DeepSummary
Preet Bharara interviews his NYU Law colleague Melissa Murray, an expert in constitutional law, about the Supreme Court's recent decision striking down a federal ban on bump stocks, devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns. Murray explains the legal reasoning behind the majority opinion by Justice Thomas and the dissent by Justice Sotomayor.
They discuss the broader implications of the court's decision-making process, the role of textualism in statutory interpretation, and the conservative justices' tendency to limit congressional authority and expand the court's power. Murray argues that the court has become a political actor and that its legitimacy depends on public perceptions.
Bharara and Murray explore the prospect of Donald Trump regaining the presidency and further reshaping the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction. Murray emphasizes the urgency of voters prioritizing the court's composition in the 2024 election to counterbalance the current conservative supermajority.
Key Episodes Takeaways
- The Supreme Court's recent decision on bump stocks exemplifies its tendency to adopt narrow, textualist interpretations of statutes that limit congressional authority and expand the court's own power.
- The court has increasingly become a political actor, and its legitimacy depends on public perceptions rather than claims of neutrality.
- If Donald Trump is re-elected in 2024, he could further entrench the court's conservative supermajority by replacing aging conservative justices with even more extreme ideologues.
- The composition and future direction of the Supreme Court should be a paramount concern for voters in the 2024 election, as it will shape the legal and political landscape for decades.
- The dynamics between the branches of government and the court's role have evolved significantly since the founding era, with the court now wielding immense power that was not necessarily envisioned by the framers.
- Debates over the court's proper role and potential reforms, such as court expansion or term limits, are likely to intensify as its decisions increasingly diverge from public opinion.
- The court's narrow statutory interpretations, which often require extreme specificity from Congress, have effectively transferred substantial policymaking authority from the legislative and executive branches to the judiciary.
- While the court has historically responded to periods of public backlash by moderating its positions, the current conservative supermajority's ideological entrenchment raises concerns about its ability to course-correct.
Top Episodes Quotes
- “It's important to sort of understand that Roosevelt, in floating the idea of court packing, he did not have the support of Congress to do it, even though he controlled Congress.“ by Melissa Murray
- “In my view, the court has to be part of our electoral politics, even if we want to maintain this fiction that the court is not part of politics. The court is part of our political system, and we need to think about it in those terms.“ by Melissa Murray
- “This is a court that is literally changing the landscape while we are walking on it.“ by Melissa Murray
- “To my mind, the court is the most important issue on the ballot in 2024. Not because there is a prospect of expanding this conservative supermajority to a seven to two or an eight to one or a nine to zero conservative supermajority, but simply because Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are septuagenarians. And if Donald Trump wins the day after his inauguration, these two will step down. They will retire and announce their retirements, and they will be repeated, replaced by dyed in the wool movement conservatives, maybe even teenagers.“ by Melissa Murray
Entities
Person
Organization
Concept
Product
Book
Episode Information
Stay Tuned with Preet
CAFE
6/20/24
Melissa Murray is a leading expert in constitutional law, family law, and reproductive rights, and a professor at the New York University School of Law. She joins Preet to analyze the Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down a federal ban on bump-stocks. They also discuss the Court’s history, its public legitimacy, and its future.
Plus, can our institutions constrain Donald Trump if he is re-elected? And what happens if he self-pardons?
For show notes and a transcript of the episode head to: https://cafe.com/stay-tuned/melissa-murray-supreme-court-bump-stocks-marbury-history/
Have a question for Preet? Ask @PreetBharara on Threads, or Twitter with the hashtag #AskPreet. Email us at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 669-247-7338 to leave a voicemail.
Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices