Katie Burgin

Representations of Law in Television and Documentary Film

English 125.078 (Fall 2020)

​

When Pop Culture Critiques: How American TV and Film Examines the Links Between Politics, Justice, and the Judiciary’s Legitimacy

 

Introduction: What Defines a Court System’s Legitimacy?

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (SCOTUS, 1992) caused quite a stir; many believed it would be the case to overturn Roe v. Wade and revoke a woman’s right to an abortion. However, conservative justices defied expectations and upheld Roe, albeit by adding an ambiguous undue burden standard. Because abortion is a divisive issue—to put it mildly—the justices realized their ruling in Casey had to be made with utmost care. The plurality opinion, written by Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, observes, “…the Court cannot buy support for its decisions… [and] it cannot independently coerce obedience to its decrees. The Court's power lies, rather, in its legitimacy, a product of substance and perception that shows itself in the people's acceptance of the Judiciary as fit to determine what the Nation's law means and declare what it demands” (12, emphasis added). In other words, because courts do not control the army, nor do they write laws, their power rests in their accurate judgment and how they are perceived by society. The Supreme Court’s power is constrained by whether the public thinks it is legitimate.

​

Clearly, legitimacy is an important factor in the workings of the judicial system. This fact raises a question: what makes a court legitimate? It has something to do with the layman’s perception of the court, yes, but how is this perception formed? In his article “Law, Lawyers, and Popular Culture,” Lawrence Friedman discusses the ways in which people judge legal systems. He concludes that lawyers associate freedom, democracy, and the like with due process; if procedure is followed, lawyers believe the system is fair. Justice, however, is a remarkably ambiguous idea open to multiple interpretations. Friedman claims that the public, unlike lawyers, “think[s] of justice, freedom and democracy in markedly substantive terms” (1603); they are “result-minded… [T]he ‘legitimacy’ of law and legal institutions… is understood and assessed by what these institutions do” (1604). Essentially, to assess the legitimacy of the courts, the public asks the big question: was justice served? Did the court come to the morally right conclusion? A jury that lets a guilty man walk free is likely to be seen as illegitimate, for instance, even if procedure was followed. Along the same lines, the public won’t be satisfied if an innocent woman is stuck in jail. If a court strips people of their rights, that court is also likely going to be decried as unsound. Once again, this public perception is important because the court’s power rests on whether average citizens believe it is doing its job properly. 

 

Since legitimacy is important to the functionality of the court system, and because we know the public largely measures legitimacy on the basis of whether “justice” is served, we come to yet another question—how do we assess the public’s opinion of the judiciary? Friedman answers, “...clues to the legitimacy of courts… are not to be found in the structure of doctrine, or in the formal texts of jurists, but in the broad messages traveling back and forth between the public and the organs of popular culture” (1605). These “messages” could be found in “books, songs, movies, plays and TV shows which are about law or lawyers, and which are aimed at a general audience” (1580). Examples abound: Boston Legal, Law & Order, On the Basis of Sex, To Kill A Mockingbird, Kramer v. Kramer, etc. Even though these pop culture representations may focus on different legal issues—abortion, civil rights, divorce, criminal trials, and more—there are plenty of similarities. In his article “The American Courtroom Trial: Pop Culture, Courtroom Realities, and the Dream World of Justice,” David Papke examines popular culture representations of courtroom trials. Focusing solely on these trials, he reviews many overarching similarities: the courtroom is “wood-paneled, well-upholstered, and soothed in soft light” (921), defense attorneys are often heroic, and lawyers are “articulate and impassioned as they deliver the special type of argumentative soliloquy indigenous to a legalistic culture” (925). Overall, Papke argues that pop culture representation of the legal system “contributes mightily to the popular understanding of law” and “transports us to the dream world of justice” (932). Papke’s assertion that pop culture representation teaches the public is indisputably accurate, but Papke’s claim that it transports viewers to a “dream world of justice” glosses over an important point. In his assertion, he forgets that popular culture can also critique. In fact, many movies and shows criticize the American court system, pointing out various inequities and injustices. These critiques give a clue about public perception of the court system and thus its legitimacy. 

​

Critiques of the court system vary, but numerous pop culture representations of the legal system raise similar issues, therefore demonstrating where the public finds fault in the legal system. One issue consistently raised is the politicization of the judiciary. Over the years, the American court system has become increasingly politicized and partisan. In 2020, the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett displayed the depth of this partisanship. Politicization isn’t new to 2020, though, and the issue has been raised in pop culture representation for years. Boston Legal, Reversing Roe, and Law & Order, for example, all examine the politicization of the judiciary. These portrayals have a purpose: as seen in pop culture representations of the American legal system, politicization of the judiciary decreases the courts' legitimacy. This loss of legitimacy occurs because the public loses faith in the judiciary, labeling it as just another partisan branch heavily shaped by politics. 

​

Boston Legal: A Broad Criticism of Politicization in the Court System

Because lawyer Alan Shore goes on a lengthy diatribe against the Supreme Court, the episode “The Court Supreme” of Boston Legal offers a broad overview of how politicization of the judiciary decreases the courts’ legitimacy. In the episode, Sharpe presents an appeal to the Supreme Court for Leonard Serra, a man convicted to death for raping an eight-year-old girl. Serra, who has an IQ of 70, is insistent of his innocence, but Shore technically cannot argue actual innocence and must stick to Constitutional issues when arguing the appeal. When this strategy fails, Shore gives an emotional rant about the death penalty and the Supreme Court in general. Boston Legal offers many messages to its viewers, and as Friedman discussed, these messages offer clues about how the legal system is perceived by the public and thus whether it’s seen as legitimate. Because the episode focuses mainly on the death penalty, the main message is the cruelty of the death penalty. Shore identifies many issues with it, mentioning how “[there is] an epidemic of wrongful convictions in this country… too many of them ending up on death row” (Boston Legal, “The Court Supreme”). Because the death penalty is painted as unethical, the episode injures the legal system’s legitimacy. But, the anti-death penalty position is not the only message about the legal system in this episode. 

​

 Sharpe spends a decent portion of his speech arguing that the politicization of the judiciary is a monumental problem that decreases the court’s legitimacy, as the public dismisses it as just another partisan branch of government. After the Chief Justice admonishes him, (“Mr. Shore! I don’t like your demeanor… And I would remind you of where you are” (BL)), Shore snaps. His retort is quick: “I know exactly where I am… and let me tell you, you folks aren’t as hot as all get out” (BL). His sharp critiques that follow are important, as they demonstrate real problems of politicization that exist in the American court system and what Americans think of the issue. Even if the public doesn’t have these opinions of the court before watching the episode, they might afterwards. Friedman discusses how in modern society, “media [is]… the most powerful carrier[] of popular culture” (1596), and it “forms or helps form popular legal culture, [which is] what people think about law” (1597). In sum, Friedman argues that pop culture representation of the law both reflects society’s existing opinions and influences their opinions. Therefore, Shore’s speech gives clues as to whether Americans believe the legal system is legitimate. 

​

 So, what exactly does Shore say about the politicization of the judiciary, and how does this politicization affect the court’s legitimacy (which one must remember is a product of public perception)? Shore’s most direct attack is this: 

​

“The Supreme Court was intended to be free and unadulterated by politics. It is now dominated by it. You're handpicked by presidents with ideological agendas, and of the two dozen 5-4 decisions in your 2006/2007 term, 19 [were] straight across ideological lines. That's politics! ... If that's the way it's gonna be, at least have the decency to put your names on ballots like the rest of the politicians so we the people get a voice” (BL)

​

Here, he’s arguing that the court, which advertises itself as nonpartisan and fair, is actually extremely partisan and politicized. This decreases the legitimacy of the court. If the judges vote straight across ideological—i.e., partisan—lines, the public cannot expect the Court to decide each case fairly. Justices are too impaired by their partisan beliefs to correctly interpret law. Their actions are compromised, tainted by partisan politics, and thus any Court rulings that you disagree with are easier to discount as biased and wrong. The court has lost its legitimacy; it is just another partisan branch. 

​

Of course, this phenomenon might not be so bad if the court still comes to the “just” results. Remember, the public largely judges the court’s legitimacy based on what it does; they are less concerned about procedure and more concerned about the outcome. So, even if a court has a biased, partisan makeup, maybe this could be overlooked if the court still managed to come to the proper conclusion. But, Shore contends this isn’t the case. He asserts, “[The Supreme] Court, with your narrow majority, has turned back the clock on civil rights, school segregation, equal protection, free speech, abortion, [and] campaign finance. You've been overtly and shamelessly pro-business, making it impossible for some plaintiffs to so much as sue corporations, especially big oil and big tobacco” (BL). Later, he challenges, “Who are you people? You've transformed this court from being a governmental branch devoted to civil rights and liberties into a protector of discrimination, a guardian of government, a slave to money interests and big business” (BL). It’s implied that these negative developments are caused, both directly and indirectly, by the extreme politicization of the court system. Thus, the politicization of the judiciary decreases its legitimacy. Legitimacy is decreased because the court is coming to the wrong conclusions, at least in the eyes of the general public. What good citizen would want a court to “turn back the clock on civil rights?” Who would support a court that obstructs free speech? Justice is crippled because the politicized court is biased towards the wealthy and powerful instead of giving everyone fair treatment. 

​

This episode doesn’t only offer abstract examples of how a politicized court hinders justice and thus decreases its legitimacy; Serra’s story demonstrates the same theme. There are compelling reasons as to why Serra should not be put to death: he’s mentally disabled, nonhomicidal rape generally does not call for the death penalty, he has no criminal record, and, importantly, there’s a chance he’s entirely innocent. The court fails to consider any of this. Of course, some of this is because the Court is forced to follow procedure. Still, the Court still comes across as callous and cruel. Why are they sticking by a “law[] passed by politicians... around election time when they're desperate to appear tough on crime?” (BL). Can they not declare the Louisiana law permitting the death penalty for child rape unconstitutional, or at the very least give Serra some other pathway to survival? The result, which leaves Serra on death row, leaves the viewer angry and unsatisfied. The viewer may infer, with at least partial correctness, that the outcome may have been different if the court was not “dominated” by politics. Hence, Boston Legal paints the legal system as unfairly politicized in two ways—both in Shore’s speech and Serra’s storyline. This politicization delegitimizes the court, as the public perceives the court as a partisan branch hindering justice. 

 

Reversing Roe: Politicization of a Specific Legal Issue

No discussion of politicization in the legal system is complete without considering what is arguably the most politicized, highly partisan court case in U.S. history: Roe v. Wade. The aftermath of this case offers an example of how when the court becomes deeply immersed in a partisan issue, politicization of the judiciary decreases the courts’ legitimacy. Before discussing how abortion has impacted the legal system, though, it’s important to note that abortion wasn’t always a partisan issue. Before Roe, there was societal conflict, to be sure. For instance, feminists like Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem joined the movement for decriminalization of abortion (Greenhouse and Siegel, 4), while the Catholic Church took an opposing stance. In Roe, the court recognized this conflict, mentioning, “We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy… and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires” (1). However, while abortion was divisive pre-Roe, the division wasn’t along partisan lines. In fact, a 1972 Gallup poll found 68% of Republicans believed abortion should remain between a woman and her doctor. In comparison, 59% of Democrats agreed with the statement (Greenhouse and Siegel, 9). This was a year before Roe.

​

How did abortion become such a partisan issue? Clearly, when Roe was decided, partisanship played no role in the court decision. Credit where credit is due—the Republican party successfully hijacked the issue, turning it into a partisan affair for their political gain. Originally, as seen in the Gallup poll, the Republican party was more pro-choice than the Democratic party. With their emphasis on individual liberty, it makes sense that they shunned excessive governmental regulation in healthcare. Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Donald Trump, and other prominent Republicans were originally pro-choice (RR). But, party strategists realized abortion was galvanizing issue that could increase Republican support among cultural conservatives like Catholics, evangelicals, and other members of the emerging “moral majority.” Therefore, Republicans began to push the religious right’s agenda. This approach—combined with the Southern Strategy—worked. Cultural conservatives began voting Republican, giving Reagan the White House in 1980. Of course, Reagan had shifted his tone on abortion, becoming an anti-abortion spokesman. Thus, it’s evident that the politicization of abortion occurred after the Supreme Court decided Roe. At the time, few people were decrying the decision as illegitimate. That occurred later.

​

The Netflix documentary Reversing Roe examines the partisanship that emerged surrounding abortion, demonstrating how partisanship decreases the legitimacy of the court system. Like Boston Legal, Reversing Roe contains many messages about the legal system. Both take liberal stances on their respective legal issue; Boston Legal is anti-death penalty while Reversing Roe conspicuously leans pro-choice. Aside from these messages, both critique the partisan politicization of the legal system. Once again, this criticism is valuable because pop culture representation of the law both reflects and influences society’s opinions. Reversing Roe gives many examples of how the partisanship surrounding Roe negatively affects the judiciary. A couple in particular stand out: how abortion is regarded in Texas and the executive branch’s intrusion in the courts. These both decrease the legitimacy of the judiciary.

​

In Texas, politicians’ stances on abortion reveal how cavalierly they treat Roe, thus decreasing the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of the public. In other words, if partisan politicians make it their goal to overturn a Supreme Court ruling, the politicians do not believe the court or its ruling is legitimate. If politicians—who are our leaders, theoretically some of the best and brightest among us—do not respect the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, how should we expect the public to think the court is legitimate? Inserting politics into the legal system therefore impairs the judiciary. This phenomenon is brilliantly illustrated in Reversing Roe. John Seago, a Texas Right to Life advocate, states, “If you’re running in Texas as a Republican, you have to claim to agree with pro-life principles” (Reversing Roe). This quote is juxtaposed with statements from Texas politicians, demonstrating just how partisan the issue has become in Texas. Governor Rick Perry, for example, uses abortion rhetoric to further his partisan goals. At a Right to Life convention, he brags about passing a sonogram law that will convince women not to have an abortion. In another instance, he states that he wants to “make abortion at any stage a thing of the past” (RR), a goal that directly contradicts Roe and other abortion cases. Right to Life activists predictably have considerable control over the politicians, as shown in Reversing Roe. And what do these activists think about abortion and the Supreme Court? Unsurprisingly, they don’t respect the court’s legitimacy, either. Carol Tobias, the National Right to Life president, complains, “Our roadblock has always been the Supreme Court. [But] we’re going to keep plugging away to overturn Roe v. Wade” (RR). This is not the attitude you take when you think an institution and its decisions are legitimate. Of course, technically these activists and politicians should not be able to lobby the court; the judiciary should remain insulated from partisan politics. The court should not need lobbying because its role is to interpret objective law. Justice Scalia argues this exact point in his dissent for Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), a landmark decision regarding abortion. He laments, “We have been subjected to what the Court calls 'political pressure' by both sides of this issue… How upsetting it is, that so many of our citizens (good people, not lawless ones...) think that we Justices should properly take into account their views, as though we were engaged not in ascertaining an objective law but in determining some kind of social consensus” (38). Scalia is mourning the injection of politics into his court. When partisan politicians and activists try to interfere with the judiciary’s methods, the court cannot do its proper job and is consequently delegitimized. 

​

 Another issue presented in Reversing Roe is how the executive branch’s intrusion in the judiciary—obviously partisan, political interference—further decreases its legitimacy. This complication arises because the president appoints numerous judges, most notably Supreme Court Justices. Thus, it's almost certain that the president will have an ideological impact on the court system, and presidents have increasingly used that to their advantage, boosting their support in elections and public opinion polls. Trump’s appointed Justices were all painstakingly selected according to how they interpret the law. For instance, Barrett supports increased restriction on abortion, as seen in Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health (US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, en banc denied, 2018). Therefore, her appointment furthers Trump’s partisan goals, a phenomenon of which Trump is acutely aware. Trump is often a reckless, impulsive president, but his careful strategy on judicial appointments is a deviation from his norm. Reversing Roe illustrates how Trump’s stance on the judiciary and abortion helped get him elected, even. Evangelicals and other cultural conservatives were wary of Trump, but they also held the belief that, as stated by the president of the Right to Life organization, “if we want to change the laws, we have to change the Supreme Court” (RR). The president is the one who holds this power. Accordingly, evangelicals were wooed to Trump’s side in part because of his promise that “the justices that I’m going to appoint will be pro-life” (RR). Trump was not the first president to politicize the legal system in an effort to raise his support among voters, as portrayed in Reversing Roe. Reagan was elected in part because of his opposition to abortion. As president, he continued this opposition by nominating judges against abortion. Sandra Day O’Connor, one of his three appointments to the Supreme Court, told the Senate she was firmly opposed to abortion “as a matter of birth control” (RR). George H.W. Bush, who also took a strong-anti abortion stance to win the presidency (“I believe that we should work to Overturn Roe v. Wade” (RR)), nominated two conservative justices to the Supreme Court. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Bush administration asked the Supreme Court to support further limitations on abortion. The solicitor general argued that Roe should be overturned because “the state does have a compelling interest in the potential life” (RR). The Bush administration’s involvement in this case was so pervasive that Kathryn Kolbert, who was arguing the case for Planned Parenthood, stated, “President Bush has done all he can do to ensure that my arguments are likely to fall on deaf ears” (RR).

​

This situation, and all the other previous examples, demonstrate how the president often inserts politics into the judiciary, hijacking it for political gain. While this might be good for the electoral outcomes of the president and their party, it is bad for the judiciary. The court’s role is to objectively apply the law. Politics and ideology should play no part in this application, even if it is the president of the United States giving their two cents. When the judiciary is politicized, its legitimacy is decreased. The public perceives the court as open to political persuasion, not as a fair, impartial body. Therefore, if the public decides they don’t agree with a court case, like Roe v. Wade, they don’t feel obliged to accept it. The ruling can be discounted as illegitimate, the product of a court submerged in partisan politics. Then, after rejecting the opinion, the public can proceed to fight it, similar to how anti-abortion activists continue to fight Roe v. Wade and other opinions regarding abortion. It becomes clear that politicization of the judiciary decreases the courts' legitimacy in the eyes of the public. 

 

Law & Order: Non-Partisan Politicization of the Court System

In Boston Legal and the controversy surrounding Roe v. Wade, the negative politicization of the legal system is deeply partisan; disagreement revolves around Democrats and Republicans in the American party system. However, politicization of the judiciary doesn’t have to fit within this binary system. Some people may act outside of this traditional system but still insert their political opinions into the judiciary, hindering justice and negatively affecting the courts’ legitimacy. Perhaps the most prominent example of this in American society is the sovereign citizen movement. Sovereign citizens are, as described by the FBI, “anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or ‘sovereign’ from the United States” (Kalinowski, 154). They defy conventional classification in the political sense. Since they don’t see themselves as belonging to the United States, they can’t belong to an American political party. Their beliefs are more fundamental than that. However, their actions are still political; their behavior fits within a Merriam-Webster definition of the word, which states that something “political” is “concerned with acts against a government or a political system” (“political”). Thus, when they get involved in the legal system—which they do quite frequently—their actions affecting the system can be described as politicization of the court. One real example occurred in 2016, when armed anti-government protestors occupied a wildlife refuge in Oregon. This occupation, which challenged federal authority over public lands, is distressing enough, but what occurred in the legal system after the protesters were arrested was even more troublesome. Despite their guilt, a jury acquitted the group of federal conspiracy and weapons charges. This is an example of jury nullification, which “happens when a jury returns a verdict of Not Guilty despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged” (“Nullification”). Justice was not served, as the guilty party walked free. This can decrease the legitimacy of the court system in the public’s eye. 

​

The Law & Order episode “Nullification” shows a fictional representation of the sovereign citizen movement. An attempted heist leads to the disclosure of the New Sons of Liberty, a suburban group of men who claim to be a militia at war with the United States government. For their failed heist, which caused the death of one man, the group was charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery and felony murder. Phil Christie, who was both the lead defendant and the pro se attorney for the defense, used bizarre claims at court. Before the trial even began, he claimed that he and his group are prisoners of war exempt from trial because of the Geneva convention. This motion was denied for its absurdity. At trial, he encouraged the jury to acquit because the people, not the courts, are sovereign. He never even argued his innocence; his claims rest on abstract ideas about American society and government. His other arguments were just as ludicrous as the first: Christie said the robbery was an act of self-defense against an enemy army (“enemy army” being the U.S. government), he claimed his group is resisting tyranny, and he asserted the U.S. government has been sold to global corporations. In his words, “freedom starts with a no” (Law & Order, “Nullification); he wants the jury to say no to the “tyrannical” government. These ideas, however illogical, are political. And, unfortunately, the jury took them with more than a grain of salt. The incident resulted in a mistrial, to Christie’s utter delight. This means the jury was thwarted by politics; politicization of the court system hindered justice. To the viewer, and thus to the fictional jury, there was really no question as to whether the New Sons of Liberty were guilty. The mistrial was inherently political. Because the jury took an interest in Christie’s political, albeit nonsensical, argument, the “right” outcome was not reached. The dead man did not get justice; his killer (who was most likely Christie, as revealed during the trial) remains free. Thus, “Nullification” represents a slightly different way in which politicization of the judiciary hinders justice and decreases legitimacy. It’s legitimacy is decreased because the guilty men were not convicted. What type of system lets the guilty get off scot free? A fair, legitimate system shouldn’t be so easily corrupted by wild arguments about tyranny. It cannot be trusted to reach justice, at any rate.

 

Conclusion: How This Popular Culture Representation is Relevant Today

In 2020, it feels like the insertion of politics in the legal system has reached new heights. After the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, there was a bitter, partisan fight over Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. This fight was so intense due to the circumstances: a very contentious upcoming election. Because both Democrats and Republicans realized the election could come down to the Supreme Court, à la Bush v. Gore in 2000, each side wanted friendly Justices on the Supreme Court. As I’m writing this essay, there’s already been numerous lawsuits concerning this election. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for instance, ordered a three-day extension for ballots mailed on or before election day—a move Republicans claim is unconstitutional (Liptak). Because of a deadlock, the Supreme Court let the decision stand. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh all wanted to grant a stay blocking the order, a move that would likely help Trump because mail-in ballots favor Democrats. Surprise, surprise: these justices were all nominated by a Republican president (two by Trump himself). With the election still unfolding—it’s November 6 as I write this—it’s become evident that this decision could be crucial. Trump had an early lead in Pennsylvania, but Biden overtook him as mail-in ballots were counted. Trump then tweeted, “I easily WIN the Presidency of the United States with LEGAL VOTES CAST… votes accepted during this period must be determined to be ILLEGAL VOTES. U.S. Supreme Court should decide!” (Trump). Twitter flagged this tweet as misleading. But, what is important to note is how Trump is politicizing the court; he believes the court—which is now packed with conservative, Republican-appointed Justices—should decide the election. It’s evident that partisanship within the court has become a major issue in 2020. As both Democrats and Republicans rely on the courts for crucial election decisions, the American public increasingly perceives the court as partisan and politicized. It’s losing its legitimacy in the eyes of the public. However, this phenomenon is not new to 2020. Politicization of the court system has long been at issue, as demonstrated by pop culture representation of the legal system.

​

Boston Legal, Reversing Roe, and Law & Order all demonstrate that politicization of the judiciary decreases the courts' legitimacy; the public loses faith in the judiciary, dismissing it as just another partisan branch. Interestingly, all of these portrayals are directly relevant to current events. In Boston Legal, Alan Shore offers sweeping criticism of the judiciary, claiming that “The Supreme Court was intended to be free and unadulterated by politics. It is now dominated by it. [Justices are] handpicked by presidents with ideological agendas…” (BL). This criticism is pertinent in 2020, when the “handpicked” Justices all favor a decision that would help the Republican president. Reversing Roe, the documentary about reproductive rights, is not as directly relevant to the presidential election per se, but its messages about politicization are still extremely applicable to current events. Reversing Roe demonstrates that when a president inserts partisan politics into the judiciary, it becomes delegitimized. In 2020, Trump nominated Barrett largely because she would restrict access to abortion and even potentially overturn Roe v. Wade. Thus, Barrett furthers his partisan goals; she helped Trump woo the anti-abortion vote. Once again, the Court appears to be just another partisan branch. Luckily, in 2020 there’s been no prominent incidences of jury nullification like seen in Law & Order. However, far-right militiamen, similar to the New Sons of Liberty, have certainly been trying to circumvent the legal system. A group in Michigan, unhappy with the state’s judicial system, made plans to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer and hold their own trial to keep her accountable for her “tyranny” (United States v. Fox et al, 2020). The group was caught, fortunately, and will stand trial. Their trial has yet to occur, but if they somehow manage to be acquitted, that would be another example of jury nullification that hinders justice and delegitimizes the court. Overall, these examples demonstrate how popular culture representation of the legal system is extraordinarily important, as it comments on relevant issues and thus gives a clue into public perception of the court system.

​

Once again, both these pop culture portrayals and real-life examples demonstrate an important theme: politicization of the legal system delegitimizes the judiciary, as the American public becomes increasingly skeptical that the court is unbiased and unfair. This is precisely why the founding fathers attempted to keep politics out of the judiciary; they wanted it to be the least democratic branch of the government. But, politics have still wormed their way into the courts, causing a loss of public confidence in the legal system.

 

Works Cited

“The Court Supreme.” Boston Legal, season 4, episode 17, directed by Robert Yannetti, written by David E. Kelley and Jonathan Shapiro, ABC, 22 Apr. 2008.

Friedman, Lawrence M. “Law, Lawyers, and Popular Culture.” Yale Law Journal, vol. 98, no. 8, June 1989, pp. 1579–1606.

Greenhouse, Linda, and Reva B. Siegel. “The Unfinished Story of Roe v. Wade.” Reproductive Rights and Justice Stories, edited by Melissa Murray, Katherine Shaw, and Reva B. Siegel, Foundation Press, 2019, pp. 1–22.

“Jury Nullification.” FindLaw, 27 Feb. 2019, https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/jury-nullification.html.

Kalinowski IV, Caesar. “A Legal Response to the Sovereign Citizen Movement.” Montana Law Review, vol. 80, no. 2, 2019, pp. 153–210.

Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court and the Election: What We Know.” New York Times, 4 Nov. 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/us/supreme-court-election.html 

“Nullification.” Law & Order, season 8, episode 5, directed by Constantine Makris, written by David Black, NBC, 5 Nov. 1997.

Papke, David Ray. “The American Courtroom Trial: Pop Culture, Courthouse Realities, and the Dream World of Justice.” South Texas Law Review, vol. 40, no. 4, Fall 1999, pp. 919–32.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 17-3163 (25 June 2018).

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Supreme Court of the United States, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

“Political” Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political. 

Reversing Roe. Directed by Ricki Stern and Anne Sundberg, Netflix, 2018.

Roe v. Wade. Supreme Court of the United States, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Trump, Donald (realdonaldtrump). “I easily WIN the Presidency of the United States with LEGAL VOTES CAST. The OBSERVERS were not allowed, in any way, shape, or form, to do their job and therefore, votes accepted during this period must be determined to be ILLEGAL VOTES. U.S. Supreme Court should decide!” 6 Nov. 2020, 2:22. Tweet.

United States v. Fox et al. Criminal Complaint, United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, No. 1:20-mj-416 (6 Oct. 2020).