Dan Abrams Challenges Liberal Attacks on Supreme Court

Mediaite founder Dan Abrams pushed back hard on liberals who have attacked the Supreme Court’s legitimacy after recent rulings that went against President Donald Trump. Abrams argued the court is “very conservative” but still decides cases case by case—pointin

For people watching the fight over the Supreme Court, the last few days have felt less like a steady legal process and more like a series of tests—each one followed by fresh accusations about whether the justices are acting in bad faith.

Mediaite founder Dan Abrams picked up that thread on Tuesday night, challenging liberals who, in his telling, have treated the court as illegitimate whenever rulings land against President Donald Trump’s administration.

The dispute sharpened after the Supreme Court delivered a 6-3 decision on Tuesday, effectively upholding the 14th Amendment and rejecting Trump’s attempt to argue that children born to people in the United States temporarily or illegally are not citizens.

Abrams framed the decision as proof that the court isn’t simply reflexively siding against the cases Trump brings. The point, he said, is not whether every ruling pleases people on either side—it’s whether the court’s legitimacy is being attacked rather than the rulings themselves.

On Monday, the justices had also ruled 5-4 in a separate case involving voting procedures. In that decision, the Supreme Court upheld a Mississippi law that allows officials to count mail-in ballots received up to five days after Election Day if they are postmarked by Election Day.

Abrams noted that this wasn’t a one-sided outcome: Republican-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority vote on Tuesday’s case, alongside the three Democratic-appointed justices.

During Tuesday’s edition of “The Dan Abrams Show” on SiriusXM, Abrams asked whether liberals who had been “whining about how illegitimate the Supreme Court is” would now apologize—given what he described as the court’s continued willingness to hand down decisions unfavorable to Trump.

“You have the right to disagree with Supreme Court rulings,” Abrams said, but he drew a hard line at undermining what he called “the integrity of the court” and questioned whether people are instead challenging the institution itself.

“The question is…questioning the legitimacy of the court,” he said. “And once again, the Supreme Court has shown that it’s not in the tank!. It’s a very conservative court. I disagree with some of the rulings, I agree with others. In fact, I agree with a lot of the rulings they’ve issued in the last couple of days. That’s not the question. The question is…questioning the legitimacy of the court.”.

Abrams also targeted criticism from the far right, arguing that some opponents of the court are just as quick to attack when their preferred outcomes don’t happen. He singled out complaints about Barrett’s role in upholding Mississippi’s mail-ballot timing law.

“Oh stop it, this is what justices are supposed to do!” Abrams said. He rejected the idea that Barrett voted the way she did because she was part of a bloc that automatically aligns with Democratic-appointed justices.

He argued there’s a difference between liberals acting as a voting bloc and liberals reacting to what he described as attempts to change the rules and overturn precedent—pointing to Trump’s broader legal approach.

“This nonsense about. ‘Well you know the liberals all stick together’ — the liberals are all sticking together because there is no question that what the President has been trying to do is radical. He is trying to overturn precedent. He is trying to change the rules. And so it’s not surprising that the three liberals on the court are not going to be supportive of that radical effort to overturn precedent. That’s not the liberals sticking together.”.

Taken together, Abrams used the court’s two recent rulings—one on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee and another on Mississippi’s mail-ballot timing rule—to challenge the idea that Supreme Court legitimacy can be dismissed whenever decisions don’t favor the president.

He did not argue that disagreement is off-limits. But he made the courtroom itself the battleground, insisting that questioning legitimacy, not verdicts, is what he sees as driving the loudest critiques.

For now. the decisions stand: Tuesday’s 6-3 ruling rejecting Trump’s citizenship argument for children born to people in the U.S. temporarily or illegally. and Monday’s 5-4 ruling allowing Mississippi officials to count certain mail ballots received up to five days after Election Day as long as the ballots are postmarked by Election Day—both accompanied by a vote structure that. in Abrams’s view. doesn’t fit the simplest partisan narrative.

Dan Abrams Mediaite Supreme Court SCOTUS 14th Amendment citizenship Donald Trump Amy Coney Barrett Mississippi law mail-in ballots Election Day SiriusXM