Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes

by Leah Litman

Something is deeply rotten at the Supreme Court. How did we get here and what can we do about it? Crooked Media podcast host Leah Litman shines a light on the unabashed lawlessness embraced by conservative Supreme Court justices and shows us how to fight back.

With the gravitas of Joan Biskupic and the irreverence of Elie Mystal, Leah Litman brings her signature wit to the question of what’s gone wrong at One First Street. In Lawless, she argues that the Supreme Court is no longer practicing law; it’s running on vibes. By “vibes,” Litman means legal-ish claims that repackage the politics of conservative grievance and dress them up in robes. Major decisions adopt the language and posture of the law, while in fact displaying a commitment to protecting a single the religious conservatives and Republican officials whose views are no longer shared by a majority of the country.

Dahlia Lithwick’s Lady Justice meets Rebecca Traister’s Good and Mad as Litman employs pop culture references and the latest decisions to deliver a funny, zeitgeisty, pulls-no-punches cri de coeur undergirded by impeccable scholarship. She gives us the tools we need to understand the law, the dynamics of courts, and the stakes of this current moment—even as she makes us chuckle on every page and emerge empowered to fight for a better future.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Law, History, Audiobook, Legal, Justice

320 pages, Hardcover

First published May 13, 2025

About the author

Leah Litman is a Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School and co-host of the podcast Strict Scrutiny.

She received the American Constitution Society's Ruth Bader Ginsburg Scholar Award, the American Law Institute's Early Career Scholars Medal, and the Richard Cudahy Prize for Administrative and Regulatory Scholarship. She regularly appears as a commentator on NPR, MSNBC, and other outlets. She has also written for media outlets including The Atlantic, Slate, and more.

She is a proud Swiftie and lives in Ann Arbor with her partner and their miniature goldendoodle Stevie Nicks.

Reviews

[Madison ✨ (mad.lyreading) · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am not a Strict Scrutiny listener (I read the news and am depressed enough about it as it is) but I am a casual Pod Save listener who happens to be a lawyer, so I wanted to read this one. I got frustrated with this because I don't really know who this is for. It's written in a wannabe-Gen Z way that drove me (a millennial) nuts, and honestly removes credibility from Litman's argument. She's using facts to make an argument -- one I absolutely agree with -- but it's so full of pop culture references that it was annoying to read as someone who wants to take this argument seriously. On the flipside, it's dense and full of information that I think it would be difficult to read if I didn't already have a solid background in this area. I am guessing this is a similar vibe to her podcast, which means her audience would like it, but I got frustrated by it.

Thank you to Atria Books and NetGalley for an ARC in exchange for an honest review.

[Taylor Franson-Thiel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ya girl just got an ARC for this and I am LITTTYYYY

Review:

Thank you to NetGalley and Atria Books for the eARC in exchange for my honest review. All opinions are my own.

“Meme the shit out of these guys (and Amy)—they deserve it.”

This book presents a series of Supreme Court Decisions post The Warren Court which demonstrate the Supreme Courts Bad Vibes™️

It parallels each topic and its various cases with a pop culture film or television show such as Mean Girls (the Court doesn’t want LBGTQ+ folk to sit with them) or Game of Thrones (winter is coming for voting rights).

I would probably rate this a 3.75 out of 5.

Pros:
There are many aspects of this book I enjoyed. It did bring legalese down to a level I think the average layman could parse out for the most part. It was fun tonally through its pop culture references, inside jokes, and parenthetical asides.

It was also incredibly well researched. There are (I counted) 969 unique sources used for this book, many of which are quoted directly in the text. 82 pages of notes. (I checked a few out to make sure direct quotes were direct…they are). Litman lets the Supreme Court literally speak for itself and the evidence is damning.

I think the ending call to action was solid as well. Vote. Make your choice heard. Be active in your local community/elections. We do have power as the people and we need to remember that.

Cons:
I think there are a few times Litman let the desire to be funny get in the way of her arguments. There were several times she refuted a conservative court choice by saying in a parenthetical “(because of course they did)” which really is a cop out, and stops the development of some of her important counter claims. I understand the goal was to be the cool girl, but it was laid on a little thick at times. That’s really my only complaint though.

There were some unavoidably dry moments. This is a nonfiction legal text after all. So the back and forth from pop culture or legalese wasn’t always solid.

Disclaimer:
As anyone who has been through my Goodreads knows, I vote left. My political beliefs align with the left. So I am already in a position to agree with Litman on her arguments. People who vote left will love it and people who vote right will hate it. I’m certain Litman is aware of this. I genuinely don’t think this is meant to sway people left, and I don’t think that will be the result for any conservative voter who reads it.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Leah Litman enters the fray to explore the legal pathways conservative politicians and judges are constructing to create a mockery of the American judicial process. She offers poignant analysis of key themes that the Roberts Court has jumped upon to peel back decades of progress to ensure the current minority—the rich social and moral conservatives—receive everything in a bastardised constitutional application. With strong views that are well-documented, Litman left me thinking a little more about how this powerful Court and rhetoric current Whiner-in-Chief holds creates a dictatorial regime that will make Election Night 2028 quite interesting. Litman does well depicting the current situation and wondering what’s to come!

There is no doubt that the current legal situation in America stinks! Some might say I am simply jealous because they are not going my way, but this book by Leah Litman explores many of the out of touch rulings by the recent US Supreme Court, headed by a conservative branch that seeks not to protect the population, but rather to ensure the country’s minority, social and moral conservatives, never have to swallow a pill they do not like. Litman explores a number of themes—abortion, election laws, Court rules, etc—and explains that the Court justifies its rulings as a means to balance an inequality, namely that it is discriminatory for social conservatives to accept changes in society, but that these groups (homosexuals, transgenders, the poor, and visual minorities) who are shut out from protections are not being discriminated against. Take a moment to ponder that!

Litman uses wonderful arguments and pulls on the Court’s historical rulings on a number of topics, before showing how the Roberts Court (named after the Chief Justice, John Roberts) has dismantled much of the progress that has been made because conservatives do not like it. It would seem that Republican Court nominees prefer to turn away from the US Constitution, except when they can bend it to their favour.

What’s to be done to solve this? Litman offers a few ideas, but they are surely based on a strong Congress that is willing to reform laws the Court has misinterpreted, selection of open-minded congressional and presidential candidates, and the appointment of more judicial-focused rather than bluntly ideological justices to the US Supreme Court. It is not a switch that can be turned, but will take a great deal of time to dismantle the mess that has been steaming. This could surely be started by removing those who are steering America down the dictatorial pathway. Easier said than done, as daily mind-numbing lies supersaturate everything coming out of the current White House.

While I do not hide my views on social and moral conservatives, as well as the bastardised Court decisions, I can see clear arguments that might justify their views. Alas, they offer none, choosing to stomp around because they have to “live amongst gays while giving them rights” or “allow the poor to cast a vote with the same strength as I have”. This ignorant view cannot make sense to me, as it seeks only to veil minority rights with racist and discriminatory rants. Leah Litman uses each chapter in this book to clearly explain this ignorance and show how vapid it is. Well-researched and clearly documenting the Court’s past rulings, Litman presents the red flag that keeps popping up. I can only hope other authors will flood the genre with analyses about how the Court has driven the country into the ground. I would even accept a well-researched piece justifying the Court’s take, but keep the racism and discriminatory views out. At least it got my blood pumping!

Kudos, Madam Litman, for another great piece that shows how conservatism has been dismantling equality and bastardising minority rights.

Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

[Gyalten Lekden · Rating 4 out of 5]

For anyone who looks at the current Supreme Court and has the gut feeling that something is rotten in Denmark, this book is just what you need. Leah Litman has taken her extensive knowledge of history and the law and combined it with her razor-sharp commentary and a love for pop culture to show pretty definitively how and why your gut feeling is on to something. Broken down into five large chapters covering women’s rights, queer rights, race & voting rights, money & oligarchical influence, and an obsession with dismantling federal agencies and committees. With tongue firmly in cheek (and a command of the facts that is exacting and damning) she uses the pop-culture references of Barbie, Mean Girls, Game of Thrones, Arrested Development, and American Psycho to keep each chapter playful.

The scholarship is precise and really compelling, tracing ideas and precedents all the way to the founding of the country. There is nothing surface level about it at all. The tone, though, is playful. It is almost conversational, never talking down to the audience and yet always giving more than enough information so you can grasp whatever historical detail or point is being made. There is so much that could be said about the Supreme Court that it is amazing she could narrow this narrative down to those five points, but they feel representative of the Court as a whole and this book manages to feel expansive without feeling overstuffed.

For me her wit and tone, along with great scholarship, were more than enough to keep me engaged in the book. I didn’t really need the pop-culture references, they didn’t add much for me. Yet they weren’t distracting, referenced more in section titles and occasional summaries than anything else, and they did add a sense of levity to what is a pretty depressing topic. Because the conclusion she reaches, which you can’t really blame her for, isn’t a great one. There are significant problems with the current Court and no easy ways to fix it, given the current tides of partisan power. She ends, though, with a call for knowledge, because the best hope for creating a future you want to live in is to be knowledgeable about the systems that are causing harm so you know how to stand up to them and how to rebuild them, better, when the chance might arise. This book goes a long way toward that end, not resting on gut feelings or vibes but instead offering deeply researched analysis in an accessible way.

[Hayley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Full of good information but maaaaaan it was all over the place. I ended up having to listen to it on Spotify while doing cardio (and I am NOT someone who listens to books, I love to read physical words) because the amount of parentheses and jokes/sarcasm had me lost. The audio is better because I can hear her intonation.

I wish it was more organized because the subject matter is very important. It felt like she had so much she wanted to say and just kind of word vomited.

[Ashley Lorden · Rating 2 out of 5]

Difficult to read, appeal to a limited audience.

This book reads more like a stream-of-consciousness blog post or podcast with minimal organization; the chapters group general topics but within that, focus flits around randomly with frequent repetition. Copyediting is lacking with many sentences not well formulated. And, there are constant pop culture references which will make it harder for many to follow.

My biggest problem though, is that it seems to only be written for a very narrow audience who already generally agree with the author’s viewpoint. I am one of those people! But it was still frustrating to read something that I cannot imagine winning any hearts or minds to the points made. What is the point of writing a supremely snarky tale of all the ways something has gone wrong in our democracy if it is highly unlikely to persuade any additional citizens of that view, and offers no actionable strategy to change it? Yes, the conclusion says “get angry about the court” but if you survived 230 poorly-written pages about all the crappy things the court has done, I’m confident you already are, and there’s still little you can do about it. I truly wish the author skipped self-indulgence to write in a way I could refer others to read, and made it accessible to learn and get more people on board with this critical cause.

2 stars because after dragging myself through it, I did gain a few useful pieces of information or ways to frame things. But it was very difficult to finish.

[Lillian · Rating 2 out of 5]

if you're not already aware of anything that has happened with the supreme court in the last 10 years, this might be interesting, but unfortunately Lawless defaults to pop culture analogies where a more specific analysis of the cases it's talking about might serve to illustrate its (very important) message much clearer

[Kristin Martini · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a crucial read at this particular flashpoint in our democracy. This is a really palatable and accessible breakdown of the Supreme Court and it's downfalls that utilizes pop culture references to address the myriad of ways that our country is in the control of six bad actors in the Supreme Court. While I personally found the pop culture references a little much (some of them were stretched to their limits to fit the moment), I can see how for a more casual consumer of news about the judiciary might appreciate the references.

I will also say - this book suffers from what a lot of nonfiction from podcast hosts does, specifically a very clear bias where there's almost no page space devoted to mistakes on the other side of the aisle. I am a card-carrying Democrat, but I do believe that there was a way to bring up some of the moments where Democractic leadership or representatives at best fell short of preventing these disasters and at worst participated in them. There could have been a real honest interrogation of how, exactly, we let Mitch McConnell complete negate President Obama's ability to nominate a justice. Where was the outrage from the left? Where was Chuck Schumer? There has to be some accountability taken, because much of this didn't happen in a vacuum. (This WAS touched upon in the section on LGBTQ+ rights, given that Clinton passed multiple Acts that discriminated against queer folks; I just wish it had been more present throughout.

All told, this is a really important book for our chilling times. 4.5 stars. Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the ARC.

[ancientreader · Rating 4 out of 5]

First things first: Leah Litman knows whereof she speaks; I have no bones to pick with her argument or with the information with which she supports it. She knows her stuff, which is no more than I expected given that I'm a regular listener to Strict Scrutiny, the terrific legal podcast Litman cohosts with Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw.

The argument of "Lawless" can be summed up by the subtitle. To expand a bit: thanks to the decades-long machinations of Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society, as well as the increasing radicalization of the Republican Party, the U.S. Supreme Court is no longer a body that attempts (however imperfectly) to interpret and apply the law, but rather a vehicle for giving the extreme right wing whatever it wants. Women as mobile uteri, check; voter suppression, check; contempt and torment of trans and other queer people, check; white supremacy above all, check.

"Lawless" starts out somewhat elementary if you're generally familiar with originalism as a constitutional "philosophy" (nothing so ahistorical and divorced from reality deserves the name), but the real difficulty for me was twofold.

One, I was ground down by the litany of law after law after law after case after case after case after case. Possibly this couldn't be helped: to make her argument, Litman has to adduce evidence, and the evidence is all those laws and all those cases. If you can read "Lawless" one chapter at a time, say one chapter a month, or if you're just a tougher cookie than I, you might still have the fortitude to glance at the news every so often.

Two, tone. Not the internet tone problem; I mean that Litman's prose voice is very much like the voice of the Strict Scrutiny podcast. It's brisk, incisive, and entertaining in podcast form, and if you've any interest in legal matters whatsoever I recommend Strict Scrutiny 100%, but in a book the jokiness starts to feel relentless. (YMMV; for whatever reason, Elie Mystal's blistering humor suits me perfectly.) And geez did I get tired of the "Mean Girls" references; I haven't seen the movie, I'm not interested in the movie, I'm not going to see the movie, and hearing about it one or two or five times might have been fine but Leah! Please stop! Identify some more cultural touchstones!

tl;dr -- Valuable and informative, but you'd best have a high tolerance for piles of depressing facts and for the prose voice. Thanks to Atria/One Signal and NetGalley for the ARC.

[Briann · Rating 3 out of 5]

I won this book in a giveaway. For me, this book went back and forth between overexplaining and underexplaining. The first chapter was mainly a review for me because of a Women in Politics class I had taken. Some of the other ideas throughout the book were refreshers from AP Government. However, the majority of the book was simply an info dump of court cases with very little introduction. Just dropping court case after court case. It was somewhat exhausting.

Furthermore, the author took on a sarcastic tone throughout the book, which was fine. However, I wish she would italicize some of her jokes or something, because it was sometimes hard to go from reading a very serious fact to a witty remark when my brain was starting to daydream or go on autopilot (because of the amount of court cases dumped).

I also was not a fan of the repetitive use of the word vibes. While I understand what the author was trying to say, vibes felt overly unprofessional to me. It just was not a strong word choice.

My favorite chapter was Chapter 2. That chapter had the perfect combination of factual information and sarcasm.

I liked how the author ended the book (her conclusion) as well as her emphasis on the importance of voting. I have included an excerpt of this conclusion below.

The case involved an Arizona man, Barry Jones, whom four judges had concluded likely did not commit the crime for which he had been sentenced to death. The Supreme Court (specifically, the six Republican justices) said they didn’t care, and that it was Jones’s fault that his (ineffective) state-appointed lawyers had not presented evidence of his innocence. That’s actually what they said: “A state prisoner is responsible for counsel’s negligent failure to develop the… record,” including with evidence of the defendant’s innocence. The ruling seemed to condemn an innocent man to death. But that fall, on the heels of the Court overruling Roe v. Wade, the Democratic candidate, Kris Mayes, won the race for attorney general of Arizona by 280 votes (among more than 2 million). Mayes signed off on an agreement that released Jones from prison after he had served twenty-nine years for a crime he did not commit. That probably wouldn’t have happened if those 280 people hadn’t voted. It may not have happened if the people who helped those 280 people vote or encouraged those 280 people to vote or convinced those 280 people to vote hadn’t bothered. We won’t know the names of those voters or any of the people who helped them. But they helped save an innocent man from prison and death.

[Faith · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Supreme Court has obviously given up any pretense of actually following the law. When several members have obviously taken bribes, what are the chances that they will objectively decide anything? So, this book deals with a very serious problem. I wish that it had been written that way.

On the one hand, the somewhat boring recitation of cases reminded me of why Constitutional Law was not one of my favorite classes. On the other hand, the constant references to The Game of Thrones and other pop culture references trivialized the issues. This wasn’t the right book for me.

I received a free copy of this book from the publisher.

[Rick Wilson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Long on outrage. Short on analysis.

[Haley Kavelak · Rating 5 out of 5]

So this is the political book we all needed especially when repeatedly the Supreme Court rules against the popular opinions in law and we all feel absolutely crazy wondering how this keeps happening?! Well, Leah Litman explains it all and breaks down the difficult legalese (which even broken down was hard and slow for me to understand but something I loved learning) relating it to the Barbie movie, Mean Girls, Game of Thrones, and more. The references were funny, well timed and really helped me relate the lawlessness of the Supreme Court to things I could understand. I plan to recommend this book to everyone I know and I will be reading it again.

[Kalyn Lamey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thanks to NetGalley and Atria Books for the digital ARC of Lawless, which releases May 13. One of my favorite podcasts is Strict Scrutiny, which follows the shenanigans of the US Supreme Court. Leah Litman is a cohost of that podcast, bringing her whit and snark to every episode. This book is no different. It is a no-holds-barred critique of the Supreme Court that provides historical context for how we got to the current state of the Court and its recent rulings while also being full of sass and pop culture references to keep you from getting too deep into your existential-dready-feels. It ends with an inspiring call to action for everyone to do their civic duty by voting at all levels of elections. I’ll definitely by buying a physical copy when this book is published!

[jrendocrine at least reading is good · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am not a lawyer, but I am intensely interested in American democracy. I trust Litman because I listen to her excellent podcast, Strict Scrutiny, when I can get past the legalese.

Her book is worthwhile, and entertaining (actually I listened) and convincingly shows that our current court is hardly apolitical or honorable. In fact, the court is packed with justices who are bent on preserving the injustices of the past, and using grievance of republicans and the religious-right to make laws that do not provide any future of liberty for those of us who don’t share their views. The court protects billionaires> poor, corporations > clean air/water/climate, retrograde thinking > women’s rights. And what was news to me – the court never did! Districts have always been gerrymandered, the law has always worked in favor of the rich, and America has never been that democratic.

Subjects covered: I’m pretty knowledgeable on voting rights because of issues in my state and Litman does a thorough job showing how the court is turning back the Voting Rights Act. I was fascinated and horrified to learn how the court has subverted first amendment rights to protect some while taking away rights of LGBT community. I was amazed that so much grift is constantly going on. Also what an absolutely dreadful person Alito is, hobnobbing with The Federalist Society and hanging his upside-down flags.

However, as a non-lawyer, many parts of Litman’s pretty brilliant assessments fly over my head, and it’s hard to keep it all straight. I do think she did her book a disservice by social references to the Bluths, Game of Thrones and Patrick Bateman, but maybe it was fun? Snark never ages well.

But worth a read, you will learn something, and at the very least make sure you and friends vote all the way down-ticket. Maybe you will be encouraged to organize. You will certainly not hold the Supreme Court in high regard after this book.

[Claire Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lawless is a scathing and grim overview of our current Supreme Court, the history of how we got here, and what future jurisprudence may look like in our dystopian theocratic reality. While author Leah Litman, co-host of the popular Strict Scrutiny podcast, matches her primary topics with a cute pop culture twist to reach a broader audience (the SCOTUS justices as the Kens (and Amy) made me laugh), the main subjects of abortion, LGBTQ rights, the demise of voting rights, the rise of corporate/special interests, and the focus on deregulation and dismantling our government from the inside out, are heavy and not to be taken lightly. The chapter on the slow chipping away at the Voting Rights Act and the rise of fringe theories like the Independent State Legislature Theory (ISLT) are particularly disturbing. Anyone paying attention should be worried, and reading this book is a good start.

Pub Date: 5/13/25
Review Published: 5/12/25
eARC provided at no cost by NetGalley and the publisher in exchange for an honest review.

[Hunter · Rating 4 out of 5]

It feels fitting to have finished this on Election Day. This book was definitely written with a target audience in mind, and I am that audience! However, I think this specificity (very millennial/Gen Z pop culture) has the potential to turn off different reader demographics. This was pretty dense and full of legalese, but it’s the spirit of the topic. Overall, I learned from this and think it was well done.

[Ikki Kaijima · Rating 3 out of 5]

Messy writing but good informational content on recent Supreme Court cases, notes on constitutional law, and a brief history on : LGBT rights in U.S, voting rights, campaign finance laws and how it all ties with the current conservative justices' political philosophy, jurisprudential methods, and politics.

[Dona's Books]

DNF

Can't read this while battling depression.

[Nina · Rating 2 out of 5]

An important topic and, while I don’t doubt Litman’s thesis, I look forward to one day reading about the current Supreme Court and how we ended up with it in a book that isn’t completely drowning in cutesy pop culture references.

[Holland · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone with no background in law, this was a very approachable book. Were the pop culture references a little cheesy? Maybe, but they also kept the book light and slightly more informal as the material became more dense. Litman does a fantastic job of breaking down how the Supreme Court and how we got to where we are today. I highly recommend the audiobook, read by the author, because Litman kept the book moving.

[Biblio Files (takingadayoff) · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm always up for a book about the Supreme Court whether it's a bio of one of the justices or a history of the institution. My favorite Supreme Court reporter is Marcia Coyle and I always appreciate insights from the legal scholars who go on news programs. Naturally I like legal podcasts for those of us who are not lawyers. Strict Scrutiny and Amicus are favorites. So it was a surprise to me that I was well into reading Lawless before I realized that Leah Litman, the author, is one of the regulars on Strict Scrutiny. The podcast is a kind of freewheeling, boisterous conversation among three Constitutional law professors who have strong opinions (grounded in law) about much of what the Supreme and Federal Courts are up to.

Litman doesn't hold back on her opinions here, either. But she always backs up her legal opinions with law. Unlike Litman, the Supreme Court Justices, in particular, those nominated by Republican presidents, do not see the need to back up their opinions with law. For them, a "vibe" will do. This is the argument that Litman makes throughout the book, and she backs up her case with legal examples, constitutional law, and pop culture analogies.

Our current Supreme Court is operating mostly on vibes these days, it seems, but they are not the first to make a decision and then find law to back up their decision rather than the other way around. Sometimes, they don't even bother to find precedent or law to back up their opinion. That goes back at least to Potter Stewart and his "I know it when I see it" definition of obscenity.

Lawless is a poke in the kidneys book, urging us to pay attention to the Supreme Court, as well as the lower courts, because they are making decisions that affect most of us in sloppy, careless, and frankly insulting ways. Litman's book is a reminder that law can be an exciting, infuriating, and extremely relevant topic for anyone. (Thanks to Edelweiss and the publisher for a digital review copy.)

[Christine · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fun (if grim and timely) overview of some SCOTUS history and trends from the last 50 years (and a little further back, too). I'm not sure who the ideal audience would be. It's a little too light on legal meat if you're someone who actually reads and tears their hair out over SCOTUS opinions & oral arguments (cries), and it could use some more hand-holding for more casual readers. Luckily, Litman keeps the tone upbeat and does a decent job of explaining the basics, so don't be scared if you're not a lawyer or a law student, there is plenty to learn in here. I think I'll stick to the nitty-gritty stuff the podcast likes to explore (still very casually). The book's given me at least a dozen more cases I clearly need to catch up on reading.

Recommended if you're already a fan of the Strict Scrutiny, or if you're interested in SCOTUS. The audiobook is read by the author! So that's a fun option for the podcast crowd.

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a pretty good book. A lot of books about laws can get boring, but this one held my attention. The author does a great job going through the history of the Supreme Court, discussing how Republican judges have shifted laws throughout the years, and I learned a ton. She does a great job explaining some insane ways the judges have justified their rulings, like how they don’t want Republicans to “feel bad”. It’s pretty crazy.

I only had one issue with this book, and it was the constant Game of Thrones references. Listen, I get that this was an insanely popular show, and it’s one of the only popular shows I never watched. I’m sure the constant references are fine for most people, but for people like me, it just took me out of the book from start to finish. Other than that, great book.

[Cerealflakes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Litman gives us a breakdown of what is making our present day Supreme Court so horrendous. Reading this during Supreme Court decision release season is all the more horrifying. We’ve had a few terrible decisions she may have included in this book, and we haven’t even seen all the decisions for this term yet.

I would imagine the cultural references included in the book could drive some people insane. I have only seen Mean Girls once and have never seen Game of Thrones, so those didn’t always work for me. I did appreciate the chapter where she used quotes from Arrested Development, however.

This book did give a good breakdown of why we should all be worried about the court. No, none of us is exaggerating the danger.

[Becky · Rating 3 out of 5]

Traumatizing and horrifying in the relentlessness of the power-grab that she laid out, so 5 stars for that. But 2 stars for the pop-culture references (and SPOILERS!) that felt repeatedly stretched to their breaking points.

I am not in law, and I only have an interest in politics because I am a human woman who believes in fairness and justice and equality, I'm currently alive and rely on politics and the policies they have power over to (hopefully) stay that way for a while longer. You know... no biggie.

But I have watched the Supreme Court fail to live up to the ideals of what it should be over and over and over and over and over again, just in the last decade, and so when I saw this book, I decided to give it a listen. And I found the politics and the historical context and the arguments made to be compelling and horrifyingly accurate, but the framing and delivery to be distracting.

So we'll land on 3 stars. I would recommend this, but with caveats.

[Madison · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very dense and clearly very researched book about how messy our government is. Loved the conclusion section that highlighted what YOU can do to make effective change. (And it doesn’t include blasting your opinions on social media 😉)

[Angela Longo · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a fan of the podcast of course I’m going to like the book! Loved having a show or movie as the theme for each chapter. Made bleak reading more fun

[Monte Price]

Definitely a solid piece of nonfiction, and if you don't read a lot on the Supreme Court and are looking to get into this area of nonfiction it's an excellent primer. If there is a drag to this book it's that I do listen to Litman's podcast every week and so while this still offered a fresh take I'm not really sure there was much new here for me.

[Rachael Dockery · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5/5