Great content and context. I enjoy listening ro experts dive in on details and background.

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.

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.

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!

Thoughtful, nuanced discussion that teaches me treasured new pieces of information every time I listen.

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.

We need seriousness in our public discussions. This provides that. Thanks.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

I’m a Slate+ subscriber and loooove this podcast. Great guests, very informative, and lots of deep diving. I also appreciate that they make it a point to keep the sneaky moves on our radar. Keep up the good work, please!

If you're concerned about the recent actions of the Supreme Court, you will still be concerned after you listen. However, Amicus helps us know we are not the crazy ones. Good luck, everyone. Stay informed. Amicus is one way to do that. ❤️

I can only speak to my time as a child advocate in the Philadelphia child welfare system for about 6 years, but reunification was strongly encouraged wherever possible. The Pennsylvania law at the time at least specifically instructed that poverty wasn’t a basis for a finding of neglect. The various services available to provide necessities, supports, skills, and education were intended to keep families together. We pursued terminations of parental rights and adoption in severe situations of physical and sexual abuse, prolonged abandonment—in short, situations that were not “garden variety” neglect, which constituted the vast majority of what came in to court and which were usually something that in-home services could remedy. When children were placed in foster care, kinship and family placements were prioritized. Pregnant youth in foster care who became pregnant could also have the cost of their terminations covered in full, as the city’s child welfare medical unit would make the necessary referral to Planned Parenthood, where (under PA law) terminations could be performed into I believe at least the 22nd week, more than halfway through a pregnancy. Most of the social workers were women and people of color who were very concerned about keeping family units together wherever safe for the children. The system is without a doubt far from ideal and needs lots of improvement, and African American children were certainly over-represented based upon their percentage of the local population. My experience is somewhat at odds with the more general statements made by the Amicus guest from 7/2/22 about the child welfare system. I think it is important to keep in mind that how the child welfare system operates in a liberal coastal city is likely very different from child welfare systems found in other parts of the country. While much is still broken and needs reforming, there is also a lot of social work being done to keep children safe within their families of origins in Philadelphia. It is also important to keep in mind that there is a group of children—usually but not always with severe medical conditions—who have been abandoned and/or have no family or kin who can meet those needs. Most of my time was spent in the courtroom dedicated to that population, most of whom were in medical group homes because sadly so much medical care was required that no family of origin, no matter how many resources were provided, could meet the children’s needs.

Fantastic, informative and frightening all at the same time, an important explanation of our history and where we are now in this country.

love Amicus…super informative. great listen

Dorothy Roberts is essential. Without fully learning, internalizing, and acting on the understanding she offers we (the White we) will continue to do harm that desperately needs to be addressed! Thanks to Dahlia for this wonderful, painful session.

Six of them are friends to no one.

Great show. Any chance SCOTUS holds abortion decision until AFTER the mid-terms?

Great guest

I like Dahlia Lithwick and value her commentary, but this episode was an infomercial for the guest’s book.

I enjoy the podcast and interesting guests. But the host takes forever to ask a question, leaving little time for a meaningful answer.

the podcast never fails to astonish me

This podcast is so cringey. The snark is nauseating. If you want real commentary go to Advisory Opinions.

I’m not a lawyer but always look forward to Amicus and Strict Scrutiny. Dahlia is always earnest, never snarky - opposite of the more entertaining Strict Scrutiny gals. But I appreciate her journalistic approach and learn a lot from this podcast.

Do not miss the last 5 minutes of this interview where Prof Tolson voices one of the most inspiring and determined messages of hope for the future of voting rights I have ever heard

Dahlia and Franita Tolson talk was fabulous! Right to the point explanations of the corruption in the Supreme Court. Justice Roberts has been corrupt for years. He cares about corporations NOT citizens! He focuses on gutting voting rights. And Roberts Gang will take all of our voting rights, womens rights, workers rights away to prop up corporations and old white man rule. The Supreme Court is a farce these days!

To understand what’s happening in our courts and our nation. Dahlia is the best.

This is a great pod but this particular episode absolutely ROCKED. Yes, Walt. 💯💯💯💯💯💯💯

It a close contest between Amicus and the Political Gabfest, but Dahlia and Mark are currently doing the best job of covering our current situation with the seriousness that it deserves.

But I appreciate the dedication to different viewpoints the host has as well as the respect she has for the Supreme Court. I listen to Advisory Opinions to get a different viewpoint. This is a good show and an important one to listen to if you lean conservative or libertarian.

I am listening to a commercial. I paid $59 to avoid this. The single star is to customer service

Sadly this podcast only presents on side. Partisan hacks.

Ms. Lithwick. I love this podcast. I am so thankful for your willingness to interpret legall speak for the rest of us. I have a request. Could/would you please do a show about Exxon vs baker??

Combines intelligence

Thank you Dolly — you & your crew Rock!

Any defense of the Minneapolis events, particularly in light of the damning information that has come out on jurors, as well as the absolute judicial cowardice that came before it removes any claim this podcast has to discuss justice or law and order. This is a liberal pipe dream and it’s contents are simply grounds enough for Ms Lithwick’s disbarment

Good analysis about justice and the law, but the podcast strayed away from talking about the actual Supreme Court cases that are pending and is much more political now, which is still good but different from its beginning. Get Slate Plus which goes back to the roots and gets into these topics more.

This podcast is fantastic and Dahlia is one of the very best podcast hosts around. She’s articulate and thoughtful and so interesting. (Added bonus: she doesn’t pepper her speech with “um” or “like” or “you know.”) The guests are always well-spoken and help to explain the law and court cases. And the episodes with Joseph Michael Stern are always wonderful. I’ve read many of the recommended books and found them to be terrific. Because of this podcast I also took online classes from Akhil Amar and Erwin Chermerinsky that were great. My question: is there a group or organization or set of researchers who track the impact and consequences of Supreme Court decisions over time? And do the justices pay any attention to those consequences? Thanks for such a terrific show!

Must listen, every episode

Want to know both sides of the story? Listen here.

Dahlia is exceptional

A shadow of its former self. Another week, February 13, where all the Supreme Court content is behind the paywall, and the show itself is full of filler news about the impeachment that we can get anywhere. I subscribed to this for the Supreme Court news, information and analysis of current cases, which used to be the primary content. But that is now almost always behind the Slate Plus paywall. I understand that Slate needs to make some money, but making people pay for the primary content and giving us filler stories not about the Court is wrong. Look at the December 5 summary for example. The main podcast has stories about pardons, Bill Barr, and the 2016 election, and all the Supreme Court news in in the Slate Plus segment. Very disappointing change for what used to be one of the best podcasts available.

Thank you for another great episode with great inside analysis with Mr. Bauer.

I wouldn’t be without this podcast in my rotation. True journalism and incredibly insightful analysis of our system of law. Thank you, Dahlia!

A little liberal but that’s Okay.