Thanks Chris. It's always a pleasure listening to Steve and you together. Is it time to expand the court? When you have a light-weight appointed by a corrupt president it seems to be relevant. You can guess who the light-weight is.
Yes, but not by adding one or two or three Justices. We need to add a dozen or more and force the Court to operate as the Circuits do: randomly selected panels of 9 with a high bar to en banc decisions. The goal should be to reduce the influence of any one Justice to make the highly politicized selection/confirmation process less effective.
I'm pretty sure that savvy Court watchers are aware of the danger that this Court will always back Trump in the seriously dangerous ways, and we should expect that to continue.
Thank you guys for making sure we have this information. It legit feels like crazy town out here sometimes, and knowing that people as smart as y'all are keeping an eye on these guys is really, really, *really* helpful 💜
How are the data of the agencies helpful to anyone when they are subject to one person’s whims. I think this is the insurance to destroy the premise of we the people.
After listening to Steve detail even just the 31 cases since 2025, I don't know how anyone can, with a straught face, assert that this court isn't 98% in this administration's pocket. In fact, I think it IS the extreme use of the shadow docket, and the doctrinal issues that lend support to people who make that argument, and it feels somewhat disingenuous to say people are over-reacting on both sides. To me it seems the tarriffs case was not an indicator that the court has a definitive line they will not cross, but that there is a line *in this particular instance*, that they would not cross. I adore Steve and rely on his analysis frequently! Thank you for having him on!
This was so good. I aprecaite your covering the stay thing. So much damage done by those SCOTUS stays, IMO. Also,Slaughter scares me to death. We need experts and consistency in our bureaucracy, not constant turnover and political hacks. Thanks for the informative discussion.
It seems when the SCOTUS is deciding a case a lot of these arguments are very vague? I am glad the court ruled in the favor of the people for a change!
Even assuming that the unitary executive theory is correct, can’t the president delegate some of that authority to an independent agency by mutual agreement with Congress? After all presidential approval is required for such actions, unless Congress can muster a veto override.
As Vladeck said, the Supreme Court is poised to overrule a 1935 unanimous ruling on Humphrey's Executor that upheld Congress's power to have independent agency heads that could not be fired by the president without cause. The Supreme Court also looks very likely to rule in the Cook case that the Fed is the exception. The constitutional inconsistency is that if Congress has the power to protect officers at the Fed, then it has the power to create other independent agencies, so the Supreme Court should not strike down Humphrey's Executor.
Thanks Chris. It's always a pleasure listening to Steve and you together. Is it time to expand the court? When you have a light-weight appointed by a corrupt president it seems to be relevant. You can guess who the light-weight is.
Yes, but not by adding one or two or three Justices. We need to add a dozen or more and force the Court to operate as the Circuits do: randomly selected panels of 9 with a high bar to en banc decisions. The goal should be to reduce the influence of any one Justice to make the highly politicized selection/confirmation process less effective.
I'm pretty sure that savvy Court watchers are aware of the danger that this Court will always back Trump in the seriously dangerous ways, and we should expect that to continue.
Thank you Steve for clarifying the Supreme Court cases and their dismantling our democracy.
Thank you guys for making sure we have this information. It legit feels like crazy town out here sometimes, and knowing that people as smart as y'all are keeping an eye on these guys is really, really, *really* helpful 💜
Gwen Wilcox from the NLRB
How are the data of the agencies helpful to anyone when they are subject to one person’s whims. I think this is the insurance to destroy the premise of we the people.
One of Alito's former clerks wrote recently that Alito is a generous, kind, and grateful individual. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/i-worked-justice-alito-what-i-saw-up-close-shatters-media-smear
Thank you, Steve I will order this book! Sounds like it is an interesting book to read!
After listening to Steve detail even just the 31 cases since 2025, I don't know how anyone can, with a straught face, assert that this court isn't 98% in this administration's pocket. In fact, I think it IS the extreme use of the shadow docket, and the doctrinal issues that lend support to people who make that argument, and it feels somewhat disingenuous to say people are over-reacting on both sides. To me it seems the tarriffs case was not an indicator that the court has a definitive line they will not cross, but that there is a line *in this particular instance*, that they would not cross. I adore Steve and rely on his analysis frequently! Thank you for having him on!
This was so good. I aprecaite your covering the stay thing. So much damage done by those SCOTUS stays, IMO. Also,Slaughter scares me to death. We need experts and consistency in our bureaucracy, not constant turnover and political hacks. Thanks for the informative discussion.
It seems when the SCOTUS is deciding a case a lot of these arguments are very vague? I am glad the court ruled in the favor of the people for a change!
Go Dodgers!
Even assuming that the unitary executive theory is correct, can’t the president delegate some of that authority to an independent agency by mutual agreement with Congress? After all presidential approval is required for such actions, unless Congress can muster a veto override.
That is so very true with SCOTUS. If you like a wonderful conversation about the courts, constitution and the law please subscribe to. One First.
If Alito were to retire this summer, would the clerks he has hired for the 2026-2027 term just be out of luck?
As Vladeck said, the Supreme Court is poised to overrule a 1935 unanimous ruling on Humphrey's Executor that upheld Congress's power to have independent agency heads that could not be fired by the president without cause. The Supreme Court also looks very likely to rule in the Cook case that the Fed is the exception. The constitutional inconsistency is that if Congress has the power to protect officers at the Fed, then it has the power to create other independent agencies, so the Supreme Court should not strike down Humphrey's Executor.