Everybody Wants A Little More Pandemic

This is why you go to law school.

By and

Vaccine mandates! Title 42 and border policy! Twitter Files updates! Electoral Count Act! “The Imperial Supreme Court”! FedSoc/Sate showdown! Sarah and David are marathoning through topics in the hope of placating the wrathful law gods and preempting a Christmas-time emergency pod. (Knock on wood).

Show Notes:

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By and
Comments (44)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Lawyerjackson

    Will David keep doing this podcast now that he's going to be at the New York Times? I hope so.

    Collapse
    1. Michael

      Good news! I got an email this evening (Jan. 3) from The Dispatch saying David would still be doing Advisory Opinions with Sarah.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Carolyn

      I hope so too. Advisory Opinions is one of m favorite podcasts. If he can't continue doing it, I hope The Dispatch finds a replacement for him to join Sarah ... perhaps Ken White or Gabriel Malor.

      Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    John Will

    RESCINDMENT

    Also, "fulsome"?

    Collapse
  3. Scott Skelton

    My summary of this episode: Twitter files - Sarah makes up a narrative out of thin air. Title 42 - Neither David or Sarah realize that both political parties are making the opposite argument in different cases. (Which I'm not especially critical of since I've had to do it before the same judge in different cases.) And, Justice Gorsuch's dissent clearly shows he thinks the court is acting as a policy body and not court. Electoral Count Act - David thinks this is very good. Sarah doesn't seem to be as excited. Federalist Society (By the way "FedSoc" sounds completely pretentious - but you are both in the club.) - FedSoc is good - nothing to see here. By the way, regardless if it is the left or the right, Judges shouldn't be hobnobbing with groups. I practice before a District Judge who will not socialize with lawyers, period. You know, that whole "appearance of impropriety" thing. (Interestedly, David, this Judge has the same religious upbringing as you and I.) Don't complain about the public's lack of faith in the court system when the judges go to "FedSoc" and other groups and are adored and revered. Slate Article - David and Sarah don't like those people or think they are right but at least something good came out of it. (Sarah complains she didn't get any love from the Judge - AO is better than anyone else.) Lastly, the Amicus podcast by Dahlia Lithwick is a good counter weight to AO. Amicus sometimes does a much more in-depth analysis of the law and especially the procedural history (i.e. the ICWA case - you guys left out a lot). I like the podcast - but this one was not worth my time. P.S. When you use the phrase "judicial philosophy" repeatedly, to a lot of us this is just code for political philosophy. Also, you keep saying you don't assign motives, but is seems you do to the "other" side. Everybody has an agenda. Sometimes it is good and righteous and sometimes not. But everyone has one.

    Collapse
  4. Lylegruby

    I’m no lefty, but I am surprised y’all are surprised that people find it unseemly for justices to go to events filled with fawning fans, particularly after the justice signed onto (or even authored) an opinion in a highly charged case that came out on the fans’ side. The justices’ job is to dispassionately and objectively decide cases. Being feted at an event filled with people who vociferously supported one side of that highly charged case absolutely undermines confidence in objectivity. Indeed, I know and have clerked for numerous federal judges. Almost all of them would be extremely uncomfortable going to an event where the attendees would cheer a decision they made in a case. It’s gross and beneath a federal judge at any level.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Paul B

    *Verbal meme* "This is how [we] win."

    Y'all are being wayyyyyyy too kind to this recent NYT article. I couldn't craft in a lab a better meta-analysis of *why* The Federalist Society has been so successful in shaping "modern" jurisprudence.

    Cultural tastemakers like that article's authors simply don't understand America's classically liberal foundation, even by its own internal logic. Gee, I wonder why that Presidential Studies Quarterly "study" only analyzed SCOTUS cases from 1937 onward? See Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 (i.e., "court-packing plan").

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah, David and Sarah! Happy New Year, too.

    Collapse
  7. Helbock

    We love you both. Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays

    HHelbock

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    LeGrand Northcutt

    As a person with a law degree who does not, and has no intention to, practice law, I am forced to agree with David on this now long-running debate. But I have a caveat— I believe, as a general rule, that while you are in your 20s, you should broadly decide what you want to do and then make choices to help you get there. For me, I decided I wanted to work “in policy” (yes, I knew then and still know that that is super general), and law school opened doors to do that. So law school is clearly a door-opening endeavor. However, if you decide you want to be a lawyer and make tons of money, you can go to law school to be a lawyer. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. However, it is sad to me that more people do not take David’s view.


    Furthermore, I cannot stress enough how much taking admin law (and an admin law practicum, and every other admin-law-adjacent course including fed courts that I could get into) changed my life! But not everyone can do that, so I appreciate how y’all make good citizenship accessible.

    Collapse
  9. Ray.Gustin4

    Sarah and David - quick question. I'm looking for a good history/review of the Constitution and would welcome any recommendations. Thank you!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      A book or a podcast?

      Collapse
      1. Ray.Gustin4

        Ben thank you for your note. A book is what I'm looking for, though if you have a podcast suggestion I'm all ears. Thanks again!

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ben Connelly

          Are you looking for a specific angle, like Congress or judicial philosophy or political philosophy or history?

          Collapse
          1. Ray.Gustin4

            Ideally I would like to understand the genesis/history of the Constitution from a political/legal philosophical angle (rather than a purely historical perspective) and the important amendments through time.

            Collapse
  10. Aaron H Frank

    The Supreme Court has also limited its own power. SCOTUS overturned Roe and returned power to the elected representatives whether they be state or federal.

    Steve Calabresi was joining Akhil Amar in that amicus brief against independent state legislatures.

    Collapse
Load More