Dahlia Lithwick dives into Supreme Court controversies with experts, unraveling decisions like Justice Alito's flag incident and gerrymandering cases. They discuss rushed judgments, lack of transparency, and Chief Justice Roberts' impact, shedding light on the court's turbulent term.
The Supreme Court's lack of transparency and accountability in decision-making undermines public trust and fosters confusion.
Chief Justice John Roberts faces challenges in upholding the court's integrity amidst ideological shifts and divisive opinions.
Critics raise concerns about the shadow docket's influence on judicial integrity, emphasizing the need for accountability in court proceedings.
Deep dives
The Behavioral Economics behind Decision-Making
Behavioral economics and psychology influence the decisions we make daily. Dr. Katie Milkman shares insights from Nobel laureates, athletes, and authors who faced critical decisions, offering tools to enhance decision-making.
Challenges and Chaos in Legal Decisions
Legal chaos unfolds as Amicus delves into recent court decisions, highlighting the confusion and controversies surrounding high-profile cases like Alexander v. South Carolina Conference of the NAACP. The discussion exposes the turbulence within the legal system.
Monarchical Behavior in Supreme Court
Supreme Court decisions are deemed monarchic due to the lack of transparency and accountability. The court exhibits arrogance by not embracing transparency measures, undermining public trust and deflecting scrutiny from its shadow docket rulings.
Struggles of Chief Justice John Roberts
Chief Justice John Roberts faces challenges in upholding the court's integrity amidst ideological shifts. His actions, like joining divisive opinions in cases like the transgender healthcare dispute, raise questions about his role in preserving institutional values.
Impacts of Shadow Docket on Judicial Integrity
The shadow docket's influence on judicial integrity sparks concerns about opaque rulings. Critics highlight instances like the Colorado ballot removal case, reflecting inconsistencies in decision-making and emphasizing the need for accountability in court proceedings.
As we stand poised at the threshold of June, we brace ourselves for the fire hose of opinions headed our way in the next four or so weeks.
But why? Why –even as the Court is taking on fewer cases – is there an absolute dogpile of decisions, with no map for what will come down or when, beyond a SCOTUS-adjacent cottage industry in soothsaying and advance-panic and guessing? Dahlia Lithwick takes us through a whirlwind of Supreme Court decisions and controversies, expertly assisted by Professor Steve Vladeck (whose New York Times bestseller The Shadow Docketcame out in paperback this week) and Mark Joseph Stern in untangling the complex web of legal, political, and personal dramas enveloping the nation's highest court. From Justice Alito's flag-flying fiasco, to the forces shaping the court’s docket, to its divisive rulings, this episode could well be titled “Why Are They Like This?” As the court's term hurtles towards its frenetic close, Dahlia and her guests dissect the legal and ethical ramifications of the justices' actions, both on and off the bench. Tune in to this must-listen episode of Amicus for an eye-opening exploration of the Supreme Court's turbulent session, the ideological battles at play, and what it all could mean for the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law. Whether you're a legal aficionado or simply concerned about the direction of the country, this episode is the end-of-term preview you really need to understand what the heck is happening over the next few weeks.
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.