Law and Disorder

Only Remnant listeners fluent in legalese should subject themselves to today’s discussion of Supreme Court ...

Published July 6, 2021

Only Remnant listeners fluent in legalese should subject themselves to today’s discussion of Supreme Court jurisprudence, in which fan-favorite classical liberal Ilya Shapiro returns to claim his coveted gold jacket. Jonah and Ilya explore what the court’s conservative majority will mean for future cases and whether the conservative legal movement should adapt its philosophy in the wake of Bostock v. Clayton County. They also touch on some of the most controversial issues raised by recent Supreme Court decisions, including Arizona’s voting laws and free speech in public schools. David and Sarah, eat your heart out!

Show Notes:

– Ilya’s latest book, Supreme Disorder

– The mysterious shadow docket

– Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

– “After Bostock, We’re All Textualists Now”

– Walter Olson in The Dispatch on HIPAA

– The Supreme Court upholds Arizona voting restrictions

– Ilya: “The Voter Suppression Lie”

– Advisory Opinions on the Supreme Court’s cheerleader case

– Ilya’s campaign for the Falls Church Schoolboard, shamelessly plugged

– Ilya explains why he’s running

Listen on your player of choice

Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief and co-founder of The Dispatch, based in Washington, D.C. Prior to that, enormous lizards roamed the Earth. More immediately prior to that, Jonah spent two decades at National Review, where he was a senior editor, among other things. He is also a bestselling author, longtime columnist for the Los Angeles Times, commentator for CNN, and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. When he is not writing the G-File or hosting The Remnant podcast, he finds real joy in family time, attending to his dogs and cat, and blaming Steve Hayes for various things.

Please note that we at The Dispatch hold ourselves, our work, and our commenters to a higher standard than other places on the internet. We welcome comments that foster genuine debate or discussion—including comments critical of us or our work—but responses that include ad hominem attacks on fellow Dispatch members or are intended to stoke fear and anger may be moderated.