The Dispatch Podcast

Episode: Presidents vs. the Supreme Court
Air Date: April 10, 2026
Host: Steve Hayes
Panelists: Sarah Isker, Kevin Williamson, Mike Warren

Episode Overview

This roundtable episode explores the enduring tension between U.S. presidents and the Supreme Court, centering on Sarah Isker’s new book, Last Branch Standing. The panel delves into historical and contemporary attacks on the judicial branch, the effects of partisan rhetoric on public trust in the courts, and the very real consequences—practical and personal—of America’s evolving political culture. The conversation then pivots to analyze the Trump administration’s ambiguous Iran ceasefire, unpacking the U.S. government’s messaging, diplomatic confusion, and the implications for American foreign policy. The episode closes with lighter fare as the panel imagines their dream menu for the Masters golf tournament’s Champions Dinner.

Key Discussion Points

1. The Supreme Court Under Attack

[00:53–18:25]

• Sarah Isker’s Book Launch

  • Sarah’s new book, Last Branch Standing, is highlighted as being accessible to both deep scholars and newcomers to the Supreme Court.
  • Steve describes the book as “a potentially surprising, occasionally witty journey inside today’s Supreme Court.” [02:23]
  • Sarah notes her distinct voice is present throughout: “I've trained all of, like the, you know, Alexas and everything in Steve's house as well on my voice.” [02:47]

• Historical & Modern Presidential Rhetoric Against the Court

  • The panel compares Donald Trump’s unusually blunt public attacks on the justices (“they’re an automatic no...lap dogs for the rhinos and the radical left” [Trump clip 04:00]) with historical precedents like Jefferson and Jackson.
  • Sarah: “Jefferson concocts the impeachment of Samuel Chase...He was gonna remove Chief Justice John Marshall and make the Supreme Court bend to his will and reflect his partisanship, which would have put us on a path to do that for every president.” [05:37]
  • Survival through such tense moments is what Sarah argues forged the independent Supreme Court we know: “The Supreme Court is actually made by being in tension with really powerful, popular presidents.” [08:20]

• Modern Partisanship and Court Outcomes

  • Steve asks if Trump’s critiques are more personal and direct than past presidents.
  • Sarah: “No, not for Jefferson...”
  • On voting patterns: “The liberal justices do not vote in lockstep together at all...close to half the time they decide them unanimously.” [10:34]

• Public Perceptions and Media’s Role

  • The conversation unpacks how partisanship shapes not only what presidents say but how people consume news and form opinions about the Court.
  • Kevin: “Most people, including a lot of people who should know better, don't give a damn about the law or the Constitution. What they want is policy outcomes from the Supreme Court.” [13:14]
  • Sarah and Steve debate whether Trump’s media megaphone is truly unprecedented, or if historical presidents reached a comparable proportion of voters for their era. [17:44]

• Effect on Judicial Independence and Recruitment

  • Mike raises concern about how personalized, inaccurate presidential attacks degrade public trust. [18:46]
  • Sarah: “The biggest thing that Donald Trump has accomplished with these attacks has been to make it less likely that we get normal people raising their hand to do this job in the future.” [24:52]
  • She relates how the scrutiny and threats to justices’ families could shrink the pool of possible nominees.

Notable Quotes

• “They are the good guys in their own stories...the more [Trump] attacks me, I think they are concerned about threats, fears for their children...If you're a normal, highly successful lawyer...you're looking at that and saying, you know, I think I'll take the money.” — Sarah [22:55, 24:52]

2. The Process of Writing Last Branch Standing

[25:24–32:10]

• Sarah loved the research, interviews, and “sarcastic quips”:
  • “All you people complaining about writing books are out of your mind. Then I finished the draft, and everything from that point forward was incredibly hard.” [25:50]
• On editing: publisher cut word count from 165,000 to 100,000 words—in five days.
• Insights on having a subject-matter-agnostic editor vs. having legal expertise in her editing team. [29:18]
• Advice from Kevin: “Think really carefully when your publisher asks you to write sample questions for interviewers...90% of the cases, the interview will consist of them asking you the questions that you sent to them.” [30:44]

3. U.S.–Iran Ceasefire: Parsing the Truth

[34:57–49:19]

• Background on the Ceasefire and Trump’s Threats

  • The administration threatened extreme force if Iran didn’t stop conflict, leading to a “ceasefire” brokered via Pakistan.
  • “...create a crisis out of kind of nothing, in order to get some kind of agreement that...heads off the crisis that he created. That’s straight from the Trump toolbox.” — Mike [35:05]
  • The ceasefire is ambiguous; both sides claim different terms and continue minor hostilities. [37:18]

• Questionable Outcomes: Strait of Hormuz

  • Despite ceasefire claims, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz remains unresolved.
  • Sarah connects this to longstanding Pentagon and diplomatic concerns, and a chronic American misreading of Iranian priorities: “They’re not going to act rationally as we define rationality, because they're on a very different project than the American project has been...” [39:22]

• Detachment from On-the-Ground Realities

  • Steve plays a clip of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth referring to “this regime” as if a change had occurred—drawing skepticism from the panel. [43:00]
  • Kevin: “...they just cleared out a bunch of, you know, elderly ayatollahs and replaced them with younger versions of the same thing.” [43:56]
  • Kevin predicts the U.S. will accept a situation where Iran retains control of the strait, even as the U.S. administration pretends otherwise: “That’s what we're seem to be pointing toward, is pretending as a matter of policy that some kind of big change has been effected there.” [44:49]
  • Mike: “The misunderstanding...is just really apparent in what Hegseth said, and I think in the approach here to this ceasefire agreement...” [47:52]

• Sarah’s Dark Confession:

  • “When this ceasefire was announced, my first thought was, that's super helpful for me.” [49:19]

Notable Quotes

• “What we’re looking for in Iran isn’t a military outcome, but a political outcome. Political outcomes take negotiation and intelligence and creativity...the Trump administration doesn’t do, never has done, is never going to do.” — Kevin [46:39]

4. Dispatch Recommendations

[52:21–55:27]

Panelists recommend recent pieces from the Dispatch:

• Steve: Nick’s “Schrodinger's Ceasefire.” [53:09]
• Kevin: Thomas Dichter’s “Where I’m From” essay on Ossining, NY. [53:17]
• Sarah: SCOTUS Blog’s daily email for its witty Supreme Court oral argument quotes. [53:56]
• Mike: Mike Nelson’s “A Peaceful, Uneasy Feeling” for a nuanced Iran ceasefire analysis. [55:02]

5. Not Worth Your Time: Masters Champions Dinner Menus (Food Talk!)

[55:27–66:08]

• In the spirit of the Masters golf tournament’s Champions Dinner, panelists invent their own ideal celebratory meal, reflecting personal and regional identities.

  Sample Menus:

  • Steve (Wisconsin/Spain):

    • Appetizers: Deep-fried cheese curds, cocktail brats, gambas pil-pil, jamón ibérico with Manchego.
    • First: Salmorejo, grilled octopus.
    • Main: Walleye, brisket cheeseburgers.
    • Drink: Pabst Blue Ribbon, Spotted Cow beer, Spanish Toro reds.
    • Dessert: Basque cheesecake, frozen custard.

  • Sarah (Texas):

    • No appetizers—“the pickles are your appetizer.”
    • Main: Texas barbecue: sausage, smoked turkey, brisket.
    • Sides: Mac and cheese, coleslaw, green beans.
    • Dessert: Blackberry cobbler.
    • Drinks: Unsweetened iced tea, lemonade (for Arnold Palmers), Basque cider. “Everyone would leave super satisfied without any of the frou frou.” [61:30]

  • Kevin (Lubbock, TX):

    • Barbacoa from his hometown taco stand—“I bit into something that is not barbacoa...It was a cow tooth...Because they were doing it the way you're supposed to.” [62:06]

  • Mike (Georgia):

    • Starters: Pimento cheese, hot boiled peanuts.
    • Drink: Chatham Artillery Punch.
    • Main: Pulled pork with Western Carolina sauce, green beans, mustardy coleslaw.
    • Dessert: Peach cobbler with vanilla bean ice cream.

Memorable & Lighthearted Moments

• Panels agree: “It’s America. Damn right.” (On barbecue’s national status) [65:30]
• Steve, on convergence: “It’s interesting though, that all three of you...offered some variety of barbecue. I wouldn't have necessarily [expected that].” [65:22]
• On book-writing, Sarah: “The head is crowning.” [28:22]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:53] – Supreme Court history and attacks
• [05:37] – Jefferson, Jackson, and the forging of the Supreme Court
• [10:34] – Are justices truly partisan?
• [13:12] – Modern vs. historical attacks; the Court as a policymaker
• [18:46] – Public perception and impact on who wants to be a justice now
• [25:24] – Writing and revising Last Branch Standing
• [34:57] – The Trump administration’s Iran “ceasefire”
• [43:00] – Kevin on what’s really happening with “regime change”
• [52:21] – Recommendations from the Dispatch
• [55:27] – Not Worth Your Time: Masters menu fantasy draft

Final Thoughts

Flow & Tone:
The episode is fast-paced and witty, full of historical analogies and modern skepticism. The panel bounces seamlessly between intellectual debate and self-deprecating humor, never letting the discussion get too heavy.

Utility:
Anyone interested in the interplay between law, history, politics, and journalism will find the roundtable invaluable—especially as they trace the continuity (and novelty) in presidential criticism of the Supreme Court. The Iran segment provides shrewd analysis for listeners confused by contradictory news reports, and the Masters dinner riff offers both levity and surprising insight into regional American food culture.

Notable Closing Exchange:
Steve: “Thank you, Sarah, for indulging my food talk and for the conversation about Iran and the Supreme Court. Sarah, good luck with the book.” [66:08]

For Further Reading:

• Nick’s “Schrodinger's Ceasefire”
• Thomas Dichter’s “Where I’m From: Ossining, NY”
• SCOTUS Blog’s SCOTUS Today newsletter
• Mike Nelson’s “A Peaceful, Uneasy Feeling”