How The Supreme Court Got Hijacked: Leah Litman Breaks It Down
44:03 Share

If you've shopped online, chances are you've bought from a business powered by Shopify. You know that purple shop pay button you see at checkout? The one that makes buying so incredibly easy? That's Shopify. And there's a reason so many businesses sell with it. Because Shopify makes it incredibly easy to start and run your own business.

Shopify is the commerce platform behind 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S., from household names like Mattel and Gymshark to brands just getting started. Shopify's got you from the get-go with beautiful, ready-to-go templates to match your brand style. Tackle all the important tasks in one place, from inventory to payments to analytics and more. Spread your brand's word with built-in marketing and email tools to find and keep new customers.

And did I mention that iconic purple ShopPay button that's used by millions of businesses around the world? It's why Shopify has the best converting checkout on the planet. Your customers already love it. If you want to see less carts being abandoned, it's time for you to head over to Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at Shopify.com slash Betches. Go to Shopify.com slash Betches. Shopify.com slash Betches.

Rise and shine, fever dreamers. Look alive, my friends. I'm V Spear. And I'm Sammy Sage. And this is American Fever Dream presented by Betches News. The show that has a bit of frustration at the Supreme Court, their age, their opinions, their general vibes. And today, Sammy had a great conversation with Leah Littman, who does the podcast Strict Scrutiny. We've had them on before. We love them. She also just wrote a book called Lawless, How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance.

Fringe Theories and Bad Vibes, which is a mouthful of a book, but a lot easier to read than it is to say. So her book is really great. And I'm not someone who's

really going to read a lot of law books because they're very dense and boring. Even if they, even if it's interesting, like if you were to speak about it, it's just very boring to read legal shit. And that's, you know what they call it over here. Um, but she's very, very interesting. She's really funny with it. Like she's, she's clearly not just like someone who's stuck in the theory and the books and she knows how to really translate it for other people. Um,

But what I wanted to ask you as we head into this conversation, when you were younger, I guess, or even maybe like 10 years ago, did you feel like the legal profession in terms of the judiciary, did you think that that was like a very serious, somber profession?

of our government? Because I always kind of thought that. Yes and no. One, I didn't think about it because I just assumed that our institutions were institutioning. And at that time in the 90s and 80s, they were. But I had an experience once

because I wanted to go to a different high school than the town I lived in, I had to like get emancipated from my parents. I don't often talk about this, but I had an experience with probate court as like a 15 year old. And I actually found the judges in family court to be so much like more warm and understanding and thoughtful and interesting than I would have ever expected them to be. So I see both when it comes to the law, I've seen like my expectation that these are very studious, scholarly, smart judges.

thoughtful, long-term thinking people. And then I've also seen like my silly probate family court judge like be very cute. So I think I had a good opinion of the judiciary that I now sort of don't.

Yeah. I mean, I didn't think, I think there's like also different, obviously parts of the law, you know, there's judge Judy. There's yeah. I mean, my idea of the bender on bender were like, uh, yeah, they do a lot of commercials and, um, also have a lot of TV shows, people's court, judge Judy, judge Joe Brown. Yeah. Nancy Grace. But I, I always perceived the, uh,

the judiciary, you know, the federal judiciary that's deciding constitutional law to be just like a different vibe. You know, I always, you know, corporate lawyers are out there for the money and like kind of the dense triad. I wasn't in Harvard yet. So I wasn't, I wasn't, you know, I wasn't worried about Harvard law, but like it's hard. Yeah.

Yeah, but I didn't really get that there was this cultural kind of corner of people trying to manipulate, just trying to inject their agenda. I guess that's what I didn't really understand is that it is more of an agendified part of the government than I really understood it to be. And maybe it wasn't always like this, but it's really...

quite disappointing when you realize that it's no more, there's no more fidelity to the Constitution

than there is in any other branch. Well, I mean, I went to school for theater, so I didn't have a front row seat to the Federalist Society coming to my school and like holding rallies and like sign up camps for future lawyers to... I went to a labor union school. Yeah, to get like pipelined into far right conservative organizations and whatnot. Yeah.

The closest thing that I ever saw to that, and maybe this will be the next industry we expose, is one of my friends had gone to school for accounting. And I remember I was like graduating with my little theater degree and I was like, oh, I guess I'm going to go be a waitress. And she's like, oh, I'm doing a summer with KPMG and like the Bahamas, like for her summer internship. And I was like, oh shit, Steph, like that's awesome. So yeah, I assume that some of these law kids at these big schools were...

being very heavily and expensively courted by folks like the Federalist Society and America First Policy Institute and whatnot. And now here we are a generation later.

Well, that all came in a reaction to the 60s and 70s more liberal vibes in America. And I think that that was really like a pipeline. I don't know if the more liberal justices have the same sort of pipeline where they're identifying talent that could potentially be on the federal bench in the future. I just don't know if that's really –

how that works as much. Like, I think there's obviously a lot of competition to get clerkships and, you know, people kind of want to like move between different areas and, you know, make the right connections with the right big law firms or work in law.

the government that in a way that would like you know position them for that but i think that it's a much less defined pipeline than you know they are in with the federalist society and they pick them out but also like all big law firms not maybe i don't know about all but many i think most donate to the federalist society but they also donate to like the aclu so it's there i i just think

Maybe we didn't have our eye on how nefarious this was because it seemed like, oh, folks are interested in college students making an easy transition for them. This seems like a good thing. I would say when it came to like white hat lawyers or the people who are maybe going to go the more liberal way, I think they've more got pipelined into just being a federal servant or like moving to DC and being a lawyer for like, you know, the wildlife Federation or something. Um,

one of my friends from high school went to Vanderbilt law. And I remember what she worked on for her senior project was how they were going to legally prosecute Saddam Hussein, which was pretty cool. Like, because they had captured him and they wanted to find a way to kill him, obviously. And, uh, she was like part of like the Vanderbilt law students who were like working on how you would constitutionally kill a foreign dictator. And we thought that was like the coolest shit in the world. And also like really crazy. Cause that was big.

for coming from my small little town for somebody to be involved in that. And then she went on to, I believe, be a JAG. And now she's a judge. So it's like, you know, you could go be a military lawyer and try to figure out. But they were always the ones that I knew, at least people I was friends with. They were trying to figure out how to use the Constitution and work within legal frameworks, not necessarily how to work around it or change laws to sort of usurp the original spirit and intentionality of the Constitution the way they are now.

I was not under the impression that they were seeking constitutional ways to carry out. They were. Dictatorial assassinations. They sure were. Allegedly. They sure were. Yeah. Well, you know, Emily Amick, her job, her most recent job was prosecuting, uh,

was trying to get settlements for victims of terror in the Middle East or, you know, abroad. And, you know, that's, there's literally cool stuff that lawyers do. And, but what we hear about is all the horrible, nasty stuff a lot. Or the very expensive stuff. Or the very expensive stuff.

You know, there's just lawyers who are just writing contracts to make people very rich. Yeah. But on that note, I think that we should get into the episode with Leah because she talks about how we've ended up in this place and it's not pretty.

Memorial Day savings are here at the Home Depot. So take your kitchen to the next level with up to 35% off, plus up to an extra $450 off select appliances like LG. Plan your get-togethers with an LG refrigerator you can count on for years to come at the Home Depot. And with the connected ThinQ app, you'll know if the door is left open and when to change the filter. Spend less time worrying this Memorial Day with savings on LG, America's most reliable appliance brand at the Home Depot.

Offer valid May 15th through June 4th. U.S. only. See store or online for details.

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Not everyone is careful with your personal information, which might explain why there's a victim of identity theft every five seconds in the U.S. Fortunately, there's LifeLock. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity. If your identity is stolen, a U.S.-based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year by visiting LifeLock.com slash podcast. Terms apply.

The NBA playoffs are here, and I'm getting my bets in on FanDuel. Talk to me, Chuck GPT. What do you know? All sorts of interesting stuff. Even Charles Barkley's greatest fear. Hey, nobody needs to know that. New customers bet $5 to get 200 in bonus bets if you win. FanDuel, America's number one sportsbook.

21 plus and present in Illinois. Must be first online real money wager. $5 deposit required. Bonus issued is non-withdrawable bonus pass that expires seven days after receipt. Restrictions apply. See full terms at fanduel.com slash sportsbook. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. Welcome back. I am joined by Professor Leah Lipman, co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast and author of the new book Lawless, How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Agreements, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes.

Welcome. Thank you so much for having me. I'm so excited to be here. And thank you for writing this book because it is really, this is like what I've been looking for. A way to explain how...

crackpot, I guess, the Supreme Court has become compared to what I think the American public thinks they're doing. I just want to say this is a legitimately entertaining book. And basically, you kind of summarize in many words, but with many pop culture references, how the conservatives on the court are codifying the culture wars into law. So can you talk a little bit about this? What are they doing? And like, why is it so much more outrageous than people even realize?

Yeah, so there's a lot of fuck shit happening at the Supreme Court. And I have wanted to write this book for a while, basically ever since I clerked at the Supreme Court almost 15 years ago. And I think the basic through line is they are ruling for the rich.

and reactionary elements of American society based on this idea of victimhood. They are imagining themselves and other people who are part of the modern Republican coalition as the victims and then using that idea to victimize basically everybody else.

Is this different than how they have done this in past decades? Like, is this a phenomenon of, you know, the 2000s? Or is this something that has been going on the whole time that maybe people didn't realize that the court wasn't as

Yeah. So I think that the Supreme Court basically throughout American history has always been a little small C conservative. It has always been political in important ways and has not exactly been a beacon of progressive life.

That being said, I think things basically jumped the shark around the time of Bush versus Gore when they decided, let's just make George Bush president and go all in and YOLO. Because after that, it all went way downhill. That's my perception of it. I can't tell if that's because I was like 10 at the time. So it was like, you know, oh, this my awareness happened.

you know, happened to coincide with them jumping the shark. But yeah, it does seem like that was a pretty important moment. And when, you know, let's just talk about that case for a second, because they didn't, quote unquote, decide the election there. But they did say stop counting the votes.

Do you think they would have done that if their preferred candidate had been ahead or their less preferred candidate had been ahead? No. As I kind of describe in the book, you know, as the reports are coming in, the returns are coming in. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wanted to retire, retired.

saw this, saw Gore ahead and said, oh, no, this is terrible. And then they get the opportunity to basically weigh in. And as you say, they tell the state of Florida, stop the count. 20 years before Donald Trump was screaming the exact same. When he was doing that, I was like, wait, this is he's actually using the precedent of Bush v. Gore, which the one thing I remember about that is that they said it could not be used as precedent.

Yes, they did say that. But then it turns out they were kind of kidding because another part of Bush versus Gore that Donald Trump and his allies pick up is this wild idea of the independent state legislature theory. I'm putting that in air quotes.

This was the theory that Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas wrote separately in Bush versus Gore to offer. It's the idea that state legislatures and state legislatures alone get to set the rules regarding federal elections. So state courts may not be able to enforce state constitutions and whatnot. And that was kind of a twisted version of the theory that Donald Trump offered.

offered when his allies suggested in 2020, actually state legislatures can just throw out the votes and select him as president because they get to decide these federal elections. When we get into these like little intricacies, sometimes I feel like I'm like, but wait, we're talking about votes and we're talking about counting. So don't we just...

Like, who cares? Like, about the specifics of that. Like, we're just going to count one, two, three, four, and then we're going to count who has more. Like, why don't we get so far from that just basic concept? Like, how have we, how have the courts come to a place where it's not just like, just fucking count them, bitch. Like, it's just so obvious. I think this is-

I think this is honestly part of the conservative grievance mindset. And in many ways, the Supreme Court offered it before Donald Trump picked up on it. So as I note in the book, you know, at the 2020 rally, Donald Trump is screaming about how all of his supporters are victims. Frankly, we did win this election.

Right, exactly. Because democracy is the aggressor here and the problem. And Justice Scalia was offering a similar idea back when the Supreme Court blew up part of the Voting Rights Act. Now, more than a decade ago, during the oral argument in the case, he was whining and ranting about how it was so unfair to Republican legislators because if they voted against the law, they would lose an election.

And it's like, my God, you literally just described democracy and you think that's a problem and a reason to strike down the law. Yeah, there's a lot of that reasoning in here where, you know, you can just tell like they kind of say that they're starting at a particular conclusion, like they write it down. And like this is what's so where I feel like the culture of the court and how it's not

Like it hasn't really seeped into American awareness. And like because the court is supposed to be insulated. That is like kind of an intention. It's supposed to kind of be small C conservative in some, you know, some sort of procedural sense. But.

Can you kind of describe the atmosphere of the court itself? Like, is this court different than past ones in what they will, like, seriously write down and be like, no, I'm not kidding. Like, I'm really writing this.

Yeah. So I think Sam Alito is a whole vibe and he has definitely taken it to another level. But I think the bigger picture is the Supreme Court has become way more insulated and removed from the public than it has been in the past because the Constitution tried to set up a balancing act between independence and accountability.

Of course, the justices aren't elected. They're not subject to reelection. On the other hand, they're selected by politicians, and Congress has a lot of control over what kinds of cases the court can hear. So now we have gotten to a place where the justices basically view themselves as king.

where Justice Alito is totally comfortable announcing to the Wall Street Journal of all places, you know, he said, I know this is a controversial view, but I'm going to say it. Congress has basically no power over us. Congress has no authority to regulate the Supreme Court. And I think the court became so unaccountable because, you know,

of things like partisan gerrymandering, which they allowed, that made the House of Representatives more removed from the people because of things like voter discrimination and voter suppression. It is now easier for presidents to lose the popular vote and win the presidency. Senate malapportionment functions the same. And so the Supreme Court became so further removed from the people, in part because of its own actions, that the justices now feel free to let their freak flags fly all over the pages of the U.S. reports.

That's the strange thing to me. And because they're, you know, these like esoteric academic things, I don't think people are seeing them. But if they were like as written as publicly as Donald Trump's tweets, I think people would realize like how ridiculous it is. Yeah. So the court, I think, makes itself difficult to follow. You know, they do not, for example, tell us when they are going to release particular opinions. So we never know when to prepare ourselves to actually make time to read.

that. It's like Rep TV is coming every day, you know? Exactly. And they...

Write them in these long, dense opinions. But buried in there is this insanity, like when Justice Alito, together with Clarence Thomas, writes about the fact that you can no longer say that marriage is between a man and a woman because people are so – The pope just said that. Right. Exactly. He's literally been saying that for over a decade. Right.

And what he means is people are criticizing him for it, which, you know, for a bunch of free speech warriors screaming about cancel culture, they are sure quick to shit all over speech.

Yeah, that's been kind of the through line of the whole, quote unquote, you know, anti-cancel culture thing. It's like, no, like you're not canceled. Just like this market is not the market for your ideas. It's we're not buying them here. So that's OK. You talked about minority rule. You mentioned partisan gerrymandering and how they allowed that. I think that this is one of those things that doesn't get enough play in public as just something people really understand, because it's

You know, this is where people feel like, well, the Democrats had a trifecta. How did they how did they not do anything? How come nothing ever gets passed? And I think that if people really understood like these mechanics and the fact that the Democrats won't just break them the way the Republicans will, which I mean, can't even get into that. I think this is a key message to crack. How do you make this like a more positive?

salient thing that people can really understand. Yeah. So I think part of the goal of the book is to try to inject more of the court into the broader culture so it becomes more part of progressive politics and democratic politics. I think people, as you suggest, want to believe if Democrats win an election, they're just going to be able to fix this in one fell swoop. But the reality is the conservative legal movement spent over five decades

targeting the court and taking it over where they would get to a point where the court is literally weaponized against democracy. And progressives need to dig in for the long haul and get used to going out in elections and organizing again for the foreseeable future with an eye toward the court. Well, this is why when we first signed on, I think before we were recording, I was saying, I think that you need to be starting like

a fun version of Above the Law or SCOTUSblog because people are not seeing this. Like, I just don't think it's in their language. And yet in this book, you have actually translated it into references that I actually think other people will understand. Like, you know, just to share with, you know, the audience, there's just all, you know, how do I describe it?

Your chapter on Citizens United and money in politics is called There's Always Money in America, and it's based on Arrested Development. There's Always Money in the Banana Stand. And there's just all these really fucking funny references. And you can't – the gay marriage chapter is called You Can't Sit With Us and basically trying to marginalize gay people. And there's just so many good references. And it's like if people could actually see it like this, they might –

They might see it. They might be like, oh, there's like a whole thing here. Like, you know, you could you know, we have crypto influencers. We could have Supreme Court influencers, law influencers. Yeah, there are. They're just all working on Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. But that's why you got to put the put it in these references, because people will people show up.

That is part of the goal of making all of the different chapters pop culture motifs and ridiculing the justices and exposing them for being as absurd as they truly are. Because the justices really are being like Regina George when it comes to I can't have a lesbian in my pool party, Janice. And that is the vibe that I think they should be associated with.

It is. That is literally the idea behind like the cake baker thing. It's like I can't have the request for a cake. It's like, OK, no one's forcing you to make this cake. Like you don't have to have the business. It's just weird. Like you can't fucking get out of bed because you are going to make a cake for a same sex wedding. Right.

Go to therapy. Why are you so triggered? Yes. And are you being coerced to make this cake? Like who's making you? Civil rights law, which apparently is now unconstitutional, like saying you can't discriminate against LGBT individuals is now rank discrimination against the people opposed to LGBT equality. It's just nuts.

Well, this is one of those things where maybe you can shed a light on like the idea of like case shopping. Because I think about the cake thing and I'm like, okay, if I had an issue with – if I were a baker and I didn't want to make a cake for someone, I would just be like I don't have room in my – I can't – I don't have time like in my schedule. I'm full. And it would have nothing – I could think that I just don't like – I don't know. I don't like the date. I don't like their names, like whatever the fuck it is. Right.

So these people weren't just rejecting making the cake so that – because they didn't want to like make the cake and like then it was over. Like they were part of an activist strategy. So can you talk about how like these cases come up, how they come up with example cases and what that process looks like and how long it takes? Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, I think this process really began with a marriage equality decision in Obergefell versus Hodges, because in that case, when the Republican justices in dissent were ranting and raving about marriage equality, they suggested the decision would violate some people's First Amendment rights.

And that was basically a call, hey, file some cases challenging civil rights for LGBT individuals and raise a First Amendment claim. So what happened? There spawned a cottage industry of First Amendment challenges to civil rights protections for the LGBT community. And over time, the Supreme Court took some of these cases seriously.

what kinds of cases it was especially interested in. And that generated the most recent decision in 303 Creative, which was this wedding website designer who said she didn't want to make a wedding website for...

same-sex weddings. And that case was filed by ADF, Alliance Defending Freedom. And it was really generated because at the time the case is filed or before the case is filed, this company isn't a wedding website design company. It's a website design. And then it gets refined into, oh, this is a wedding website design company that really wants to celebrate religious views of marriage. And they refine that case into the one the justices wanted to hear.

Can you talk about when justices signal? What does that mean? Is it legitimate? Like, is that norm? Is that has that always been something they're doing? Or is that like a really activist tactic?

Yeah, so this is definitely new. So in the chapter about arrested development and the justices viewing themselves like kings, I talk about how the Supreme Court didn't always have control over what cases it would hear. That's actually a modern development that didn't happen until 1925. So after the court developed the authority to hear its own cases, then it... How'd they get that? So Congress technically gave them the authority at the urging of...

William Howard Taft, former president and chief justice, who always aspired to be chief justice of the Supreme Court and once there decided to make that position as powerful as he could. Interesting. Underrated. I'm going to Google him later a little bit about that. So, OK, so how did they start to be more like active in signaling and deciding their cases? Yes.

Yeah. So after Congress gave them the authority to pick what cases they could hear, the Supreme Court said, not only can we pick what cases we can hear, we get to decide what questions in those cases we are interested in opining on. Then once they assert that authority, they start writing into opinions or sometimes statements accompanying decisions not to hear a case. By the way, I'm super interested in this issue.

and flagging it for litigants. And this is all happening in this conservative legal movement ecosystem where, okay, a justice says this. Let's write some law review articles about this. Let's get the conservative public interest organizations looking for clients and developing it. And sure enough, it all happens.

Right. And there's funding for all this. Oh, yeah. Okay. So you wrote, just going back to this idea of publicizing it and getting it more into the zeitgeist to talk about the court and what they're doing and maybe have them viewed as a little less serious. So you wrote that publicizing the court's behavior is a good idea and cited an example from 1935 where the public did catch on and they were protesting the court. And then the following year,

They were protesting the court because they didn't want to basically uphold New Deal policies. Then the next year, FDR threatened to pack the court, which led them to uphold the law, basically. So let's say you were to do this now or deploy that tactic now. How would you go about that? Like, what?

I mean, maybe that Biden could have packed the court, you know? Right. Yeah. So I don't think that calls to pack the court or just publicizing the court is a long term structural solution. I think it is the first step toward a structural solution in part because

because the Supreme Court is deciding so many different issues and fucking up so many different areas of law. This isn't like the New Deal system where the question is, is the court going to prevent the country from getting out of the Great Depression? Now the question is basically, are the justices going to repeal the entirety of the 20th century, maybe send us back to the Dark Ages on a range of different topics? And so sustaining that level of focus and outrage on so many different issues

over the length of the Republican appointees service, which could be decades. I don't think that is sufficient to keep these guys from driving the country off a cliff. So I think we need to build public attention and outrage to create a base and create incentives for democratic politicians. The next time they are in office to adopt more structural reforms that would make the court more accountable to the people, make the court more representative and not let these, uh,

yo-hos, right? Keep on doing whatever they want. So what are some of the bigger structural things that can be fixed or that we should try to fix?

Yeah. So one of the things is what we were just talking about, maybe modifying the Supreme Court's authority to pick all of the cases that they hear or decide what issues in a case they hear. You can also limit their authority to strike down laws like the Voting Rights Act or a federal law that codifies abortion rights. You can also increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court so it's not taken over by far-right fringe conspiracy theorists.

Those are just some of the things you can do. There's also term limits, you name it.

This is hard because you could try to limit the court, but like who's deciding that and why are they deciding it? Is that actually what we want at this time? My feeling has sort of become like nothing is getting fixed till we get money out of politics and undue citizens united. And until there's some sort of like ethical anti-corruption actual initiative, then

Yeah, nothing will change. So what's like the fastest timeline we can make that happen? Yeah, well, so this is an issue where I agree with you. Money in politics, dark money in politics is this highly corrosive force that makes democracy all the more difficult.

But this is also an issue that the Supreme Court itself has enabled. And I don't think you can get money out of politics without changing the Supreme Court, because these are the guys that dismantled campaign finance regulation on the ground that that was unfair to the poor mega rich who just so desperately wanted to drown out everyone else's political spending. So I think what is the timeline for doing that? The timeline for doing that is,

building a constituency within the Democratic base who understands not only do we need to get money out of politics, but in order to ensure money stays out of politics, we also need to limit the authority of the Supreme Court because these guys are not going to let us do it. This Supreme Court.

Exactly. Exactly. OK, let's say they did want to change the makeup of the court or put term limits on. Is that just a matter of Congress being like we're doing it? Yeah. So Congress can, by simple legislation, change the number of justices on the Supreme Court. The number of justices on the court has varied over history between six and 10. The Constitution does not

fix the number of justices. Changing term limits is something Congress could do for future appointments, but it can't, I don't think at least retrospectively apply term limits to the justices who are already on the court. Well, the president can't just send people to a foreign prison.

But so I don't know what can't means. Fair point. And now that the president is above the law, right, and has immunity, you know, hashtag YOLO. Let's just do it and be legends. How does that play in? Like, because if he has immunity, you know, my question is like, how does he not do more? I mean, he's doing really bad stuff, but it almost feels like that has faded into the background. Yeah.

Yeah.

But it didn't say you couldn't sue the president or the president's subordinates for injunctions that block them from carrying out illegal policies. Lawyers always stay tuned for that decision because some some Trump appointees are floating it in the lower courts that maybe you can't do that either. That's very Stephen Miller esque. Exactly.

Congress does in theory have this power. You know Mitch McConnell would be using it if he needed to. Why is there no like message – and maybe this is just the question I have in general. Why is there no attempt by the Democratic caucus to be like here's a message we can unite around and actually campaign on that is not – it's not right or left.

It's simply we are going to strengthen the Constitution. We are going to strengthen separation of powers. And it's about like fairness. Like where is like that? Like I just feel like they're never making use of the powers that they could have. I am at a loss for why Democrats are unwilling to campaign against the court, particularly this court. I mean, these justices are accepting untold amounts of grift.

while they are enabling billionaires to spend unlimited amounts of money, overwhelming the election and not allowing the president to cancel people's student debt relief. That sounds like a pretty bad situation that you could sell to people. Why aren't Democrats doing it? One, they're afraid of their own shadow. Two, too many of the geriatric Democratic caucuses

grew up at a time where they associate the Supreme Court with the Warren Court, which was a uniquely progressive court in American history. And so they are too afraid to challenge the Supreme Court because in their imagination and their mind, that Warren Court is the essence of the Supreme Court, and they just refuse to acknowledge reality. Okay. Well, when I was a child, the essence of Nickelodeon was Legends of the Hidden Temple, but I'm not still watching that today. So...

So I don't really understand. Like, OK, that's nice that it was like that then. It's not like that now. MTV had TRL when I was watching it. Pretty sure that's no longer the main program there. So we are capable of Bayesian updating in a way that it turns out senior Democratic leadership is not. It's true. It's really kind of wild. Just to close out, I love this book. What is the most ridiculous thing that this court has written that you can

you know, list for us here. Like, it's just, what's the craziest that maybe people don't know about? You know, we all know about Bush versus Gore, but. Yeah. That's a hard one. If I had to pick, oof. Okay. So I would say something that Justice Alito wrote in his dissent in the marriage equality decision, Obergefell versus Hodges, when he said that marriage equality facilitates the marginalization of religious and social conservatives and

and calls to mind the treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, which some might think about, turn about as fair play. What he is saying, marriage equality is the same as criminalizing consensual sexual intimacy between adults of the same sex.

right? Declaring gay men to be sexual psychopaths, not allowing LGBT individuals to marry, adopt children and whatnot. Like that is what he is likening marriage equality to. The persecution complex is just on fucking real. Like they always make it about them. It's not about you. It also doesn't make sense because if, if,

If marriage were contagious like that, then why isn't his marriage contagious? Why doesn't it work the other way?

If it works his way. I think he realizes he's just not cool enough. And he looks at, you know, the gays and he's like, okay, those guys are awesome. Everyone's going to want to be like them. And it's a deep seated insecurity. If I had to guess. No, I don't know. No, I know what you mean. It's it's that's really like the whole party at this point, the whole movement for the past several years. Yeah.

Well, Leah, this has been so much fun. You should be on TV more and podcast more. Thank you. Generally, you should just be like talking in public all the time. Truly. Everyone needs to hear from you. And your book is awesome. Everyone here, everyone listening should or watching should read it, buy it. It is just it's really, really like eye opening and fun. So thank you so much. I hope you I hope it does incredibly well. And I hope that your mission to make the Supreme Court more, uh,

in its ridiculousness is a success. And I hope to help you with that. Thank you so much. That means a ton. Sammy, you did a good job on that interview. I mean, I got to say it held my attention and I am not a person who's like, ooh, let me dig into listening to the law. She was funny. She was clever. She's very interesting. You'd have to be, right? Smart people are funny. But she's just very, like she's the kind of person who should be explaining this to people. Totally. Probably on the internet. As she is. Yeah.

But, you know, the best people hate talking to camera. That's true. Sorry, I know. We do it, but, you know, I hate it. Although I'll never forget when we were at the DNC and you and Alex Perlman were both trying to, like, record your videos in one take and you, like, both kept fucking up. And I was like, oh, I thought you guys just do this right every time, the first time. And I was like...

So it's not just like that for everybody. And I'm not like, cause I also need to do a thousand takes or like you're, you got, you're distracted. You're like, Oh, I looked in the wrong direction. And,

And okay, I felt better after that. I get like a weird slur sometimes when I'm doing videos. I don't know why. I think my brain is like going faster than my mouth can. And then I'm like, the democracy. Like, and then you got to do it again because you sound ridiculous. Yeah. I honestly think looking at yourself, it's like you're getting feedback. Like you're doing it and then you're like getting feedback of yourself doing it, which makes it hard to move the conversation forward. Yeah.

It's easier when I'm just looking at you and talking. We should not be looking at ourself as much as we are. I mean, humanity was not made to look in mirrors or cameras nearly as much. We were supposed to see our reflection like two or three times in our life in a pond reflection. That's a great point. We were not supposed to look at our faces as much. There's no naturally occurring mirrors. No. In nature. It's against nature. Other than water. And God himself.

Well, what you can do if you want to fight God in nature, listen to Leah Lippman's podcast, Strict Scrutiny and read her book, Lawless. And we will see you next time. Until next time, I'm V Spear. And I'm Sammy Sage. And this is American Fever Dream.