Fran Lebowitz, a liberal author, recently stirred controversy over her radical suggestion.
Fran Lebowitz’s remarks on Bill Maher’s “Real Time” have ignited a debate about the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court following its latest decision on presidential immunity, Fox News reported.
During her appearance, Lebowitz criticized the Supreme Court's recent ruling which affords broad legal immunities to former President Donald Trump, suggesting such decisions elevate the presidency to monarch-like status. Disgusted by the court’s stance, she controversially proposed that President Joe Biden should dissolve the institution, labeling it as “Trump’s harem” because of its perceived partiality.
This suggestion comes in response to a divisive Supreme Court ruling issued in July 2024, which effectively states that a president is almost entirely immune from legal repercussions related to acts performed while in office. Such decisions have spurred a broader discussion on potential reforms for the Court, including the introduction of term limits and a new code of conduct aimed at preserving judicial impartiality.
In his response to the ruling, President Biden expressed concern, criticizing the precedent it sets. Conversely, Donald Trump lauded the ruling, which he interpreted as a vindication of his long-held assertions about presidential authority.
Lebowitz elaborated on her viewpoint in the interview, equating the court's decision to a proclamation of royalty for Trump. She expressed her frustration with what she sees as general oversight from the public and the current administration regarding the powers of the presidency.
When they passed that law, that ruling, where they said ‘you’re not the president, you're the king,’ which is what that ruling is, you can do whatever you want, you can never be held responsible, I thought, ‘You know, Biden is still the president. No one seems to notice... But I think Biden should dissolve the Supreme Court," Lebowitz stated.
People know Lebowitz for her direct and often provocative rhetoric toward Donald Trump and his administration. Her criticism reflects a long-standing antipathy, underscored by another incendiary remark she made back in 2019, suggesting that authorities should hand Trump over to the Saudis, which referred obliquely to the fate of a killed Saudi journalist.
Maher, taken aback by her suggestion to dissolve the court, playfully accused Lebowitz of lacking centrism. She acknowledged the severity of her own words in her reply.
Fran Lebowitz apologized during the show for the extremity of her prior comments, attributing them to being overly caffeinated and caught up in the moment. Later, Maher reinforced the gravity of political rhetoric while addressing the panel, remarking that regardless of differing political views, advocating for physical harm is not acceptable.
The controversy surrounding Lebowitz's suggestions and her critical views on the Supreme Court and its association with Trump continues to resonate, reflecting wider national debates around the balance of power in American politics.
Moreover, Critics argue that such debates signify a deeper crisis of confidence in key American institutions, while supporters of the court's ruling insist it upholds long-standing legal protections for executive authority.
As the nation grapples with these issues, the conversation about the bounds of presidential power and judicial reach remains a pointed reminder of the ongoing ideological battles that are shaping the future of American democracy.
