Love the gun show!!!!! FINALLY! Someone who was in the know of the thing we postal people saw years ago!!!! We had to sort/case and deliver those hateful NRA letters and we saw this coming!
Wonderful podcast, very informative, with great comments and contributions. And with Dahlia’s unique voice makes this podcast even more special. I truly appreciate Dahlia’s contribution by informing us through this podcast. It’s just amazing podcast! Love it.
Illegitimate Supreme Court
Amicus is one of the most intelligent podcasts on law and the Supreme Court. Today’s episode on Dawn Porter’s Docuseries is another great discussion. We all agree that McConnell refusing to confirm Garland is the turning point in the Court becoming a political branch. So why can’t we fight back? Why can’t we the people legally challenge that decision? What does Senate “advise and consent” actually mean? So what is the next step beyond making wonderful TV shows and podcasts.
I listened to about two-thirds of the interview with Mark Elias but had to stop. I couldn’t take hearing anymore of the lies from this blatantly partisan hack. Everything he accused the Republicans of doing the Dems are guilty of doing in spades. Another thing, why would any Republican vote for the so called “for the people act “ when it was written to ensure that no Democrat would ever lose another election. This was the most biased interview I have ever heard on this podcast, and that is going a long way considering all the guests who have libeled Clarence Thomas.
Stop asking “Right?” You need an 8th grade English teacher
Great even for non-lawyers
Great look at Supreme Court even for non-lawyers like me. Dahlia Lithwick is a national treasure and Mark Joseph-Stern is an incredible collaborator. I subscribe to Slate Plus and bought her book so I won’t miss a thing. I learn so much and deeply enjoy each and every episode.
Does a terrific job of bring diverse an knowledgable guests to her podcast. She shared that she had, like much of the media covering the court, been too restrained in questioning rulings, motivations and reasoning of the justices. She also has a book out (look for the pink cover). Lifetime appointments with no code of ethics? Lets all think about that!
Much good, but also frustrating, consequential lapses, like in the July 15 “Zero-Sum” show with Heather McGhee when Dahlia Lithwick said, “neoliberalism is as much a culprit here as is conservatism,” and specifically describing the “high water mark” of New Deal attempts to “rectify centuries of oppression and racial discrimination” as “still getting it wrong,” due to results like “redlining.” Leaving aside the maddening, self-defeating, oversimplified both-sides-ism here (the attempt should not be negated because bad things resulted in our complicated and racist world, but more should be tried toward the good), it’s even more wrong because (frustratingly) the term “neoliberal” does not mean a “new” version of liberalism or leftism in the way “neoconservative” or “neoclassical” or “neocolonial” do; instead, “neoliberal” is the ultra *right* wing, laissez-faire economic principle of an unregulated free market as the highest goal, as promoted by Milton Friedman and implemented by Reagan and Thatcher on the right and Clinton from the center, and weaponized by corporate-corrupted, omnicidal gangster capitalists who have successively and successfully victimized the poor and robbed the shrinking middle to lavish ever more profits on the obscenely rich 1% while tearing apart our social safety nets and civil fabric, and turning the planet to disease and dust. It’s bad enough the bad faith right wing has skewered language and truth and demonized “liberal,” but their sick “conservative” economic predation is also called “neoliberal(!)” which is linguistically correct but politically unfortunate for the left, because not only do many people hear “neoliberal” as “new liberal” like it seems to mean, instead of “old conservative” like it actually means, we have people like Dahlia in positions of influence getting it wrong on the front end, too. The left needs more guts and better messaging, and the dim, self-beleaguering media needs to stop congratulating itself for constantly and co-dependently jumping into right wing traps with false equivalencies. Hey, progressives and mainstream media? Let’s boldly state truth upfront instead of mewling half truths out of “both sides” of our mouths, which just helps perpetuate right wing hate, lies, profiteering, and injustice. Yes?
Doing damage to the courts through terrible analysis
I was hoping this would be an informative podcast. Unfortunately, all you learn is the political bias of the hosts. Their analysis seems to be consistently “I disagree with this ruling so the judge is either evil or incompetent”. They seem to genuinely not understand that the judiciary isn’t supposed to rule based on polling data. Worth listening to if you want insights into how bad legal education has become and how some on the left view the role of the courts.
Smart but disingenuous
The podcast is honestly a pleasure to listen to, but the hosts can be dishonest on the scale of Fox News. SCOTUS cases are rarely black and white, but Dahlia deceptively presents certain decisions in those terms. Coming from a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, this is not acceptable.
MJS is a co-pilot?
If Mark Joseph Stern is actually Dahlia's co-pilot, as she has said not a few times (she could just be brown-nosing, which she does a lot with nearly every guest) it's time to bring him out from behind the paywall and treat him like a real cohost, and not just as Dahlia's moneymaker, or give him his own show and make Dahlia stand on her own as a host that listeners want to become slate plus members to hear more of
More than just leaning Left
I was looking for a neutral or balanced podcast. This is heavily left. Limited to no effort to present both sides.. too many opinions. Not enough review of the legality of cases.
How can you review the Affirmation Action case and not one mention of Asian Americans? They were the lead plaintiff in the case. Come on, you can do better.
Excellent for illuminating the "so what"
I already liked the pod before, but the recent pivot to more clearly highlighting the "so what" of legal matters has been incredible. Huge kudos to the whole pod team for bravely acknowledging that judicial reporting needed to change, for thinking deeply about what a new model would look like, and for becoming an even more impactful voice by focusing on why any of it matters. Where before I'd listen to new episodes if I had time, now I set a new ep at the top of my playlist and make time without exception. Keep up the great work!
Joined Slate for Amicus!!
I am a 52 year old Caucasian PPCM SURVIVOR (pregnancy induced heart failure DX in 2008, ER CSection at 33 weeks, misdiagnosed sent home after 4 days weighing 30 lbs heavier than when I went in. No one listened to me. Ended up airlifted to Northwestern in Chicago on a ventilator, brain hemorrhage & 3 strokes. Was a Dental Hygienist for 20 years now disabled). I am an admin for a online support group for PPCM Survivors and I recommend they all listen to Amicus on Slate & Read Lady Justice (I have to do audio books because of my vision issues from my strokes). We have Survivors in restricted states that if they get PG again will relapse & die. I use this podcast to educate our group on the SCOTUS so that they can vote OUR Issues when they vote vs their economic station. My Grandmother was a Suffragette, I have her silk sash, I was raised to be an activist and I am doing my best and SLATE AMICUS is an amazing resource!!!
Look forward to this podcast
Like the way host and guests can distill cases to essence in understandable chunks
hopeful for our nation
Love Dahlia on this pod. Mark Joseph Stern is the bomb.
Such an essential, rock solid program
Dahlia rocks! Such an essential, rock solid program
Dahalia is the best
I read Dahilia’s book too. Brought me to tears. Dahilia thank you for being a real person with emotions, empathy & reason while reporting on the Courts. I’m sorry I can’t afford to join, but you are definitely worth it. I anxiously await all your podcasts. The best podcast on the courts.
I used to really like and trust this show, but this latest episode on so-called anti-trans legislation was nothing more than propaganda. Shame on you, Dahlia Lithwick. There are countless examples of how so-called trans rights are harming women and girls, but not men and boys. It is a sexist, homophobic movement. But no one got to hear this side on your show. You did not even challenge your guest on his outright lies. Opposition to gender ideology that denies biology is not just coming from the right. There is also strong opposition from the left, including from people like myself, an older liberal, progressive Democrat. Did you not know that, or did you Intentionally mislead? I am so disappointed.
Sabra, Thor & Nutmeg
A Show at Its Prime!
"LOVE the new direction. GRATEFUL for the shift in focus. EMPOWERED by the clear and unfiltered explanations of the bigger picture. DEEPLY RESPECTFUL of these expert and tenured court thinkers who are still able to take it back to the basics & make a change in M.O. to improve the product. The Amicus Podcast is showing how masters in the trade show up for The People & Democracy at a time when it couldn’t be more important. The stakes are high. Dahlia, gir, you’re my hero! Your brilliance in banter on the complex is only bested by your integrity. Thank you, Dahlia and crew!!! KEEP 👏🏾 IT 👏🏾 UP! 👏🏾
bri, va lowercase lib
Last live show was miserable
As someone who isn’t a Supreme Court reporter, listening to actual S Ct reporters whine about S Ct reporting isn’t particularly interesting or useful.
The snark is nauseating
As a liberal who voted against trump twice and always will this podcast is still atrocious. The Pearl clutching. The vocal fry. The sarcasm. No wonder you haven’t convinced anyone to your side with this elitist garbage.
Superior analyses of the Supreme Court
NYT & WaPo reporters please list to latest podcast on how to improve your reporting on the courts. We need to know the who is bringing these cases, what other cases are they have brought & why.
Workout and listen
Most times when I’m working out at the gym, I’m listening to this podcast. So enjoyable to listen to and informative.
Live Episode Was Rough
I love this show, but the recent live episode was a tough listen. If you’re not going to name names, I’d suggest stop complaining about other Supreme Court reporters. It does not help listeners AT ALL. Also, the nihilist suggestion of “don’t go to law school” seems pointless as well. What is your goal in being this negative? How does it advance any if the goals or ideals you purport to value?
Lady Lawyer Listening
You make me click around to listen your podcast, begging, shame Marco the tucson cowboy
King of a
Excellent information and conversation.
Perpetually in a state of befuddlement at the corruption of the courts
You can only get so far in the analysis from this stasis.
p. l. n.
Edit error alert
There’s a repeated part of opening copy today. 3:35 and 4:05.
Clarence Thomas and the billionaires
Fantastic and informative guest! Learned so many additional facts about this crisis. What can we do to stop this train before it destroys our hard fought progress and democratic norms? These people are operating outside of the law and need to be held to account. Keep up the good work! Also shout out to Sheldon Whitehouse on his relentless efforts to focus our attention on this issue. Don’t give up. B North Carolina
I so love Dahlia, her guests and Mark, but half the time I can’t get audio or connect to listen at all. Frustrating!!
Dahlia and her guests provide not only perspective but also knowledge sustenance — truths. I don’t know much about law and SCOTUS but Professor Danielle Citrons (Feb 25, 2023) confirmed my thinking about the major issue of Section 230 being human created algorithms. Supposedly, the current judiciary group received their law degrees from the top U.S. law school but they don’t understand what an algorithm is nor its technological uses. Similar to their inaction on Texas SB 8 as being “too complicated.” Go forth in kindness and respect.
Never skip this one
One of first podcasts added to my mandatory listening list.
Always fantastic, but the February interview with the Wisconsin judge, the March episode with Andrew Weissman and the one with the former AFL-CIO speaker were brilliant and necessary listening for those interested in politics and democracy. I wish Dahlia could have wider exposure with a show on MSNBC.
A weekly must-listen for me!!
Dahlia gives me such important context through her terrific interviews and analysis. Great guests. A+ use of my dog walking time.
Excellent Podcast even for the Non-Lawyer like me!
Great content and context. I enjoy listening ro experts dive in on details and background.
Courage is Karofsky
Thank you for your profile in courage of Justice Jill J. Karofsky. And thank you to you, Justice Karofsky, for your incredible courage, clarity, and strength regarding your decision in this case. You are truly a hero to our democracy.
Thank you Dahlia for your thoughtful explanation of these very important subjects. I love your analysis and the care you seem to take in each and every show. You’re a rock star.
I love you, Dahlia
You're such an inspiration to me, thank you for being such a bright light in the world. Your insights provide so much clarity amidst chaos.
ICWA episode of Nov 19, 2022
Wow, you guys! You beautifully presented this case, the kaleidoscope of ways it is being approached, and what the different approaches could mean in a single podcast. I’m a child psychiatrist working for the Indian Health Service for decades (and mother of a Navajo son) and have learned so much that I’m sharing this with colleagues, family, and friends. Now must listen to your other podcasts!
Area Child Psychiatrist
Dahlia truly is an excellent Lady Justice
Thoughtful, nuanced discussion that teaches me treasured new pieces of information every time I listen.
Misleading SCOTUS sound bites
I’ve loved listening to this podcast for the past year, but I’m afraid I won’t be continuing to do so unless they adhere to a higher standard of honest reporting :/ Just listened to the affirmative action podcast. They include Jackson’s question for petitioner in UNC: if the race-neutral rule is adopted, could an applicant mention race in their essay? In the podcast, this is where the audio stops, and the guest/host talk about the harms of what they say to be petitioners position, which they say wouldn’t allow even the mentioning of race in an essay. I was curious what the petitioners actual response was in oral argument, so I checked Oyez: the petitioner actually firmly responded “No” and clarified that race could still be mentioned in an essay, just that the check box for race would be done away with. As a moderate, I’m fairly sad to see this distortion! We need honest reporting of the facts before opinions get involved.
Thank you Judge Luttig
Wow. Lucked out and heard the Judge Michael Luttig interview re Moore v Harper. Really appreciate the breakdown of this important issue and even as a non-lawyer I understood it.
October 1 episode
This was such a disappointment! It was more a rant than a discussion. Dahlia had complaints, Mark had complaints, and they both seemed helpless to move forward. Please listen to yourselves and try to up your game. The worst way to feel better is by putting others down. Good luck!
Long time Booknotes Lover
Painful. Like an undergraduates rant about politics at Thanksgiving
Updated 10.2022 Mark is simply unlistenable, especially in his current role. If Dahlia introduced the current topics then let Mark rant, it might be okay. But Mark shouldn’t be setting the stage for any of the main cases. He can’t provide a reasonable, sensible introduction to anything without airing out his own bias. It’s horrid. Its’s weak. It’s inherently unlistenable. Worst of all: it’s completely uninformative. Unsubscribing. — Generally, a good show with informed guests that help to understand the Supreme Court and how it relates to modern American life. But Mark Joseph Stern totally undercuts the integrity of the show. His extreme hyperbole, blatant subjectivity, apparently extemporaneous diatribes based on his personal opinions, and completely fabricated personal attacks simply don’t serve the show well. Unless he’s playing the role of setting up the ball on the tee for other guests to smack down the fairway/out of the park, etc. in that case, Mark’s essential.
No viewpoint diversity
I used to really like this show. And I think I still do when Dahlia brings on guests who differ in their view to her or who hold a nuanced position on a topic. But when she brings on a guest, or a group of guests, that all completely agree with her, when it’s clear other reputable people see things differently, it doesn’t feel informative. I know this is a slate podcast, but I relish in imagining how great it could be if it was not an echo chamber of far left progressive views. Oh well, I guess we will never know.
Eric Holder episode
I’m a fan and long time listener of this show but the episode with Eric Holder was grotesquely out of touch and poorly thought out. The smugness and condescension with which Dahlia and Holder complained about how “no one these day” is willing to put their bodies at risk to fight for democracy was disgusting. They spoke as if the BLM protests in 2020 never happened, as if the indigenous population has not fought every day for their autonomy, as if queer and trans people in this country are not killed and brutalized daily simply for existing. I’m not sure how many pounds of flesh liberals want to extract from marginalized people before they realize that that we are doing the work while they sit around and record podcasts. This episode was awful and this show needs to rethink the way they understand and acknowledge protest.
My favorite from Slate. Not a lawyer or a student. Listened based on other Slate podcast suggestions. It is now my favorite. I love how these cases are explained. I love her honesty how she feels. Helps to know I’m not alone.