October 24, 2025 • 50 mins
On this episode of The Middle, we're asking if you trust the Supreme Court to be fair and, if not, what can be done to restore that trust. Jeremy is joined by former Alabama Senator and US Attorney Doug Jones and SCOTUSblog executive editor Zachary Shemtob. DJ Tolliver joins as well, plus calls from around the country. #scotus #SupremeCourt #judicial #judiciary #Trump #ChiefJustice #Law #courts
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Support for the Middle comes from the stations that air
the show and from you. Thanks for making a donation
at Listen Toothmiddle dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
I'm Jeremy Hobson along with our house DJ Tolliver and Taliver.
We are very excited to say we have some new
listeners to welcome this week.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
I know they keep coming. Welcome to the listeners of
KRPS and Pittsburgh, Kansas. Also w LRH and Huntsville, Alabama
and WHCP and Cambridge, Maryland being venidos.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Yes, and we actually have an Alabama on the show
this hour, so that'll be exciting. Very different places around
the country, but all part of the United States, all
under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and that's what
we're talking about this hour. As you know, the Democrats
have very little power in Washington right now because they
don't control the presidency or the House or the Senate.
So a lot of the opposition to Trump is focused
(00:53):
on taking him to court, and there are now more
than two hundred active cases against the administration in the
White House is also launching other lawsuits of its own
against states. So the Supreme Court, with its six to
three conservative majority half of those conservatives appointed by Trump
has become even more important in the balance of power
in the United States. The problem is polls are showing
(01:14):
a drop in trust in the court to be fair.
A you gov poll a few months ago found sixty
eight percent of respondents thought that justices often let their
own personal or political views influence their decisions. So this hour,
we want to know what you think. Do you trust
the court to be fair? And if not, what can
be done to restore your trust? Tolliver give us the
(01:37):
phone number again.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Please, you can call us at eight four four four
Middle that's eight four four four six four three three
five three, or you can write to us at listen
to the Middle dot com, or comment on our livestream
on YouTube. I'm collecting your comments and I will get
you on air, so Sentata and.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
We will get to those calls and comments in a moment.
But first, last week we asked you for your thoughts
on the role the government should play in science and
scientific research.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
Here some of the voicemails we got Jonah calling from Greenville, Wisconsin.
Imagine if you're in the nineteen forties and your neighbor
who doesn't believe the folio vaccine works. Imagine if he
had everyone else's phone number and he just called them
all at the same time and said the vaccine doesn't work,
don't take it. Imagine if that guy had a megaphone.
Speaker 5 (02:17):
That's the kind of.
Speaker 6 (02:18):
World we live in now.
Speaker 7 (02:19):
This is Amy Price. I'm calling from Columbia, South Carolina.
I am a twenty year veteran science teacher and I
try to suggest to them what they can do for
future careers in science, and now they're being shut down,
and I feel like I have lied to my students
about their careers in science.
Speaker 8 (02:37):
This is Randy Kron. I am calling from Birmingham, Alabama.
We're going to lose a generation of scientists with what's
currently going on in this administration. So it's not just
the short term problem. This is going to be a
really long term problem, attacking universities and attacking science.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Well, thanks to everyone who called in, and as always,
you can subscribe to the Middle wherever you get your
podcast to hear that entire episode, which by the way,
featured Neil de grass. So now to our topic this hour.
Do you trust the Supreme Court to be fair? And
if not, how could your trust be restored. Our number
is eight four four fur middle, that's eight four four
four six four three three five three. And joining us
this our former Alabama Senator Doug Jones, a Democrat who
(03:14):
was also a United States Attorney in Alabama.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Senator Jones, great to.
Speaker 9 (03:17):
Have you back, Jamage, always great to be with you.
Speaker 10 (03:20):
Thanks.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
And we're also joined by Zachary shem Toab, who is
executive editor of Scotus Blog. Zachary, welcome to you, very
glad to be here. So before we get to the phones, Zachary,
there are a lot of polls out there, but they
all kind of do show this alarming drop in trust
in the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
What do you think is going on?
Speaker 6 (03:38):
So I'm going to take maybe from the start. I
don't know if it's a contrarian position, but maybe a
little different of a position. I think that in terms
of trust, I think we can all agree with this
that it has fallen in terms of every institution, whether
you're talking about the media, university's Congress, obviously, the presidency,
(04:00):
and you know, but just across the board and the
Court is no difference. So I think that it's this
larger result of a loss and trust in institutions across
the entire board, rather than necessarily being specific to the
Court itself. And I think that's also evidenced by the polls,
(04:20):
which show that it's a partisanship that makes the difference here.
Republicans are generally supportive, Democrats not as much.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Well, yeah, what do you think about that, Senator Jones?
Do you think that to that point, it's just Democrats
are unappy now because it's a more conservative Supreme Court?
Speaker 9 (04:37):
You know, No, I don't think it's just that. I
think it's a combination of several things, including the fact
that there have been numerous allegations of ethics violations, ethics
improprieties that I think have cast a paul on certain
members of the court, and they seem to be the
ones leading the charge. It is not just that you've lost.
(04:59):
Look had courts in the past where people have disagreed
with the positions. FDR wanted to pack the court back
in the nineteen thirties, but the court survived that because
it was made up then of only men. In more
recent times, men and women of integrity that knew when
(05:19):
they should recuse, knew when that they should not take gifts,
and so I think there's some personal part of this
that's caused the problem. Certainly, I agree with fact that
the partisanship has gotten over the top, and so that
people while it is a lack of confidence in the Court,
(05:40):
it's really a lack of confidence by Democrats in the
more conservative justices and vice versa. I think that that
is a huge problem and that one is going to
be very difficult to overcome.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Well, and Zachary on the issue of what Senator Jones
is talking about there with the ethics has anything changed
in terms of the ethics code since all this stories
came out about Clarence Thomas, one of the justices, accepting,
you know, millions of dollars over the years in gifts
and not reporting them.
Speaker 6 (06:07):
The Court adopted an ethics code. It is not a
particularly strong ethics code, and ultimately it's regulated by the
Court itself and there aren't deep consequences if there are
violations of that code. So, yes, something has changed, but
I don't think it's gone enough in the direction most
people would necessarily want. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Well, I was just going to say.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
The other thing that I wanted to bring up is
the question of the Court's authority. There was this Earlier
this year, the Supreme Court ruled nine to zero that
Kilmar Abrego Garcia had to be returned from L Salvador
from that prison in L Salvador, and the Trump administration
took months to comply with that. Does the Supreme Court
(06:50):
have a credibility problem if they can't enforce their ruling,
Senator Jones.
Speaker 9 (06:55):
You know, clearly, for those people who understand the court
and know law the law, which I think we have
a civics problem in this country these days, they'll understand
that the Court has very limited things that they can
do to enforce its court orders. That is usually left
to the executive branch to enforce court orders, whether it
(07:17):
was school desegregation or whatever. And so I think there
are some things that there has been discussed in terms
of trying to get more.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Power to the court.
Speaker 9 (07:28):
I just don't think that they can do that in
the separation of powers that we've got. And let me
go back, Jerry. I want to mention one other thing
too that I didn't mention a moment ago about the
Court's credibility. I do think that this court, and it
clearly is the conservative majority, people are losing faith in
this court because they are issuing so many opinions that
(07:50):
are not really opinions. They are emergency docket orders that
are overturning lower court orders in favor of the Trump administration.
And so people do clearly see and I think rightly so.
And I know I'm a little bit biased here too,
that this Court has a political agenda here, because this
is unprecedented the way the Court is using emergency procedures.
(08:14):
And I think that's a real issue because it is
just the opposite of conservative when lower courts are saying,
we need to impose an injunction here, keep the status
quo until this case is resolved, and then all of
a sudden, the Supreme Court says, no, go aead and
fire all these people. Go ahead and do all this,
and then we'll decide the merriage later.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
You're talking about what's called the shadow docket, where the
Supreme Court can rule on emergency cases quickly and without
oral arguments or full briefings, Zachary, if you ask the
justices if they think they have a problem, they will
say no. Amy Cony Barrett has said she does not
think the US is in a constitutional crisis at all.
What is the opinion among the people that you speak
(08:55):
to at SCOTUSblog about whether we are really in the
credibility crisis that we're hearing about.
Speaker 6 (09:02):
Yeah, I just wanted to mention one thing in terms
of the emergency docket. The Court's approval rating or trust
in the Court was falling well before this exploded. So this,
you know, there are many issues with this, but but
I don't think it explains the drop and the approval
rating in terms of what I'm hearing in terms regarding credibility.
(09:23):
I mean, there is no doubt that there is a deeper,
you know, skepticism of the Court than existed only a
few years ago. And you hear that, you know, across
the board. But again, there is a profound partisan difference
between what conservatives think of the Court and the credibility
(09:43):
that they lent to it and what you know, those
on the liberal side of the spectrum believe. And you
have folks kind of in the middle who were a
bit all over the place.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Interesting and Senator, just on the issue of the shadow docket,
one more question for you. Do you think the Supreme
Court really has a choice though in the matter if
the executive branch comes and says this is an emergency.
We need a ruling right away on this thing. Can
they really say no.
Speaker 9 (10:06):
Yeah, of course they can, they're the Supreme Court, but
they would have to issue some kind of ruling. But
the point I think that's being made that I think
that is hurting. You've even got US district judges and
appellate court judges now criticizing the Court because they're not
giving them any guidance on what to do with the
emergency docket. All of a sudden, you've got all of
(10:28):
these courts saying we're going to maintain the status quo
while this case is heard. That's what the lower courts
are saying, and almost in every occasion, at least for
this term, the Supreme Court says, no, we're not going
to worry about the status quo. We'll go ahead and
let the order enter and we'll decide the merits later.
(10:49):
Which is I just think a backwards way of looking
at it, and I think most Americans do. And I
understand what Zach is saying about it falling. But I
can tell you from the folks I'm talking about to
all the time, they are talking about the Court overturning
those lower court orders consistently and not keeping the status quo.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
Well, we will see what our listeners think. Again, you
can call us at eight four four four six four
three three five three. Tolliver, I have actually had the
privilege over the course of the time of meeting some
Supreme Court justices, and I will tell you that whether
they're conservati or liberal, they do believe that all nine.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Justices are acting in good faith according to the law.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Yeah, and Chief Justice Roberts has talked a lot about
the need for the Court to be seen as independent.
Here he is earlier this year in an MSNBC interview In.
Speaker 11 (11:35):
Our Constitution, judges and the judiciary is a co equal
branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority
to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down obviously
acts of Congress or acts of the President. And that
innovation doesn't work if it's not. The judiciary is not independent.
(11:57):
Its job is to obviously decide cases, but in the
course of that check the excesses of Congress or of
the executive and that does require degree of independence.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
Degree of independence by the way, Tolliver, just a reminder,
as we are coming towards the end of the year
that we are accepting and more than happy to accept
donations in any amount at Listen to the Middle dot com.
It's very important for us to be able to do
this show to hear from the people who love it
the most, which is you, the podcast listener. If you
(12:29):
can make a contribution at Listen to the Middle dot com,
we very.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Much appreciate it. It's tax deductible, and thank you so much.
We write back with more of the Middle.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
This is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. If you're just tuning,
in the Middle is a national call in show. We're
focused on elevating voices from the middle geographically, politically, and philosophically,
or maybe you just want to meet in the middle.
This hour, we're asking you if you trust the Supreme
Court to be fair, and if not, what can be
done to restore your trust? Tolliver, what is the number
to call in?
Speaker 1 (12:56):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four sixty four three three five three. You can also
write to us that Listen to the Middle dot com
or on all social media.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
All right, I'm joined by former Alabama Senator Doug Jones
and Scotisblog executive editor Zachary shemtab and the phone lines
are lighting up, So let's go to Dave, who's in
upstate New York. Dave, go ahead, what do you trust
the court?
Speaker 12 (13:18):
Absolutely? Trusted? Supreme Court?
Speaker 2 (13:21):
Really tell us more?
Speaker 12 (13:24):
Well, I believe they're doing what needs to be done
to protect the Union and protect our freedoms.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
Do you think that they are being a little too
giving a little too much deference to the Trump administration
right now?
Speaker 12 (13:38):
Uh?
Speaker 13 (13:40):
Not?
Speaker 12 (13:40):
Really?
Speaker 10 (13:40):
No?
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Why not?
Speaker 12 (13:44):
Why not? Well, the way I see it, we've got
a bunch of Marxist atheists, satanic socialists that are trying
to destroy this country, and I believe Trump, the Republics,
and the Supreme Court majority is working to prevent that.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Okay, Dave, thanks for the call.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
It sort of goes to the point, Zachary, their conservatives,
I think the court's being fair. This person obviously a
Trump voter, and liberals don't like what they're seeing right now.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Zachary, your thoughts.
Speaker 6 (14:22):
Yeah, I would be curious, and I don't know if
you'd be comfortable doing this, but just asking, you know,
if folks are comfortable answering, you know, in their political ideology,
and I would not be surprised if it mapped on
one to one where conservatives who call in will support
the court and liberals who call in will not.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Well, that's why it'd be interesting to see if we
hear from some independence this hour. Steve is calling in
from Edwardsville, Illinois.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Steve, go ahead. Do you trust the court?
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Hey, Steve, listen to the phone, not the radio, and
tell me do you trust the court? He's lost interest.
Let's go to Nate, who is in Milwaukee. Nate, do
you trust the Supreme Court?
Speaker 14 (15:10):
Hi? Thank you for having me, And right now I'm
very questioning of how much I trust the sup Court.
I think you could fix two different things. Thing number
one is the way people end up getting on the court.
We should probably have term limits and then a set
number of people that a president can appoint in one
(15:33):
term so that you don't have political parties in the
US Senate trying to play with the system to pick
who does and does not get on the Court. Also,
I'm from the state that was jerrymandering, and thankfully that's over.
But although jerrymandering talk could have been over years ago
(15:54):
with a court case called gil versus Whitford and the
Lower Federal Court had actually gotten rid of ruled against
jerrymandering here in Wisconsin, and then the Supreme Court took
it up, and Republicans from all over the US, including
the RNC, basically wrote to the court saying, please preserve
(16:15):
the ability for state governments to rig elections. And I
think that's something that basically goes against anybody's common sense
about what an election should be.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
Nate, thank you Senator Jones on the issue that he
brought up there about term limits. This is something that
was proposed, but when Biden came in as president, it
never happened. It hasn't happened. Do you think that that
could ever happen, that there would be term limits on
the Justice that it's not for life.
Speaker 9 (16:44):
I don't see that happening, certainly, not in any of
our lifetimes. I include all of you younger guys on
there too. I just think politically that's a difficult thing
to do, because as the pendulum swings in one of
these days, I believe it will swing a little bit again,
people are gonna start willing to have their cake and
(17:06):
eat it too. I just don't see any real changes
to the Court that is meaningful anytime on the future.
Most of them would take a Supreme Court I mean
a constitutional amendment to change the makeup or to do it.
Not to change the makeup in numbers, but to change
certain things I think would require constitutional amendment. And that
(17:27):
is difficult anyway, and just noam near and possible, and
such bitter partisan times that we're living in right now.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Zacher, do you agree with that?
Speaker 6 (17:39):
I agree entirely. I think that regardless of whether one
supports term limits, and I think most folks actually do,
it is extremely unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
It's interesting, though, because there is nothing that says, for example,
that there have to be nine people on this Supreme Court.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says that there's There's also,
there are other ways around it.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Besides doing actual termlips.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Couldn't they do like a rotating cast where they say,
this federal judge from the Third Circuit gets to come
onto the Supreme Court for a while.
Speaker 6 (18:15):
Yes, that's been one of the proposals. Has has been
court packing removing. I mean, there are all sorts of
things that can be done. Congress could do something called
jurisdiction stripping, which is probably one of the most extreme measures,
which essentially doesn't allow the case the court to hear
cases on appeal. And so there are so many different
things that could be done, but again, as the senator
(18:39):
talked about, we're just not in the political environment where
that's likely to happen.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
Okay, Joseph is calling from Philadelphia. Joseph, go ahead with
your thoughts.
Speaker 10 (18:49):
Oh, how you doing, Jeremy? How sent it to Jones?
Speaker 2 (18:54):
Yahyat doing great?
Speaker 10 (18:57):
Well? I just thank you so many mega going well.
Our praise be I just want to say this. You know,
I don't have faith in the court, as I told Tyler,
the producer, I said, because you can't have a court
that don't go by the rule of law. These just
the ones that Trump's supported, even whether he didn't a point,
they bias towards Trump. They don't even go with the
rule of law. Like here in Philadelphia where I live,
(19:18):
I talked to common police court judges and they say, Joe,
I don't let my personal beliefs, whether it be abortion
or whatever. I go by the law. I dealt with
the rule of law. And some of these guys on
that Supreme Court clans, Thomas, one of them, is that.
I take this from everybody, Thomas. You know these people
have no integrity. Man, You know you just gonna rule
(19:38):
and favor Trump when you know the man is clearly wrong.
I mean, he's to me and my this that's my
own person view. He's the vist president this country ever
had because he has no integrity. He does lie, lie, lie,
and people just brownly support this guy while he's taking
this country down. Hell, it's just a shame that people
in this country can't see Trump for who is. In
my opinion, I'm an African American man, and my you're
(20:00):
not closing this. The most decent president this country ever
had to have, any human decen was President Jimmy Carter,
who had shaking his hand back in nineteen eighty League
Hannis Love, Here they go for Barack Obama. He was
a war moment President Carter, the decent man ever hold
his office, President Jimmy Carter, and that mean God bless
him and rest of his soul. He was a good
human being.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Thank you, Okay, thank you, thank you, Joseph, thank you.
Speaker 3 (20:22):
You know, Senator Jones, as you hear that, I wonder, like,
what are the consequences for our democracy? If people say
what Joseph said and they just don't trust that the
Court is being fair, well.
Speaker 9 (20:36):
You know, I think one of the ironies of what
he said just then was about President Carter, and I
believe he's one of the most decent guys we ever had.
In Zach, if I'm not mistaken, president Carter did not
get a Supreme Court appointment.
Speaker 10 (20:49):
He's one of the only.
Speaker 9 (20:50):
Presidents who did not get a Supreme Court appointment. But
you know, look, I want to I want to take
a little bit different approach to that, answered Jeremy, because.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
I get it.
Speaker 9 (20:59):
I'm I'm out here, you know, in Alabama and other places,
and I hear the just peep the visceral reaction to
so many of these Supreme Court decisions. But for folks
old enough, you know, like me, you would remember when
Jim Crow Law started to be dismantled and school desegregation
(21:21):
cases were being decided by the Supreme Court, and throughout
particularly the South and in some other states, there were
impeach Earl Warren billboards that were up all over. So
I think Zach's point earlier about this mainly being partisan.
It used to be that the Conservatives hated the Supreme
Court because of Earl Warren and Hugo Black and William O.
(21:44):
Douglas and others. Then they called him an activist Supreme Court.
Now it's just flipped and that is the nature of
electoral politics and weird things stand. And I think if
we could get away a little bit from our political
part artisanship, we would also help the Supreme Court, but
it would also give them. I just hope that there
(22:06):
can be some people on that court that can really
see that that is the one institution that does not
need to be viewed through partisan lenses, and it is
right now. And I will say finally on this point.
Part of that is also the media, because everybody always remembers, says,
you know, all this decision was authored by Obama appointee
(22:29):
X or Trump appointee X, and so they're automatically labeled,
and when there is a crossover, people.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
Are like shop and they don't know.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
And I remember John Roberts saying sort of slapping down
Trump a while back, saying, there aren't Obama judges and
Trump judges. There are just judges justices of the Court.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
And that's that. Tolliver, what's coming in and listen to
the middle dot com.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
Sure Brian from Tampa says the politicians and justices enjoy
the two party conservative versus liberal figurative war. The two
parties are pulling the tug of war rope as hard
as possible. That's why both parties are immoderate. Nobody wins
a tug of war by pulling with moderation. E J
in Michigan says, let us not forget how the Supreme
Court supermajority was created. Please address the way McConnell manipulated
(23:14):
the system to allow Trump to place the justices he
did on the court a lot more, but I'll just
start with those teams.
Speaker 3 (23:20):
Yeah, no, that's interesting, and we and we we are
going to get to that. Let's go though, to Bill
who's in Watertown, New York. Bill, go ahead with your thoughts, all.
Speaker 8 (23:29):
Right, Jeremy, Yeah, I think gonna Supreme Court is ruined
in common sense.
Speaker 10 (23:37):
Every every every ruin.
Speaker 13 (23:39):
That I see it is common sense, and the president
is governing on common sense.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
So so you think they're being fair?
Speaker 10 (23:50):
Absolutely? Yeah?
Speaker 13 (23:51):
Do you do you find I don't think the lower
court should be getting in I mean, they're they're active,
like they're projects that they're acting like their Supreme Court
to something. Yeah, how can they rule for the country?
Speaker 2 (24:08):
And did you vote for Trump this time?
Speaker 10 (24:12):
I did?
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Yeah, but I'm not.
Speaker 15 (24:14):
I'm not.
Speaker 10 (24:15):
I'm not a Republican.
Speaker 15 (24:17):
I mean.
Speaker 10 (24:20):
Nothing. I don't normally vote, but I had to do something.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
Okayh Bill, thank you for that call. Another Zachary another
Republican or not. He says he's not a Republican, but
he did vote for Trump, who believes that the Court
is being fair right now and and operating in common sense.
Let me get another call in who Ryan is in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Ryan,
go ahead, do you trust the court?
Speaker 16 (24:48):
Hey, thanks for taking my call. I don't trust the Court,
but that's not because of the Court itself. I think
I reflect a lot of Americans that don't trust most
institutions like public education, traditional media, and a lot of
our politicians. I'd like to ask your guests a question.
Aren't we going to have to start addressing like re
(25:08):
establishing civil society and re establishing trust in many of
our institutions are basic institutions on Main Street before we
can really start addressing re establishing trust in a more
abstract institution such as the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
Ill.
Speaker 3 (25:25):
Yeah, let's go Zachary. It's been a while since we've
heard from you, so you can answer that question.
Speaker 6 (25:29):
No, I mean, ultimately yes, I agree completely. I think
at the end of the day, we can talk about
and may talk about different piecemeal changes that could be
made to the Court, and I have plenty. I'm sure
the Senator has plenty as well. But I don't think
you're going to see a dramatic swing in trust in
it until the foundations, the bedrocket stealth changes and this
(25:52):
partisan fever abates. I don't know when or if that's
going to happen. Don't see it happening anytime soon soon.
But I don't see the trust in the court. And
I think we're learning this through the callers and our discussion.
I don't see trust in the Court returning to where
it was until something more fundamental changes.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
By the way, are our show next week is all
about sort of restoring the ability for people to talk
to people that they disagree with politically, and one of
the things that comes up in that program, which we
recorded live in New Hampshire, is that social media is
pulling us so far away from things that we can
agree on and we're spending a lot less time even
(26:33):
our local communities, talking to people that may disagree with
us politically but agree with us on all kinds of
other things and showing our sort of shared humanity. Let
me sneak one more call in here and in Boulder, Colorado,
and go ahead with your thoughts.
Speaker 17 (26:47):
Hi, there, guys. So I may be the unicorn, I
am liberal, I'm an attorney, I'm a legal commentator, and
I do trust and have faith in our Supreme Court,
even our current Supreme Court.
Speaker 6 (26:59):
Nice, you are unicorn?
Speaker 17 (27:02):
Tell us why may I tell you?
Speaker 9 (27:04):
Why?
Speaker 18 (27:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 17 (27:05):
Yeah, Well, because being an attorney, and I have been
one for decades, I know that. First of all, you know,
a case does not get up to the Supreme Court
unless the reasonable minds can differ on the interpretations and
applying the law to the fact. And I have faith
that if you get to be a Supreme Court justice,
you have demonstrated that you have the brains and that
(27:28):
you have the rational You know your rational and you
you have demonstrated your ability to weigh the merits of
the case and to apply the law. And you know,
when we have a liberal, activist Supreme Court and conservatives
are upset, and when we have a conservative Supreme Court,
(27:49):
liberals are upset. But that doesn't mean that the justices
aren't doing their job. And I have not seen a
single opinion come out of the Supreme Court that isn't
supportable by the law, and a of the law. That's
their job is to interpret the law. So yes, I
trust them. And when I think it was Zachary who
said partisan fever man, that's exactly what's going on.
Speaker 3 (28:11):
Yeah, and thank you for being our unicorns so far
in the show. Appreciate the call, Senator Jones. What do
you think about what Anne said there?
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Look, I appreciate that very much.
Speaker 9 (28:20):
I think what we were discussing, by and large was
whether the public is distrustful of the court, and I
think overwhelmingly the public is. I have a certain element
of trust myself. However, I disagree with Anne a little
bit and that I have seen some court decisions that
I think they had to do some real mental judicial
gymnastics to reach an end, and they wanted a certain end,
(28:44):
particularly on some gun cases that I think, you know,
going back to trying to determine what the originalists we're
talking about with a second Amendment when we have the
kind of weapons on our streets that that we have
right now. It's going to be interesting to see what
they do in the coming weeks or months with regard
to the new gun case and involving people with drug
(29:06):
problems drug addicts. So I do think that there have
been decisions that you just scratch your head and wonder
what's going on. And clearly, my personal opinion is that
there are a couple of these justices that clearly have
political agendas and have long since kind of shed what
judicial philosophy that they had in favor of their political opinions.
(29:30):
And you couple that with the ethics issues that we're faced,
that is that's a real dagger to the Court as
a whole, I think, which is unfair to most of
those justices, because most of those justices I would absolutely
agree with ann.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
Well Tolliver we said we would talking about this. We
remember that Republicans wouldn't let President Obama fill the seat
of antonin Scalia when he died, saying they didn't want
to do that in an election year. But then they
put Trump's pick Amy Cony Barrett on the court literally
as the election was happening in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
That's right, and Barrett replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg after
her death. Here's Ginsburg talking about the Court during her
confirmation hearing in nineteen ninety three.
Speaker 19 (30:11):
Supreme Court justices are guardians of the Great Charter that
has served as our nation's fundamental instrument of government for
over two hundred years. It is the oldest written constitution
still in force in the world. But the justices do
not guard constitutional rights alone. Courts share that profound responsibility
(30:36):
with Congress, the President, the States, and the people.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
You know, Tolliver, This is where we should remind our
podcast listeners that they don't get to hear you play
music like the radio listeners do, and therefore they don't
get to hear what you played on the radio show.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
Right at this point, so good, you know, which was notorious?
Big momenty? More problems right.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
Because right because they call her notorious RG. Yes, it
was a lovely moment.
Speaker 3 (31:01):
But anyway, we'll be right back with more calls coming
up on the middle.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
This is the middle.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
I'm Jeremy Hobson, and this hour we're asking you what
can be done to restore your trust in the Supreme Court.
If you don't trust the court to be fair. Right now,
you can call us at eight four to four four
Middle that's eight four four four six four three three
five three, or you can reach out at Listen to
the Middle dot com. I'm joined by Scotisblog executive editor
Zachary shem Toab and former Alabama Senator Doug Jones. And actually,
(31:29):
before we go back to the phones, Zachary, it doesn't
seem like the Court takes as many boring cases as
they used to. I remember covering the court term each year,
and there would be a lot of cases that were
really complicated and boring and didn't seem like they were
ones that were going to make the headlines. Now they
seem like they're all really political, really vital opinions that
(31:49):
they're coming out with.
Speaker 6 (31:51):
They're not.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
They do.
Speaker 6 (31:53):
They do take fewer cases than they have in the past,
but there are still plenty of technical, quote unquote boring ones,
not obviously for the parties involved, but you know what
many of us will consider boring, and you can certainly
see plenty of those on a Scotis blog. But yes, certainly,
I think the contentious cases get a lot more attention
(32:16):
than they once did, and now it's just you know,
twenty four to seven. So it certainly seems like every
case is you know, partisan or ideological.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Okay, let's go to Susan and Tetonia, Idaho. Susan, go ahead.
Do you trust the court?
Speaker 20 (32:33):
Hello?
Speaker 18 (32:35):
No, And I have to say I'm seventy six years old.
I had great respect for the court most of my
adult life, and it's been absolutely shattered recently. And I
puzzled over this a lot. Why are they making such
bad decisions? You can see Citizens United and Second Amendment decisions.
There's so many that are causing harm to our country
(32:58):
and undermining democras. See, so I think it goes beyond
politics and what I have a question for you, like,
where did this originalist doctrine come for interpreting the law?
And why can't we in the vetting process get to
the ideological backgrounds of people who are appointed. So those
(33:22):
are my questions.
Speaker 3 (33:23):
Okay, yes, Susan, Thank you, Senator Jones. One of the
people that loved the originalist doctrine was Antonin Scalia, who
of course passed away many years ago.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
But yeah, go ahead. I think that that's where it
came from.
Speaker 9 (33:36):
And everybody you know, he just kept at it. He
did it in his descents, and it just as it grew,
so groups judges around there, the Federalist Society and others
adopted that, and thus, you know, thus that's.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Where it is.
Speaker 9 (33:54):
But even with that, it is just really difficult to
have a pure originalists. You know, look at this, you
have to look at what they thought was the original intent,
but then apply it to the facts that you've got today.
So it's still really a little a morphous. It is
because you can't strictly construe it. There were some senators
(34:17):
when I did Justice Jackson's that really thought, you know,
you should just go strictly by the letter of the
Constitution period end of discussion. That's never going to happen.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
But it is.
Speaker 9 (34:30):
People look at it, and even I think the more
liberal justices use originalism more than people realize.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
Well.
Speaker 3 (34:39):
And on the issue of the Citizens United, that was
a different court. That was a that was I believe
a five to four court rather I mean five to
four conservatives and liberals, rather than the one we're in
right now.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
And Bush v.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
Gore, of course, was a very controversial case from two
thousand was also a very different court than what we
have now, and there were more liberal on that court, Zachary.
So it's interesting the cases that you think about that
really really alarm, especially people on the left in this country,
came from a court that was much more evenly divided
than the one we have now.
Speaker 6 (35:12):
Right, and then you have plenty of other controversial decisions
prior to that. So I mean, I mean, to me,
it goes to the point which I don't think the
Senator will agree with, to be fair, But it's that
the court has always been political, and I think you
have always had, you know, political justices, for better or worse.
(35:35):
And I think that one of the major differences now
is how aware of it people are and how much
it's spotlighted and how much it's called out where going
back to John Jay, certainly going back to Chief Justice Marshall, who,
based on our rules now, actually should have recused himself
from Marbury versus Madison. But that's a whole other story.
(35:56):
There have been all sorts of political issues from get go,
So this is nothing new, even though people seem to
often act otherwise.
Speaker 9 (36:06):
Can I say, Jery, I agree with Zachary on that.
I do understand and see that there has been a
political bent, but there have been so many cases too
where you you know, the politics was put on the
back burner, so to speak, because of court precedent. You
could tell that folks didn't really particular care, but court
(36:27):
president did that and that kept that view. I think
that it was somewhat at least independent, but clearly the
Supreme Court, like every other court, it's you know, they
got their jobs because of politics.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
It's that simple.
Speaker 9 (36:43):
And they got their jobs because of the political and
judicial philosophy that was consistent with the presidents. And that's
the one thing that I think people often forget. I
think totally agree with that.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
A lot of what.
Speaker 9 (36:56):
We're seeing is not new, it's really not.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
I anchored the all day NPR coverage on the day
that Christine Blasi Ford and who was the accuser of
Brett Cavanaugh and Cavanaugh testified on Capitol Hill. It was
a big day, and I remember that Kavanaugh basically you
say they're political, and how they get their job. He
used the Trump model of just like attacking, attacking, attacking,
(37:20):
and he ended up, of course on the Supreme Court.
After that, he did what what the President wanted him
to do. It sounds like, let's get to Devon in Denver, Colorado. Devon,
what do you think is the court fair?
Speaker 10 (37:34):
I think, like you.
Speaker 5 (37:35):
Guys said, you know, it's a very politicized court. But
at the end of the day, you know, this is
the last institution that everybody's trying to fight for. A
lot of people are giving up on the president. You know,
we have lobbying and it's ruined Congress, and you know
(37:56):
you're never gonna you can't ever fight. You know, my
generation twenty seven, twenty six, we're kind of tired of it.
You know, we've seen it with Bernie and things like that.
We're kind of we're tired of the institutions. I do
think that the justices tried their best to interpret, but
(38:17):
I also know that it is a very politicized arena,
and I just think it's probably very difficult to make
some of the best decisions as possible. And you know,
like you said, you know, there are some external factors
and influences, and this is the reason why a lot
of the young people are kind of disgruntled with the
(38:37):
political system and just the government as a whole.
Speaker 3 (38:40):
Well, and Devin, would you say you're more on the
right on the left or in the middle.
Speaker 5 (38:47):
I've been demonized as an independent since the day I.
Speaker 10 (38:51):
Could vote, when I was eighteen.
Speaker 2 (38:53):
So wow, okay, well great, well, thank you for something.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
You so much for calling in Zachary an independent. There
we've got that. We got that unicorn checked off the list.
But yeah, and he wants to give the court the
benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 6 (39:07):
It sounds like he absolutely. I thought it, yeah, very interesting,
and I thought it was pretty disturbing how he said
he have been demonized as an independence. But but yeah,
I do think there is a moderate block who wants
to give the court the benefit of the doubt. I
think that that voice is often lost because you know,
the ones who come forward and the ones are the
(39:29):
more partisan elements. But yes, that it certainly does exist.
It's just, as we know, not not the dominant voice.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
Let's get to Jamal, who's in Estes Park, Colorado. Jamal,
what do you think do you trust the court?
Speaker 21 (39:45):
I do know there's a question both of as you've
been making clear, this particular court, these individuals and then
the institution. And I disagree with those who are saying
that the this is just another direction that the political
wind blows that people always. Certainly it is true that
(40:07):
people on the opposite side of a particular decision or
political situation are going to disagree, but quite way beyond that,
it seems to me that there is more appearance of
impropriety with this court than, as far as I'm aware,
there has ever been about any Supreme court uh in
(40:28):
the history of the United States. However, beyond that, this
particular court illustrates the weaknesses of the institution. It's a
classic who guards us from the guardian's situation? Customed Yet
it's those customs. So we are at a point right
(40:55):
now where we have this brand new thing AI that
is being incorporated into governance willy nilly, and that's a
really bad thing, but we have the opportunity to incorporate
it broadly.
Speaker 10 (41:12):
Uh.
Speaker 21 (41:13):
And I think I'm hearing a lot of callers talking
about the broad based lack of faith into the institutions.
I think it's time to take seriously what Churchill said
about democracy being the worst of the solution in the
world except for all the others, which is a call
for something new, you know, And one part of that
(41:33):
I would love to see the human participation in the
Supreme Court become the completely transparent care and feeding of AIS.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
Okay, oh wow, okay AI AI.
Speaker 21 (41:46):
Justicesmography and just actual decisions are being made. Yea and partially.
Speaker 3 (41:53):
Yeah, we've got it, Jamalt, I get your point. Let me,
let me, let's go to Senator Jones. I mean, I
don't know if you want to answer that. It would
look everybody is using AI for everything right now, So
I guess we should take that seriously, Like could the
court be using AI to help make their decisions.
Speaker 9 (42:10):
Well, I don't know if they're using AI to make
their decision, but they're using AI probably to do some
of their opinions. But I also would point out around
the country more and more you're also seeing courts having
the sanctioned lawyers for using AI citations that just don't exist.
Speaker 21 (42:29):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (42:29):
And so it's a problem.
Speaker 9 (42:30):
We're We're not at a point, by any stretch of
the imagination, that we should take the human element out
of this. I mean, look, we talk about the rule
of law, we talk about justice, we talk about precedent,
but at the end of the day, there's non Supreme
Court justice for a reason, and that is because not
everybody agrees on the interpretation of the law, even when
(42:51):
the black letter law says X, and I hope we
never take that human interaction out of interpreting interpreting the law.
I just think it's going to be important because once
you start getting AI doing it, it's.
Speaker 2 (43:06):
Katie Barrow the door on where we could end up. Tolliver,
what else is coming in online?
Speaker 1 (43:12):
Abdulin Sugarland says, I think we should do away with
the party system and let people run for all public
office based on their ideas, and the president can nominate
judges based on merits, and the Senate can either accept
or reject because there's no party tag associated with them.
Jonathan and Pittsburgh, PA. Says six Supreme Court justices see
those who are not members of the wealthy elite as
nothing more than rats, intend on and aggressive one.
Speaker 3 (43:36):
But yeah, let's get to Colleen, who's in Colorado.
Speaker 2 (43:40):
Colleen, what do you think? Do you trust the Court?
Speaker 20 (43:44):
Hey, Hi, this is Colleen, but I'm actually in the
western suburbs of Chicago.
Speaker 2 (43:47):
Chicago.
Speaker 8 (43:48):
Yes, yeah, I do.
Speaker 20 (43:53):
Not trust the Supreme Court. And somebody had touched on
this something that really wasn't in my realm of awareness.
But when they granted Trump immunity from presidential actions, and
he could not.
Speaker 17 (44:08):
Be held liable.
Speaker 20 (44:09):
I think granted it was a small scope of things,
it only pertained to certain things, but he certainly has
taken that and run with it. So for and that
other caller who phoned in, the younger gentleman, I think
he said it was twenty six or twenty seven. The
Supreme Court also, in my eyes, I'm fifty three, was
the last, our last hope, our last, our final sort
of faith. Soo, and like, let's put the brakes on,
(44:31):
let's take some time. And I feel like they've just
abandoned that completely to appease him and are falling over themselves.
Like that comment just was made. If you're not in
this upper point one percent, it's sad that the Supreme
Court doesn't even consider your rights. My god, the Voting
Rights Act is being is being re examined. Women's health
(44:55):
autonomy was already eliminated. It just it's no longer serving
the purpose for which I believe it was intended to
serve American the United States citizenry.
Speaker 2 (45:08):
So what do you think needs to be done?
Speaker 20 (45:09):
Calling I agree that perhaps, well, it's going to be
like the Senator said, it's hard to pull out the
politicization because they are appointed by somebody they're aligned with politically.
If there is a different way to elect, if there's
a way, if you add more, I don't know that
that's going to solve anything, but maybe a term limit
on it, maybe some stat maybe some way to ensure
(45:35):
I mean again, it's all interpretation. There is some fallacy there,
so it's hard to say. I haven't really thought about
the solution piece of it, but I do think it
is sadly biased right now, is harming Americans. It's very
unfortunate that it is operating as such a political entity.
Speaker 3 (45:50):
Yeah, Collen, thank you for that, Senator. You know, I
wonder the other sort of solution, even though nobody would
ever say this is the solution, but that the justice
is just do a decision that makes it clear that
they're not, you know, just on the same side as
Trump all the time, which they have done, by the way,
I mean the Albreago Garcia.
Speaker 2 (46:08):
Decision was nine to zero against him. Well, yeah, and
there's been others.
Speaker 9 (46:12):
There were some in the first term, and right now,
quite frankly, we haven't seen a lot of actual decisions
yet because Trump has not been in office that long,
and what we're seeing are orders in the emergency docket,
the shadow dockets. So I think this term is going
to be really important because there are a lot of
(46:34):
really interesting issues out there, and I think people are
looking at, you know, what he can do on the
independent agencies, those kind of things. But I think people
do need to understand the one thing about Donald Trump.
He is testing not just the court, he's testing the law,
and he is going to win a lot of these
and he would win a lot and I think in
(46:54):
a lot of other courts, but I think.
Speaker 2 (46:56):
He'll lose some.
Speaker 9 (46:57):
I don't think that he's going to bat a thousand
with this court.
Speaker 2 (47:00):
I really don't. Do you agree with that, Zachary?
Speaker 6 (47:04):
I do, and I think there are two cases in
particular which he may well lose. On the first one
is if it's granted, and I think it will be
his birthright citizenship. On the actual merits, whether that order
was unconstitutional, I do think that the court and I
don't necessarily think it's gonna be nine zero, but I
do think that the court will go against Trump. I
(47:24):
think also in the tariff's case, that's a closer call
whether Trump had the power to put these tariffs forward.
But I think you may see something like a split
decision there where they don't entirely agree with the President.
Maybe they get something and take something at the same time.
So I think in those two arenas we may well
see them pushing against the Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (47:47):
Okay, I know I'm gonna regret this, but I'm just
gonna let Liz on for a second here from Middletown, Ohio. Liz,
please just tell me what you were going to say,
because it sounds like it's gonna be funny.
Speaker 10 (47:58):
All right, you hear me? O gig?
Speaker 15 (47:59):
Yeah, go ahead, Yeah, Okay, Well on, I think we
put the wrong people on the Supreme Court. My fantasy,
who would I put on the Supreme Court? I would
put the Supremes on the Supreme Court. The song that
(48:19):
the First Man them famous when the Late sisues, the
title was where did Our Love Go? That's something in
our country needs it now.
Speaker 2 (48:29):
Yeah, okay, thank you, Liz. I knew that.
Speaker 3 (48:31):
I knew that would be a nice way to to
drop of the show. It also reminds us tover that,
you know, some people like have a drink before they
listen to the Middle.
Speaker 2 (48:40):
I'm not saying not for sure, but I'm not blaming
her if that's the case.
Speaker 3 (48:44):
Anyway, I want to thank my guests Scotis Blog executive
editor Zachary Mtav and former Alabama Senator Doug Jones.
Speaker 2 (48:49):
Thanks so much for both of you for joining us.
Thank you, Jeremy, thank you.
Speaker 3 (48:53):
And don't forget subscribe to our podcast and a few
days we're gonna be talking on the podcast about what
happens next with the no Kings protests. And next week
we'll be back here with our special broadcast from Concord,
New Hampshire.
Speaker 2 (49:03):
About restoring civility to our politics.
Speaker 1 (49:06):
And a reminder you can subscribe to our podcast, our
YouTube channel by Middle Merger, or make a text deductible
contribution to the Middle at listen toothemiddle dot com.
Speaker 3 (49:14):
The Middle is brought to you by Longnok Media, distributed
by Illinois Public Media in Urbana, Illinois, and produced by
Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander, Sam Burmas, DAWs, John Barth, Anikadeshler,
and Brandon Condritz.
Speaker 2 (49:24):
Our technical director is Steve Mork.
Speaker 3 (49:26):
Thanks to our satellite radio listeners, our podcast audience, and
the four hundred and forty plus public radio stations that
are making it possible for people across the country to
listen to the Middle I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Speaker 2 (49:37):
I will talk to you next week.
Speaker 14 (50:00):
These schools
Support for the Middle comes from the stations that air
the show and from you. Thanks for making a donation
at Listen Toothmiddle dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
I'm Jeremy Hobson along with our house DJ Tolliver and Taliver.
We are very excited to say we have some new
listeners to welcome this week.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
I know they keep coming. Welcome to the listeners of
KRPS and Pittsburgh, Kansas. Also w LRH and Huntsville, Alabama
and WHCP and Cambridge, Maryland being venidos.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Yes, and we actually have an Alabama on the show
this hour, so that'll be exciting. Very different places around
the country, but all part of the United States, all
under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and that's what
we're talking about this hour. As you know, the Democrats
have very little power in Washington right now because they
don't control the presidency or the House or the Senate.
So a lot of the opposition to Trump is focused
(00:53):
on taking him to court, and there are now more
than two hundred active cases against the administration in the
White House is also launching other lawsuits of its own
against states. So the Supreme Court, with its six to
three conservative majority half of those conservatives appointed by Trump
has become even more important in the balance of power
in the United States. The problem is polls are showing
(01:14):
a drop in trust in the court to be fair.
A you gov poll a few months ago found sixty
eight percent of respondents thought that justices often let their
own personal or political views influence their decisions. So this hour,
we want to know what you think. Do you trust
the court to be fair? And if not, what can
be done to restore your trust? Tolliver give us the
(01:37):
phone number again.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
Please, you can call us at eight four four four
Middle that's eight four four four six four three three
five three, or you can write to us at listen
to the Middle dot com, or comment on our livestream
on YouTube. I'm collecting your comments and I will get
you on air, so Sentata and.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
We will get to those calls and comments in a moment.
But first, last week we asked you for your thoughts
on the role the government should play in science and
scientific research.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
Here some of the voicemails we got Jonah calling from Greenville, Wisconsin.
Imagine if you're in the nineteen forties and your neighbor
who doesn't believe the folio vaccine works. Imagine if he
had everyone else's phone number and he just called them
all at the same time and said the vaccine doesn't work,
don't take it. Imagine if that guy had a megaphone.
Speaker 5 (02:17):
That's the kind of.
Speaker 6 (02:18):
World we live in now.
Speaker 7 (02:19):
This is Amy Price. I'm calling from Columbia, South Carolina.
I am a twenty year veteran science teacher and I
try to suggest to them what they can do for
future careers in science, and now they're being shut down,
and I feel like I have lied to my students
about their careers in science.
Speaker 8 (02:37):
This is Randy Kron. I am calling from Birmingham, Alabama.
We're going to lose a generation of scientists with what's
currently going on in this administration. So it's not just
the short term problem. This is going to be a
really long term problem, attacking universities and attacking science.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Well, thanks to everyone who called in, and as always,
you can subscribe to the Middle wherever you get your
podcast to hear that entire episode, which by the way,
featured Neil de grass. So now to our topic this hour.
Do you trust the Supreme Court to be fair? And
if not, how could your trust be restored. Our number
is eight four four fur middle, that's eight four four
four six four three three five three. And joining us
this our former Alabama Senator Doug Jones, a Democrat who
(03:14):
was also a United States Attorney in Alabama.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Senator Jones, great to.
Speaker 9 (03:17):
Have you back, Jamage, always great to be with you.
Speaker 10 (03:20):
Thanks.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
And we're also joined by Zachary shem Toab, who is
executive editor of Scotus Blog. Zachary, welcome to you, very
glad to be here. So before we get to the phones, Zachary,
there are a lot of polls out there, but they
all kind of do show this alarming drop in trust
in the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
What do you think is going on?
Speaker 6 (03:38):
So I'm going to take maybe from the start. I
don't know if it's a contrarian position, but maybe a
little different of a position. I think that in terms
of trust, I think we can all agree with this
that it has fallen in terms of every institution, whether
you're talking about the media, university's Congress, obviously, the presidency,
(04:00):
and you know, but just across the board and the
Court is no difference. So I think that it's this
larger result of a loss and trust in institutions across
the entire board, rather than necessarily being specific to the
Court itself. And I think that's also evidenced by the polls,
(04:20):
which show that it's a partisanship that makes the difference here.
Republicans are generally supportive, Democrats not as much.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Well, yeah, what do you think about that, Senator Jones?
Do you think that to that point, it's just Democrats
are unappy now because it's a more conservative Supreme Court?
Speaker 9 (04:37):
You know, No, I don't think it's just that. I
think it's a combination of several things, including the fact
that there have been numerous allegations of ethics violations, ethics
improprieties that I think have cast a paul on certain
members of the court, and they seem to be the
ones leading the charge. It is not just that you've lost.
(04:59):
Look had courts in the past where people have disagreed
with the positions. FDR wanted to pack the court back
in the nineteen thirties, but the court survived that because
it was made up then of only men. In more
recent times, men and women of integrity that knew when
(05:19):
they should recuse, knew when that they should not take gifts,
and so I think there's some personal part of this
that's caused the problem. Certainly, I agree with fact that
the partisanship has gotten over the top, and so that
people while it is a lack of confidence in the Court,
(05:40):
it's really a lack of confidence by Democrats in the
more conservative justices and vice versa. I think that that
is a huge problem and that one is going to
be very difficult to overcome.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Well, and Zachary on the issue of what Senator Jones
is talking about there with the ethics has anything changed
in terms of the ethics code since all this stories
came out about Clarence Thomas, one of the justices, accepting,
you know, millions of dollars over the years in gifts
and not reporting them.
Speaker 6 (06:07):
The Court adopted an ethics code. It is not a
particularly strong ethics code, and ultimately it's regulated by the
Court itself and there aren't deep consequences if there are
violations of that code. So, yes, something has changed, but
I don't think it's gone enough in the direction most
people would necessarily want. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Well, I was just going to say.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
The other thing that I wanted to bring up is
the question of the Court's authority. There was this Earlier
this year, the Supreme Court ruled nine to zero that
Kilmar Abrego Garcia had to be returned from L Salvador
from that prison in L Salvador, and the Trump administration
took months to comply with that. Does the Supreme Court
(06:50):
have a credibility problem if they can't enforce their ruling,
Senator Jones.
Speaker 9 (06:55):
You know, clearly, for those people who understand the court
and know law the law, which I think we have
a civics problem in this country these days, they'll understand
that the Court has very limited things that they can
do to enforce its court orders. That is usually left
to the executive branch to enforce court orders, whether it
(07:17):
was school desegregation or whatever. And so I think there
are some things that there has been discussed in terms
of trying to get more.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Power to the court.
Speaker 9 (07:28):
I just don't think that they can do that in
the separation of powers that we've got. And let me
go back, Jerry. I want to mention one other thing
too that I didn't mention a moment ago about the
Court's credibility. I do think that this court, and it
clearly is the conservative majority, people are losing faith in
this court because they are issuing so many opinions that
(07:50):
are not really opinions. They are emergency docket orders that
are overturning lower court orders in favor of the Trump administration.
And so people do clearly see and I think rightly so.
And I know I'm a little bit biased here too,
that this Court has a political agenda here, because this
is unprecedented the way the Court is using emergency procedures.
(08:14):
And I think that's a real issue because it is
just the opposite of conservative when lower courts are saying,
we need to impose an injunction here, keep the status
quo until this case is resolved, and then all of
a sudden, the Supreme Court says, no, go aead and
fire all these people. Go ahead and do all this,
and then we'll decide the merriage later.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
You're talking about what's called the shadow docket, where the
Supreme Court can rule on emergency cases quickly and without
oral arguments or full briefings, Zachary, if you ask the
justices if they think they have a problem, they will
say no. Amy Cony Barrett has said she does not
think the US is in a constitutional crisis at all.
What is the opinion among the people that you speak
(08:55):
to at SCOTUSblog about whether we are really in the
credibility crisis that we're hearing about.
Speaker 6 (09:02):
Yeah, I just wanted to mention one thing in terms
of the emergency docket. The Court's approval rating or trust
in the Court was falling well before this exploded. So this,
you know, there are many issues with this, but but
I don't think it explains the drop and the approval
rating in terms of what I'm hearing in terms regarding credibility.
(09:23):
I mean, there is no doubt that there is a deeper,
you know, skepticism of the Court than existed only a
few years ago. And you hear that, you know, across
the board. But again, there is a profound partisan difference
between what conservatives think of the Court and the credibility
(09:43):
that they lent to it and what you know, those
on the liberal side of the spectrum believe. And you
have folks kind of in the middle who were a
bit all over the place.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Interesting and Senator, just on the issue of the shadow docket,
one more question for you. Do you think the Supreme
Court really has a choice though in the matter if
the executive branch comes and says this is an emergency.
We need a ruling right away on this thing. Can
they really say no.
Speaker 9 (10:06):
Yeah, of course they can, they're the Supreme Court, but
they would have to issue some kind of ruling. But
the point I think that's being made that I think
that is hurting. You've even got US district judges and
appellate court judges now criticizing the Court because they're not
giving them any guidance on what to do with the
emergency docket. All of a sudden, you've got all of
(10:28):
these courts saying we're going to maintain the status quo
while this case is heard. That's what the lower courts
are saying, and almost in every occasion, at least for
this term, the Supreme Court says, no, we're not going
to worry about the status quo. We'll go ahead and
let the order enter and we'll decide the merits later.
(10:49):
Which is I just think a backwards way of looking
at it, and I think most Americans do. And I
understand what Zach is saying about it falling. But I
can tell you from the folks I'm talking about to
all the time, they are talking about the Court overturning
those lower court orders consistently and not keeping the status quo.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
Well, we will see what our listeners think. Again, you
can call us at eight four four four six four
three three five three. Tolliver, I have actually had the
privilege over the course of the time of meeting some
Supreme Court justices, and I will tell you that whether
they're conservati or liberal, they do believe that all nine.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Justices are acting in good faith according to the law.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Yeah, and Chief Justice Roberts has talked a lot about
the need for the Court to be seen as independent.
Here he is earlier this year in an MSNBC interview In.
Speaker 11 (11:35):
Our Constitution, judges and the judiciary is a co equal
branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority
to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down obviously
acts of Congress or acts of the President. And that
innovation doesn't work if it's not. The judiciary is not independent.
(11:57):
Its job is to obviously decide cases, but in the
course of that check the excesses of Congress or of
the executive and that does require degree of independence.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
Degree of independence by the way, Tolliver, just a reminder,
as we are coming towards the end of the year
that we are accepting and more than happy to accept
donations in any amount at Listen to the Middle dot com.
It's very important for us to be able to do
this show to hear from the people who love it
the most, which is you, the podcast listener. If you
(12:29):
can make a contribution at Listen to the Middle dot com,
we very.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Much appreciate it. It's tax deductible, and thank you so much.
We write back with more of the Middle.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
This is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. If you're just tuning,
in the Middle is a national call in show. We're
focused on elevating voices from the middle geographically, politically, and philosophically,
or maybe you just want to meet in the middle.
This hour, we're asking you if you trust the Supreme
Court to be fair, and if not, what can be
done to restore your trust? Tolliver, what is the number
to call in?
Speaker 1 (12:56):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four sixty four three three five three. You can also
write to us that Listen to the Middle dot com
or on all social media.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
All right, I'm joined by former Alabama Senator Doug Jones
and Scotisblog executive editor Zachary shemtab and the phone lines
are lighting up, So let's go to Dave, who's in
upstate New York. Dave, go ahead, what do you trust
the court?
Speaker 12 (13:18):
Absolutely? Trusted? Supreme Court?
Speaker 2 (13:21):
Really tell us more?
Speaker 12 (13:24):
Well, I believe they're doing what needs to be done
to protect the Union and protect our freedoms.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
Do you think that they are being a little too
giving a little too much deference to the Trump administration
right now?
Speaker 12 (13:38):
Uh?
Speaker 13 (13:40):
Not?
Speaker 12 (13:40):
Really?
Speaker 10 (13:40):
No?
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Why not?
Speaker 12 (13:44):
Why not? Well, the way I see it, we've got
a bunch of Marxist atheists, satanic socialists that are trying
to destroy this country, and I believe Trump, the Republics,
and the Supreme Court majority is working to prevent that.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Okay, Dave, thanks for the call.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
It sort of goes to the point, Zachary, their conservatives,
I think the court's being fair. This person obviously a
Trump voter, and liberals don't like what they're seeing right now.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Zachary, your thoughts.
Speaker 6 (14:22):
Yeah, I would be curious, and I don't know if
you'd be comfortable doing this, but just asking, you know,
if folks are comfortable answering, you know, in their political ideology,
and I would not be surprised if it mapped on
one to one where conservatives who call in will support
the court and liberals who call in will not.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Well, that's why it'd be interesting to see if we
hear from some independence this hour. Steve is calling in
from Edwardsville, Illinois.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Steve, go ahead. Do you trust the court?
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Hey, Steve, listen to the phone, not the radio, and
tell me do you trust the court? He's lost interest.
Let's go to Nate, who is in Milwaukee. Nate, do
you trust the Supreme Court?
Speaker 14 (15:10):
Hi? Thank you for having me, And right now I'm
very questioning of how much I trust the sup Court.
I think you could fix two different things. Thing number
one is the way people end up getting on the court.
We should probably have term limits and then a set
number of people that a president can appoint in one
(15:33):
term so that you don't have political parties in the
US Senate trying to play with the system to pick
who does and does not get on the Court. Also,
I'm from the state that was jerrymandering, and thankfully that's over.
But although jerrymandering talk could have been over years ago
(15:54):
with a court case called gil versus Whitford and the
Lower Federal Court had actually gotten rid of ruled against
jerrymandering here in Wisconsin, and then the Supreme Court took
it up, and Republicans from all over the US, including
the RNC, basically wrote to the court saying, please preserve
(16:15):
the ability for state governments to rig elections. And I
think that's something that basically goes against anybody's common sense
about what an election should be.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
Nate, thank you Senator Jones on the issue that he
brought up there about term limits. This is something that
was proposed, but when Biden came in as president, it
never happened. It hasn't happened. Do you think that that
could ever happen, that there would be term limits on
the Justice that it's not for life.
Speaker 9 (16:44):
I don't see that happening, certainly, not in any of
our lifetimes. I include all of you younger guys on
there too. I just think politically that's a difficult thing
to do, because as the pendulum swings in one of
these days, I believe it will swing a little bit again,
people are gonna start willing to have their cake and
(17:06):
eat it too. I just don't see any real changes
to the Court that is meaningful anytime on the future.
Most of them would take a Supreme Court I mean
a constitutional amendment to change the makeup or to do it.
Not to change the makeup in numbers, but to change
certain things I think would require constitutional amendment. And that
(17:27):
is difficult anyway, and just noam near and possible, and
such bitter partisan times that we're living in right now.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Zacher, do you agree with that?
Speaker 6 (17:39):
I agree entirely. I think that regardless of whether one
supports term limits, and I think most folks actually do,
it is extremely unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
It's interesting, though, because there is nothing that says, for example,
that there have to be nine people on this Supreme Court.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says that there's There's also,
there are other ways around it.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Besides doing actual termlips.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Couldn't they do like a rotating cast where they say,
this federal judge from the Third Circuit gets to come
onto the Supreme Court for a while.
Speaker 6 (18:15):
Yes, that's been one of the proposals. Has has been
court packing removing. I mean, there are all sorts of
things that can be done. Congress could do something called
jurisdiction stripping, which is probably one of the most extreme measures,
which essentially doesn't allow the case the court to hear
cases on appeal. And so there are so many different
things that could be done, but again, as the senator
(18:39):
talked about, we're just not in the political environment where
that's likely to happen.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
Okay, Joseph is calling from Philadelphia. Joseph, go ahead with
your thoughts.
Speaker 10 (18:49):
Oh, how you doing, Jeremy? How sent it to Jones?
Speaker 2 (18:54):
Yahyat doing great?
Speaker 10 (18:57):
Well? I just thank you so many mega going well.
Our praise be I just want to say this. You know,
I don't have faith in the court, as I told Tyler,
the producer, I said, because you can't have a court
that don't go by the rule of law. These just
the ones that Trump's supported, even whether he didn't a point,
they bias towards Trump. They don't even go with the
rule of law. Like here in Philadelphia where I live,
(19:18):
I talked to common police court judges and they say, Joe,
I don't let my personal beliefs, whether it be abortion
or whatever. I go by the law. I dealt with
the rule of law. And some of these guys on
that Supreme Court clans, Thomas, one of them, is that.
I take this from everybody, Thomas. You know these people
have no integrity. Man, You know you just gonna rule
(19:38):
and favor Trump when you know the man is clearly wrong.
I mean, he's to me and my this that's my
own person view. He's the vist president this country ever
had because he has no integrity. He does lie, lie, lie,
and people just brownly support this guy while he's taking
this country down. Hell, it's just a shame that people
in this country can't see Trump for who is. In
my opinion, I'm an African American man, and my you're
(20:00):
not closing this. The most decent president this country ever
had to have, any human decen was President Jimmy Carter,
who had shaking his hand back in nineteen eighty League
Hannis Love, Here they go for Barack Obama. He was
a war moment President Carter, the decent man ever hold
his office, President Jimmy Carter, and that mean God bless
him and rest of his soul. He was a good
human being.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Thank you, Okay, thank you, thank you, Joseph, thank you.
Speaker 3 (20:22):
You know, Senator Jones, as you hear that, I wonder, like,
what are the consequences for our democracy? If people say
what Joseph said and they just don't trust that the
Court is being fair, well.
Speaker 9 (20:36):
You know, I think one of the ironies of what
he said just then was about President Carter, and I
believe he's one of the most decent guys we ever had.
In Zach, if I'm not mistaken, president Carter did not
get a Supreme Court appointment.
Speaker 10 (20:49):
He's one of the only.
Speaker 9 (20:50):
Presidents who did not get a Supreme Court appointment. But
you know, look, I want to I want to take
a little bit different approach to that, answered Jeremy, because.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
I get it.
Speaker 9 (20:59):
I'm I'm out here, you know, in Alabama and other places,
and I hear the just peep the visceral reaction to
so many of these Supreme Court decisions. But for folks
old enough, you know, like me, you would remember when
Jim Crow Law started to be dismantled and school desegregation
(21:21):
cases were being decided by the Supreme Court, and throughout
particularly the South and in some other states, there were
impeach Earl Warren billboards that were up all over. So
I think Zach's point earlier about this mainly being partisan.
It used to be that the Conservatives hated the Supreme
Court because of Earl Warren and Hugo Black and William O.
(21:44):
Douglas and others. Then they called him an activist Supreme Court.
Now it's just flipped and that is the nature of
electoral politics and weird things stand. And I think if
we could get away a little bit from our political
part artisanship, we would also help the Supreme Court, but
it would also give them. I just hope that there
(22:06):
can be some people on that court that can really
see that that is the one institution that does not
need to be viewed through partisan lenses, and it is
right now. And I will say finally on this point.
Part of that is also the media, because everybody always remembers, says,
you know, all this decision was authored by Obama appointee
(22:29):
X or Trump appointee X, and so they're automatically labeled,
and when there is a crossover, people.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
Are like shop and they don't know.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
And I remember John Roberts saying sort of slapping down
Trump a while back, saying, there aren't Obama judges and
Trump judges. There are just judges justices of the Court.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
And that's that. Tolliver, what's coming in and listen to
the middle dot com.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
Sure Brian from Tampa says the politicians and justices enjoy
the two party conservative versus liberal figurative war. The two
parties are pulling the tug of war rope as hard
as possible. That's why both parties are immoderate. Nobody wins
a tug of war by pulling with moderation. E J
in Michigan says, let us not forget how the Supreme
Court supermajority was created. Please address the way McConnell manipulated
(23:14):
the system to allow Trump to place the justices he
did on the court a lot more, but I'll just
start with those teams.
Speaker 3 (23:20):
Yeah, no, that's interesting, and we and we we are
going to get to that. Let's go though, to Bill
who's in Watertown, New York. Bill, go ahead with your thoughts, all.
Speaker 8 (23:29):
Right, Jeremy, Yeah, I think gonna Supreme Court is ruined
in common sense.
Speaker 10 (23:37):
Every every every ruin.
Speaker 13 (23:39):
That I see it is common sense, and the president
is governing on common sense.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
So so you think they're being fair?
Speaker 10 (23:50):
Absolutely? Yeah?
Speaker 13 (23:51):
Do you do you find I don't think the lower
court should be getting in I mean, they're they're active,
like they're projects that they're acting like their Supreme Court
to something. Yeah, how can they rule for the country?
Speaker 2 (24:08):
And did you vote for Trump this time?
Speaker 10 (24:12):
I did?
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Yeah, but I'm not.
Speaker 15 (24:14):
I'm not.
Speaker 10 (24:15):
I'm not a Republican.
Speaker 15 (24:17):
I mean.
Speaker 10 (24:20):
Nothing. I don't normally vote, but I had to do something.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
Okayh Bill, thank you for that call. Another Zachary another
Republican or not. He says he's not a Republican, but
he did vote for Trump, who believes that the Court
is being fair right now and and operating in common sense.
Let me get another call in who Ryan is in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Ryan,
go ahead, do you trust the court?
Speaker 16 (24:48):
Hey, thanks for taking my call. I don't trust the Court,
but that's not because of the Court itself. I think
I reflect a lot of Americans that don't trust most
institutions like public education, traditional media, and a lot of
our politicians. I'd like to ask your guests a question.
Aren't we going to have to start addressing like re
(25:08):
establishing civil society and re establishing trust in many of
our institutions are basic institutions on Main Street before we
can really start addressing re establishing trust in a more
abstract institution such as the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
Ill.
Speaker 3 (25:25):
Yeah, let's go Zachary. It's been a while since we've
heard from you, so you can answer that question.
Speaker 6 (25:29):
No, I mean, ultimately yes, I agree completely. I think
at the end of the day, we can talk about
and may talk about different piecemeal changes that could be
made to the Court, and I have plenty. I'm sure
the Senator has plenty as well. But I don't think
you're going to see a dramatic swing in trust in
it until the foundations, the bedrocket stealth changes and this
(25:52):
partisan fever abates. I don't know when or if that's
going to happen. Don't see it happening anytime soon soon.
But I don't see the trust in the court. And
I think we're learning this through the callers and our discussion.
I don't see trust in the Court returning to where
it was until something more fundamental changes.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
By the way, are our show next week is all
about sort of restoring the ability for people to talk
to people that they disagree with politically, and one of
the things that comes up in that program, which we
recorded live in New Hampshire, is that social media is
pulling us so far away from things that we can
agree on and we're spending a lot less time even
(26:33):
our local communities, talking to people that may disagree with
us politically but agree with us on all kinds of
other things and showing our sort of shared humanity. Let
me sneak one more call in here and in Boulder, Colorado,
and go ahead with your thoughts.
Speaker 17 (26:47):
Hi, there, guys. So I may be the unicorn, I
am liberal, I'm an attorney, I'm a legal commentator, and
I do trust and have faith in our Supreme Court,
even our current Supreme Court.
Speaker 6 (26:59):
Nice, you are unicorn?
Speaker 17 (27:02):
Tell us why may I tell you?
Speaker 9 (27:04):
Why?
Speaker 18 (27:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 17 (27:05):
Yeah, Well, because being an attorney, and I have been
one for decades, I know that. First of all, you know,
a case does not get up to the Supreme Court
unless the reasonable minds can differ on the interpretations and
applying the law to the fact. And I have faith
that if you get to be a Supreme Court justice,
you have demonstrated that you have the brains and that
(27:28):
you have the rational You know your rational and you
you have demonstrated your ability to weigh the merits of
the case and to apply the law. And you know,
when we have a liberal, activist Supreme Court and conservatives
are upset, and when we have a conservative Supreme Court,
(27:49):
liberals are upset. But that doesn't mean that the justices
aren't doing their job. And I have not seen a
single opinion come out of the Supreme Court that isn't
supportable by the law, and a of the law. That's
their job is to interpret the law. So yes, I
trust them. And when I think it was Zachary who
said partisan fever man, that's exactly what's going on.
Speaker 3 (28:11):
Yeah, and thank you for being our unicorns so far
in the show. Appreciate the call, Senator Jones. What do
you think about what Anne said there?
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Look, I appreciate that very much.
Speaker 9 (28:20):
I think what we were discussing, by and large was
whether the public is distrustful of the court, and I
think overwhelmingly the public is. I have a certain element
of trust myself. However, I disagree with Anne a little
bit and that I have seen some court decisions that
I think they had to do some real mental judicial
gymnastics to reach an end, and they wanted a certain end,
(28:44):
particularly on some gun cases that I think, you know,
going back to trying to determine what the originalists we're
talking about with a second Amendment when we have the
kind of weapons on our streets that that we have
right now. It's going to be interesting to see what
they do in the coming weeks or months with regard
to the new gun case and involving people with drug
(29:06):
problems drug addicts. So I do think that there have
been decisions that you just scratch your head and wonder
what's going on. And clearly, my personal opinion is that
there are a couple of these justices that clearly have
political agendas and have long since kind of shed what
judicial philosophy that they had in favor of their political opinions.
(29:30):
And you couple that with the ethics issues that we're faced,
that is that's a real dagger to the Court as
a whole, I think, which is unfair to most of
those justices, because most of those justices I would absolutely
agree with ann.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
Well Tolliver we said we would talking about this. We
remember that Republicans wouldn't let President Obama fill the seat
of antonin Scalia when he died, saying they didn't want
to do that in an election year. But then they
put Trump's pick Amy Cony Barrett on the court literally
as the election was happening in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
That's right, and Barrett replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg after
her death. Here's Ginsburg talking about the Court during her
confirmation hearing in nineteen ninety three.
Speaker 19 (30:11):
Supreme Court justices are guardians of the Great Charter that
has served as our nation's fundamental instrument of government for
over two hundred years. It is the oldest written constitution
still in force in the world. But the justices do
not guard constitutional rights alone. Courts share that profound responsibility
(30:36):
with Congress, the President, the States, and the people.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
You know, Tolliver, This is where we should remind our
podcast listeners that they don't get to hear you play
music like the radio listeners do, and therefore they don't
get to hear what you played on the radio show.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
Right at this point, so good, you know, which was notorious?
Big momenty? More problems right.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
Because right because they call her notorious RG. Yes, it
was a lovely moment.
Speaker 3 (31:01):
But anyway, we'll be right back with more calls coming
up on the middle.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
This is the middle.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
I'm Jeremy Hobson, and this hour we're asking you what
can be done to restore your trust in the Supreme Court.
If you don't trust the court to be fair. Right now,
you can call us at eight four to four four
Middle that's eight four four four six four three three
five three, or you can reach out at Listen to
the Middle dot com. I'm joined by Scotisblog executive editor
Zachary shem Toab and former Alabama Senator Doug Jones. And actually,
(31:29):
before we go back to the phones, Zachary, it doesn't
seem like the Court takes as many boring cases as
they used to. I remember covering the court term each year,
and there would be a lot of cases that were
really complicated and boring and didn't seem like they were
ones that were going to make the headlines. Now they
seem like they're all really political, really vital opinions that
(31:49):
they're coming out with.
Speaker 6 (31:51):
They're not.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
They do.
Speaker 6 (31:53):
They do take fewer cases than they have in the past,
but there are still plenty of technical, quote unquote boring ones,
not obviously for the parties involved, but you know what
many of us will consider boring, and you can certainly
see plenty of those on a Scotis blog. But yes, certainly,
I think the contentious cases get a lot more attention
(32:16):
than they once did, and now it's just you know,
twenty four to seven. So it certainly seems like every
case is you know, partisan or ideological.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Okay, let's go to Susan and Tetonia, Idaho. Susan, go ahead.
Do you trust the court?
Speaker 20 (32:33):
Hello?
Speaker 18 (32:35):
No, And I have to say I'm seventy six years old.
I had great respect for the court most of my
adult life, and it's been absolutely shattered recently. And I
puzzled over this a lot. Why are they making such
bad decisions? You can see Citizens United and Second Amendment decisions.
There's so many that are causing harm to our country
(32:58):
and undermining democras. See, so I think it goes beyond
politics and what I have a question for you, like,
where did this originalist doctrine come for interpreting the law?
And why can't we in the vetting process get to
the ideological backgrounds of people who are appointed. So those
(33:22):
are my questions.
Speaker 3 (33:23):
Okay, yes, Susan, Thank you, Senator Jones. One of the
people that loved the originalist doctrine was Antonin Scalia, who
of course passed away many years ago.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
But yeah, go ahead. I think that that's where it
came from.
Speaker 9 (33:36):
And everybody you know, he just kept at it. He
did it in his descents, and it just as it grew,
so groups judges around there, the Federalist Society and others
adopted that, and thus, you know, thus that's.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Where it is.
Speaker 9 (33:54):
But even with that, it is just really difficult to
have a pure originalists. You know, look at this, you
have to look at what they thought was the original intent,
but then apply it to the facts that you've got today.
So it's still really a little a morphous. It is
because you can't strictly construe it. There were some senators
(34:17):
when I did Justice Jackson's that really thought, you know,
you should just go strictly by the letter of the
Constitution period end of discussion. That's never going to happen.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
But it is.
Speaker 9 (34:30):
People look at it, and even I think the more
liberal justices use originalism more than people realize.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
Well.
Speaker 3 (34:39):
And on the issue of the Citizens United, that was
a different court. That was a that was I believe
a five to four court rather I mean five to
four conservatives and liberals, rather than the one we're in
right now.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
And Bush v.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
Gore, of course, was a very controversial case from two
thousand was also a very different court than what we
have now, and there were more liberal on that court, Zachary.
So it's interesting the cases that you think about that
really really alarm, especially people on the left in this country,
came from a court that was much more evenly divided
than the one we have now.
Speaker 6 (35:12):
Right, and then you have plenty of other controversial decisions
prior to that. So I mean, I mean, to me,
it goes to the point which I don't think the
Senator will agree with, to be fair, But it's that
the court has always been political, and I think you
have always had, you know, political justices, for better or worse.
(35:35):
And I think that one of the major differences now
is how aware of it people are and how much
it's spotlighted and how much it's called out where going
back to John Jay, certainly going back to Chief Justice Marshall, who,
based on our rules now, actually should have recused himself
from Marbury versus Madison. But that's a whole other story.
(35:56):
There have been all sorts of political issues from get go,
So this is nothing new, even though people seem to
often act otherwise.
Speaker 9 (36:06):
Can I say, Jery, I agree with Zachary on that.
I do understand and see that there has been a
political bent, but there have been so many cases too
where you you know, the politics was put on the
back burner, so to speak, because of court precedent. You
could tell that folks didn't really particular care, but court
(36:27):
president did that and that kept that view. I think
that it was somewhat at least independent, but clearly the
Supreme Court, like every other court, it's you know, they
got their jobs because of politics.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
It's that simple.
Speaker 9 (36:43):
And they got their jobs because of the political and
judicial philosophy that was consistent with the presidents. And that's
the one thing that I think people often forget. I
think totally agree with that.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
A lot of what.
Speaker 9 (36:56):
We're seeing is not new, it's really not.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
I anchored the all day NPR coverage on the day
that Christine Blasi Ford and who was the accuser of
Brett Cavanaugh and Cavanaugh testified on Capitol Hill. It was
a big day, and I remember that Kavanaugh basically you
say they're political, and how they get their job. He
used the Trump model of just like attacking, attacking, attacking,
(37:20):
and he ended up, of course on the Supreme Court.
After that, he did what what the President wanted him
to do. It sounds like, let's get to Devon in Denver, Colorado. Devon,
what do you think is the court fair?
Speaker 10 (37:34):
I think, like you.
Speaker 5 (37:35):
Guys said, you know, it's a very politicized court. But
at the end of the day, you know, this is
the last institution that everybody's trying to fight for. A
lot of people are giving up on the president. You know,
we have lobbying and it's ruined Congress, and you know
(37:56):
you're never gonna you can't ever fight. You know, my
generation twenty seven, twenty six, we're kind of tired of it.
You know, we've seen it with Bernie and things like that.
We're kind of we're tired of the institutions. I do
think that the justices tried their best to interpret, but
(38:17):
I also know that it is a very politicized arena,
and I just think it's probably very difficult to make
some of the best decisions as possible. And you know,
like you said, you know, there are some external factors
and influences, and this is the reason why a lot
of the young people are kind of disgruntled with the
(38:37):
political system and just the government as a whole.
Speaker 3 (38:40):
Well, and Devin, would you say you're more on the
right on the left or in the middle.
Speaker 5 (38:47):
I've been demonized as an independent since the day I.
Speaker 10 (38:51):
Could vote, when I was eighteen.
Speaker 2 (38:53):
So wow, okay, well great, well, thank you for something.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
You so much for calling in Zachary an independent. There
we've got that. We got that unicorn checked off the list.
But yeah, and he wants to give the court the
benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 6 (39:07):
It sounds like he absolutely. I thought it, yeah, very interesting,
and I thought it was pretty disturbing how he said
he have been demonized as an independence. But but yeah,
I do think there is a moderate block who wants
to give the court the benefit of the doubt. I
think that that voice is often lost because you know,
the ones who come forward and the ones are the
(39:29):
more partisan elements. But yes, that it certainly does exist.
It's just, as we know, not not the dominant voice.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
Let's get to Jamal, who's in Estes Park, Colorado. Jamal,
what do you think do you trust the court?
Speaker 21 (39:45):
I do know there's a question both of as you've
been making clear, this particular court, these individuals and then
the institution. And I disagree with those who are saying
that the this is just another direction that the political
wind blows that people always. Certainly it is true that
(40:07):
people on the opposite side of a particular decision or
political situation are going to disagree, but quite way beyond that,
it seems to me that there is more appearance of
impropriety with this court than, as far as I'm aware,
there has ever been about any Supreme court uh in
(40:28):
the history of the United States. However, beyond that, this
particular court illustrates the weaknesses of the institution. It's a
classic who guards us from the guardian's situation? Customed Yet
it's those customs. So we are at a point right
(40:55):
now where we have this brand new thing AI that
is being incorporated into governance willy nilly, and that's a
really bad thing, but we have the opportunity to incorporate
it broadly.
Speaker 10 (41:12):
Uh.
Speaker 21 (41:13):
And I think I'm hearing a lot of callers talking
about the broad based lack of faith into the institutions.
I think it's time to take seriously what Churchill said
about democracy being the worst of the solution in the
world except for all the others, which is a call
for something new, you know, And one part of that
(41:33):
I would love to see the human participation in the
Supreme Court become the completely transparent care and feeding of AIS.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
Okay, oh wow, okay AI AI.
Speaker 21 (41:46):
Justicesmography and just actual decisions are being made. Yea and partially.
Speaker 3 (41:53):
Yeah, we've got it, Jamalt, I get your point. Let me,
let me, let's go to Senator Jones. I mean, I
don't know if you want to answer that. It would
look everybody is using AI for everything right now, So
I guess we should take that seriously, Like could the
court be using AI to help make their decisions.
Speaker 9 (42:10):
Well, I don't know if they're using AI to make
their decision, but they're using AI probably to do some
of their opinions. But I also would point out around
the country more and more you're also seeing courts having
the sanctioned lawyers for using AI citations that just don't exist.
Speaker 21 (42:29):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (42:29):
And so it's a problem.
Speaker 9 (42:30):
We're We're not at a point, by any stretch of
the imagination, that we should take the human element out
of this. I mean, look, we talk about the rule
of law, we talk about justice, we talk about precedent,
but at the end of the day, there's non Supreme
Court justice for a reason, and that is because not
everybody agrees on the interpretation of the law, even when
(42:51):
the black letter law says X, and I hope we
never take that human interaction out of interpreting interpreting the law.
I just think it's going to be important because once
you start getting AI doing it, it's.
Speaker 2 (43:06):
Katie Barrow the door on where we could end up. Tolliver,
what else is coming in online?
Speaker 1 (43:12):
Abdulin Sugarland says, I think we should do away with
the party system and let people run for all public
office based on their ideas, and the president can nominate
judges based on merits, and the Senate can either accept
or reject because there's no party tag associated with them.
Jonathan and Pittsburgh, PA. Says six Supreme Court justices see
those who are not members of the wealthy elite as
nothing more than rats, intend on and aggressive one.
Speaker 3 (43:36):
But yeah, let's get to Colleen, who's in Colorado.
Speaker 2 (43:40):
Colleen, what do you think? Do you trust the Court?
Speaker 20 (43:44):
Hey, Hi, this is Colleen, but I'm actually in the
western suburbs of Chicago.
Speaker 2 (43:47):
Chicago.
Speaker 8 (43:48):
Yes, yeah, I do.
Speaker 20 (43:53):
Not trust the Supreme Court. And somebody had touched on
this something that really wasn't in my realm of awareness.
But when they granted Trump immunity from presidential actions, and
he could not.
Speaker 17 (44:08):
Be held liable.
Speaker 20 (44:09):
I think granted it was a small scope of things,
it only pertained to certain things, but he certainly has
taken that and run with it. So for and that
other caller who phoned in, the younger gentleman, I think
he said it was twenty six or twenty seven. The
Supreme Court also, in my eyes, I'm fifty three, was
the last, our last hope, our last, our final sort
of faith. Soo, and like, let's put the brakes on,
(44:31):
let's take some time. And I feel like they've just
abandoned that completely to appease him and are falling over themselves.
Like that comment just was made. If you're not in
this upper point one percent, it's sad that the Supreme
Court doesn't even consider your rights. My god, the Voting
Rights Act is being is being re examined. Women's health
(44:55):
autonomy was already eliminated. It just it's no longer serving
the purpose for which I believe it was intended to
serve American the United States citizenry.
Speaker 2 (45:08):
So what do you think needs to be done?
Speaker 20 (45:09):
Calling I agree that perhaps, well, it's going to be
like the Senator said, it's hard to pull out the
politicization because they are appointed by somebody they're aligned with politically.
If there is a different way to elect, if there's
a way, if you add more, I don't know that
that's going to solve anything, but maybe a term limit
on it, maybe some stat maybe some way to ensure
(45:35):
I mean again, it's all interpretation. There is some fallacy there,
so it's hard to say. I haven't really thought about
the solution piece of it, but I do think it
is sadly biased right now, is harming Americans. It's very
unfortunate that it is operating as such a political entity.
Speaker 3 (45:50):
Yeah, Collen, thank you for that, Senator. You know, I
wonder the other sort of solution, even though nobody would
ever say this is the solution, but that the justice
is just do a decision that makes it clear that
they're not, you know, just on the same side as
Trump all the time, which they have done, by the way,
I mean the Albreago Garcia.
Speaker 2 (46:08):
Decision was nine to zero against him. Well, yeah, and
there's been others.
Speaker 9 (46:12):
There were some in the first term, and right now,
quite frankly, we haven't seen a lot of actual decisions
yet because Trump has not been in office that long,
and what we're seeing are orders in the emergency docket,
the shadow dockets. So I think this term is going
to be really important because there are a lot of
(46:34):
really interesting issues out there, and I think people are
looking at, you know, what he can do on the
independent agencies, those kind of things. But I think people
do need to understand the one thing about Donald Trump.
He is testing not just the court, he's testing the law,
and he is going to win a lot of these
and he would win a lot and I think in
(46:54):
a lot of other courts, but I think.
Speaker 2 (46:56):
He'll lose some.
Speaker 9 (46:57):
I don't think that he's going to bat a thousand
with this court.
Speaker 2 (47:00):
I really don't. Do you agree with that, Zachary?
Speaker 6 (47:04):
I do, and I think there are two cases in
particular which he may well lose. On the first one
is if it's granted, and I think it will be
his birthright citizenship. On the actual merits, whether that order
was unconstitutional, I do think that the court and I
don't necessarily think it's gonna be nine zero, but I
do think that the court will go against Trump. I
(47:24):
think also in the tariff's case, that's a closer call
whether Trump had the power to put these tariffs forward.
But I think you may see something like a split
decision there where they don't entirely agree with the President.
Maybe they get something and take something at the same time.
So I think in those two arenas we may well
see them pushing against the Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (47:47):
Okay, I know I'm gonna regret this, but I'm just
gonna let Liz on for a second here from Middletown, Ohio. Liz,
please just tell me what you were going to say,
because it sounds like it's gonna be funny.
Speaker 10 (47:58):
All right, you hear me? O gig?
Speaker 15 (47:59):
Yeah, go ahead, Yeah, Okay, Well on, I think we
put the wrong people on the Supreme Court. My fantasy,
who would I put on the Supreme Court? I would
put the Supremes on the Supreme Court. The song that
(48:19):
the First Man them famous when the Late sisues, the
title was where did Our Love Go? That's something in
our country needs it now.
Speaker 2 (48:29):
Yeah, okay, thank you, Liz. I knew that.
Speaker 3 (48:31):
I knew that would be a nice way to to
drop of the show. It also reminds us tover that,
you know, some people like have a drink before they
listen to the Middle.
Speaker 2 (48:40):
I'm not saying not for sure, but I'm not blaming
her if that's the case.
Speaker 3 (48:44):
Anyway, I want to thank my guests Scotis Blog executive
editor Zachary Mtav and former Alabama Senator Doug Jones.
Speaker 2 (48:49):
Thanks so much for both of you for joining us.
Thank you, Jeremy, thank you.
Speaker 3 (48:53):
And don't forget subscribe to our podcast and a few
days we're gonna be talking on the podcast about what
happens next with the no Kings protests. And next week
we'll be back here with our special broadcast from Concord,
New Hampshire.
Speaker 2 (49:03):
About restoring civility to our politics.
Speaker 1 (49:06):
And a reminder you can subscribe to our podcast, our
YouTube channel by Middle Merger, or make a text deductible
contribution to the Middle at listen toothemiddle dot com.
Speaker 3 (49:14):
The Middle is brought to you by Longnok Media, distributed
by Illinois Public Media in Urbana, Illinois, and produced by
Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander, Sam Burmas, DAWs, John Barth, Anikadeshler,
and Brandon Condritz.
Speaker 2 (49:24):
Our technical director is Steve Mork.
Speaker 3 (49:26):
Thanks to our satellite radio listeners, our podcast audience, and
the four hundred and forty plus public radio stations that
are making it possible for people across the country to
listen to the Middle I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Speaker 2 (49:37):
I will talk to you next week.
Speaker 14 (50:00):
These schools
Host
Jeremy Hobson
Popular Podcasts
Spooky Podcasts from iHeartRadio
Whether you’re a scaredy-cat or a brave bat, this collection of episodes from iHeartPodcasts will put you in the Halloween spirit. Binge stories, frights, and more that may keep you up at night!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.