I was a big fan until Dan and Leah put Ian on indefinite leave, ousting him from the podcast that was originally his idea, and Leah became the regular co-host with Dan. I am uninterested in listening to her self-congratulatory attitude on every topic no matter how well informed her legal opinions may be. Iâm concerned about about Ian and hope that heâs finding the support that he needs.
The content and thought are great. However, Dan, and some guests, seemingly cannot stop saying âuhâ or âumâ before and/or after literally every sentence at times. It is horrible and ruins the listening experience. Please stop!
Leahâs open contempt for any opposing legal perspective has ruined a previously excellent podcast.
Sorry, but I cannot listen to Leah anymore. She has fleeting moments of objectivity and useful contributions, but overall she is over dramatic and hyper partisan. Ian brought a nice balance to the show
Leah Litman is a fantastic addition to the First Mondayâs team. She is smart, funny, knowledgeable, entertaining, intelligent, interesting, quick-witted... did I mention smart? In addition, itâs important that the pod is giving a voice to a woman. Legal analysis benefits from a variety of views. Sure, Ian and Dan played off each others differing political views. But at the end of the day, theyâre just a couple of white guys. Reviews criticizing Leahâs voice or feminist takes are disgusting. Those listeners likely arenât deserving of a serious show about the Supreme Court and just listen so they can seem intelligent on failed tinder dates. Iâm becoming a Patreon subscriber to more than make up for their departure. Good riddance.
Love this podcast but Leah has the most irritating voice and manner of speaking ever
I genuinely enjoy the show, but there are two problems that frustrate. First, as many other reviewers have commented, Leah Litman is not a positive addition to the show. She advocates for her policy preferences, which doesnât mesh with the typically fair-minded analysis the podcast presents. She wonât even engage with opposing viewpoints; a garbage approach to life and teaching. Second, the podcasts tend to be too long. Please stop drifting to 90 minutes and 2 hours! 60-75 minutes is the sweet spot.
Ms. Litmanâs increased role has been a good thing for the show. She may have benefited from slower weeks at the Court, but her in-depth pieces with experts and extended discussion regarding an alternative to originalism were interesting and thoughtful (even if not ultimately persuasive to lilâ ole me in the center right). I like her instinct to provide a broader view outside of the showâs bread and butter on the Courtâs weekly activity. I do think she could be more effective if she dialed down the vitriol a bit and tried a little harder to show an appreciation (if not acceptance) of the internal logic of conservative jurisprudes; I felt the same way about Mr. Samuelâs one-note, pipe-dream nagging nonsense about Court packing. Thatâs why I thought Ms. Litman was at her best during the piece on alternatives to originalismâthoughtful, even-handed, instructive without being preachy to the showâs more conservative listeners. Thanks for a great show!
First Mondays should be required listening for all U.S. lawyers or anyone who cares about the Supreme Court. Dan and Ian are fantastic--smart but self-deprecating. Lately they've been having Will Baude on a lot, and he's great too (and it's funny how Will's presence induces subtle changes in Dan & Ian -- as if Will is the acknolwedged Alpha in the group). I expect that the Supreme Court will become even more important than usual in the next two years as Trump attempts to become an above-the-law King, so First Mondays will be even more indispensable in the months and years to come.
Smart, informative, funny. All you could want.
PSA: âstone cold lead pipe lockâ not a best practice for your law school final exam.
Ah, some of us donât have the wit or the work ethic to make it to that DELUXE Court in the sky, but it sure is great to pretend that weâre all still sitting in chambers whittling away at cert memos. S/o to Amy Wildermuth (Stevens Clerk) for getting me psyched on the Supremes.Keep up the good work yâall.
Really fantastic and easy to understand analysis on the court. Ian, Dan, and Leah break down all the nerdy details while also offering clarifying examples. Love the pod!
I'm not a lawyer, and haven't ever given the supreme court much thought, but I started listening to First Mondays last year and I'm so glad that I did. The way of thinking about these issues, and the hosts ability to really dig deep on the topics has been very eye opening for me. I subscribe to a lot of podcasts, but First Mondays is the only one that every episode is listened to in its entirety. I love the perspective of each of the three regular hosts. (not sure why the sudden influx anti-Litman comments are coming from...I think each of you bring a vital perspective and insight.) Thanks for your efforts.
There simply isn't another podcast out there with SCOTUS coverage as detailed or as broad. The commentary is smart and funny, and I always look forward to seeing a new episode of First Mondays on my podcast queue.UPDATE OCTOBER 2018: A bunch of reviews complain about frequent guest-host Leah Litmanâs voice, as if she had the voice of Fran Dreschler or something. Her voice is fine. It is no more or less aurally pleasing than Ian Samuelâs voice. If you canât pay attention to what a person is saying for their cadence and timbre not being to your liking, youâre going to have a rough go of it in life. Those other reviewers are dumb.
Excellent podcast. All the hosts are great, especially Leah
This is the most comprehensive and in depth SCOTUS podcast available. It does a great job going deep on important (and sometimes less important) issues in front of and affecting the Court. The hosts try to make the podcast accessible to non-experts, but some familiarity with legal issues and the Court is generally required. While I generally find the two main hosts charming, the podcast definitely has a point of view, and does not strive to be unbiased. Which is fine! But often the most interesting episodes are those where they bring in co-hosts with differing views and/or backgrounds than the two main hosts.
Love the pod. Thank you!
Love the case summaries and review of Cert petitions (more than half the battle is getting your case granted!). Loved the ep with Dr Epstein!)
About time! Dan and Ian (+ guest hosts) are shining new light on a critical institution that affects us all. I say that not as an attorney or a particularly learned person. And they do it all with great humor and humility. I hope to see the team devote more time to explaining the underlying theories and stare decisis driving current events. Background on the external forces that affect the court (e.g, appropriations, staffing levels) also would be interesting. Keep it up!
Liberal partisans with no talent. Guest host has some talent but they donât give her many opportunities.
Devoting the intro of a supposedly analytical Supreme Court blog to a deeply sexist rant about âwomenâs rightsâ to have the rules of evidence and due process suspended was deeply damaging to the Supreme Court, our only institution capable of protecting individual rights and liberties. I have never been so depressed about the future of America as a constitutional democracy and I would never have guessed that this podcast would have contributed so maliciously to our national bonfire.
Very good, detailed examination of the Courtâs work, including cert grants, briefs, arguments and decisions. Ian and Dan know their stuff, and they generally provide a balanced and fair analysis, notwithstanding their liberalism. The only real negative arises when they have Leah Litman as a guest. She is a strident left-winger, and her valley girl cadence and voice are grating, making her segments difficult to listen to. Other than Litman, it is a good overall SC podcast.
Iâm delighted that I have found you. Iâm a grandmother and Iâm quite distressed that the state of the nation. It seems to me that the judiciary is the only branch of government which is working at this point and now they have Kavanaugh thrown into the mix, calling the reputation of the court into question, is it bad news. I know I can listen to you and at least get some perspective on what the court is deciding. Facts go a long way. Thanks
Original 5-star: And great banter. Almost as good as listening to scotus oral arguments.Revised 2-star: Based on coverage of confirmation, hosts have shown this is the leftist version of âSCOTUS101â but the hosts donât admit their bias. I have listen to every episode and feel cheated.
Heard about from Current Affairs podcast. If you find Slateâs Amicus Brief bland and want something spicer, try this podcast out.
Incredibly insightful and shockingly entertaining.
Great show. Both Ian and Dan are clearly brilliant!
Sake pod: Best pod.
I'm more of a stick to the issues person, but good podcast.
Itâs a great podcast from fmr supreme court clerks, that does suffer from a complete lack of diversity (both intellectual and racial). But otherwise itâs good. And one of the hosts, Ian Samuel, is super hot. (Look up his instagram, he has lots of thirst traps there!)
These guys and gals are wicked smaht but never talk over anyoneâs head. They thoroughly explain all sorts of legal arguments in interesting detail and in such a way that most people can understand and may even gain a new perspective. Iâm addicted!
I canât finish the episodes that include Leah. Sure, sheâs a quick wit and exudes a passion for SCOTUS esoterica. But she is the embodiment of nails on a chalkboard.
This podcast made me realize somethingâ socialism will win âð½. Great stuff!
Itâs an intellectually stimulating podcast delivering exactly what you should expect from a podcast about the Supreme Court - questionable banter, analysis, and (usually) well-informed speculation. I highly recommend it, if thatâs what youâre into.
Commentary is first rate.
Extremely in-depth discussion on recent SCOTUS cases, coupled with witty, though sometimes over the top humor.
Mind-shuttering, vomit-inducing collectivist filth propagated by socialist windbag shills who desire the destruction of freedom and the domination of individual will by the mega-state and ruling class (who are exempt from the socialist hell they have created). Ian Samuel is a disgusting, bottom-feeding demon who desires nothing more than to prey mercilessly on the plebeians. I donât think Iâve ever heard more revolting commentary by an individual, and delivered in such a misleading and manipulative way as to trick the masses into playing into and desiring his garbage, despotic false-utopia of social and economic destruction. Leeching scum like you, who hate freedom and individual choice, will inevitably be crushed into dust.
Excellent pod by smart and good people.
Iâm Starting Law School in the fall. I began listening to FM a few months ago with literally zero understanding of the legal jargon employed by Ian and Dan. Fortunately, thanks to both their explanations and refusal to dumb-down their podcast, Iâve both learned about SCOTUS proceedings and been fired up about going to Law School. Highly recommend 101 first street episodes to new listeners.
Leah Litman has a grating voice and speech pattern of lazy vowels that is insufferable to hear, made worse by her condescendingly hostile attitude to opposing views of the law and legal system.
As an attorney that long ago helped make the top 90% of my class possible, I absolutely LOVE the breakdowns of these cases. This podcast is my go to , me-time guilty pleasure. Podcast is even better after the second bourbon of the night.
Samuel and Epps consistently bring both intellectual rigor and entertaining analysis to First Mondays. As a side note, I also appreciate how neither host makes an effort to hide their political beliefs or potential intellectual biases, while still openly engaging arguments with which they may disagree.
The hosts are great: theyâre entertaining and informative and donât talk down to their audience. And the topic is interesting. What more could you want from a podcast?
I have been listening to your podcast for over a month now and find it very insightful BUT have one issue with it. Do you guys notice how often you say "right?" in the middle and at the end of your sentences? It's similar to people saying "like" or "umm" as a filler and I just wanted to point it out because it can be really off-putting for listeners. You'll be surprised how often you say it once you notice.
Great podcast about the Supreme Court. Hits the sweet spot of being substantive without being too lost in the weeds. My only request is more of guest host Leah Litman, please! Dan and Ian are great, but Leahâs recall and knowledge of a handful of substantive legal areas (such as postconviction review) is downright ridiculous. You guys have LeBron James sitting on the bench, get her in the game a bit more often!
I found the podcast from one of Ian's tweets. I didn't really have an interest in the Supreme Court, but I can't stop listening. If they're not careful, they may make my mother very happy by making me want to go to law school.
What a fun insider's view of the Court. Dan and Ian bring a great perspective, and their co-host Leah is excellent at diving deep into the law behind some of the most interesting cases. The three of them make a great team.
Ian and Dan provide great commentary regarding cases currently before the court, but don't expect a balanced or even-handed perspective. Their left-leaning agenda is obvious, and their frequent guest host, Leah Litman, gleefully ridicules any idea or position with which she disagrees. It's annoying and disappointing. Episodes with Nina Totenberg are fantastic.
I have been listening to First Mondays since the beginning, and Iâm a huge fan of the show. (Iâve been a Patreon supporter since the campaign started as well.) I think itâs a phenomenal resource for Supreme Court junkies to get a lay of the landscape of the current Term and an insiderâs perspective on how the Court operates more broadly. The hosts (former SCOTUS clerks) offer commentary on pending cert petitions, preview arguments, interview practitioners before the Court, and break down recent decisions, at a level that is interesting for legal nerds (me) while being accessible and fun for nonlawyers with an interest in the Court (my partner). I find episodes with guest hosts to be particularly enjoyable and effective. I love that Nina Totenberg has recently been added to the rotation of commentators, and I think Leah Litman is an extraordinary host who adds a needed point of view, level of nuance, and preparedness (sorry, Dan and Ian!) to the show; I would love to hear more from her.