“What an enormous letdown. Here I thought I would get a civic education in the Court’s most famous dissents. Boy, was I wrong. Especially with respect to the Court’s recent decisions, these hosts offer decidedly (but misleadingly, not at all self-identified as) *deeply* and *unbalanced* conservative takes on virtually every single case—whether they are discussing the facts, the issues, the outcomes, the history, or the doctrine. (The episode recapping Dobbs and Bruen is an appallingly representative example.) And this practice is not, as one of the disingenuous, condescending hosts claims, “nuance”—it’s deliberately and insidiously unacknowledged partisanship. It should come as no surprise to listeners what the podcast’s info section fails to make clear: the hosts are scions of the Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, Cato Institute, and other right-wing judicial think tanks. They have an agenda. And that agenda permeates the entirety of their commentary. What a waste. If you want a real education on the Court and its decisions from women with actual expertise, listen to the podcast Strict Scrutiny. Those hosts actually clerked—and clerks for Supreme Court justices. And they actually teach law. They aren’t foot soldier attorneys for a “libertarian” advocacy group pretending to educate a pool of unwary listeners.
This podcast needs to be honest about what it’s doing or hang up its hat. You can’t have your cake and eat it.”
davpt via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
12/03/22