Episode Summary: "The Supreme Court’s Worst Decisions with Sarah Isgur"

Podcast Information:

• Title: Here's Where It Gets Interesting
• Host: Sharon McMahon
• Guest: Sarah Isger, Legal Expert and Host of Advisory Opinions
• Release Date: January 27, 2025
• Platform: Acast

1. Introduction

Sharon McMahon welcomes Sarah Isger, a seasoned legal commentator and host of the podcast Advisory Opinions, to discuss the Supreme Court's recent and historical decisions. Both hosts emphasize the importance of a respectful and intellectually stimulating dialogue about the Court's impact on American society.

2. The Rise of the Supreme Court in Political Discourse

Sharon and Sarah explore the shifting focus of political debates from Congress and the Executive Branch to the Supreme Court. Sarah attributes this change to the increased use of executive orders since the Obama administration, leading to more Supreme Court involvement in resolving constitutional disputes.

Sarah Isger [02:44]: "Why this mostly sudden change where we're constantly talking about the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court is really in all of these headlines... starts back to the end of the Bush era..."

3. Public Opinion and Trust in the Court

The conversation delves into the declining approval ratings of the Supreme Court. Sarah explains that heightened transparency and media scrutiny have exposed the Court to political pressures, eroding public trust.

Sharon McMahon [06:19]: "I'd love to hear you talk about why public opinion of the Court has plummeted."

Sarah Isger [06:29]: "All of our institutions, when they're in the spotlight, when they become the focus of our politics, lose approval, lose trust."

4. Counter-Majoritarian Role of the Supreme Court

Sarah discusses the Court's foundational role as a counter-majoritarian institution, designed to protect minority rights against majority impulses. However, this role often leads to unpopular decisions when the Court rules against prevailing public sentiments.

Sarah Isger [07:08]: "The Supreme Court is supposed to be counter majoritarian to stand up to the majority and rule against the majority to protect those minority interests..."

5. Notable Supreme Court Decisions Discussed

The episode critically examines several landmark and controversial Supreme Court cases:

• Brown v. Board of Education: Celebrated for dismantling segregation.
• Korematsu, Plessy, Dred Scott: Cited as examples where the Court sided with harmful majority opinions.
• Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey: Discussed as pivotal yet contested decisions regarding abortion rights.
• Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: Highlighted as a significant reversal of Roe v. Wade.

Sarah Isger [12:46]: "Roe v. Wade itself is a pretty indefensible decision... contributing to abortion being a single litmus test for running for office."

6. The Role of Precedent and Stare Decisis

Sharon and Sarah debate the importance of precedent in maintaining legal stability. Sarah argues that while stare decisis prevents arbitrary flips in legal interpretations, it becomes problematic when the Court adheres to or overturns controversial decisions without solid constitutional grounding.

Sarah Isger [22:10]: "Stare decisis is the idea of letting things stand... but Roe v. Wade didn't create stability."

7. The Impact of Dobbs and Overturning Roe v. Wade

The discussion intensifies around the Dobbs decision, analyzing its implications for abortion laws and political polarization. Sarah expresses that Dobbs has reintroduced abortion into the political arena, potentially lowering societal tensions by transferring the issue back to legislative bodies.

Sarah Isger [15:31]: "Dobbs is putting it back to the political process because clearly the legal solution to this quote unquote solves nothing."

8. Election Issues: Gerrymandering and Polarization

Transitioning from legal discussions, the hosts examine electoral challenges such as gerrymandering and increased political polarization. Sarah emphasizes that while gerrymandering is problematic, the more pressing issue lies in campaign finance reform and the resultant negative partisanship.

Sarah Isger [30:10]: "Campaign finance reform... leads to the far more partisan Congress that we have now because people are more worried about primaries than they are about the general election."

9. Future of the Supreme Court

Sharon inquires about potential changes in the Supreme Court's composition, especially with upcoming retirements. Sarah provides insights into likely candidates from both conservative and liberal spheres, emphasizing the unpredictability of strategic retirements and appointments.

Sharon McMahon [38:57]: "What do you see as potentially... changes in the personnel of the Supreme Court?"

Sarah Isger [42:09]: "Chief Justice Sonia Sotomayor will not retire by choice... The most likely outcome is that Alito leaves and everyone else stays."

10. Final Thoughts and Advice for Listeners

In wrapping up, Sarah encourages listeners to engage more deeply with Supreme Court proceedings by attending oral arguments or reviewing case transcripts. She highlights the importance of understanding the Court's role beyond sensational headlines.

Sarah Isger [48:27]: "My suggestion for those who are skeptical of the court... listen to a Supreme Court argument... start there."

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Sarah Isger [06:29]: "When institutions are in the spotlight, they lose approval, lose trust."

• Sarah Isger [07:08]: "The Supreme Court is supposed to stand up to the majority and protect minority interests."

• Sarah Isger [12:46]: "Roe v. Wade is a pretty indefensible decision and has turned abortion into a political litmus test."

• Sarah Isger [22:10]: "Stare decisis helps maintain legal stability by upholding precedents."

• Sarah Isger [48:27]: "Digging deeper into Supreme Court cases helps you understand what the Court actually does."

Conclusion

Sharon McMahon and Sarah Isger provide an in-depth analysis of the Supreme Court's evolving role in American politics, the challenges it faces in maintaining public trust, and the implications of its decisions on the nation's legal and political landscape. The episode underscores the necessity for informed public engagement with the judiciary to foster a more nuanced understanding of its functions and decisions.

Additional Resources:

• Sarah Isger's Podcast: Advisory Opinions
• Ground News: For diverse news perspectives (ground.news)
• Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Access transcripts and audio at supreme.court.gov