0:04

best way you improve your business is

0:07

to improve the lives if you're ukg

0:10

develops hr and workforce management, solutions

0:13

designed to take care of your employees

0:16

because when a feel supported connected

0:19

and appreciated, your business will

0:21

transform from a workplace into

0:24

a work of art ukg,

0:26

our purpose is people,

0:40

the night visitors to america supreme

0:42

court will notice a menagerie of curious

0:44

critters paring down at them

0:50

hold up lamp posts and sit snugly on the stony

0:52

facade serving as reminder

0:54

of the slow and steady pace of

0:56

justice the

0:58

last term the court itself moved

1:01

at remarkable speed and radically

1:03

tip the scales is from the us

1:05

supreme court in the last couple of hours which

1:07

has ruled that americans still have a fundamental

1:10

right to carry firearms in public

1:12

or yards and eighty nine a decision

1:14

it is six to three and it is a big win

1:17

arguably for the fossil fuel industry

1:19

ah the suffering for the united states overturning

1:22

as an appeals court

1:23

two years as a legally enshrined

1:26

right to abortion in the united states

1:28

has been brought to an end of to the country's

1:30

supreme court decided to overturn

1:33

it's landmark ruling made in nineteen seventy

1:35

three

1:36

the justices eliminated the constitutional

1:38

right to abortion loose and gun laws

1:41

herb the environmental protection agency debility

1:43

to regulate carbon emissions and

1:45

eroded the separation of church and state

1:49

the new term is right around the corner and

1:51

a doc it doesn't laden affirmative

1:54

action voting rights and

1:56

more environmental cases are on the agenda

1:59

the justice will sit on the bench guitars

2:02

you brown jackson replaces stephen breyer

2:04

the case is only heard by a familiar margin

2:07

six conservatives and three liberals

2:18

the didn't be economists asks i'm

2:20

john fast men in for and cowboy

2:22

and this week we're asking what can

2:24

america expect from the supreme court's next

2:27

term

2:28

my guest is eric siegel he the

2:30

law professor at georgia state university and

2:32

before that he worked for the department of justice

2:34

and clerk for federal judges

2:36

it also the author of a number of law review

2:39

articles and books including his

2:41

most recent originalism his face

2:43

which explores the judicial philosophy

2:45

that interprets the constitution's meeting at

2:47

the would have been understood when it was written originalism

2:51

played a role and some of the size of rulings

2:53

with the last term and it's set to shape

2:55

future ones too

2:57

eric siegel welcome to the economists

2:59

asks

3:02

thank you very much for having the i'm very flattered to

3:04

be

3:05

let's start with a broad question about the current core

3:07

you look back the war in court to the supreme

3:09

court that suit just as warned lead from

3:11

fifty three to sixty nine

3:14

sort of the foundational mid twentieth century

3:16

liberal court during those years the

3:18

court ruled that segregation was unlawful

3:20

that police have to tell suspect they have

3:22

a right to an attorney and to stay silent

3:25

and that legislative districts within a state has

3:27

to comprise roughly equal populations it

3:29

changed american a number of ways do

3:31

you think the future generations will look back

3:34

on today's court the chief justice

3:36

roberts and it's six three conservative majority

3:38

as equally consequential

3:40

i think there's no question this last term

3:43

was one of the most consequential in

3:45

supreme court history with abortion

3:48

to big religion cases that

3:50

admission a procedure at case and

3:52

the gun case well i hope

3:54

which is different than what i expect

3:57

is that thirty forty fifty years

3:59

from now

3:59

this

4:01

reign of the roberts court will

4:03

be look at with disdain

4:06

but i have to say i also personally

4:09

don't think the war in court was a good thing

4:12

for america so my critique

4:14

of a strong supreme court is

4:16

not partisan even though i

4:18

do want to identify myself as a progressive

4:21

i think my critique of the court is nonpartisan

4:24

for example you mentioned what one person

4:26

one vote reynolds versus seems almost

4:29

every liberal in the country with applied that

4:31

decision obviously i think

4:34

that's a good policy and i would write it

4:36

into the constitution there's

4:38

no method of constitutional interpretation

4:41

i can accept that gets us to

4:43

one person one vote the you

4:45

can to warn court was not a good thing not because

4:47

of the conclusion that reach but because of that way

4:49

it reached them i think the supreme court

4:51

of the united states is way too important

4:54

in the lives of americans and

4:56

in american elections richard

4:59

nixon ran against the war in court even

5:01

ronald reagan many years later ran

5:03

against the war in court and of course

5:05

donald trump had that famous list which

5:08

i think was the most important factor

5:10

in him being elected president given

5:12

that one in five voters who

5:14

voted for trump said the most important

5:17

issue to them was the supreme

5:19

court i don't think unelected

5:21

like tenured ivy leagues lawyers

5:23

should play this important role

5:25

on either side of the political class

5:28

so how do you decrease the salient of

5:31

the supreme court in the lives of ordinary americans

5:33

governmental officials don't

5:36

generally give up our that's pretty

5:38

rare things and we have a

5:40

long history of this is

5:42

smashes the warren course we can go

5:44

back to dred scott and eighteen fifty seven

5:47

we can go back to the legal tender cases

5:50

in eighteen seventy we can go back

5:52

to the courts misreading the fourteenth

5:54

amendments to protect railroads

5:57

instead of african americans we

5:59

can go to lot the court of thirty years

6:01

of striking down laws dealing

6:03

with labour and minimum wages in overtime

6:06

rules sell you ask a very

6:08

difficult question i

6:10

think that just as

6:12

the court of the nineteen thirties

6:15

was flirting with danger when

6:17

fdr proposed his court packing

6:19

plants which effectively work

6:22

i think this court is flirting

6:24

with being so far to the right the

6:27

median american voter that

6:30

there may be some ways for politicians

6:33

to kind of beat discord into submission

6:36

but i don't know if the political will is there

6:38

i don't think president biden is the president

6:40

to do it a lot depends on the

6:42

upcoming elections they want to park

6:44

that for a minute and come back to that for

6:46

now want to look at their philosophy that

6:49

you've written a great deal about and that i think guys

6:51

a lot of this court's actions at least as they see

6:54

did we can't really discuss the court without at

6:56

least

6:57

asking what is originalism

7:00

how and when did it originate and how to become

7:02

such a powerful to disappear the

7:04

first of i want to say i don't think it's a powerful

7:06

theory and i don't think explains the court's decisions

7:09

our circle back to that of originalism

7:12

as such really began in

7:14

the nineteen seventies with robert bork

7:17

and illegal academic in a row burger

7:19

and some other people who are responding

7:21

to what they viewed as the excesses

7:24

of the war in court roe versus

7:26

wade miranda to

7:28

some extent one person one vote and

7:31

you know there were some people still in the late sixties

7:33

including raw eu berger who thought brown

7:35

was wrongly decided because it can't

7:37

be justified on an original

7:40

faces and here's something that's

7:42

something that's misunderstanding about the history

7:44

of originals originalism

7:47

was not the and it was a tool

7:49

it was a tool to constrain

7:52

judges it was a tool to make

7:54

the supreme court do less

7:56

now i don't know what robert bork would have

7:58

done if he ever got this the court but

8:01

as a scholar and an academic that

8:03

was his raisins yes to limit

8:05

the discretion of judges what

8:08

seems was asked to eight years

8:10

of ronald reagan four

8:13

years of george bush

8:15

we had twelve years of conservative

8:18

judges and justices starting

8:21

, the early nineteen nineties conservatives

8:24

who now own the courts wanted to

8:26

strike down a lot of loss but they

8:28

didn't want to give up his

8:30

label originalism they

8:32

wanted to keep a political label

8:35

if they wanted to give up the constraints so

8:37

people like randy barnett at

8:40

georgetown seats whittington who's

8:42

a historian for scientists at

8:44

princeton but a very influential constitutional

8:46

law voice larry solemn now

8:48

at university of virginia began

8:51

this new originalism idea

8:53

which isn't originalism at

8:55

all and this new regionalism

8:58

basically allows judges allows the discretion

9:00

they want to strike down

9:02

whatever laws they want to because

9:06

reference to test in history is

9:08

simply not constraining and

9:10

in fact you are the people some

9:12

of the many people who same text in history

9:15

don't describe constitutional law and

9:17

shouldn't describe constitutional law oliver

9:20

wendell holmes richard posner

9:22

anthony kennedy justice sandra

9:25

day o'connor more touch new my

9:27

doors adrian from your from the far

9:29

right all of these people

9:32

who the most brilliant minds of their

9:34

generation spanning a hundred

9:36

years have all come to the conclusion

9:39

that text in history is simply a camouflage

9:42

for the imposition of the justices

9:45

bags and we saw that

9:47

this term and we seen that

9:49

with the career of justice thomas and

9:52

if he served six more years will

9:54

be the longest serving justice

9:57

in american history and he

9:59

probably search six more years it

10:02

just so happens that if you take justice

10:04

thomas is constitutional law decisions

10:06

and there are dozens and dozens and dozens

10:08

of dozens that we care about they

10:11

line up perfectly with republican party

10:13

platforms i also want

10:15

to say that if you look at the constitutional

10:17

law decisions of ruth bader ginsburg ninety

10:20

nine percent lineup with the democrat for and

10:23

if you look at the constitutional law decisions of

10:25

people like kennedy o'connor

10:28

suitor blackmon and white

10:31

they were moderates so their decisions

10:33

were guess what moderate

10:36

has been history really have almost nothing

10:38

to do though in that argument

10:40

originalism is the sort of vinny

10:43

or right it's a way of presenting

10:45

to the public the notion that justices

10:47

are reaching their conclusion not based

10:50

on their personal wimmer preferences but

10:52

based on the constitution it's text

10:54

and it's history that this is a way of showing up faith

10:56

in the court isn't that that then

10:58

suddenly want the public to have faith in the court john

11:01

that's a complicated question i

11:04

don't think i want to public to continue

11:07

to have faith in the supreme court's

11:09

because it has been since eighteen

11:11

fifty cents pretty much

11:14

a broken institution and

11:16

the reason why is not

11:18

the complicated i have what i

11:20

call a golden rule of

11:22

democracy and i would be surprised

11:25

if any person listening to this liberal

11:28

moderate or concerned we disagree

11:31

with this golden rule

11:33

never ever

11:36

in a free country give government

11:39

officials basically

11:41

own reviewable power for

11:43

like does that

11:46

nobody does that not no such

11:48

as the to shoot exists in england france spain

11:50

portugal don't give government

11:52

officials government officials for life and then gives him a lot

11:54

of power crazy now i

11:56

want to be transparent about something i work

11:58

for the state of ga the teachers are

12:00

universally unless i do

12:03

something terrible all habitats away

12:06

this is probably a mistake i have no power

12:08

nothing i do matters ruin but

12:10

these government officials define

12:13

who we are as america they'll

12:15

give him on reviewable powerful

12:18

so what is the alternative is the alternative

12:20

to just accept that the justices

12:22

are political creatures and and make

12:24

it a tooth and nail political fight is the alternative

12:26

to somehow clip the supreme court's power

12:29

and if that's true how do you clip at what does

12:31

the alternative to where we are now the johnny

12:33

i do a lot of radio as you know and

12:35

sometimes i say that's a great question

12:38

and i can't give you a soundbite as an

12:41

sas the truth about his questions

12:43

if you don't mind it has to be a fairly

12:45

longest answer but still they

12:48

want to go back to before the constitution

12:50

was ratified it was being

12:52

debated in new york and other places

12:54

and a guy named brutus that was

12:57

his pen name said we should not

12:59

madison a this constitution and he gave

13:01

a lotta wrists not just about the supreme

13:03

court one of his means

13:06

was he saw what would have

13:08

the said if you give judges the power

13:10

to veto laws and give

13:12

them life tenure they

13:14

will feel free of heaven itself he's

13:17

i was a terrible idea alexander

13:19

hamilton responded to this

13:22

in federalist number seven the to federalist

13:24

papers his response was really

13:26

good he said first of

13:28

all they have neither person or sword meaning

13:30

they have no money and no army so

13:33

the justices get too far ahead of

13:35

him or behind the american people the

13:37

president might not enforce their orders

13:40

but he said of more importance he

13:42

said would everyone at the time sought

13:44

and this is the great irony the

13:47

resume as him today if

13:49

you really are a true originalist

13:51

meeting you care with the founding fathers

13:53

thought then what they

13:56

thought about judicial review that

13:58

it would be modest

14:00

limited

14:01

and only used upon

14:03

clear constitutional error

14:06

or what alexander hamilton

14:08

specifically said which is only

14:11

when there's an irreconcilable

14:13

varies between a statute

14:15

and the constitution which describes

14:17

almost none of the cases that americans

14:20

care about where laws are struck down so

14:22

that i think is the answer

14:25

we need to figure out a way you

14:27

have extremely deferential

14:30

and limited judicial review

14:33

i don't quote alexander hamilton because i'm

14:35

an originalist or because that's what the

14:37

founding fathers thought i quote

14:39

him because he was thinking

14:41

about this in a razzie and veil

14:44

of ignorance not knowing

14:46

who's going to be on whose side and

14:48

it without knowing his his judges would be

14:50

appointed or knocks of course he was a strong federalist

14:53

and the political factions are very divided

14:56

by in the world that was coming he

14:58

said this only works the

15:00

judicial review is limited

15:03

modest

15:04

that's what we need how

15:06

do you get from here there is a very

15:08

complicated and difficult question what

15:11

do you think hamilton and the founding fathers

15:13

in the frame of the constitution with think

15:15

of the people on the court today who claim to be

15:17

acting in their interests who claim to be recently it

15:20

would think they're nuts these were all

15:23

white property men who

15:25

would trying to do something extraordinary

15:27

create a new country that was

15:30

going to be more of a free country

15:32

in almost any country in the history of

15:34

thought and ,

15:36

were scrambling they disagreed

15:39

on everything they would system

15:41

thinks he gets through if you said

15:43

to them when they wrote they president has to

15:45

be thirty five they would have expected

15:48

to president to be at least thirty five forever

15:51

until the constitution was

15:53

formally a meant but

15:55

if you said to them the you think

15:57

the phrase establishment of

15:59

really

16:00

or freedom of speech or due process

16:03

should be frozen

16:04

this time

16:06

the next two hundred years they

16:08

would have thought you were

16:10

insane because they understood

16:13

that those concerts but evolve and ways that they could

16:15

not for see is that why that's

16:17

why did the reasons another reason

16:19

is the parts

16:21

of the constitution that get litigate

16:24

the very clear parts are incredibly

16:26

imprecise and as times

16:29

change they knew the

16:31

country's values which change

16:34

and the constitution would have to change

16:36

within the let me be clear i

16:38

think that most constitutional

16:40

change in sea gulls world should

16:43

come from the elected branches not

16:45

the supreme court of the united states but

16:47

if you is said to hamilton sorry

16:49

buddy you got it wrong they're

16:51

, going to do modest and limited

16:54

judicial review they're going to have very

16:56

strong judicial review to

16:58

you one in the year two thousand twenty two

17:01

seventeen ninety one values

17:03

or do you want to thousand twenty two

17:05

values his answer would have been two

17:07

thousand twenty jefferson explicitly

17:09

said this you know classicists of last

17:12

may be nineteen years or eighteen years

17:14

i forget what he said they disagreed

17:16

on most things but they would have agreed on this

17:19

what do you think of the richard primus theory

17:21

that originalism is a technology of legal

17:23

change and as such could be useful to progressive

17:25

if they ever comprise majority on the court t

17:27

think that makes sense is that just another

17:29

blow against the philosophy originalism

17:32

in your view i have a lot of respect

17:34

for professor primus i think he is terrific

17:37

of a lot of respect for the constitutional

17:40

accountability center which is a special

17:42

interest group interest washington d c and

17:45

wants to use originalism for liberal

17:47

causes kind of like what wish it

17:49

was

17:50

i think that's all just a smokescreen

17:53

it's all values is inevitably

17:55

values let me pivot now from philosophy

17:57

to this courts upcoming term

17:59

there are few marquee case i'm animation really quickly

18:02

there are a couple of cases challenging

18:04

the consideration of race in college admissions

18:07

there is more the harper woods looks at state legislatures

18:09

power and federal elections there's three

18:11

or three create ever says atlanta switch to free speech

18:13

case of a web designer who says

18:16

he could be forced to create website for same sex weddings

18:18

a whole bunch of stuff it starts in october what

18:20

do you expect to see from the upcoming term and and

18:22

and what's at stake

18:24

there's a tremendous amount of stick the

18:26

obvious cases felix and

18:28

the ones where there's no suspense is

18:31

the court is going to make affirmative action illegal

18:33

across the united states and

18:36

going back to originalism for small

18:38

would race is not mentioned in

18:40

equal protection clause that we know

18:43

the competition cause was designed to do it

18:45

was meant to help blacks they're going

18:47

to use it to her african americans

18:49

and other people there's no suspense

18:52

activists term we know exactly what

18:54

they're going to do and i want

18:56

to make appoint justice thomas has

18:58

voted to strike down every affirmative

19:00

action plan he's ever seen no

19:03

sections and is written

19:05

last two years

19:07

with many section which is a state

19:09

law case under a state constitution

19:12

and eighteen sixty five he

19:14

has never discussed

19:16

the original meaning of the fourteenth

19:18

mm while bullies strike

19:20

dan these programs justice

19:22

scalia in his long career never

19:25

said one silly that

19:28

the original meaning of the fourteenth amendment

19:30

and he struck down every affirmative

19:32

action plan he ever encountered so

19:35

to the extent they we think originalism is real

19:37

there's an example worse obviously that's

19:40

going to have to have effect on america now

19:43

i will tell you that few

19:45

years ago to cases officer versus

19:47

texas one and two and

19:49

everybody thought the court was going to end affirmative

19:51

action then justice kennedy

19:54

surprisingly changed his mind on

19:56

those i actually in anticipation

19:59

of the core doing with the gonna do next year

20:01

i interviewed a bunch of admissions

20:04

officers at schools and the northeast

20:06

fairly elite schools and

20:08

i are to tell you they said they won't follow

20:11

they said they'll find a way their

20:13

belief that they want a diverse

20:15

class a racially ethnically

20:18

politically geographically

20:20

the reverse crass

20:22

they're gonna find a way to do that no

20:24

matter what the supreme court says affirmative

20:27

action has been illegal in michigan

20:29

and california for a long time because

20:31

they test state constitutional amendments to

20:34

that effect i'm telling you those

20:36

university still use of racial preacher

20:38

so on is going to be a big

20:40

hoopla about it it's gonna be very important

20:43

there's not much suspense the

20:46

more important case of course and

20:48

what could decide the future of america is

20:50

the independent legislature tits

20:53

that's more be harper

20:54

that's more buses harper and it's really complicated

20:57

and hard if the supreme

20:59

court decides that states

21:01

supreme courts have

21:03

no jurisdiction the enforce

21:06

state constitutions when it comes

21:08

to voting rights when they're contrasted

21:11

with the state legislatures i

21:13

mean trump would have gotten back in office if

21:15

states supreme court's probably hadn't

21:18

intervened this is all setting

21:20

up the do a trump or to santas

21:22

run for the presidency and

21:24

if they rule that

21:27

states supreme court's can't override

21:29

state legislatures based on state

21:32

constitutional election values this

21:34

country's in detail do you think

21:36

that is how they're going to rule i mean if if if

21:38

it's true it just says rule

21:40

in accord with their political preference and this

21:42

helps donald trump return to office

21:45

the republican get elected presidents do

21:48

you think they will rule in favor of the state legislature

21:50

theory i think it depends

21:52

on the state of american politics

21:54

at the time i have have

21:57

for for you and for the listeners

21:59

i don't know the answer this i'm

22:02

a severe critic of amy

22:04

coney barrett brett kavanaugh

22:06

neil courses i find

22:08

it hard to believe they

22:11

really want donald trump to be president again

22:14

now maybe i'm being naive maybe i'm

22:16

being silly this is bill

22:18

so he people went down from three president

22:20

again and were in so much trouble

22:23

don't think anything can save us so it depends

22:25

on what's happening politically if

22:28

there were a moderate republican

22:30

who has some steam

22:32

i'm june i think that's

22:34

a very different world than if it's done

22:37

what other cases do you think are at risk

22:39

from this court in in your book originalism of

22:41

faith you mentioned ten landmark decisions that

22:43

found among other things at school prayer and

22:46

laws banning interracial marriage and the

22:48

sale contraception are unconstitutional we

22:50

met in criminal defendants have the right to state

22:52

attorney

22:53

the libel standard for public figures how

22:56

many of them do think or risk being overturned by by

22:58

discourse i think very few

23:00

the only person so far who suggested

23:03

that new york times vs solid should

23:05

be maybe be considered i think is justice thomas

23:07

i may be wrong about that i think he's the only once

23:10

they're not going to overturn gideon vs

23:12

wainwright which says you have a right to

23:14

an attorney for can't afford one now

23:16

then again last term was a surprise

23:18

in it's extreme this but i just

23:21

would be very surprised about all that will

23:23

to quit has already done his

23:26

loosened the restrictions on

23:28

prayer in school

23:29

we saw that this term i suspect

23:32

the cases that said no prayer

23:34

is a graduation ceremonies and

23:36

know prayers at football games i

23:39

think those are going to be overturned some

23:41

time in the next zero to five years i

23:43

don't think the classroom prayer

23:45

cases will be overturned one

23:48

person one vote is not going anywhere

23:50

we've already seen that mccain a couple years ago

23:53

i hope i think same sex marriage

23:55

will be preserved but every

23:57

other issue involving game

23:59

right

24:01

i suspect gays and lesbians will lose

24:04

for a very long time that is because

24:06

of the political inclinations of the justices

24:08

on the court right now the people her what i said

24:11

the going to say wait a minute siegel just as courses

24:13

you know vote is that title seven applies

24:15

to gays and lesbians in the conservatives went crazy

24:18

about that's a dallas a statutory

24:20

interpretation case and even in

24:22

that case coursage

24:24

car that religion i think

24:27

most of the issues involving gay rights

24:29

will come down to a kind of bouncing

24:32

between gay rights and people have

24:34

religious objections to gay

24:36

rights if is one thing we

24:38

know about the roberts court religion

24:40

always wins so if there's a conflict

24:43

between those two religion is

24:45

going to win and by the way that is

24:47

also not a the great reading

24:49

of text and history there were six incredibly

24:52

religious people on the supreme

24:54

court right now they're going to

24:56

impose their very religious values

24:59

and why anybody would think otherwise is crazy

25:01

and so and as you three or three create of

25:03

the lns the case about making a website

25:05

for a game winning yet

25:07

decided in favor of the website

25:10

design of didn't want to make it which effectively goods

25:13

that to be case afraid

25:14

that case is only a free speech case

25:17

is my understanding and i've

25:19

said from the first minister masterpiece

25:21

caixa came into the public

25:23

eye i think the issues

25:26

of wedding florists wedding

25:28

cake designers and all that are

25:30

very difficult under the first image

25:33

free speech cause they're incredibly

25:35

easy to me i deserve establishment

25:37

impressive size causes steer should be no

25:40

valid religious objection recognized

25:42

by the court but if you make a

25:45

florist the buy flowers

25:47

to a wedding or you gotta make a singer

25:49

do that are you going to make a poet do

25:51

that i think those are very hard

25:54

cases under the free speech class

25:56

but the case next term has been limited

25:59

to free speech not religion

26:01

let's move on to the last session of our

26:03

or talk with the supreme court legitimacy and reform

26:06

there's a recent poll by gallup it showed public supports

26:08

the court was an all time low about twenty

26:10

five percent showed the justices

26:12

care about how the public use them

26:15

yes if for no other reason

26:17

then sued the democrats there

26:20

was a political revolution of some kind and

26:22

they controlled both houses of congress and

26:24

depressants i think at this

26:26

point the democrats would actually

26:29

the court reform measures course

26:31

that requires

26:33

the sixty votes in the senate or the willingness

26:35

to do the filibuster it also requires

26:39

democrats perceiving that's what the american

26:41

people want now we're heading

26:43

there the referendum in kansas

26:45

about abortion a few weeks ago where

26:48

kansas a red state

26:50

voting for trump and all that made

26:52

it very clear by a wide margin

26:55

they want the or abortion to be legal

26:57

listen the first trimester in that state

27:00

barry friedman is the go to

27:02

guy when he comes to public

27:04

sentiment and the supreme court he what

27:07

a great book about it and buried in

27:09

that book few years ago wrote and

27:11

i agree with this that the supreme court

27:13

very rarely strays

27:15

from left of center to right of center

27:18

because they are they know they have no person

27:20

sword i mean hamilton was pretty

27:22

wise about that barry things

27:25

this court may end up

27:27

two or three standard deviations away

27:29

from the center and if that

27:31

happens there's going to be a political

27:34

respect i had one more comment to that in

27:37

the very long i

27:39

think dogs is gonna hurt the republican party

27:41

dramatically and in the very

27:44

long run i think

27:46

the right the women to control

27:48

their destinies will actually

27:50

be legislatively protected in

27:53

most of america eventually

27:55

because that's what american people want and

27:57

politicians are going to recognize that the

28:00

do think there's gonna be a big push back

28:02

to this supreme court

28:04

how much

28:05

the only time will tell i want to

28:08

pull a threat out of your previous answer you met

28:10

in court reform let's say that

28:12

the democrats do control both houses and they

28:14

have enough juice to pass court reform

28:16

and the president asks you to head up the commission

28:18

recommending what reforms to impose what

28:21

would you like to see in the short run among run

28:23

so john i feel that will never

28:25

get a constitutional amendment passed

28:28

to and lies tenure or something like that

28:30

so if we could i would do that obviously

28:32

but assuming cost issue amendments

28:34

are often i would go

28:37

back to the reform i propose liberals

28:40

got so mad at me and progress

28:42

has got so mad him in two

28:44

thousand and sixteen the justice

28:46

scalia passed away and i said

28:48

we should freeze the court an

28:51

even number of justices from

28:53

both sides i think

28:55

that would lead to more consensus

28:58

decision making more compromise

29:00

more narrow decisions and

29:03

in every case it would mean one

29:05

republican would have to side with the democrats or

29:07

when democrats for to side with republicans

29:09

is the court wanted to keep our we

29:12

know the court wants to keep that

29:14

does not require a constitutional amendment we

29:17

always knew but now know that the senate

29:19

does not have to give a hearing to supreme

29:21

court nominees and

29:24

the filibuster

29:25

still exists

29:27

for statutes

29:29

has been the rule for

29:31

over a century nothing

29:34

more in agreement of

29:36

the to political parties so we'll

29:38

quick imagine such schumer

29:40

and mitch mcconnell standing

29:42

in front of the american people with

29:44

hands raised the you know what

29:47

would done fighting about this we're

29:49

gonna have an evenly divided supreme

29:51

court for the rest of time for

29:54

bipartisanship sake to weaken

29:56

the court a little because we both think it's too strong

29:58

and we disagree of wish this is but we both

30:01

think it's too strong and that

30:03

reform when i have talked to non

30:05

lawyers who are informed about american politics

30:08

they nuggets the only people

30:10

against it or con law professors

30:12

because it takes away their turf because

30:14

the supreme court will do less your

30:17

mouse his eyes the air the air thanks

30:20

so much for joining us i thank you so much for having

30:22

them so flattered to beer

30:25

mm and

30:28

, do let us know what you think of the show what

30:30

reforms would you make to the supreme court what

30:32

do you expect from the court in the next term you

30:35

can write to us and podcasts and economist

30:37

dot com or you can tweet us at

30:39

the economists american

30:42

i discussed the role originalism plays

30:44

into this will decision making and this

30:46

week or supreme court correspondence stephen

30:48

maisie takes a deeper dive into the

30:50

philosophy the read his

30:52

reporting and much more from one first

30:54

street ne and beyond had

30:56

to be economists website to

30:59

enjoy all our journalism wanna take

31:01

advantage of our special introductory offer just

31:03

for a podcast listeners visit

31:06

, sofort

31:09

the link is link the show notes

31:11

my producer is a lithium burrow the

31:13

bookings producer is melanie starling condoms

31:16

and the executive producer is hot maria

31:19

i'm john fast men and from pittsburgh

31:21

pennsylvania this pennsylvania this economist

31:33

your

31:34

business is important to you and

31:37

best way to improve your business is to

31:39

improve the lives of your ukg

31:42

develops hr and workforce management, solutions

31:45

designed to take care of your employees because

31:49

when they feel supported connected and

31:52

appreciated, your business will transform

31:54

from a workplace into a work

31:57

of ukg,