Jan Crawford's attack on SCOTUS "corruption" narrative was its own substance-free narrative
On Face the Nation, CBS News's chief legal correspondent went after Supreme Court critics as "dangerous." And yet, her court defense was completely lacking in specifics.
 |
On Sunday, Jan Crawford — CBS News’s chief legal correspondent and a longtime Supreme Court reporter — decided to take on what she called the “narrative” of corruption surrounding the Supreme Court. She called that narrative “dangerous,” “profoundly wrong,“ and “profoundly irresponsible.”
“There is a narrative the Supreme Court is corrupt,” Crawford said on Face the Nation. “We saw that emerge in the wake of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and now we see it that they’re in the tank for Trump. Not only is that narrative over-reported, it is patently false, and it is dangerous for the institution and the public’s faith and confidence in the rule of law.”
It was a shocking statement that was taken by many as going after her colleagues who cover the Supreme Court for other publications — a group that would include yours truly.
It was also a statement shockingly devoid of substance.
I want to lay out all that she said, so you can read it for yourself.
Crawford continued:
This is a conservative Supreme Court, it has been a conservative Supreme Court for 20 years. People can disagree and do disagree with their opinions, but it is profoundly wrong to call it or say “corruption” where there, in fact, is none.
What’s underreported is any understanding of what this court has been doing for the past 20 years, its views of its role vis-à-vis the other branches, how it sees the law, how it’s trying, in its focus, to restore some kind of accountability in our constitutional structure.
Again, this is a court that is functional. It is consistent. They are nine justices. They don’t necessarily see the Constitution the same way, by any means, or how to interpret federal law. They’re in a struggle over the proper way to interpret the Constitution, but that is as it should be. And I think as we approach our 250th anniversary of this country, it’s important to think about the court and the rule of law, as the justices are doing, especially if we hope to keep democracy intact.
She wasn’t done. After Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan called Crawford’s comments “a big statement,“ she went even bigger:
If the public loses confidence in the rule of law, I don’t know what that means for democracy — and that’s why I think some of the rhetoric about corruption is so, so profoundly irresponsible.
Before I get into all of this, I want to point out that it was notable to see such comments on Face the Nation just one week after a carefully vetted Sunday news report was pulled from 60 Minutes by Bari Weiss because she decided it was not up to the standards of this storied news station.
Defending that decision, Weiss and other CBS News leadership wrote this past week, “We are not out to score points with one side of the political spectrum or to win followers on social media. We are out to inform the American public and to get the story right.“
Which brings us back to Crawford’s comments — a warning, really, to those who would dare question the sacred robed jurists of One First Street.
Crawford made these harsh comments after all this time — Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was issued in June 2022, Pro Publica’s first Harlan Crow story was published more than two-and-a-half years ago in April 2023, the court has been ruling and ruling and ruling in Trump’s favor in Trump-related requests all year — and yet she did not cite a single specific article or criticism of the court, which makes confronting her comments like nailing Jell-O to a wall.
Nonetheless, I will try.
Levying this attack as she did, Crawford also did not respond to any of the specific allegations and questions raised about the actions and behavior of the justices. Moreover, by linking this “narrative” to the Dobbs decision — rather than looking objectively at the response to that decision separately from ethics questions — Crawford conveniently ignores the fact that, for example, the Harlan Crow questions were initially raised almost 15 years ago.
If there are specific allegations that Crawford believes do not stand up to scrutiny, she didn’t say. If there are specific reports that she was critiquing, she didn’t say. Was she just referring to rants from left-side social media accounts? Memes? Who’s to say? Crawford didn’t.
After not addressing any of the actual ethical questions raised about any of the justices — Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, in particular — or about the justices’ actions on the shadow docket in the Trump administration, Crawford went on to claim that “what this court has been doing for the past 20 years” is “underreported” — likely a shock to anyone who has read any coverage of the Supreme Court over the past 20 years.
What is underreported, per Crawford?
“[I]ts views of its role vis-à-vis the other branches” — This has been covered constantly, both this year and over the past decade.
“[H]ow it sees the law” — She can’t have actually meant this, given that this is almost all that Supreme Court opinion coverage tends to be.
“[H]ow it’s trying, in its focus, to restore some kind of accountability in our constitutional structure” — Did Alito text this to her before the panel?
In what world is there not reporting on the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decisions and the long-term projects of the legal right?
Then, the warning. Because Crawford ignored the actual reporting on ethical questions, she could deflect entirely and blame those critiquing the court — including those reporting on the court with the most basic sort of journalistic skepticism of those in power — for any harm to come to “the rule of law.”
Continuing in her vague accusations, Crawford said that “some of the rhetoric about corruption is so, so profoundly irresponsible” — a harsh accusation, to be sure, but, worded as it was, it was lobbed at no one in particular. In doing so, Crawford was preventing accountability for her statements, while nonetheless undermining the careful journalism and honest questions that have been raised about justices’ actions.
As we approach the 250th anniversary of this country, I also think “it’s important to think about court and the rule of law.” Unlike Crawford, however, I think the best journalism advancing that ideal is journalism treating the court like the powerful, political, governmental body it is — and reporting accordingly.
