This podcast episode explores the Supreme Court's focus on the spending clause over emergency healthcare for women, the Capitol insurrection, and Trump's attempts to overturn the election. Legal experts critique the MAGA justices in arguments. Discussions include challenges to presidential prosecution, erosion of democratic principles, and the court's indifference to health crises.
57:58
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
Justices prioritized legal doctrines over women's health emergencies, revealing a lack of empathy and focus on real-world consequences.
The Emptala case showcased a disconnect between legal abstraction and actual human impact, highlighting a concerning neglect of women's health concerns.
The Court's dismissal of democracy and women's health issues in favor of technical debates reflects a troubling trend towards indifference and injustice in judicial discourse.
Deep dives
The Supreme Court's Casual Approach to Accountability
The Supreme Court's recent oral arguments in significant cases like the Trump immunity case and the Emptala case revealed a lack of serious reckoning with crucial issues. Discussions on accountability for former President Trump's actions and the impact on women's health in Idaho were overshadowed by complex legal debates, demonstrating a concerning lack of urgency and focus on democracy and real-world consequences.
Overlooking Women's Health in Legal Discourse
The Emptala case, which addressed conflicts between Idaho law and federal statute on stabilizing care for pregnant women, highlighted a lack of gravitas in discussions around women's health emergencies. Justices' emphasis on technical legal doctrines, prosecutorial discretion, and spending clause arguments rather than the real health implications facing women reflected a stark contrast between legal abstraction and actual human impact.
Partisan Divides and Gender Dynamics in Court Debates
A divide was apparent in the court with male justices seemingly neglecting the immediate health concerns of women impacted by Idaho's restrictive laws. In contrast, Justice Barrett showed understanding of the case nuances, emphasizing the importance of considering women's health. The gender dynamics and lack of empathy towards the health challenges faced by women in Idaho underscored a troubling trend in judicial discourse.
Nihilism and Injustice in Judicial Deliberations
The lack of gravity and urgency exhibited by the Court in addressing pressing issues like democracy and women's health raised concerns about a growing sense of nihilism within the judicial process. The Court's apparent dismissal of fundamental tenets of democracy, accountability, and empathy towards women's health crises reflected a troubling trend towards injustice and indifference in legal deliberations.
Unveiling the Smoke Screen of Legal Technicalities
The Supreme Court's potential tendency to obfuscate real injustices with complex legal doctrines and technical arguments in cases like Trump immunity and Emptala risks creating a smoke screen to conceal genuine concerns. Despite attempts to muddy the waters with legal intricacies, the underlying issues of accountability, democracy, and women's health demand critical attention and cannot be obscured by arcane legal discussions.
Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC here.
This past week (that lasted about a year) at the Supreme Court began badly and only went downhill from there. By Wednesday, justices were trying to set aside the facts of women being airlifted out of states where they can no longer access care to protect their major organs and reproductive future, if that emergency healthcare indicates an abortion - in favor of pondering the spending clause. On Thursday, the shocking reality of the violent storming of the Capitol on January 6th 2021, and former President Trump’s many schemes to overturn the election and stay in power, were relegated to lower-case concerns as opposed to ALL CAPS panic over hypothetical aggressive prosecutors.
On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by leading constitutional scholar and former assistant Professor Pam Karlan of Stanford Law School and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. Slate’s senior legal writer Mark Joseph Stern also joins the conversation about the MAGA justices flying the flag in arguments in Trump v United States.
In today’s bonus episode only for Slate Plus members, Jeremy Stahl gives Dahlia Lithwick a view from inside the courtroom of Donald Trump’s hush money trial.
Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.