Dan Epps

The point about legal polarization, I think, is actually quite interesting. It's one that I've thought about a lot in connection with debates about Supreme Court reform, which is maybe you could say one reason that there was a certain amount of settlement about the power of the Supreme Court was in part the fact that

the preferences of the justices did not systematically track the preferences of the key divisions in politics, right? The culture of lawyers led them to have a mix of maybe culturally elite views, but ones that didn't consistently map onto the views of one political party, right? Justice Kennedy and Justice O'Connor and things like that.

the preferences of the justices did not systematically track the preferences of the key divisions in politics, right? The culture of lawyers led them to have a mix of maybe culturally elite views, but ones that didn't consistently map onto the views of one political party, right? Justice Kennedy and Justice O'Connor and things like that.

And, you know, it strikes me as one thing that's really putting a lot of pressure on the system now is the way in which Will and his friends have helped create the rise of this highly polarized legal culture where lawyer views track political views. I know, Will, that's not new, but... We didn't start it. And that maybe is...

And, you know, it strikes me as one thing that's really putting a lot of pressure on the system now is the way in which Will and his friends have helped create the rise of this highly polarized legal culture where lawyer views track political views. I know, Will, that's not new, but... We didn't start it. And that maybe is...

Leading to some of the breakdown that we're seeing and maybe, you know, might lead to more of what we're seeing in terms of people, political actors starting to really push back on the court and being willing to say, you know, let's put forward a court packing proposal.

Leading to some of the breakdown that we're seeing and maybe, you know, might lead to more of what we're seeing in terms of people, political actors starting to really push back on the court and being willing to say, you know, let's put forward a court packing proposal.

Let's, you know, I talk to Senate staffs all the time who are putting together all sorts of proposals to radically change the court as an institution in ways that I think would have been totally unthinkable a decade ago.

Let's, you know, I talk to Senate staffs all the time who are putting together all sorts of proposals to radically change the court as an institution in ways that I think would have been totally unthinkable a decade ago.

And then, of course, we did want to end by asking you how your book informs what we should think about the court standard for granting an injunction pending appeal under the All Writs Act when we're dealing with shadow DACA cases, because I think there's a pretty clear takeaway there, right?

And then, of course, we did want to end by asking you how your book informs what we should think about the court standard for granting an injunction pending appeal under the All Writs Act when we're dealing with shadow DACA cases, because I think there's a pretty clear takeaway there, right?

is saying people shouldn't care about qualified immunity. So you did 50% on that.

is saying people shouldn't care about qualified immunity. So you did 50% on that.

So did Will, over the course of this hour or so, did he move the needle on originalism for you at all? Or has he been unsuccessful? He tried about three or four times.

So did Will, over the course of this hour or so, did he move the needle on originalism for you at all? Or has he been unsuccessful? He tried about three or four times.

I thought just asking Justice Kennedy what he thought was also a pretty good settlement device, but a lot of the rest of the people in the country didn't seem to agree with that.

I thought just asking Justice Kennedy what he thought was also a pretty good settlement device, but a lot of the rest of the people in the country didn't seem to agree with that.

always the problem with law. All right. Well, that is a good conversation. Well, we will encourage our listeners to buy the book, Law for Leviathan, Constitutional Law, International Law, and the State from Oxford University Press. I would like to say it is available everywhere books are sold. I think that might not be fully accurate, but it is available online at Amazon and similar sources.

always the problem with law. All right. Well, that is a good conversation. Well, we will encourage our listeners to buy the book, Law for Leviathan, Constitutional Law, International Law, and the State from Oxford University Press. I would like to say it is available everywhere books are sold. I think that might not be fully accurate, but it is available online at Amazon and similar sources.

And it is priced not as a library edition, so it's priced so that people like you and me can buy it. So I strongly encourage everyone to to read it. It will really change the way you think about constitutional law and maybe show that a lot of the things that you thought were important are frankly kind of dumb or epiphenomenal or irrelevant to maybe what really matters in the world. Thank you.