who sat on the disgraceful New York trial of Donald Trump for doing something that wasn’t even illegal deserves condemnation.” He also called out a D.C. judge who did not recuse himself despite his daughter’s alleged involvement in deportation-related matters, saying, “these judges deserve to be criticized.”
In his view, judicial respect must be earned through sound legal reasoning, not simply by donning a robe. “All judges deserve acceptance based only on the quality of their opinions, not on the fact that they’re wearing robes,” he added.
He further criticized attorneys who shy away from challenging judges in court, calling them “cowards.”
“I have been in courtrooms where judges have done horrible things, and the lawyers whispered to me, ‘Oh, my God, I wish I had the guts to stand up and tell him what I think,’” Dershowitz recalled. “But judges take it out on lawyers who don’t treat them with the kind of reverence that they want to be treated with. So I’m completely in favor of judges being subject to scrutiny and to criticism.”
Turning to Trump’s conviction in the New York records case, Dershowitz said an appeal is already in motion, even though no sentence has been formally issued. He believes the case will likely make its way to the Supreme Court.
“He gave a sentence that was a nonsentence, but it’s enough to end the case and allow him to appeal,” Dershowitz said of Judge Juan Merchan. “The court may say, ‘Wait a minute. There was no sentence, so we have no jurisdiction.’”
Still, Dershowitz predicted, “I don’t think they’re going to do that. I think they’re going to handle the appeal. I think they’re going to reverse the conviction. And if they don’t reverse the conviction, a higher court will. This is the weakest case in my 60 years of practicing law that I have ever seen.”