Listen to an excerpt of the new podcast series Blindspot: The Plague in the Shadows, which revisits the early years of the HIV epidemic in New York City and how the virus tore through some of our most vulnerable communities while the wider world looked away. A co-production of The HISTORY® Channel and WNYC Studios. You can listen to more of Blindspot: The Plague in the Shadows here.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Harvard Law School professor, Nikolas Bowie, talks about delegitimizing the Supreme Court and argues for more control by the people and their representatives. Rhiannon Hamam discusses direct action to take back power from the Court. The podcast explores the declining approval rating of the Supreme Court, its power of consent and judicial review, challenges surrounding interpretation of the Constitution, and bypassing Supreme Court rulings through community organizations. It also delves into actions outside the court's authority, the Democratic Party's limited imagination, and conservative defiance of court rulings.

Harvard and Michigan Law School professors discuss the idea of taking away the Supreme Court's power and giving it to Congress. They explore jurisdiction stripping and its constitutional basis, as well as the erosion of the court's legitimacy. They also address discriminatory laws against gay people in restaurants and advocate for court reform and measures like court expansion, DC/Puerto Rico statehood, and filibuster reform to restore trust in democratic institutions.

The Supreme Court has a serious ethics problem—actually, ethics problems. The justices have been dogged by allegations of corruption. They’ve been peppered with questions about how they make money. And then, of course, there’s the long career of Clarence Thomas, who, along with his wife Ginni Thomas, appears so brazenly corrupt that his scandalous behavior has made the very idea of Supreme Court ethics seen like a complete joke. I have long argued that Supreme Court ethics reform is as critical to fixing the Supreme Court as any of the more structural changes that reformers want to make—like increasing the number of justices or decreasing the length of time those justices serve.On this episode of Contempt of Court, we’re going to talk about what can be done to stop these people from wallowing in the slop of their own graft. First up, we talk to New York Times Magazine writer and Yale Law professor, Emily Bazelon about what corruption looks like when it comes in the form of a Supreme Court justice. Then, we talk to Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson, who is one of the few lawmakers who is doing something about it.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Beyond raw court expansion, or the (probably unconstitutional) big stick of forced term-limits, there are a number of other ways one might go about balancing the Supreme Court.On this episode of Contempt of Court, Elie Mystal speaks with legal experts Dan Epps and Steve Vladeck about potential ways we might find that balance.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

The court ended its most recent term completely off the chain. Having already killed reproductive rights, it accomplished another longstanding conservative goal: banning affirmative action in college admissions. That's not even the half of it.And yet, a lot of the mainstream media coverage suggested that the Court turned *moderate* and worked hard to achieve a mainstream consensus.Why does the media keep feeding us this bullshit? Let’s talk about it.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Term limits are by far the most popular form of Supreme Court reform. According to a recent poll from the Associated Press, two-thirds of Americans favor term limits for Supreme Court justices.On this episode of Contempt of Court, Elie Mystal is joined by Leah Litman and Aaron Belkin, to discuss what's wrong with everybody's favorite reform option.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

When most people talk about expanding the Supreme Court, they're talking about adding a few justices. Two or four to the bench. But I am not most people. I do not think we should add a few justices to get into an endless tit for tat. With Mitch McConnell and his federal Society forces, I think we should blow the lid, clear off this incremental, institutionalized motherfucker, and add 20 justices. Here's why.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

On this episode, we start with the most powerful reform available: court expansion. As a matter of Constitutional structure, Court expansion has always been the constitutionally preferred way of handling a court that has overstepped its bounds. But as a political matter: court expansion has been treated like it is a radical solution. But It’s not. It is the way a President and Congress can check the Supreme Court, and it’s the easiest and most simple method of court reform. Chris Kang and Congressman Jamaal Bowman join Contempt of Court to explore what court expansion actually is, and how attitudes around it are finally changing. CREDITS: Host: Elie MystalProducer: Babette ThomasExecutive Producer: Ludwig HurtadoAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

If you have a problem with how the Supreme Court operates and how much power it is allowed to hold over the rest of us: welcome! On this show, we'll look at ways to make the Supreme Court stop hurting us. In each episode, The Nation's Justice Correspondent Elie Mystal will talk to experts and advocates who are doing the work to reform the Supreme Court and salvage American democracy from the court’s greedy jaws.Subscribe for new episodes each Tuesday! Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy