Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick is a left-leaning legal and political analysis show that critically examines judicial figures and legal issues with a focus on ethics and the rule of law.
What This Tone Is Based On
The tone scores on this page come from analyzing how this show covers each political figure it mentions. Below is the breakdown of how many of those reads were positive, neutral, or negative.
Net media tone Very Negative across 362 figure-in-episode tone reads (not audience/impressions).
How Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick Differs from Other Shows
Compared to 163 outlets · Sep 2025–Aug 2026This show's average tone sits near the field, but its coverage is far more split by figure. It rates Elena Kagan +0.27 above the media average on the figures it favors and Clarence Thomas -0.63 below it on the ones it criticizes — a 0.90-point gap between its most favorable and most critical coverage that a typical outlet doesn't show.
- Clarence Thomas-0.63more critical vs. other showsShow⤓ -0.54Other shows↗ +0.0912 eps
- Samuel Alito-0.51more critical vs. other showsShow⤓ -0.50Other shows→ +0.0125 eps
- Stephen Miller-0.41more critical vs. other showsShow⤓ -0.67Other shows↓↓ -0.2614 eps
- Todd Blanche-0.40more critical vs. other showsShow↓↓ -0.39Other shows→ +0.0111 eps
- Brett Kavanaugh-0.39more critical vs. other showsShow↓↓ -0.39Other shows→ +0.0023 eps
- Elena Kagan+0.27more favorable vs. other showsShow↑ +0.26Other shows→ -0.0111 eps
- John Roberts-0.26more critical vs. other showsShow↓↓ -0.32Other shows→ -0.0728 eps
- Pam Bondi-0.19more critical vs. other showsShow↓↓ -0.35Other shows↓ -0.1629 eps
- Amy Coney Barrett-0.16more critical vs. other showsShow↓ -0.18Other shows→ -0.0219 eps
- Keir Starmer+0.03more favorable vs. other showsShow↓↓ -0.21Other shows↓↓ -0.2444 eps
Delta = this show's tone toward the figure minus the average across all 163 other tracked outlets that covered them ≥3 times, Sep 2025–Aug 2026.
Positive = friendlier here; negative = harsher.
Editorial Identity
The editorial fingerprint of this left-leaning politics show — who it elevates, who it goes after, and where it breaks from the pack.
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick is a show that delves deeply into the intersection of law and politics, often scrutinizing the actions and decisions of judicial figures and their impact on American democracy. The show is particularly focused on issues of government ethics, corruption, and the rule of law, frequently highlighting perceived abuses and ethical lapses within the judiciary and government. It operates with a critical lens, especially towards conservative figures and policies, while offering a platform for progressive legal perspectives.
The show champions figures like Ketanji Brown Jackson and Adam Schiff, presenting them more favorably than the broader media landscape. It also strongly advocates for issues like abortion and reproductive rights, which it covers extensively compared to other outlets, reflecting its commitment to progressive legal causes.
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick is notably critical of conservative judicial figures such as Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh, often questioning their interpretations of the Constitution and ethical standards. The show also targets issues like government weaponization and election integrity, framing them as areas of concern regarding the erosion of democratic norms.
The show is an outlier in its critical stance towards figures like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, contrasting with more neutral or favorable coverage in other media. Its focus on the rule of law and government weaponization is significantly more pronounced than average, highlighting its dedication to scrutinizing legal and ethical dimensions of governance.
Who Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick boosts and attacks
Tracked figures split by this show's average tone toward them, each with the clips behind the call — tap a quote to jump to the audio.
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick is a reliable ally to Elena Kagan; its prime targets are Samuel Alito, Pam Bondi, Stephen Miller.
“Elena Kagan has this one really good example. She has several, but I will highlight one. The Republican operative who drew this racist map claimed that he never looked at racial data, even though he had it, quote, available at the press of a key on his redistricting software.”
“Elena Kagan spent a page of her opinion listing out all of the racist things that Trump has said about Haitians to remind the reader.”
“Elena Kagan's dissent in that case, I think is one of her better sort of short descents in this space.”
“the arguments that are being made by Donald Trump's Department of Justice under Pam Bondi to the federal courts of the United States are outrageous. They're lawless. They are contemptuous of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and they are contemptuous of the courts of the United States, and even the individual judges sitting on those cases.”
“Trump asked his attorney general, Pam Bondi, to open up a criminal investigation, but only into Democrats mentioned in the emails.”
“Pam Bondi certainly said DOJ would release the files within 30 days as Trump signed, but she also suggested that they might just hold this up because she's opened an investigation into the Democrats now.”
“John Roberts likes the Fed, and John Roberts does not like the Federal Trade Commission. That's it.”
“there is no kind of moderate or swinging member of the conservative supermajority to reign in John Roberts, to say, I don't know if we need to go this far.”
“this is now just John Roberts' sort of wild ride across the dictatorial field of American governance that he's created.”
“Samuel Alito collapses these two different scenarios into one.”
“when you're reading Samuel Alito's decision in Calais and he, you know, is cited their musings in earlier cases, sometimes dissents, just about like what they feel.”
“Samuel Alito has now announced it's not that we can't do anything about political gerrymandering. It's the political gerrymandering is legitimate.”
“Brett Kavanaugh going out of his way to explain almost like a race-neutral process by which you could question and stop U.S. citizens of Latino descent.”
“the Supreme Court affirmed that district court decision in a case called Allen v. Milligan. Five to four decision with John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh, joining the three liberals, said this decision is correct.”
“Brett Kavanaugh here who has staked his career on the major questions doctrine since he was on the D.C. Circuit, like this is his jam saying, oh, surprise, surprise, the major questions doctrine doesn't apply to foreign affairs, period.”
“President Trump got to appoint so many justices in such a short time, three justices, I think, in four years, and two of them, right, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, were replacing justices who usually ruled on the side of religious freedom, Anthony Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”
“Here, without any briefing, without any oral argument, right, which is like what the shadow docket is, we see not just Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her concurrence, but the main opinion that came down from the court in this case.”
“Amy Coney Barrett wrote an opinion in the Scrimetti case where she rejected outright the idea that the Constitution protects trans people as trans people.”
Coverage Volume
Transcribed episodes per week — last 26 weeks
Sentiment Trajectory
Average weekly tone toward figures — green favorable, red critical
Whose coverage is ramping up — and dropping
Cooling on Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh.
Nothing ramping this window.
“Across N days” = distinct days behind the recent count; a single burst means it’s concentrated in ≤2 days — treat as one story, not a trend.
Top Issues Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick drives
Top Issues ranked by lift — how much harder this show pushes an issue than the average outlet. ≥ 1.25× over-indexes.
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick pushes Abortion & Reproductive Rights hardest — 8.4× the average outlet's rate of coverage.
Show organizations & places →Organizations & Places They Focus On
Recent Stories
Jamel Bowie outlines his vision for court reform, advocating for a more expansive and representative judiciary. He suggests reducing the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and creating a National Court of Appeal to enhance accountability and reduce the concentration of power within the Supreme Court.
The episode discusses the concept of popular constitutionalism, emphasizing that the Constitution belongs to the people rather than being solely interpreted by the Supreme Court. It highlights historical examples of ordinary citizens asserting their rights and the importance of active public engagement in constitutional matters.
The discussion critiques the Supreme Court's increasing power and its role as the final arbiter of constitutional meaning. The conversation suggests that this concentration of power has led to public passivity and emphasizes the need for Congress and the public to reclaim their role in interpreting the Constitution.
The episode references historical movements, such as the abolitionist movement and the fight for civil rights, to illustrate how ordinary people have historically shaped constitutional meaning. It emphasizes the importance of grassroots activism in asserting rights and influencing legal interpretations.
The Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling recognizing that the Constitution guarantees marriage equality, striking down bans on same-sex marriage in 14 states. This decision, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, marked a significant victory for the marriage equality movement, culminating a decade-long campaign for LGBTQ rights.
Following the Massachusetts ruling on same-sex marriage, there was a swift backlash, with voters in 11 states proposing ballot measures to ban marriage equality. The movement faced significant challenges, losing 30 consecutive ballot initiatives, highlighting the ongoing struggle for public acceptance and legal recognition of LGBTQ rights.
Mark Solomon and other advocates developed a strategic approach to garner support for marriage equality, focusing on grassroots efforts and political engagement. They aimed to change public perception and secure legislative victories, which were crucial for building momentum leading to the Supreme Court's eventual ruling.
The Obergefell decision in 2015 solidified marriage equality as a constitutional right, reflecting a significant societal shift. However, the ruling also raised concerns about the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ rights, as advocates emphasized the need to continue fighting for acceptance and protection against backlash.