WTF did the Supreme Court Just Do with Leah Litman and Kate Shaw of Strict Scrutiny - 269

The latest round of Supreme Court decisions will radically reshape America as we know it. From overturning the Chevron decision and stripping federal agencies of their ability to do their jobs, to giving presidents broad immunity for actions that would otherwise be considered criminal, it can be hard to fully grasp the impact of these rulings, both immediately and in the future. This week, Adam speaks with Leah Litman and Kate Shaw, law professors and hosts of the podcast "Strict Scrutiny," to make sense of how the Supreme Court has sold out our future and what, if anything, can be done to restore the court to its proper function.
SUPPORT THE SHOW ON PATREON: / adamconover
SEE ADAM ON TOUR: www.adamconover.net/tourdates/
SUBSCRIBE to and RATE Factually! on:
» Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
» Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0fK8WJw...
About Headgum: Headgum is an LA & NY-based podcast network creating premium podcasts with the funniest, most engaging voices in comedy to achieve one goal: Making our audience and ourselves laugh. Listen to our shows at www.headgum.com.
» SUBSCRIBE to Headgum: kzbin.info?sub...
» FOLLOW us on Twitter: / headgum
» FOLLOW us on Instagram: / headgum
» FOLLOW us on TikTok: / headgum
» Advertise on Factually! via Gumball.fm

[@severdislike4222]

So if you ever want to go on a deep historic dive on the supreme court you'll come to two very blunt conclusions - their starting stance is universally "On the wrong side of history" and that only changes with "Near total irrelevance" / "Threat of total irrelevance." - Remember that they initial supreme court decisions defended Jim Crow, Slavery, the Indian Removal Act, the "rights" of the Robber Barons, the "rights" of landlords, the "rights" of union busters (defending the pinkertons in particular,) the "rights" of a parasitic aristocracy. The court in and of itself has always been violently political and it's job has, near universally, been to punch down.

[@MMuraseofSandvich]

Very true. The Warren Court, where huge progressive victories like _Brown v. Board_ and _Loving v. Virginia,_ is the _exception,_ not the norm. And because the Warren Court did the right thing in many key rulings, people who were comfortable with the bigoted status quo _freaked the f*** out_ and started things like the Federalist Society.

[@letsRegulateSociopaths]

This is known! Tools for the oligarchs of America to overcome democratic decisions

[@LuxLucidOfficial]

This feels like the first time they have ruled in a way that was so avertly un-American - giving King-like power to any single person, consecrating power in a way that this nation was literally founded against.

[@davidfrette2500]

@qq@❤😊😂😮

[@coachtaewherbalife8817]

The role of the supreme court has always been to preserve the status quo. The adhere to established beliefs, and they don't change until Congress requires them to.

[@vitoc8454]

"When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money." - Alanis Obomsawin

[@coachtaewherbalife8817]

That lesson will be lost on the rich. Instead they'll celebrate eating the last fish.

[@MrDecessus]

@@coachtaewherbalife8817this is less a rich issue and actually a Christian issue. Christian doctrine is strait forward. Destroying the environment is a good thing because end time Jesus nonsense.

[@alexeyman7301]

​@coachtaewherbalife8817 the rich have relentlessly convinced themselves that wealth will allow them to escape to whatever paradise may exist outside of collapse - problem is that it won't exist to run to

[@danilooliveira6580]

When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; they will still live confortably in their glass palaces while the rest chockes.

[@Grizabeebles]

​@@MrDecessus-- Most english translations of Genesis 1:28 explicitly command Christians to dominate and subdue the natural world. Rapture ideoigy is just the cherry on top.

[@jimpaddy79]

I saw a lecture of an American academic where he talks about how frustrated he was that Europeans just didn’t get how important a supreme court is to democracy and that European democracy was doomed to fail unless we learned from the USA. How that looking now.

[@PhotonBeast]

Which rather silly for them to say since, for example, Germany does have a Supreme Court. It's just not structured in the same way as the American one.

[@jimpaddy79]

@@PhotonBeast most European countries have a supreme or high court, but its not considered the third branch of Government like in the US. In Ireland they will give an expert opinion and if they feel the law is unclear or a situation is to far outside of what a law was originally intended for they will request parliament to right new legislation.

[@user-zw8wq9zi9t]

Every country has a highest judiciary body responsible for adjudicating constitutional disputes...

[@arx3516]

In Italy we have 2 supreme courts: Constitutional court, wich is called when there's a doubt that a law might be unconstitutional, and the "corte di cassazione" wich is the 3rd level of a trial, and its decisions influence the interpretation of laws by lower courts. The judges on both courts are elected by an assembly of all the magistrates in the country, and their term lasts 7 years.

[@kappadarwin9476]

Just mentioning Dread Scott would have cooled this Academic's jets.

[@kmeck5186]

Dont forget that the supreme court also made it so that officials can take post decision "tips" now too.

[@rundownmaggot666]

They’ll have a cash app on their website 😂

[@markg.7865]

Chump will be selling pardons for $2 million dollars....the Supreme Court is ridiculous!

[@ericcarlson6822]

The terrifying thing is that Congress won't do anything about it because a sizable chunk of them are complicit in this and like what SCOTUS just did. In fact, they would have done it themselves if it didn't mean they wouldn't get reelected.

[@Praisethesunson]

Exactly. Absence of accountability is the reason the court was picked as the primary tool of capital

[@1steelcobra]

Part of it too is that while the right side of the aisle is all-in on the court as it is today, you have a split in the left side between the old establishment center-rightists who still think they can do things the way they did in the 90s, and the younger, newer, but smaller group like AOC who actually want to get some good done and make real changes. But with the Incumbency advantage it takes people who just refuse to retire dying or becoming incapable of doing the job anymore, like Diane Feinstein, who was 90 when she died still a Senator.

[@xamislimelight8965]

Which is crazy because the right constantly cries about "government intervention waahhh! They need to fix problems, but every time they do I'll cry about overreach!"

[@daispy101]

This SCOTUS has hamstrung Congress. It wouldn't matter if one party had all the seats in Congress and passed whatever they liked, because the SCOTUS would simply declare it unconstitutional. Pass a SCOTUS ethics requirement in line with the rest of the federal judiciary? They will declare it "Unconstitutional!". Impose term limits on the SCOTUS bench? They will declare it "Unconstitutional!" Expand the court? They will declare it "Unconstitutional!" At this point, short of a constitutional amendment (good freaking luck with that!), the SCTOUS majority have basically screwed anyone who isn't batting for their team (and flying them around the world for mega-yatch vacations). And even if an amendment miraculously passed, they would declare it "Unconstitutional!" under some cockamamy 'originalist' BS pretext, ignoring that the constitution has been amended almost since its signing.

[@luisvarela7827]

The terrifying thing is...our inaction.

[@victormatta5813]

As I listen to you discuss chevron and how judges get to decide what federal agencies can do, it comes to mind that it is also now legal for a corporation to “tip” the judge for his/her decision

[@owangejewice]

Always has been.

[@victormatta5813]

@@owangejewicenow it’s just overtly legal! Thank you Trump and Supreme Court

[@I_want_White_Cheddar_Popcorn]

Gotta love the people praising a geriatric like a god while calling the other dude a geriatric​@@victormatta5813

[@Senthiuz]

You don't even need to tip, just file in Amarillo. There are 667 federal district judgeships. Venue shopping means if you can't find one that'll be your bitch free and legal, it's your fault.

[@victormatta5813]

@@Senthiuz ​​⁠- But the right needs to make sure to keep the judges they want… I mean… Poor Clarence Thomas has been supporting his family with only his “tips”

[@Ralph-yn3gr]

Remember: nothing in the Constitution says Congress cannot pass a law that periodically dissolves every court, the Supreme Court included, and reconstitutes them with newly appointed judges, nor is there anything that says that court offices are for life and cannot be temporary. There's also nothing that says that judges must be impeached to be removed or that Congress cannot set up a judicial accountability commission that can remove judges who violate the law, since judges can only serve during good behavior. The Supreme Court decided they serve for life and are unaccountable and the rest of us just went along with it. Just read Article 3 Section 1. _Article. III._ _Section. 1._ _The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office._

[@LuxLucidOfficial]

@@Ralph-yn3gr they have to be impeached. This has happened one time... over 200 years ago

[@Spytel1]

You should read the powers of Congress. They're not allowed to make laws for any reason. Almost every law is based on the power to regulate interstate commerce.

[@ericpmoss]

Absolutely. Appointees should never be for life. SCOTUS terms should be 18 years, and a new one rotated in every two years, no matter what. A one-term President gets two picks if they aren't convicted of crimes, a two-term President gets four. Judges that are found to have lied to get confirmed get immediately removed and decisions they were the deciding vote on reviewed. Those who take bribes should get the same treatment, and frankly, jailed.

[@eldritchperfection213]

True. However, can you garrante democrats will forever be in power and that the next red wave will not change what "good behaviours" mean, put all their friends in power and plunge the US in an unprecedented period of chaos.

[@tylerc5021]

I just saw a headline on CNN saying AOC has filed impeachment proceedings against some of the judges.

[@ericcarlson6822]

The Constitution says they can serve on terms of good behavior. While the term is not defined in the constitution, I think it's pretty clear at number of the justices have crossed it.

[@dangerousdays2052]

The Constitution is whatever the corrupt Supreme Court says it is. Sad but true.

[@TheEvolver311]

I mean I agree with you but I'd half to point out that a large swath of conservative Americans probably wouldn't think it's "pretty clear" they love this court and have fought to seize the court since 1964.

[@camipco]

The thing about "pretty clear" is that the same things are demonstrably not "pretty clear" to all people.

[@Beanzoboy]

@@camipco Sure, but the difference is that the first group has fully-functional brains. The second group just believes whatever bullshit is fed to them by people who are demonstrably lying through their teeth. To say that the smart people can't make a change because the stupid people don't understand, is ridiculous.

[@happyzahn8031]

Should definitely have some kind of term limits for all branches.

[@user-cn8vj5rs5c]

"And Ruth Bader-Ginsburg refused to resign despite her obvious deterioration in health" - oof. Why does it sound so familiar....

[@markg.7865]

I like old Joe, but I think his time is done.

[@vxicepickxv]

Well, I've got some good news about how your comment aged like milk.

[@terriblefrosting]

They're cherry picking precedents and opinions to achieve desired ends. It's sickeningly elegant.

[@CynthiaMcG]

Leeja Miller examined Trump v. US and eviscerated every instance of cherry picking. Excellent video.

[@deadwingdomain]

It been the plan for a long time coming

[@Grizazzle]

I think you've misused the word 'elegant'.

[@ericcarlson6822]

For what it's worth, SCOTUS has a long history of afflicting the afflicted and comforting the comfortable.

[@Enjoyurble]

Supreme Court decided checks were the only important part of checks and balances.

[@nosuchthing8]

Clever!

[@curiousabout1]

Cha-ching!

[@Bobbybabybobbybubbie]

No, you forgot bank balances.

[@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket]

The constitution defined the powers, nowhere did it say "oh and agencies can do whatever the fuck they feel like they need to do to get their job done." Jackass.

[@akouri6967]

I'm sure they also accept cash

[@tsotate]

Roberts absolutely cares about his legacy. He heard so many people describing him as the worst Chief Justice since Taney, and decided "Screw Taney; I'm not going to settle for _second_ worst as my legacy."

[@yw6504]

I'm so scared for America

[@Bigfield47]

Vote.

[@jayrawd]

Yeah please vote

[@adrianwalls4614]

Voting doesn't work. Get organized.

[@xanderh2404]

@@adrianwalls4614 Do both.

[@yataybala4902]

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." Thomas Paine wrote this after a series of setbacks made it seem certain that the American Revolution was about to fail. The supporters of our cause stuck with it and so should we. And if you need a more uplifting inspirational quote, I give you Blutto''s from Animal House: "What? Over? Did you say 'over'? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

[@sburkie9]

I love Strict Scrutiny! What a great crossover! Thanks for having them on

[@curiousabout1]

I'm so happy to have discovered them here! Can't wait to give them a listen.

[@glenmorrison8080]

Been listening to the pod for maybe 4 years. They're great.

[@thomaspalagyi7241]

This is absolutely inefficient and the judges will be ineffective at determining these things. The only plausible reason left is consolidation of power.

[@a24396]

And to gum up the workings of the government so thoroughly that the inevitable failure of this new regulatory scheme will make Americans throw up their hands in frustration, condemn the federal government of it's inefficiency and ineffectiveness, and maybe get them to seek another option that will get the lights to work... It will probably be industry self regulation... And with the attempt to create an additional 20 or 30 thousand political appointees, we'll probably see that kind of internal obstruction throughout the government...

[@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket]

Interesting thought, so they are forcing congress to write not vague laws, and their forcing the vague laws be settled by the courts; just like the constitution says. Yet you think that's a problem? Absolutely fascinating. We clearly see things differently. To me letting an agency write it's own laws, define it's own scope limitations, and rewrite existing actual laws passed by congress is far more concerning then "Oh no the government which is famous for being inefficient and has been it's entire life is getting rid of a bad law that put to much power in the hands of APPOINTED ADMINISTRATORS instead in our elected officials and courts? Welp that's fine." I prefer not to let appointed officials invent ways to ruin the lives of law abiding citizens.

[@a24396]

@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket That's not what the constitution says at all. The Constitution says Congress passes laws, the president signs it into law and is then required to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. That's it... When a controversy exists in the interpretation of the law then it's always been the domain of the court... But... If the law says "regulate air pollution" then you think the court should be the ones who decide what an air pollutant is? Have you thought that through?

[@thomaspalagyi7241]

If someone told me a group of people were to be assigned to look out for my best interests, but that only 30% of that group were actually likely to do so, and then they told me that I would have to choose between a group of thousands of people or a group of nine people, I would choose the larger group because it would statistically be a larger number of people who are actually looking out for my best interest which increases the probability that my best interest will be served.

[@Growmap]

@asastout8402 You can't see that the so-called "experts" are bought and paid for by the corporations? They use their power to take from the individual and give to whomever they please. What have any of them done for the public? Look at the FDA - full captured by Big Pharma. You think taking away some of their power to push poisons on the people is a bad thing?

[@graemethompson6705]

If you're going to pack the Supreme Court, start with Leah Litman and Kate Shaw! Great guests!

[@JayHann]

If we're talking unlikely hypotheticals where senate confirmation is a non-issue, why not Kamala Harris? People forget that in addition to being a politician she has a distinguished legal career.

[@GolemRising]

@@JayHann Ehhhh I wouldn't call it distinguished. We can do much, much better than a person who openly took bribes and laughed at other black people being arrested for pot possession.

[@TheEvolver311]

The Democratic party establishment will never do court packing. They have ran away from and disavowed FDR new deal era.

[@happyzahn8031]

@@JayHann Harris is such a bad vp, I doubt she would do good on any court. Perhaps being vp was just too much and she was a better lawyer. Time may tell.

[@billmozart7288]

I had an awareness of how messed up the supreme court thanks to Some More News. It's nice having another source

[@skynet4496]

It's always been messed up!! Legalese is a language designed to benefit those who look for loopholes in logic. The Constitution was so lacking that they had to AMEND it with the bill of rights, because people were protesting the lack of rights in the Constitution! "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." - Judge Charles Evans Hughes “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” ― Benjamin Franklin

[@NotSeregnar]

I'm glad you had Strict Scrutiny on! They've also had some great conversations with Jon Stewart.

[@dangerousdays2052]

Jon Stewart is an establishment shill. He only says what's obvious and won't say a word against capitalism.

[@Bobbybabybobbybubbie]

The Supreme Court did the impossible: made three law professors having a zoom meeting into the most compelling podcast on KZbin.

[@SidV101]

Three? The host is a comedian, not an attorney

[@Bobbybabybobbybubbie]

@@SidV101 I'm not talking about this video; I'm talking about Strict Scrutiny, which is the two guests here plus Melissa Murray, another law professor.

[@SidV101]

@@Bobbybabybobbybubbie ah gotcha, I assumed these two were the whole gang

[@Bobbybabybobbybubbie]

@@SidV101 If you haven't watched them, do check it out; I wasn't exaggerating (well, not too much) on the "most compelling" part.

[@MettigelMann]

America may be fucked💀

[@drewtheunspoken3988]

"May?" That's an optimistic view.

[@nyssfairchild2244]

I think that this may be an "Always has been" situation.

[@thomaspalagyi7241]

Americans might surprise you. Don't give up yet.

[@claireconover]

we were f*cked as soon as they designated trump immune.

[@MMuraseofSandvich]

In 1940, Americans didn't want to fight a war against Germany. We didn't care about certain groups of human beings being systematically deleted, we even turned away refugees fleeing Europe, and a significant number of Americans were avid listeners of one Father Coghlin, who ran the most popular radio show in the country. Coghlin was a raging fascist, and under his influence and with the cooperation of Nazi Germany, an armed coup against the US government was even plotted. Just a couple of years later, we were at war with Nazi Germany. Things have, and can change in the blink of an eye, even though a huge shock to the system (e.g., Pearl Harbor) is needed to change American minds. The way I see it, we have 2 choices. We can throw our hands up, say "we're fucked", and let the Republicans win their much-desired fascist dictatorship. Or we can fight, through the ballot box and the bullhorn. I sure as hell don't want to hand this country on a silver platter over to the very people who gave up on it.

[@cmxsprt]

the scotus rulings should NOT be respected!!!!! Unlawful rulings are UNLAWFUL!!!!!!!!!!!

[@user-zw8wq9zi9t]

Law is what those with power say it is.

[@CynthiaMcG]

​@@user-zw8wq9zi9tThere's such a thing as Common Law.

[@cmxsprt]

@@user-zw8wq9zi9t”those” who lay down subserviently are complicit!!!!

[@Will140f]

Re: why haven’t any members of congress called this behavior out? AOC, just yesterday, called for the impeachment and removal from the court of Alito and Thomas for accepting bribes and not recusing during multiple cases wherein they had conflicting interests with the cases at hand.

[@TheEvolver311]

They explained it, instiutionalism

[@Will140f]

@@TheEvolver311 I heard that part. I was just adding recent developments

[@tinyfistm.2607]

It's even worse than all that. They can 'find a friendly judge' in Amarillo who's amenable to 'gratuities' as long as they tip their judge _after_ they kill the regulation and not before. Heck, they can use wedding registry sites to help organize the 'gratuities'. As long as it's after, it's legal. Thanks Thomas.

[@JV-fb6rw]

It’s just laying the groundwork for Project 2025. This is serious.

[@user-yn7jo8fr2g]

What the hell happened to our government.

[@Demmrir]

Christian nationalism.

[@vappyreon1176]

Liberal democracy turns into fascism when push comes to shove

[@farrahupson]

They've been purchased. We need to get money out of politics. It's the single problem underlying all others.

[@75viking75]

The 2 party system.. it's been F'ed a LONG time. It forces the extremist whackos into ONE of the two legitimate parties, causing more and more polarization over time. We F'ed up letting this shit play out so long, basically ENSURING that an extremist eventually took control of the executive branch. "Checks and Balances?" Seems we did away with those a long time ago too.

[@ohiasdxfcghbljokasdjhnfvaw4ehr]

@@farrahupson i think that issue is second to the party issue. the two parties have created a duopoly of control and made it so you either have to conform or get out. they've taken over every part of government and all new media, and the minds of all voters. they took over the supreme court and make changes to benefit their party. this cannot change until we ban political parties and get ranked choice voting. then at least our votes will mean something and we arent just picking the least bad of two bad candidates every single time.

[@dazzleships9]

AOC just introduced articles of impeachment against Thomas and Alito

[@SorbusAucubaria]

impeachment is empty gestures with this court.

[@fieuline2536]

Good luck with that

[@imacmill]

Meaningless. She knows it's meaningless. Just another politician fishing for brownie points. Eff 'em all.

[@valdimer11]

​@@imacmillTbf I think AOC is well meaning but I also think she's incredibly naive when it comes to politics.

[@dazzleships9]

@@imacmill never underestimate the power of the symbolic gesture, they can often trigger unexpected events

[@swiger416]

Yeah that non-compete rule just got overturned by a federal judge. Who could have predicted that? Smh

[@danmickle2604]

The Majority Report has been doing great reporting and commentary on the supreme court.

[@NotSeregnar]

Love The Majority Report and I've always appreciated their coverage of the courts.

[@deadwingdomain]

More Medias Touch myself. They actually are proactive with Trump's criminal behavior. Having lawsuits with him, to hold him to account.

[@ArkaidDeims]

I don't understand how the courts can give themselves the power to backseat legislate. If Congress gave the power to agencies to regulate, what gives the judicial system the right to take that power away? Something is very wrong here....

[@thewhitefalcon8539]

The court gave itself the power

[@horrorfan117]

Justices are in their position for life. We the people, determine how long that life is.

[@Praisethesunson]

Based and true

[@edwardnygma8533]

Rapidly becoming the only option left.

[@propop1]

Question...So hypothetically, based of some current decisions a president could now could order seal team to eliminate a supreme court justice under the guise of a political rival or for causing an impediment to the duty of the president and it couldn't be criminally prosecuted under their own ruling?

[@Nerdsammich]

They literally just decided that the President can make that decision free of consequence.

[@lou-cidmire3065]

GD RIGHT

[@sylviancreedmarsh9171]

These are “people” with publicly available names and addresses. A lot could be done.

[@OsirisMalkovich]

So long, America! It was terrifying and horifying to know ya!

[@PownUnoobs]

First Contrapoints and now Strict Scrutiny?! Never expected to be fangirling here

[@uvaldopalomares8416]

This one is too depressing to watch. Wish you guys the best of luck. Take care of your mental health people!

[@user-kv2tj4du8p]

It is devastating to say for me-but I agree with you 100%. The question I come up against constantly is how do I take care of my mental (and physical-because one effects the other) health, and yet stay fully informed in the way that I know I need to be informed. I've been doing this dance now for about 10 years or so. I am TIRED. I didn't realize this was one of those dance marathons like during the depression. I am tired. No more "yowza yowza yowza", please.

[@deadwingdomain]

Go enjoy your day. It is important. You know what to do in November already.

[@user-kv2tj4du8p]

@@deadwingdomain thank you.

[@pohkeee]

This is way beyond the American court…this ruling deconstructs laws back to pre-Magna Carta, when the king was above the law. 800 years of precedence across two continents, deconstructed, they swore an oath to uphold the principles they are now destroying from within.

[@curiousabout1]

Wow this was clarifying. I really appreciated your guests and will definitely be listening to their podcast as they spoke so eloquently. I don't want to let this consume me but I see a very dark future for the US within my lifetime, and I'm already leaving middle aged. I've always been a reasonable optimist, but about this I'm not. We need to see some boldness from the left, and we need it now.

[@dolliscrawford280]

We need more people to join the left first.

[@josephsager9425]

When I was a kid, 20-ish years ago, Libertarians would always be bellyaching about how the Supreme Court had too much power and were accountable to no-one. Of course, their main concern was that the Supreme Court was doing things they didn't like - like letting minorities have rights, or giving the Federal Government have powers they felt it shouldn’t have. Never thought I'd agree.

[@a24396]

The interesting thing about the origin of Chevron was it was intended to give conservatives their way despite the laws in place... The history is Congress enacted a law to reduce pollution by mandating a review (and remediation) for every new fixed air pollution source (think: industrial smoke stack). The Reagan EPA chose to decide it was only required if the new emitters made the entire site or facility a larger polluter. If, for examole, five or six moderately polluting sources were removed, but one highly polluting emitter was installed, that would be acceptable under the Reagan EPA. But this was not what the law stated; the law required every new fixed air pollution emitter to be reviewed. And so the regulatory choice was challenged. The lower courts overruled the EPA and their new interpretation of the statute. But... When it finely got to the Supreme Court, the conservative court faced with an opportunity to hold back the flood of liberal and progressive legislation, the court did so by saying the agency should be deferred to if their interpretation of the law was possibly reasonable. But now that the courts have been packed with extremists and the regulatory agency experts less and less willing to go along with the increasingly extreme positions of profit focused sociopaths running businesses... Well... The move to get this out of the hands of experts and back into the hands of lifetime serving, appointed extremists. So the court decided they'd be happy, once again, to take the decision making out of the agencies' hands and put it back in their extremist hands... It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation...

[@SidV101]

SCOTUS has a track record of doing this, to appear impartial while passing major decisions. The most famous example is Marbury v. Madison

[@christophersteeves9435]

Thanks for covering this Adam, ive been irrate with every decision coming out of the Supreme court over the last few years and they need to be held accountable

[@annapascal8652]

I listened to this in the depths of despair about our current political situation and it gave me hope. Thank you

[@happyzahn8031]

Just switch sides of the aisle, then you can despair some more. Seriously though, many people have given up since the whole of government seems monolithic, no matter who is in charge. It was built in a swamp and remains a swamp to this day.

[@pawpkitty]

I am so scared for our nation. It keeps me up at night and I'm TIRED

[@bobthegamingtaco6073]

If there's any comfort to be had, I find it in this: in every day and every age there has been resistance, and in every day and every age things continued progressing no matter how hard the brakes were applied. That they are relying on the law to stop us shows that they do not believe in their ability to stop us. They are scared, they bluster and bemoan but less and less people listen, and they are scared. The dawn comes every day a bit closer to their blackened souls, and so they strike a more and more fearsome image, trying in their desperation to scare us back. In every day and every age those in power have tried this. In every day and every age they have failed. We will not let this time be different.

[@generaljellyroll8737]

The lines on the road don't actually stop your car from doing whatever it wants. Anyone can make whatever symbolic paper they want but we choose to collectively give one value. The words on a page have no power unless we give them power. A ruling from a court has no power unless we decide it has power. Let's say they make a ruling so atrocious that no one will enforce it. This nightmare ends when we organize.

[@bobthegamingtaco6073]

Agreed. First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they yell at you. Then they arrest you. Then you win.

[@trentperiod]

Adam, my wife and I were front row and saw your stand up last Thursday! It was such an incredible surprise, wasn’t expecting to see you come out. You rule so hard dude. Just had to be a Stan for a moment. Keep up the lords work!

[@ianbelanger7459]

While it would be hard, it is definitely time to update the system of government to better address 21st century problems. The following amendments would be a good start: 1) term limits and appointment limits for the supreme court 2) define executive agencies and independent agencies along with their rule making power 3) automatic expansion of the house with the population via the census 4) automatic expansion of the federal judiciary with population via the census 5) remove private money from campaigns 6) rank choice voting for federal elections 7) state that states have the power to enforce disqualification under 14th amendment 8) independent redistricting committees with definitions for compactness 9) broaden 4th amendment to extend into cyberspace protecting the data and activity of people from companies and the government 10) personal equal protection and voting rights guarantee

[@happyzahn8031]

most of those sound pretty good. wish we had a way to have independent redistricting. Gerrymandering has been the go-to since almost the beginning. Number 1, term limits, for all branches of government should be a priority.

[@ianbelanger7459]

@@happyzahn8031 while it is very practical to only focus on a few, there is an advantage to having a bold vision even if not all of it is achieved.

[@juqual78]

Thank you for the great show. If we are to solve the problems of SCOTUS , we will need to follow some of the solutions listed here.

[@Samael1113]

Before even watching the video, which I'll do shortly - I'll tell you what it did, it killed the 6th & 7th amendment. Actions like when Barack Obama extrajudicially unaliveda US citizen are now exonerated. By using the power of his office to issue that orderl, he can not face charges for ignoring the process by which you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You do not even have to hold a trial in absentia or some other form of theatrics paying lip service to a founding principle of the country. Just order the action and you're done. This should terrify everyone. It's only a matter of time before someone tests the extremes of what can be gotten away with. And it's not like anyone was going to charge Obama, as much as they should have, but it's not even an option or worth addressing by future presidents anymore.

[@MMuraseofSandvich]

As long as the executive has the option of shoving anything into the "official acts" bucket, the entire Bill of Rights is in jeopardy.

[@Samael1113]

@@MMuraseofSandvich Absolutely, but there are a handful that are intrinsically more weighty and difficult to mess with overtly. First and Second mostly. While the 4th - 8th have constantly been attacked and infringements hand-waved away through the courts after initial outrage. I doubt we'll see any presidents exert public pressure on 1st and 2nd infringements... but some future Reagan or Nixon -like president ordering blatantly signing execution orders against people they don't like exercising their first amendment rights? Very plausible. Nixon is well known to have had an actual hitlist.

[@jaredschulz3141]

Thank you i feel like i understand these issues better. Excellent guests!

[@75viking75]

This is what the beginning of the cyberpunk dystopia looks like.

[@Ok_Thanks]

We were always headed this way. Democrats were never a sufficient enough opposition to stop it, only slow it down. The Left doesn’t have our own version of “Leonard Leo”, so we’ve been outclassed since jump. Especially considering none of these republicans policies “harm” democratic politicians-they’re rich, the rules don’t apply to them. Sure they may be upset over these issues, but like Biden said at the end of his last terrible interview when asked how he’ll feel if he doesn’t win, he said something to the effect of “I’ll be ok with it if I tried my goodest.” -and he did say “goodest”; Biden will be untouchable regardless of what Trump does. So will Pelosi, clyburn, and the dem establishment. This election will change nothing for them, for the most part. If anything Trump will benefit them with massive tax breaks for the already ultra rich. I’m voting Biden, don’t get me wrong, but we need to put our ducks in a row. Something reaaaal bad is coming, and I don’t know that anything can stop it.

[@CynthiaMcG]

This is also how The Handmaid's Tale started.

[@TheEvolver311]

We will probably end up in a Brave New World style dystopia

[@deadwingdomain]

Choose your corporate overlord wisely. I'm all team Pepsi, myself. Jk

[@deadwingdomain]

​@@TheEvolver311 not much of a dystopia... An even then that is a perversion of a utopia, just with personal freedom lacking. An we already struggle with that today.

[@thecreweofthefancy]

As somebody who just went to jail for something somebody else did years ago....I think all the courts have lost their minds.

[@rodrigomartindelcampo9534]

For all people saying that is does not matter who you vote for, just remember who appointed these judges

[@fraserseymour3714]

Love the Strict Scrutiny women, always enjoy their energy and insight. Excellent episode Adam and great job framing this consequential issue!

[@deanmpatton]

Every damn bill is gonna have to be written like a monkey's paw wish, so it can't be perverted and overruled.

[@PinPointEnts]

Don't worry, The free market will fix it 😂. This is mad. The rich can escape the mess they made. Someone needs to give them the same fish that was being polluted.

[@joshturner6074]

I also heard from other law review shows that SCOTUS also extended the statute of limitations businesses can sue against laws from when the law was enacted plus seven years to when the “law harmed” the business plus seven years. Which effectively removes the statute of limitations as even a brand new business can sue against laws that could “harm” them.

[@dzwoner]

Thank you so much for this conversation, Strict Scrutiny is incredible!

[@redspec01]

As a not-rich-person my options for emigration are limited, could we use this as grounds for asylum and move to New Zealand?

[@Praisethesunson]

Why flee when you can organize with your fellow poors to demand changem

[@garytheprogressivelibertar560]

I hate it when people say letting trump get in there won't change much of anything because of the divide of qll our government. A 7/2 Supreme court for the next 40 years will almost for sure turn us into a country that looks more like a theocracy then a democratic republic! 😢

[@jtdread]

Big fan of Strict Scrutiny, awesome episode.

[@coachtaewherbalife8817]

I commend your channel on an excellent presentation of the issues. You always increase my understanding.

[@AlvaSudden]

Vote BLUE always, up and down the ballot. If someone starts saying it doesn't matter or "they're all the same," don't listen. They're not all the same.

[@NikolaosTzanavaris]

Americans need to come together and vote out these garbage folks and vote in people who will do our work and not the work of Corporations under the auspices of "Religion."

[@superfacch]

The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. We need more than voting

[@jackgude3969]

And who is that? Yes, orange man bad. This happened 4 years into Biden. Voting isn't going to help. The whole country is just 3 corporations in a trench coat. They're never going to offer you a candidate that will do anything to help. It's either red team plan, or a couple years of empty promises and then red team plan anyway. Supporting a genocide but in a woke, cool, gay way. This take is just so childish. Yeah lets all band together and vote our way out of this guys! Walk into a private booth and quietly mark down your preference between two absolute monsters and that's it. That's the beginning and end of civic engagement. You did it! Take your sticker and go back to work.

[@TheEmperorGulcasa]

The problem is that with our two party system, the republicans will scheme to make things terrible, the democrats then win and sit on their ass not fixing most of the gaping wounds the republicans have made, and then people get fed up with democrat inaction and republicans get voted in again. Cycle repeats as the country slowly drifts further downhill. The democrats especially actively fight actual change and reform, choosing to remain stagnant as it benefits them in the immediate term financially.

[@owangejewice]

It's too late. We're heading for a bloody, bloody, bloody time in America.

[@Praisethesunson]

The court can't be voted out. That's why capital spent decades taking it over.

[@But_Stuff]

An “Um, Factually?” On CollegeHumor would be DOPE!

[@markniblack7160]

Terrific conversation

[@Crazedgamer16]

The ladies really put things into perspective how much damage has done, jeez. Fuck the conservative politicians, and the supreme court's decision to bring United States to this point.

[@alexandercandicedad1355]

Long time Strict Scrutiny listener! Main reason i picked this video

[@hloa12]

Great show! Thanks for consistently featuring smart women! I'd love to see an increase in diverse guests. ❤

[@007kingifrit]

what a brainwashed npc, diversity only harms any social structures, it shares a latin root with the word DIVIDE for a reason

[@dsmith3199]

I do not think that relying on individuals to disregard the ludicrous decisions that the supreme court has brought in recent terms is a sound stop gap to their runaway hubris

[@kiltedcripple]

SCOTUS made this a very unsafe country

[@floydross9000]

Companies over people, that has always been a characteristic of the American system. And unfortunately, it’s about to get much worse in the years ahead.

[@Dmol8]

The Dred Scott decision resulted in the 13th Amendment being passed, the Pollock decision resulted in the 16th Amendment being passed. Each of these overreaches of overturning Roe v. Wade, Chevron Deference and Presidential Immunity will result in new Amendments being passed in like a decade or two tops.

[@cat_terrell]

You guys#NailedThis on So Many pts!

[@pearlriver1849]

One solution I heard awhile back was to lottery draw a panel of judges from the circuit courts every couple years. That would avoid intentional political skew and agendas that can be enacted over a time

[@joshpetitt5986]

The last time I heard anyone mention a reform to the Supreme Court was mayor Pete in the 2020 democratic primary. 5 republican justices, 5 democratic justices, and 5 justices that can only be seated by a unanimous vote from the other 10. We missed out.

[@TheEvolver311]

That can't work because the parties are not actually etched into the constitution or something

[@happyzahn8031]

Sadly, it will end as political, just like now. Follow the money and the power.

[@hapsate]

With public officials being allowed to get gifts, per the Supreme Court, corporations will be paying judges off like crazy to skirt environmental regulations.

[@Moeron86]

I just started researching who adam is, what he's about. And now I feel sick. It's disgusting. He obviously just hops on the bandwagon of the day to make himself out to be a hero like figure, or educator. But will 100% always protect the narrative that he makes the most money from. People sicken me

[@007kingifrit]

yea he's a grifter

[@Green4CloveR]

Everyday makes me glad I didn’t have kids. What a nightmare the future will be for them.

[@eldritchperfection213]

The issue with changing the rules is that escalation. The more you add justices, the more the other side will next time there is a wave election.

[@vidprodcts]

So congress needs to pass unambiguous laws. But that hasn’t been happening for fifty years. The Chevron rule was a two part test. Part one: if a law is ambiguous then TWO courts should defer to agency Expertise. The problem is that the courts tend to omit part one and ALWAYS defer to agency experts which really pushed the pendulum of power towards government dictates.

[@Gaffeghan]

It really boils down to how we have the party of terrible ideas and great PR vs the party of so-so ideas and zero PR. It's hard to sell your mediocre ideas when you don't know how to sell anything.

[@greyareaRK1]

On the edge of my seat, and I'm not American.

[@Thelius42]

Nuremberg still applies. I was just following orders is not a valid defense. If the president orders something illegal the recipient of the orders still have an obligation to disobey them under the law as I understand it

[@CynthiaMcG]

AOC called for the impeachment of justices Thomas and Alito. I wish her success. I know it's going to be an uphill battle.

[@TheEvolver311]

@CynthiaMcG 0% chance the GOP control the house

[@SuitedAJ]

If democracy is going to survive, it needs to adapt and change.

[@TheHunterGracchus]

From now on, every card will say "moops."

[@BigDaddyWes]

If any government power only makes sense to you if someone whose views an opinions align with your ow claim it, it's imperative to recognize the infinite danger that comes with that regardless of what party you vote for. I hate fear mongering when it's unnecessary and sensationalized, but these are the most terrifying and concerning rulings ever made.

[@ChristopherSadlowski]

I hate living here! Love it! Awesome! Amazing! I want to leave! 😊😊😊

[@RafaelMorris]

To me the supreme court should be 3 liberal, 3 conservative, and 5 moderates/independents. With this composition one side cannot railroad legislation down our throats. But if Biden used his first year to add compensating judges to prevent the conservative majority and he just did not. Privatization of the post office is next so look forward to pay to get your mail before 6 PM.

[@toericabaker]

THIS MAKES ME SOOOOOOO MAD

[@pakdiva21]

My favorite podcast!

[@gbail9566]

BTW, @aoc introduced Articles of Impeachment against Justices Thomas and Alto.

[@kloakovalimonada]

False security of mythical "check and balances" and generally believing one's own bullshit leads exactly to this.

[@SparklyCoconut-le3fu]

Boost. Can’t watch for anxiety but ppl need to know

[@TaliaMellifera]

I love this so much.

[@RobertFoley]

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." -- Thomas Jefferson "An unjust law is no law at all." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

[@redspec01]

Can Supreme Court justices be impeached?

[@dolliscrawford280]

Yes, majority House, 67 votes Senate for conviction and removal.

[@evannibbe9375]

Actually it requires 2/3rds of those present in the Senate, which would be 67.

[@dolliscrawford280]

@evannibbe9375 your right, I will correct.

[@TrueMyth]

So happy to see AOC raise an impeachment of Thomas and Alito. Need to ask my comfortable Rep to raise her voice, too.

[@joefarella7483]

Factually AND Strict Scrutiny?! Probably my two most listened to podcasts (also Pod Save America)

[@akouri6967]

Some More News is pretty great, too, if you're looking for new ones

[@JB36588]

Rules ... rules are for suckers!