“This podcast consists of one host parroting the conservatives on SCOTUS with a straight “face” (voice) while the other host remarks on the 3rd eye they have grown trying to prop up the legitimacy of the court. Reporting and remarking on current decisions as if they are consistent in approach is its own form of bias. The only consistency has been the political bias in huge decisions. Cherry picking history and tradition as the only step in legal analysis is new and totally inappropriate for judges, who are not historians, to engage in. Endorsing some unemurated rights while saying other don’t exist is not legal analysis, it’s reasoning to a result. Ignoring text in favor of judicial doctrine is picking a political lane. The current court has a legitimacy problem because when history doesn’t work, then there’s text. If the text can’t be twisted, then there’s doctrine. If the doctrine is insufficient then spin the facts. This podcast ignores that and is much cheaper for it.”
lamby183 via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
05/06/24