DeepSummary
The episode is a crossover event featuring Matt Sittman and Sam Adler-Bell from the 'Know Your Enemy' podcast interviewing Rhiannon, Peter, and Michael from the '5-4' podcast. They discuss the rise of the conservative legal movement and its impact on the Supreme Court. The origin of originalism and textualism as judicial philosophies is explored, along with the role of institutions like the Federalist Society in promoting these ideas and getting conservative judges appointed.
The guests explain how originalism and textualism, despite being presented as objective interpretive frameworks, are often employed selectively to achieve conservative policy outcomes. They critique the notion that judges are apolitical and highlight how the conservative legal movement is an explicitly political project aimed at gaining power and influencing the judiciary.
The conversation also touches on the failure of liberals and the left to develop a coherent counterweight to the conservative legal movement. The lack of a robust liberal jurisprudential framework and the dominance of legal process theory in law schools are discussed as contributing factors. The episode provides a demystifying analysis of the Supreme Court's conservative turn and its implications for civil rights, voting rights, and democratic norms.
Key Episodes Takeaways
- The conservative legal movement, spearheaded by institutions like the Federalist Society, has successfully reshaped the Supreme Court through promoting interpretive frameworks like originalism and textualism.
- Despite claims of objectivity, these interpretive approaches are often selectively applied to achieve conservative policy outcomes and roll back progressive precedents.
- The notion of an apolitical, restrained judiciary is a myth perpetuated by the conservative legal movement to obscure its overtly political aims.
- Corporate funding and elite law schools have played a key role in mainstreaming conservative legal theories like law and economics.
- Liberals and the left have failed to develop a coherent counter-jurisprudence to challenge the conservative legal project's dominance.
- Mainstream legal journalism often uncritically accepts and promotes the conservative movement's formalistic frameworks instead of interrogating them.
- The Supreme Court's conservative majority poses a threat to civil rights, voting rights, and democratic norms in the United States.
- The rule of law and judicial legitimacy are undermined when courts act as an extension of partisan political agendas rather than as impartial arbiters.
Top Episodes Quotes
- “If you ask them what their project is, they say that, oh, we want judicial restraint. We don't want judges making law law. We want them interpreting the law or whatever. And you'd say, well, like, well, what are you talking about? Don't judges always interpret the law? And they'd say, no, the crazy liberals were making law all the time. And you'd be like, well, what are you talking about? When? And what's the answer? Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, like Miranda, like the things they're reacting to are profoundly popular. So they have to, they can't say, well, look, yeah, we don't want to roll back. We want to roll back Brown v. Board. But they do. Right? That's what their movement is rooted in. Like that. It's his animating principle, but they can't say it.“ by Rhiannon
- “If you look at the case brought by Texas against the swing states that Biden won was just thrown out last week. The upshot of that case is that everyone familiar with the law knew that it was going to get thrown out because the constitution, Texas was trying to sue these states, saying that challenging their own state laws and the constitution gives each state the right to run their own elections. So the idea that another state could just sue sort of runs contrary to the constitutional scheme. And that's very open and shut as far as these things go, especially because the conservatives on the court have long been proponents of the idea that states can run their own elections. That's like a big part of how they have enabled voter suppression.“ by Michael
- “I think the bottom line when you're reading this sort of media coverage is to remember that these types of pieces are fairly explicitly designed to push the discussion to be one that takes place within these sort of legal, formalistic legal frameworks that they believe in, rather than one that is about those frameworks, right? Rather than one that takes a step back and says, well, what is actually happening here?“ by Michael
Entities
Person
Company
Concept
Organization
Legal case
Book
Episode Information
Know Your Enemy
Matthew Sitman
12/21/20