“The people who complain about the “excessive laughter” are being hyperbolic. If you went through each episode and tallied it up the laughter would take up 2 minutes at most. By podcast standards, they’re pretty tight and efficient.
The value of this podcast comes from their concise descriptions of the history of a law, what motivated the court’s decision on whatever case they’re litigating, and the biases people aren’t taught to question with regards to the ideologies of the Justices.
Not enough legal academics and lawyers talk about the fact that law is not administered objectively and neutrally, nor can it be. 5-4 dispel these notions by pointing out that time and time again, the Justices contradict themselves, make decisions based on their ideology, and sideskirt an objective interpretation of the law in favour of something subjective. As a person who has been interested in law for years, one of the things that made me disinterested in it was this concept that precedent was holy and objective interpretation of law is possible. A lawyer I did work for while in high school warned me about this approach which is why I became disillusioned. And that approach was reflected for years in TV and in the news. So this podcast is extremely refreshing.”
DouggieJones via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
09/30/20