Inside Deadlocked: Unmasking the Supreme Court's Profound Transformation in America

Summary

Discover the captivating miniseries Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court, which delves into the historical significance and profound influence of the Supreme Court. This compelling show is an absolute necessity for individuals with a keen interest in American history and politics.

The series offers a trustworthy and insightful examination of the court's actions and rulings throughout the years, featuring interviews with experts from various viewpoints. It explores significant Supreme Court cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education and the reversal of Roe v. Wade, elucidating how these decisions have impacted American society.

Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court is an Emmy-winning miniseries by filmmaker Dawn Porter that delves into the trajectory of the court since its establishment. This enlightening series appeals to those interested in American history or politics and is essential for those seeking comprehension or engagement with recent Supreme Court rulings. To provide context, Porter includes insights from experts representing various perspectives throughout the decades, ensuring Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court is a trustworthy source of information and perspective.

As a former attorney, Porter skillfully crafts a powerful miniseries that examines different eras of the court, culminating in a dedicated final episode focusing on the events during the Trump presidency. However, the series extends beyond 2020, discussing the significant confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson and even including news up to April 2023. From landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education, Lawrence v. Texas, and the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court also explores how the court has influenced the shaping of America.

Dawn Porter spoke with Screen Rant about the importance of paying attention, her thoughts on the current Supreme Court, and more.

Dawn Porter on Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court

Screen Rant: Did the Dobbs decision in 2016, regarding anti-abortion laws in the South, trigger your desire to create this content, or had it been simmering for a while?

Dawn Porter: This had been brewing for quite some time. I used to be a practicing lawyer, working at a firm and later at ABC Television. When I lived in Washington, I resided on Capitol Hill and would often walk down East Capitol Street, passing by the Supreme Court steps on my way to law school. The grandeur of the building and the beauty of DC always left me in awe, knowing that it was the site of monumental events like the Brown v. Board of Education case and numerous other significant rulings.

While making the documentary Trapped, I dedicated a substantial amount of time to examining the court itself. However, I've always been equally concerned with the decision-making process, not just the outcomes. I believe that the process holds immense importance. Around three years ago, Showtime approached me and asked if I was interested in creating something about the Supreme Court. Without hesitation, I eagerly agreed, even though we hadn't yet determined the exact nature of the project. It took some time to figure it out, but we eventually did.

We aimed to emphasize the significance of the Court and discuss the paradoxical transition from landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education, which propelled us towards racial equality, to the present where affirmative action is overturned and immigration is made more challenging. These shifts seem contradictory to the values cherished by our nation. Considering the various periods of the court's history, did you perceive a distinguished era that could be labeled as a "Golden Era"?

Dawn Porter believes that the Court is most successful when it brings about significant changes that align with the will of the people, such as the landmark gay marriage decision. She thinks that the Court is doing well when it emphasizes our shared values and the founding principles of freedom and individual rights. However, she acknowledges that all courts have made both favorable and unfavorable decisions, so it is not as simple as categorizing one court as amazing and another as terrible.

Nevertheless, Porter expresses concern about the current situation. She observes a conservative Court that is aggressively deviating from previous rulings and making decisions without providing explanations on urgent cases. These actions are troubling because the Supreme Court is expected to justify its decisions and demonstrate the reasoning behind them. This transparency is crucial for the public to comprehend why changes are necessary. Unfortunately, this transparency seems to be lacking at the moment.

The way you expressed it earlier suggests that the focus is now more on how decisions are being made. When do you believe this shift began? Was it a phenomenon specific to "this Court," or did you notice a consistent pattern?

Dawn Porter: When we mention "this Court," we are referring to the current conservative majority of six-three. However, this trend becomes apparent even before that. It can be observed in certain five-four decisions. In the past, Clarence Thomas rarely asked any questions, but now he enthusiastically encourages the Court to examine other rights, such as gay marriage and contraception, as seen in the Dobbs decision. The basis of Roe is the concept that encompasses the right to choose whether to use birth control, and Clarence Thomas is inviting the Court to review that decision.

We observed clear indications of the Court deviating from its previous path, which can be traced back to as early as 2013 when Justice Roberts annulled a crucial provision of the Voting Rights Act. However, over the past decade, the shift towards the right has become more pronounced, reaching a point where it has solidified. The current majority on the Court is decidedly conservative, often conflicting with the prevailing sentiments of the majority of Americans.

While it is true that each Justice on the Court is an individual with their own personal beliefs and perspectives, the Court should ideally operate as an impartial institution. Given the recent instances of Ginny Thomas endorsing QAnon theories, and the influence of figures like Harlan Crow and the Federalist Society, one must contemplate the appropriate extent of external impact. What would be a reasonable level of influence that the outside world should realistically have on Court decisions?

Dawn Porter believes that the Court does not operate independently. She argues for a contemporary interpretation of the Constitution, rather than reverting to the beliefs of 1787, which would have denied her rights as a slave. Porter notes that there was a period when the Court had a more balanced approach, deciding cases based on both conservative and liberal views. However, she criticizes the current situation where justices with a conservative agenda are appointed and confirmed, often influenced by the Federalist Society. Porter emphasizes the need to acknowledge this trend and hold the Court accountable. She also highlights that the Court should be respected if it acts respectfully, but disregarding precedent and crafting historical theories without basis should not be tolerated.

I'd like to emphasize this particular moment you included in the series - Ruth Bader Ginsburg's eulogy of Justice Scalia. It seems to convey a contrasting perspective. Was the intention to depict a past where people could find common ground?

Dawn Porter: Yes, absolutely. I'm glad you pointed that out. I really appreciate the part where she mentions Scalia's quote about her, saying, "Some very good people can have some very bad ideas." He emphasizes that he attacks ideas, not people. Despite their divergent political and constitutional views, they had a great deal of respect for each other and were close friends. It was evident that both approached their work with a reverence for the law rather than personal power. However, I'm not sure we can say the same for Clarence Thomas.

Considering all of this background information, did your perspective on the future of the Supreme Court change? Are you now in favor of implementing term limits or expanding the Court, or any other changes?

Dawn Porter expresses caution regarding the number of justices in the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the Constitution does not mandate nine justices and that other industrialized countries have smaller courts. With the current political turmoil, she believes that expanding the Court would be seen as a blatantly political move. In light of this, the question arises: how should we proceed? One aspect involves electing officials who will appoint individuals who respect the Constitution and the rule of law. Additionally, it is crucial to make the Court aware of public scrutiny and the potential erosion of their credibility. Porter ponders on the consequences if people start arbitrarily disregarding the Court's opinions, acknowledging the unimaginable situation we face. She believes that films play a vital role in prompting us to consider the question: what happens if we simply refuse to comply?

Content must be rewritten in English:

We made sure to include commentators from different political perspectives, so it wasn't just limited to liberal viewpoints. Additionally, we sought out individuals who closely follow the Court or have expertise in law, such as the two out of three Strict Scrutiny hosts, Dahlia Lithwick, Ruth Marcus from the Washington Post, Linda Greenhouse from the New York Times, as well as Ted Olson, a highly regarded conservative litigator, John Bash, who previously served as a law clerk for Justice Scalia, and Don Ayers, who worked in the Reagan Justice Department.

I perceived these individuals to be honest and genuinely interested in explaining rather than persuading. In the process of making a film, it is vital to involve individuals who don't disregard facts but instead strive to elucidate their perspectives. John Bash, in particular, exemplified this approach. While I may not agree with Scalia's decision on gun rights, I believe John Bash effectively presents his reasoning, which holds significance. Some journalists declined to speak with us as they felt they were forming opinions and didn't want to be part of something that appeared to be an opinion piece.

I do miss hearing the voices of the Justices. At the beginning, about three years ago, I thought there was a possibility of getting Justice Roberts on board due to his background in history, his concern for the Court's image, and his previous discussions on Court history. Perhaps I was slightly naive in my hopes. However, circumstances quickly deteriorated, leading me to believe that he would not participate. Had Justice Roberts agreed to speak, it might have influenced other Justices to participate, but unfortunately, that outcome didn't materialize.

And then I deeply yearned for Nina Totenberg. She was amidst a book tour, and for some reason, we were unable to comprehend it, but she has been an immensely significant advocate for numerous individuals. In every footage, she appears with a microphone, questioning someone. I simply wished to inquire, "What were your thoughts at that time?" Especially regarding Anita Hill. She played a crucial role in reporting on that matter.

If after watching this series, someone is inspired to take action, is it simply a matter of "ensuring that you vote"? Are there any specific goals or impacts you hope to instill in people's minds?

Dawn Porter urges people to pay attention and prioritize voting, not just in federal elections but also in local elections such as school board and town elections. These elections determine the allocation of tax dollars and can have a significant impact. She emphasizes the importance of mobilizing support for elected judges in low turnout elections, as they can influence agendas. Porter also highlights the significance of state-level actions in shaping protections for individual rights in the coming decades. She cites examples of Ohio State, Michigan, and Wisconsin, where high youth voter turnout played a crucial role in codifying protections for abortion rights. While abortion is a motivating factor for many, there are other important decisions being made that should not be overlooked.

Can the EPA effectively operate while our planet is engulfed in flames? I strongly believe that it is more beneficial for the EPA to focus on climate policy rather than allowing individuals fueled by personal agendas in Congress to have control. Allocating time for this is of utmost importance. In light of the overwhelming amount of distressing news, it is crucial that people recognize the positive impact they can make by simply investing a few hours to educate themselves on the candidates running for positions.

About Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court

Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court is a riveting four-part documentary series by Emmy Award-winning filmmaker Dawn Porter. It delves into the rich tapestry of the Supreme Court's modern history, exploring the individuals, pivotal decisions, and confirmation battles that have molded the Court into its current form. In a time where the Justices face unprecedented scrutiny, Deadlocked premieres on Showtime, offering an insightful perspective. This comes at a profoundly consequential juncture, with Americans grappling with a Supreme Court transformed by former President Donald Trump, the groundbreaking confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a never-before-seen leak from inside the Court's chambers, and the aftershock of the landmark Dobbs decision that effectively overturns Roe v. Wade.

Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court premieres September 22nd on Showtime.

Source: Screen Rant Plus