The messy drama queens of the Supreme Court

episode

Explain It to Me not yet transcribed

▲ 0

Transcript

This episode hasn't been transcribed yet Upvotes decide what gets transcribed next — 0 so far. Sign in to upvote

Related

recent transcribed audio

SATURDAY RUB | Now with added Sparkles! 1h 25m · 19 Sep 2026 · Triple M Rocks Footy AFL

Finals Footy Heats Up: Shock Results Coming? Hindy Defends Luai & PVL To Be Executive Chairman 1h 23m · 19 Sep 2026 · Triple M Rocks Footy NRL

NPR News: 09-19-2026 12AM EDT 5 min · 19 Sep 2026 · NPR News Now

12AM ET 09/19/2026 Newscast 3 min · 19 Sep 2026 · Fox News Hourly Update

Introducing: Artists on Artists on Artists on Artists 1 min · 19 Sep 2026 · Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Habs Rookies Turning Heads At Training Camp | The Sick Podcast with Tony Marinaro September 18 2026 42 min · 19 Sep 2026 · The Sick Podcast with Tony Marinaro / Le Sick Podcast avec Tony Marinaro

Report any issue

Source

Recorded22 Jun 2018

Publisherfeeds.megaphone.fm

Handlerec:7400717

Show notes

While Sarah, Matt and Ezra are away Dara is joined by Dylan Matthews and Andrew Prokop to talk about the friction between how the Supreme Court says it makes its decisions, and the way everyone assumes it really works. Is it time for the Court to stop getting polite and start getting (legal) real(ist)? References and further reading: Andrew’s explainer on the gerrymandering decision The “efficiency gap,” explained by one of its creators Dylan on the public-sector union case Janus v. AFSCME Dara’s piece on Trump v. Hawaii, the travel ban case Sonia Sotomayor endorsed legal realism before joining the Court KENNEDYWATCH, 2018 Edition Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Sign in