2254 - NYC Primaries, Trump's Not So Ceased-Cease Fire, w/ Leah Litman

Summary

Detailed Summary of The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Episode 2254 - NYC Primaries, Trump's Not So Ceased-Cease Fire, w/ Leah Litman

Release Date: June 24, 2025
Host: Sam Seder
Guest: Leah Litman, author of Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories and Bad Vibes
Description: Entertaining Daily Politics, Award-Winning Long-Form Interviews, and Irreverent, Independent Analysis. For more info, visit Majority.FM.

---

1. Introduction to NYC Mayoral Primaries

Timestamp: 04:00 – 08:00

Sam Seder kicks off the episode by highlighting the significance of the New York City mayoral primary. He emphasizes the unprecedented engagement of young voters, noting that 25% of early voters in this mayoral election have not participated in a Democratic primary since 2012. This surge signifies a youthful shift in the electorate, with "something like 50% of the people who voted so far are under the age of 44" (04:17). Sam suggests that this demographic change poses challenges for incumbent Andrew Cuomo but offers hope for broader political progress.

Key Points:

• Youth Engagement: A significant influx of new, younger voters is reshaping the political landscape.
• Candidates: The race between Zoran Mamdani and Brad Lander is intensifying, with Mamdani seen as the stronger contender against Cuomo.
• Primary vs. General Election: The primary is highly contested, setting the stage for a vigorous general election.

Notable Quote:

Sam Seder (04:17): "It's an indication of how young the electorate is, with something like 50% of the people who voted so far are under the age of 44."

---

2. Interview with Leah Litman: The Supreme Court’s Conservative Transformation

Timestamp: 21:38 – 67:00

Leah Litman joins Sam Seder to discuss her book, delving into the transformation of the U.S. Supreme Court under conservative influence. She argues that the Court has increasingly been driven by conservative grievances and fringe legal theories, moving away from impartial jurisprudence.

a. The Role of Justice Scalia and Milestone Cases

Timestamp: 30:44 – 37:49

Leah highlights Justice Antonin Scalia's pivotal role in sowing the seeds of the Court's current conservative trajectory. Through dissents in landmark cases like Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia projected the "homosexual agenda" and laid the groundwork for future conservative rulings that prioritize traditional values over progressive rights.

Notable Quote:

Leah Litman (32:32): "Justice Scalia was really sowing seeds of this, particularly later in his career."

b. The Shadow Docket and Its Implications

Timestamp: 51:05 – 60:45

A significant portion of Leah’s discussion focuses on the shadow docket—the Supreme Court’s practice of making rapid decisions without full briefing or oral arguments. She notes a sharp increase in its use during the Trump administration, allowing the Court to "embolden and green light" executive actions that bypass lower court rulings.

Key Examples:

• Immigration Policies: The Court's shadow docket has been used to uphold controversial deportation orders without proper due process.
• Birthright Citizenship: Leah anticipates rulings that could undermine constitutional protections for citizenship based on place of birth.

Notable Quote:

Leah Litman (54:58): "The Supreme Court is just telling them, you're not going to face any penalty for giving lower courts the middle finger."

c. Fringe Legal Theories

Timestamp: 48:36 – 64:37

Leah elaborates on fringe legal theories like the unitary executive theory and the major questions doctrine. These doctrines grant expansive powers to the executive branch, potentially allowing presidents to act above the law and bypass regulatory agencies.

Key Points:

• Unitary Executive Theory: Asserts that the president holds broad executive powers, undermining checks and balances.
• Major Questions Doctrine: Empowers the Court to invalidate federal regulations deemed too significant to be delegated to administrative agencies.

Notable Quotes:

Leah Litman (48:36): "The unitary executive theory is just one of the more consequential fringe theories that has just become this insurgent idea..."

Leah Litman (50:19): "If the non delegation doctrine is brought back, then most of government is unconstitutional."

d. Potential Cases and Future Implications

Timestamp: 61:12 – 66:00

Leah discusses upcoming Supreme Court cases that could solidify the Court's conservative path, including challenges to the Voting Rights Act and parental rights in education. She warns that without federal protections, many rights are vulnerable to judicial rollback.

Key Cases:

• Voting Rights Act Challenges: Potential invalidation could weaken protections for minority voters.
• Parental Rights in Education: Cases could determine the extent to which parents can exclude LGBT-inclusive curricula from schools.
• Chevron Doctrine Overruled: The Supreme Court's rejection of this doctrine limits federal agencies' ability to interpret ambiguous laws.

Notable Quote:

Leah Litman (61:32): "Justice Kagan wrote in a dissent that if the non delegation doctrine is brought back, then most of government is unconstitutional."

e. Democratic Response and Potential Reforms

Timestamp: 66:00 – 67:00

Leah identifies progressive politicians who recognize the Supreme Court's shift and advocate for democratic reforms. Figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jamie Raskin, and Senator Tina Smith are highlighted as leaders who understand the judiciary's impact on democracy and are pushing for necessary structural changes.

Notable Quote:

Leah Litman (66:00): "There are absolutely some, particularly in the House... that have signaled they understand what is going on with the federal courts."

---

3. Conclusion and Final Remarks

Timestamp: 67:00 – 76:13

Sam Seder and Leah Litman wrap up the interview by underscoring the urgency of addressing the Supreme Court's conservative leanings to protect democratic institutions and civil rights. Leah reiterates the critical need for political awareness and activism to counterbalance the judiciary's shrinking impartiality.

Notable Quote:

Leah Litman (35:51): "The problem has really snowballed since Bush v. Gore."

---

4. Skip Advertisements and Non-Content Sections

Per the request, advertisements, sponsor messages, and the "fun half" of the show, which include humorous banter and off-topic discussions, are omitted from this summary to focus solely on the substantive content related to politics and the judiciary.

---

5. Key Takeaways

• Youth Voter Surge: Young voters are increasingly influential in NYC primaries, potentially reshaping political outcomes.
• Supreme Court Shift: The U.S. Supreme Court is undergoing a significant conservative transformation, driven by grievances and fringe theories.
• Shadow Docket Concerns: Increased use of the shadow docket allows the Court to make swift, partisan decisions without thorough review.
• Urgent Reforms Needed: Progressive leaders recognize the need for structural reforms to counteract the judiciary's conservative dominance and protect democratic rights.

---

6. Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Sam Seder (04:17): "It's an indication of how young the electorate is, with something like 50% of the people who voted so far are under the age of 44."
• Sam Seder (08:48): "Mamdani has the only real chance [to beat Cuomo]."
• Leah Litman (32:32): "Justice Scalia was really sowing seeds of this, particularly later in his career."
• Leah Litman (51:05): "The shadow docket refers to the set of orders, opinions and decisions that the Supreme Court issues without full briefing and without oral argument."
• Leah Litman (54:58): "The Supreme Court is just telling them, you're not going to face any penalty for giving lower courts the middle finger."
• Leah Litman (66:00): "There are absolutely some, particularly in the House... that have signaled they understand what is going on with the federal courts."

---

This episode provides a comprehensive analysis of the current political climate surrounding the NYC mayoral primaries and offers an incisive examination of the U.S. Supreme Court's evolving role in shaping American democracy. Leah Litman's insights shed light on the judiciary's shift towards conservative ideologies and the potential long-term implications for civil rights and democratic institutions.

Transcript

[Sam Seder]

You are listening to a free version of Majority Report with Sam Steder. To support the show and get another 15 minutes of daily program, go to majority SM please. The majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Tuesday, June 24, 2025. My name is Sam Seder. This is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Leah Littman, author of Lawless how the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe theories and Bad vibes. Also on the program, Donald Trump declares Iran Israel cease fire but apparently forgot to tell them. Also on the program, Israel continues to bomb iran. Also kills 25 Palestinians waiting on aid in Gaza as the death toll exceeds at least 56,000 people. Supreme Court allows deportations to countries to which deportees have no connection and no opportunity to challenge Senate Republicans Watch as the parliamentarian strips down Trump's Medicaid cuts bill. But the Medicaid cuts are still there, bigger than they were in the House. Emil Beauvais, Donald Trump's judicial nominee, repeatedly suggested violating court orders while working at the Department of Justice. Dr. And Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, caveat emptor regrets his RFK vote as he calls for postponing RFK's vaccine advisory panel. Joke of a panel. The Fed signals it won't move on interest rates until Trump's tariff non policy is resolved. Remember, in two weeks we're supposed to have 60 deals done on tariffs. Federal judge blocks Trump's blocking international students from attending Harvard. Naito meets at the Hague. Trump to do teeny tiny short days while he's there. And lastly, it is primary day, ladies and gentlemen, in New York City. Other places too around the state, maybe in unlikely in other states. Why would you do this at this time? But the race is neck and neck. Zoran, Mamdani, Andrew, really arguably maybe could belong in prison. Cuomo. We shall see. Have more on that later. All that and more on today's Majority Report. Welcome ladies and gentlemen. Emma is out today, apparently taking a longer than a one day honeymoon.

[Emma Vigeland]

Bit indulgent.

[Sam Seder]

All right. I mean I didn't do that.

[Emma Vigeland]

Not like there's a war on or anything.

[Sam Seder]

I took two days. I went later. Now with that said, things didn't necessarily work out for my marriage. Yes. I got a haircut. I appreciate the, the nice words that we're getting on the im.

[Emma Vigeland]

So I think they saw you felt seen with it.

[Sam Seder]

No one, no one mentioned anything in the office though. All right, let's get right to this. Let's put up this graphic. Today is primary day. The, the statistics that we're starting to see that we know from the voting at this point is pretty astonishing. 25% of the people who have early voted in this mayoral election.

[Leah Littman]

Have not.

[Sam Seder]

Voted in a Democratic primary since 2012. Now, there's a couple of different ways to read this. I suspect that doesn't mean that you have a bunch of people who checked out in 2012 and this is the first time. I suspect it's a lot. It's an indication of how young the electorate is. Something like 50% of the people who voted so far are under the age of. What was the number is that in this. Put this statistic up, early voters by age, you will see that like 50%, maybe more, 25 to 34 year olds have cast the most early ballots. Now it's 47% under 44. Okay, that's amazing. Under the age of 44. The other. Let me just do some quick math here. 12 years ago those 25 year olds would be 12. 12 years ago those 34 year olds would be 22. Don't I know it probably did not vote in the primaries. I mean, this is what we're seeing is new voters coming in to vote in this primary. Never mind new voters, early voting, new voters coming in to vote in this primary. That is not good for Andrew Cuomo, but it is good for humanity broadly. I mean, that may be a little bit expansive, but remember the big deal that was made about Eric Adams. Now, to be clear, there is also a primary election this year. So this is not going to be a cakewalk for Zoran Mamdani if he wins the primary.

[Emma Vigeland]

The general. You mean there's going to be a general.

[Sam Seder]

There's going to be a general election this year that is going to be heavily contested. That said, there is an opportunity for New Yorkers to do something very, very important in at least having this guy win the Democratic primary. Mamdani and Brad Lander, who early were early cross endorsers relative to this race, showed up last night on the Colbert Report. And I have a feeling that regardless which one of these two wins and Lander, I think by all accounts has no real opportunity to win at all. I think he would probably concede that at this point in. No, you don't do that publicly, but the polling is such that Mamdani has the only real chance to to beat Cuomo. But of course, in ranked choice voting, you can vote Lander first. Mamdani Second, and that's why they cross endorse, or you can do vice versa. Just do not put Cuomo on that ballot. They went on Colbert last night, and it was really interesting where this conversation went and how quickly it went there. I'll give you my thoughts on it in a sec.

[Donald Trump]

Why do you think this particular race has become a countrywide story?

[Andrew Cuomo]

I think in some ways because it's a referendum on where our party goes. What we're talking about is a race that has now seen the most funded super PAC in New York City's municipal history, a race that is, you know, one that billionaires and corporations want to buy.

[Sam Seder]

Pause it for one second. I just want to put a fine point on that. $25 million worth of PAC money, $25 million worth of PAC money in the Democratic primary. The only silver lining I can tell you about that is the guys who spend these billionaires money, they spend it for themselves. They get a 10 to 15% vig on every ad they place. And so they're going for the most expensive way of expending that money as opposed to putting people knocking on doors. Mamdani had something like knocked on something like 1.5 million doors in New York City. It's insane. It's an insane amount of people power. But I just go back a little.

[Andrew Cuomo]

Bit, seeing the most funded super PAC in New York City's municipal history, a race that is, you know, one that billionaires and corporations want to buy. And this is a tale that we're seeing across this country where it's a battle of organized money versus organized people. And ultimately, it's a question for our own party of how do we move forward? Do we move forward with the same politicians of the past, the same policies of the past that delivered us this present, or do we move forward with a new generation of leadership, one that is actually looking to serve the future?

[Donald Trump]

Despite this being. Despite this being a new New York City race, foreign affairs have become part of it, partly because this is such a multicultural city. And so I'll ask the same question to both of you. I'll start with you, Mr. Lander. Does the state of Israel have the right to exist?

[Sam Seder]

Posit this is. How deep into the interview is this?

[Emma Vigeland]

This is four minutes. The first few minutes were them talking about cross endorsing each other. And then the minute and a half we just saw.

[Sam Seder]

I want you to think about New York City and all of the issues that would face a potential mayor. And I can assure you that impacting policy regarding Israel is So low on the list. And even if you did that setup, New York City is an international city. It also happens to be the home of the largest amount of billionaires, largest amount of millionaires may tie into what Mamdani was saying about money and politics. But put that aside, it is also, I would imagine, has the most amount of immigrant population in the country and diversity of immigrants. As past five or six months has been about immigrants and immigration and ICE and court cases.

[Leah Littman]

I.

[Sam Seder]

The only thing I can think is because Colbert's politics are usually better than this. And so the only thing I can think about is that it's quite possible and certainly in a show like this, that the candidates come on and say, ask us about Israel. Because if I'm going on this show, I am going on the Late Show. I think I called it Colbert Report. I'm going on the Late show because I want to talk to old people who are like me. And I mean this specifically, like my age, late 50s, 60s, 70s. That's, you know, that's who watches these shows. And I want to make them feel comfortable with Mamdani because Andrew Cuomo has been putting out on these same airwaves over and over again, not a friend of Israel. Not a friend of Israel. And so that's what I think is going on here, as creepy as it is. But let's hear their answers, because I'm a bated breath. Are we going to launch an invasion of Israel?

[Brad Lander]

I support the vision of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

[Donald Trump]

Mr. Mamdani, same question. Does the state of Israel have the right to exist?

[Emma Vigeland]

Yes.

[Andrew Cuomo]

Like all nations, I believe it has a right to exist and a responsibility also to uphold international law.

[Donald Trump]

Okay, well, let's talk about. The elephant in the room is that there are many people in New York, even people who would support your candidacy otherwise, who don't want to support you because of the Jewish community's fear of the true and rising anti Semitism not only around the world, but in this country and shamefully in New York, which has the largest Jewish population of any city other than Tel Aviv in the whole world. And they are worried. They're very upset by some of the things that you've said in the past. And they are afraid that your mayorship would actually lead to increased anti Semitism, that they believe that that would be more dangerous for them. What do you say to those New Yorkers who are afraid that you wouldn't be their mayor, that you wouldn't protect them?

[Andrew Cuomo]

You know, I know where that fear is coming From. It's a fear that is based upon the horrific attacks we've seen in Washington, D.C. in Boulder, Colorado, all the way.

[Donald Trump]

From Jews will not replace us to today.

[Andrew Cuomo]

And it's a fear that I hear also from New Yorkers themselves. You know, just a few days after the horrific war crime of October 7, a friend of mine told me about how he went to his synagogue for Shabbat services and he heard the door open behind him and a tremor went up his spine as he turned around, not knowing who was there and what they meant for him. I spoke to a Jewish man in Williamsburg just months ago who told me that the door he left unlocked for decades is now one that he locks. And ultimately, this is because we're seeing a crisis of antisemitism. And that's why at the heart of my proposal for a Department of Community Safety is a commitment to increase funding for anti hate crime programming by 800%. Because to. To your, to your, to your point, antisemitism is not simply something that we should talk about. It's something that we have to tackle. We have to make clear there's no room for it in this city, in this country, in this world.

[Sam Seder]

And.

[Donald Trump]

And no justification for violence of any kind.

[Andrew Cuomo]

No, there, there is. There is no room in this city, in this country, in this world. And what I have found also for many New Yorkers is an ability to navigate disagreement. You know, I remember the words of Mayor Koch, who said, if you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. 12 out of 12, see a psychiatrist. And I had an older Jewish woman come up to me at B' Nai Jeshur in a synagogue many months ago after a Democratic Club forum. And she whispered in my ear, I disagree with you on one issue. I'm pretty sure you know which one it is. And I agree with you on the others. And I'm going to be ranking you on your. On my ballot. And I say this because I know there are many New Yorkers with whom I have a disagreement about the Israeli government's policies. And also there are many who understand that that's a disagreement still rooted in shared humanity. Because the conclusions I've come to, they are the conclusions of Israeli historians like Amos Goldberg. They are echoing the words of an Israeli prime minister, Ehud Ol Meir, who said just recently, what we are doing in Gaza is a war of devastation. It is cruel. It is indiscriminate. It is limitless. It is criminal killing of civilians. These are the conclusions I've come To Stephen, could I.

[Sam Seder]

Sure. Please. I mean, and by the way, pause it for one second. Now I will say, like, you know, this is pretty masterful stuff because he is not backing down from his positions and he is basically just explaining, you know, how he is trying to provide a permission structure for older Jews who remember Ed Koch. Incidentally, he's not talking to anybody under my age by bringing up Ed Koch. He is literally just talking to a specific cohort. All right, let's just play another mix. I want to hear a lander here, but under. I mean, I'm surprised that this was brought up in this and can only imagine that this was invited by the candidates. It may not have been. And if not, like, I mean, people just listening to that question, when we cut it off, thought like, dude, you got to let it run out because he's obviously doing a joke.

[Donald Trump]

Before you answer.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah.

[Donald Trump]

Before you answer, I want to say if we're not able to fill. Fit everything in this interview on the broadcast, we will put the whole thing up online unedited. Okay, go ahead.

[Brad Lander]

So, look, I'm a proud Jewish New Yorker. Raising two Jewish kids here is the joy of my life. I'm the highest ranking Jewish elected official in New York City government. I'm nervous about rising anti Semitism. And also I believe in the humanity and the human rights of Palestinians. And I know that it is possible. I hate what. I support that vision of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, but I hate what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza. And I've been saying that a long time. And look, no mayor is going to be responsible for what happens in the Middle East. But there is something quite remarkable about a Jewish New Yorker and a Muslim New Yorker coming together to say, here's how we protect all New Yorkers. Jews, Jewish New Yorkers and Muslim New Yorkers are not going to be divided from each other. We build a city where you have affordable housing and good schools and safe neighborhoods.

[Donald Trump]

Well, Mr. Mamdani, how do you. I'm just curious. How do you think you'd be the first Muslim mayor of New York? How do you think you could build a bridge of understanding between the significant Muslim population here in the city and the significant Jewish population here in the city? How do you think you could lower tension?

[Andrew Cuomo]

I think by foregrounding that humanity. And in many ways, that's the most New York City thing we can do. Because for so many of us who've grown up in this city, difference is something that we celebrate. It's something that we know is actually a part of the fabric of this place that we call home. And, you know, many years ago, I was the campaign manager of a Jewish candidate for state Senate, and I took him to a mosque in Bay Ridge. And after he gave his speech at Friday prayers, an older Palestinian man came over to him, and he looked at him and he said, cousins. And I think that there is this possibility of building a shared life in our city, because ultimately, that is the story of New York City. It's a shared life of people from across the world, and it's one that we know even in the language of the hostage families themselves. Everyone, for everyone. We are tied together as one.

[Donald Trump]

Well, we have to take a quick break.

[Sam Seder]

I mean, that's impressive stuff. That's really impressive stuff. And we're going to see this. I mean, look, the bottom line is what I also find interesting, some of the stuff that Cuomo has been doing or not doing reads to me like he's already sort of thinking, I'm gonna have to run in the general, is not a Democrat. And this appearance also has that feel of Mamdani sort of like, understanding, if I win this primary, I'm gonna have to deal with this in the general, so I might as well do it now. And because he. I think he understands he can't get. If. If he can't sell this in the primary, he's definitely not going to be able to sell it in the general. And as time goes on, he's going to have. He's going to be even better at this. I mean, I don't know how much room there is, frankly, to get that much better, but it's really, really impressive.

[Emma Vigeland]

And good on Lander. And then also Blake and Myri, some of the other candidates for going against Cuomo. And, you know, this is how this should look.

[Sam Seder]

All right, in a moment, we're going to be talking to Leah Littman. She's the author of Lawless How Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories and Bad Vibes. And be talking the Supreme Court in general. We still have a couple of opinions expected from the Supreme Court, and we got, well, not an opinion this morning, but a. Another shadow docket ruling. We'll talk to her about that as well. When was the last time you needed to go to a doctor but pushed it off?

[Emma Vigeland]

Like, right now?

[Sam Seder]

I just caught up on a bunch of, like, my appointments last Thursday, but I'm too busy. I don't need help. I don't want to deal with. I don't want To I don't know what doctor to go to. I don't know if they've checked my insurance. Okay, everybody's been there. Booking a doctor appointment can feel daunting, but thanks to ZOC Doc, there is no reason to delay. They make it super easy to do. They help you find a doctor, book a doctor, one that's right for you. And also like make the insurance process, which is always a huge hassle, at least make it transparent so you know what you're getting into. ZocDoc is a free app and website where you can search and compare high quality in network doctors and click to instantly book an appointment. Talking about booking in network and appointments with more than 100,000 doctors across every special specialty. Mental health, dental health, primary care, urgent care. It doesn't matter. All of it. I mean I think most of it, the vast majority of it. I don't want to say all, but I would imagine almost. I've never found anything not. You can filter for doctors who take your insurance. You can filter for doctors that are located nearby that are a good fit for any medical need. You may have highly rated by verified patients. Then once you find the right doctor, you can see their actual appointment openings. So there's none of this like do you have anything after 3pm? Unless it's a Thursday, in which case I can do starting at 10am Unless of course I have to go across town, in which case it's 11 and then they go back and forth. No, you can see their appointment openings. You choose a time slot that works for you, you click it and then instantly you have booked a visit. Appointments made through Zocdoc also happen fast, typically within 24 to 72 hours of booking. You can even score same day appointments. You've used ZocDoc before and I know Emma has the.

[Emma Vigeland]

Yeah, picking the time is the. I mean that's the key feature of it for me. Just oh yeah, 3:15 on a Friday.

[Sam Seder]

Makes it so easy. And it's also just so much easier to know. Like I've got all the insurance stuff. I know it up front. Emma has also had great experience with ZOC Doc. I had my doctor before there was an Internet, so. But I'd like to thank zocdoc for sponsoring today's episode. I did actually was out of town once and found a dentist through zocdoc. Did they used to advertise with us a long time ago? Pretty sure, I think so. Stop putting off those doctor's appointments and go to zocdoc.com Majority find it instantly book a top rated doctor today. That's Zoc Doc Z O C doc.com Majority zocdoc.com Majority also on the program to oh, I should know. Also, I don't know if you've ever heard of neutrophil. I have. I've been using it for like three or four years now. I thought I was getting a little thinning. I didn't want to take drugs but I wanted to have thicker hair and to keep my hair as I you know, sundown, which is happening actually like this afternoon. It's like I mean this morning. You may have heard of neutrophils hair growth supplements and wondered do they actually work? It is a fair question. Many hair supplements over promise and under liver but neutral is different. As the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand, it's trusted by over 1.5 million people. It is clinically tested to deliver real results in just three to six months. Thinning hair of course is different if you're a man or if you're a woman. So a one size fits all approach to hair growth doesn't cut it. Nutrafol has multiple formulas for men and women that are tailored to fit different life stages, postpartum or menopause lifestyle factors such as a plant based lifestyle so you can get just what you need. Plus, users of Nutrafol men reported no impact to sexual performance. While many supplements rely on ingredient studies. Neutrophil test the entire the final formulations so they don't just look like oh. Some people get some results with this vitamin and that note the final formulations are tested. They use advanced measurement tools like hair counts and pull tests to track real improvements in hair growth, quality, shedding and texture. It's not just backed by studies. Their research is published in peer reviewed journalists and journals rather invented by doctors, ensuring scientific rigor and reliable results. Building hair growth routine is easy. You order online, you don't need a prescription. Enjoy free shipping, automated deliveries and up to 20% savings with a Nutrafol subscription. Plus get free naturopathic doctor consults and a Headspace Meditation membership. Start your hair growth journey with Nutrafol. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners 10 bucks off your first month subscription and free shipping. When you go to neutral.com enter the promo code TMR10. That's the letters TMR and the number 10. Find out why Nutrafol is the best selling hair growth supplement brand. Neutrophil.com spelled n u t r a f o l.com promo code TMR10. That's Nutrafol.com promo code TMRA10. All right, quick break. And when we come back, we'll be talking to Leah Litman, author of Lawless how the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories and Bad Vibes. We are back. Sam Cedar on the Majority Report, Emma Viland out on her honeymoon. It's a pleasure to welcome back to the program Leah Litman. She is the author of Lawless how the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories and Bad Vibes. And you do a podcast with Kate Shaw. The name escapes me. What is the the strict scrutiny? Is the podcast scrutiny? Yes, I enjoy that quite a bit. It is one of the legal podcasts I listen to to get my fix of never having become a lawyer despite all the greatest wishes of my family. All right. So with that said, let's I want to talk about your book in general, and then we can sort of apply it to what we're seeing on a daily basis. Your vision of the Supreme Court is one which is we are looking at legislators of some sort, but really are doing so based on a particular almost like psychological deficiency, it feels like. I mean, first let's talk about how grievance seems to have like, really taken over the court. And let's go back to even to like, I feel like Scalia was the, the unofficial chief justice of that grievance.

[Leah Littman]

Yes. So I think that that's totally right. The book is about how the Republican justices are fashioning the law and sometimes just declaring the law to be the political talking points and feelings of the Republican political elites. And the big feeling, or at least one of the big feelings is this idea of conservative grievance, the notion that the core constituencies of the Republican Party, social conservatives, religious conservatives, plutocrats, super rich, they are the victims today of a variety of discrimination, maybe because society doesn't share their views anytime the law doesn't go their way. And so they're taking this idea that Republicans, conservatives are an oppressed minority and using that to justify all of these outlandish rules that essentially give Republicans more and more political power, social control, and entitle them to do whatever it is they want.

[Sam Seder]

When did, like, when did, when did this first begin? I mean, I know that in like the 2012, that year you were clerking for Anthony Kennedy, who I also find to be a very interesting figure and his sort of journey over those years, but when do you think this became the case? I mean, I think there's always been a quality about the Supreme Court. At least it's been my sense that there's a lot of reverse engineering. It really just becomes, you know, it's really just a question of, like, what the threshold is for what parameters you need to stay in. In reverse engineering things. But it seemed to really drop out at one point for the Right.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah. So I think that that's right. The Supreme Court has always been political, ideological. But what's accelerated over the last few decades is how partizan they are and also how sloppy and just feeling like they don't even have to conceal these partisan talking points into the semblance of plausible legal arguments. As to when that happened. I agree with you that Antonin Scalia was really sowing seeds of this, particularly later in his career. You know, in the chapter on LGBT equality, for example, I write about how Justice Scalia's dissents in the cases invalidating the Defense of Marriage act or the case invalidating state laws that criminalize consensual sexual intimacy between persons of the same sex. Those dissents really previewed how the Republican justices would eventually form majorities around this idea that the Constitution protects their prejudices and actually gives them the right to engage in discrimination at the same time that it doesn't protect the LGBT community against discrimination. So I think there are several key moments in the Supreme Court's history. I mean, Bush versus Gore is obviously this key moment where the Court.

[Sam Seder]

I was going to ask you about that, because that does seem to me to be the. The crossing of the Rubicon. And I distinctly remember that Newsweek had a story when. Back when Newsweek was, you know, a substantial publication that in. That was actually going to run, I think, on September 11th or 12th of 2001, that there was a big fight that broke out over the summer when they met with some Russian judges who were ostensibly coming to see how they could. And it broke out over Bush v. Gore. And give me your sense of, like, was that the moment where at least the Scalia guy was like, we can get away with this?

[Leah Littman]

I mean, I think so. That was a moment where the Republican justices just ordered a stage to halt its recount, risk disenfranchising minority voters, ordering the state to certify the Republican candidate as the victor on the basis of this legal theory that they announced, well, this is only good for this case. And then three Republican appointees write separately just to announce, well, here's this other potential theory that basically allows us to roll back voting rights protections that state courts or State executives attempt to protect. So, yes, I think that was a real moment where the Republican justices, if the public was ever going to draw a line and say, this is something you justices can't do, you would think that it would be effectively deciding the results of a presidential election on the basis of a cockamamie theory disenfranchising citizens. Alas, you know, that line was not drawn. And so what happens after that? Well, they feel, okay, dismantling the Voting Rights act, campaign finance regulation, announcing the partisan gerrymandering you can't be remedying in federal court overruling Roe and basically facing no consequence for doing so. And the list goes on and on. And so I just think the problem has really snowballed since then.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah. I mean, what accounts for that? I mean. Well, I mean, just in terms of Scalia, like, do you think that he was just sort of sundowning? Because, you know, Scalia was the type of guy that, like, you know, not to single anybody out. But my father would say he's. But he's so brilliant.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

And there was this real sort of, like, you know, I mean, he may have been, you know, articulate or. And I don't know if he was a brilliant jurist, you know, in the 90s, but certainly by the time you get to, like, the late aughts, he's just parroting Rush Limbaugh.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah. So, you know, I think this is always a tough conversation, because I think if you look at his decisions, I point to his 1996 decision in Romer vs. Evans, where the Supreme Court invalidated a state constitutional amendment that prohibited municipalities in Colorado from protecting the LGBT community from discrimination. You know, Justice Scalia writes this angry, homophobic dissent about how, you know, the court has signed on to. He calls it, like, the homosexual agenda. Right. This is also Lawrence versus Texas in the early 2000s. So I think that this is someone who had his moments but was clear, you know, that, like, he was always kind of on the side of the social conservatives, religious conservatives, who were insisting that the Constitution just protects, you know, traditional understandings of sex, sexuality, and marriage. And he didn't really feel the need to justify that beyond just pronouncing it.

[Sam Seder]

He. He sort of echoed that in. Was it the 2013 rollback of the Voting Rights act, where he said, we're giving special privilege to black people in their voting or something?

[Leah Littman]

He called it a racial entitlement.

[Sam Seder]

The voting. Yeah, it's cute right now. Was that one of the ones? When you look at the milestones that are hit Is that one on this trajectory?

[Leah Littman]

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the Republican justices on the Supreme Court invalidated a key part of the Voting Rights act that had been renewed on a bipartisan basis, you know, on a unanimous vote in the Senate. Right. So, like, Republicans and electoral politics felt like there is no basis for us not to renew the Voting Rights Act. And Justice Scalia somehow turned that into a constitutional problem with the Voting Rights Act. He said, you know, they're going to lose votes. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the act. But if. Apologies.

[Sam Seder]

That they were afraid.

[Leah Littman]

That they were afraid.

[Sam Seder]

And that's why. That's how democracy works.

[Leah Littman]

Exactly right. The idea that democracy victimizes them when it doesn't entitle them to do whatever they want. Right. Like that is just very upside down.

[Sam Seder]

That's. I mean, just as we were talking about. I remember that part of it, and it is insane. The end, particularly, because up until that moment, maybe before that, the only thing that we heard through the 90s in particular into the early aughts, was judicial activism. Judicial activism. Judicial activism, which was purportedly where judges go and make up the law and supersede the legislature. And that was. That was beyond. That's not just judicial activism. That is like mind reading and telekinesis. And I mean, it was insane.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah. And, you know, add to that that the Chief Justice's majority opinion, you know, manufactures this constitutional problem with the Voting Rights Act. The supposed difficulty that arises when Congress imposes a rule on some states but not others. That rule, you know, didn't exist. It's nowhere in the Constitution's text. The Reconstruction Congress obviously treated the former Confederate states very differently than it treated, you know, the states that had fought for the Union. And in order to cite a case that suggested such a principle existed, the Chief justice had to insert a misleading ellipsis in a prior opinion that literally made the case, say, the exact opposite of what it had said. So the extent of their lawlessness and entitlement on matters of democracy and voting rights is really something to behold.

[Sam Seder]

I want to get into some of the other sort of fringe theories that they've developed as a way of sort of like getting to where they want to get to, but maybe like, temporarily. It's a good. In terms of the timeline of this, the development of these theories. Talk about your. If you feel comfortable talking about Anthony Kennedy. Because, I mean, the thing that I remember the most about Kennedy was his whole gerrymandering sort of journey where he had said that at one point, if we had a clinical way of determining or a methodical way of determining whether something is. Or mathematical way of determining whether something is actually overly gerrymandered, then maybe I would. Then the court would have to address it. That subsequently did end up happening, and he didn't vote that way. But also he said that in Citizens United, it won't be a problem with people spending money because disclosure will, in fact, inhibit people from doing this. And then subsequent to that, we find out, like, oh, well, it doesn't matter if there's disclosures. Six months after the election, the election's over. What. What was your sense with that guy? Was it. Was that just sort of like a game or was what was happening with. I mean, those are very big, sort of core Democratic, small D issues there.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah, I mean, like, he also joined the majority opinion in Shelby county dismantling a key part of the Voting Rights Act. So I know people look back on Justice Kennedy and think of him as like, this moderate institutionalist center of the Supreme Court. And it's true. He was like the median swing justice in the sense that he sometimes voted with the Democratic appointees on big issues like LGBT equality and sometimes with the Republican appointees on other issues like campaign finance and voting rights. I think the reality is, however, he was a hardcore conservative and Republican. He just had, you know, one or two matters where on issues of LGBT equality, he understood, you know, the humanity and dignity of that community. And there were also a handful of cases where he was moved for, I think, institutional reasons to be convinced that he couldn't overrule a prior decision like Roe, or couldn't overrule prior decisions upholding affirmative action because that would make the Court look too political. But again, his instincts were always pointing him toward the kind of hard line Republican position because he was appointed by a Republican and was a Republican.

[Sam Seder]

That dynamic that you talk about, where he had an institutional. He had fealty to the institution of the Supreme Court, that, to me, seems to be the sort of, like, the. The. That's where the rubber meets the road, and it has shifted. And I want you to talk about these fringe sort of doctrines that they have developed, because for lawyers, it seems to me that notion of protecting the institution of the law, and many of them grow up, like, perceiving it as, like, they're members of a clergy protecting institutions of that. Of the law. And the notion of precedent and stare decisis is all something that, like, they have the latitude to move, but it's almost just like tradition and some type of like peer pressure on some level is what keeps them in line. And in that sort of fell us away. And I wonder what your theory is to why. I mean, was it a function of like the Federalist Society developing its own sort of like guardrails and creating a different sort of like water that they're swimming in, or what was it?

[Leah Littman]

I think it's a combination of two things. I do think that part of the story is the development of the Federalist Society and this alternative ecosystem that would validate them, validate the justices for doing the things that the conservative legal movement wanted them to do. So they were no longer just looking at national media, which is reflective of public opinion. Now they had this entire universe that was just telling them, you will be patted on the back for doing Republican things and you will be criticized if you depart. But you add to that the decline of our institutions. And I think that that also made the Supreme Court feel more removed from public opinion and therefore more able depart from it. You know, given Senate malapportionment, for example, it's now so much easier for a majority of senators not to represent a majority of the country. It's easier for the president because of the electoral College to win the presidency when he doesn't win the popular vote. And I think that those institutions becoming more susceptible to capture by minorities also make the Supreme Court feel less pressure to respond to public opinion. Because realistically, the pushback against the Supreme Court, meaningful pushback would come from Congress. And if Congress as an institution is now more responsive and more accountable to increasingly narrow segments of the country, then the Supreme Court will feel that they can be too as well.

[Sam Seder]

Do you think that the Democrats failed to recognize the way that the Supreme Court and liberals, broadly speaking, the way that the Supreme Court was changing and like the sort of the development of the Federalist Society. And still it seems to me they still like. I mean, I know Dianne Feinstein probably was not had her full wits about her, but you know, when she wanted to hug Lindsey Graham, like this was a great hearing. I mean all those things, it's haunting even Obama in pointing Garland and and then not when was he going to get an interview, not just keep like, like it was so much fealty to the institution that it would have been like untoward to send up another nomination.

[Leah Littman]

Yes. So I completely agree. The Democrats failed to see what was happening before their eyes. You know, as the Republican Party was becoming increasingly radicalized, as the conservative legal movement was becoming increasingly weaponized. They just deny that that was happening and continued to have this image of the Supreme Court and the Republican Party in their heads that just reflected a bygone era. I do think that the problem persists to this day and it is constantly coming back to haunt us that the Democrats again didn't see that Republicans were indeed going to do the thing they promised to do, overrule Roe versus Wade, and therefore did not enact a federal law that protected abortion rights throughout the entire country. You know, they failed to adopt other federal legislation that could have safeguarded other rights that are now in jeopardy as well.

[Sam Seder]

Let's talk about a couple of those fringe theories. I guess the biggest one, it seems to me, well, the two that seem to play the most one would be the unitary executive theory. And, and we should, we should note this is a theory that's been around for 50 years now, almost like transported through time by Dick Cheney, who was chief of staff for, I think, in the Nixon administration. Or was it, was he chief? I think he was and helped develop this. And then the other one is the Major questions doctrine, which is just sort of like a, it's like a get out of free, get out of jail free car. It's like a wild card that you can just throw down at any time.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah, it's like a trump card that they get to pull against Democratic administrations that say you don't actually get to do things that are authorized by law. If we Republican justices and the Republican Party think they're a big deal, it is, as Justice Kagan called it, like a get out of law, get out of text free card that allows the court to say statutes don't actually mean what they say. You know, the unitary executive theory is just one of the more consequential fringe theories that has just become this insurgent idea that has cannibalized, you know, the Republican views on presidential power. And so much of the law, you know, it was really pushed by the Reagan administration, you know, after you say, kind of flirted with, by the Nixon administration. It maintains that presidents have all of the executive power and therefore have to be able to control everyone in the executive branch and that they possess some onset, unclear set of additional unspecified powers. You know, that is the idea that the Trump administration is probably relying on to justify the strikes against Iran. That is the legal theory that they have invoked to justify why they can summarily expel people to El Salvador. That is the legal theory they have invoked to allow Donald Trump to fire people like heads of the National Labor Relations Board in violations of federal law. And it is this grossly ideological theory that threatens to upset so much of our constitutional system because it in effect, places the president above the law in many different areas. It was channeled by the immunity, the catastrophic immunity decision. So, yes, that's another one of their fringe theories that unfortunately now seems to have a majority support.

[Sam Seder]

I want to talk about what cases you think are going to be really important that we're going to hear about. I would like. It could be literally any day now.

[Leah Littman]

Yes.

[Sam Seder]

But let's talk about the one that was decided again in the shadow docket. It is just briefly remind people what the shadow docket is, how the use of it has changed and how it changes. What's fascinating about the shadow docket is if you had a graph, you could see its use would be up here from 2016 or so to 2020, then it's down here, and then it's back up here again in 2024.

[Leah Littman]

It's an amazing coincidence, totally coincidental. So the shadow docket refers to the set of orders, opinions and decisions that the Supreme Court issues without full briefing and without oral argument. You know, there are legitimate things that the Supreme Court does on the shadow docket, like deciding, for example, whether the Solicitor General of the United States gets to participate in oral argument. But what has changed over the last 10 years is increasingly the federal government, in particular, when the federal government is led by Donald Trump, asked the Supreme Court for stays pauses of lower court decisions that rule against the Trump administration. The number of emergency requests on the shadow docket has just, you know, multiplied many fold. Where, you know, between the Bush and Obama administrations, you know, there was something like eight requests by the federal government over a period of like 16 years. You know, now the Trump administration has made like 40 something requests of the court, not even within the first year of the administration. And the Supreme Court has granted a lot of those requests. So they just, without explanation, sometimes without any advance warning issue a decision that puts on hold a lower court decision and allows the Trump administration to implement a policy that a lower court has declared illegal.

[Sam Seder]

The ostensibly the shadow docket was to essentially prevent some type of irreconcilable harm if this was not stopped. Right. And it's quite clear from these things that, like, there's no, there's no irreconcilable harm if a people that you want to deport are not deported today, as opposed to in four weeks or six weeks or whatever. I mean, you know, you could argue like we can't deal with keeping them in a detention center or whatever it is. But that just seems spurious. But I wonder how like this rise in the use of the shadow docket. I know that Trump is not getting along with Leonard, Leonard Leo anymore, or supposedly not, but Leonard Leo has been the fixer for the Supreme Court for decades now. He introduced when Clarence Thomas was going around telling everybody, I don't think I can stay on the court because I don't have enough money. Leonard Leo introduces him to a billionaire. I can't remember his name now, but his best. Harlan Crow is best friend. Who. That's. I mean, it's great. You meet people and you're on the Supreme Court and they take care of you. But I've got to imagine that the idea of let's try the shadow docket, this will work didn't sort of just organically grow. It feels like this was must have been a strategy or a tactic that was developed on sort of both ends of whatever street is between the White House and the Supreme Court.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah. It is something where if the Supreme Court actually wanted the Trump administration to knock it off. Right. And not be inundated by all of these requests, they would just deny them. Right. But they are instead creating this incentive for the Trump administration to continually run off to the Supreme Court because they keep granting a lot of these requests. And indeed they are granting requests in cases where lower courts found that the Trump administration had not complied, failed to comply with lower court orders. And those are the same orders that the Supreme Court is essentially wiping away and telling the Trump administration, yeah, you don't have to comply with those. No big deal.

[Sam Seder]

That's what just happened in this third party deportee case. My understanding of the case is, is that U.S. immigration law says that if you're going to deport a, a potential deportee to a third country, not the US and not their country of origin, they have an opportunity to have a judge or, you know, have the list of countries presented to them and they can go to a judge and say, I can't get sent to that country because of my background or whatever it is. That could be dangerous for me. They went through that process and there were some countries they couldn't go to. The judge found. And then the Trump administration just added some other countries and didn't give them that due process. Is that basically what the case is about?

[Leah Littman]

No, that's completely right. The Trump administration just trying to shuttle people off to countries where people have never been, might not have even heard of. And when their order of removal didn't Tell them you might have to go to this other country. You know, the United States is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture, which Congress has implemented by legislation. And so if an individual faces risk of torture, persecution, violence in another country under federal law, they have the legal rights, right to challenge their removal on that basis and not be deported there. And so what the Trump administration is doing is denying people the ability to, to raise those challenges because they are just telling people at 5pm at night, oh, tomorrow morning you're going to be shipped off to South Sudan, and then the next morning they put them on a bus and put them on a plane and indeed send them off to the country without notifying them. You can challenge your removal to this country because, again, you were not previously informed that you might be deported there. And some of the places where the Trump administration has attempted to shuttle people off to include Libya, where people are at risk for being trafficked and sold into slavery if they are imprisoned in some of the places where they might have been held.

[Sam Seder]

So the shadow docket basically overturned, essentially a federal judge in Boston, I think it was, ruling. What are the implications of this beyond the specifics of this immigration, of this specific, specific immigration scenario?

[Leah Littman]

I think we should read the Supreme Court's order as effectively emboldening and green lighting the administration's failure to comply with lower court orders because they are not facing any penalty for doing so. Here at the lower court order, the government, you know, did not comply with it at least twice. You know, after the lower court had blocked the administration from carrying out these third country removals without providing people with a notice and an opportunity, the federal government first took some people to Guantanamo Bay and then sent them to El Salvador and argued that they had not violated the court order because the court's order only applied to the Department of Homeland Security and they put the people on planes by the Department of Defense. Right. That is not a good legal argument. Subsequently, they deported people to South Sudan and argued they had complied with the court's order because they had provided them with 16 hours noticed overnight, by the way, without informing them of their ability to challenge their impending removal to South Sudan. Again, they were not in compliance. And the Supreme Court is just telling them, you're not going to face any penalty for giving lower courts the middle finger.

[Sam Seder]

What other cases? I mean, that. That's why it makes me think of the birthright citizenship case, because in that case, and correct me if I'm wrong, the issue of birthright citizenship is second order in terms of the case that the Supreme Court is hearing. The real issue is whether a federal appeals court or circuit court can issue a nationwide injunction, whether there's a subsidiary court to the United to the Supreme Court can issue a nationwide ruling, essentially sort of barring the Trump administration from stripping the rights of people who have been born in this country from their. Their citizenship. And that's the question.

[Leah Littman]

Yes. So the issue in the case is whether a lower court can issue what's called a nationwide injunction, basically block a policy that is illegal on a nationwide basis. And if the Supreme Court says they can't do so, or if they limit federal court's ability to issue that orders, I think that has the real potential to allow the Trump administration to implement wildly illegal orders in some Republican leaning states that are unlikely to challenge some of the Trump administration's illegal conduct. Particularly because the Trump administration is taking the astonishing view that if a private plaintiff successfully challenges one of their executive orders in Texas or in the 5th Circuit, which oversees Texas, they, the federal government, are not obligated to apply that decision to other people. So what would that mean if one US Citizen baby in Texas successfully sues to challenge the birthright citizenship Executive Order and obtains a decision that says you indeed are a citizen because this birthright citizenship order is unlawful? The federal government is holding out the possibility of still refusing to recognize the citizenship of other babies in Texas who haven't sued and didn't sue to challenge the order.

[Sam Seder]

I mean, that to me seems like almost definitionally the dissolution of law. Right. I mean, if it's a per person basis, it's like you're in the shtetl and you're just going to the rabbi and can you make it? Can you decide which one of us owns this donkey? It is. There's no law anymore in that instance. It is just a person by person, sort of like determination.

[Leah Littman]

No, that's what Justice Jackson referred to at oral argument and the birthright citizenship as a catch me if you can regime that effectively gives the executive branch the power to opt out of the law. Right. And not enforce the Constitution and federal law in cases where they can get away with it.

[Sam Seder]

What other. And we don't know when that's going to be resolved, but it's going to be in the next two weeks. Probably, probably. Maybe in the next day when we.

[Leah Littman]

That's when we expect. Traditionally, the Supreme Court issues opinions and argued cases by the end of June, although they have occasionally gone into July as of late.

[Sam Seder]

What other cases are you that are where decisions are still extant that you think will be the most important?

[Leah Littman]

There are a lot of big ones. There's a big case about the future of what remains of the Voting Rights act and whether it is unconstitutional for states to try to ensure that voters of color have the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice. In districts, there's a case about whether parents have the right to opt out their children from instruction in public schools. That includes storybooks with LGBT characters. So those are probably three of the biggest cases that I'm watching for.

[Sam Seder]

We're going to be talking about the schematic case tomorrow with Chase Strangio. Where are we on on the Chevron doctrine and the non delegation? These are principles that essentially allow for agencies to follow the spirit of the law, as it were, and execute the law in a way that really only experts could. Where are we on that?

[Leah Littman]

So the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine last term. That doctrine had allowed agencies to interpret ambiguous, unclear words in the statutes they implement, like the EPA with the Clean Air Act. This term, the Supreme Court has on its docket a case that invites the justices to revive the non delegation doctrine. That doctrine, which the Supreme Court only enforced in 1935 as the Court was invalidating New Deal programs, says there are limits on the extent to which Congress can empower other entities, such as administrative agencies, to write rules and regulations that govern what private citizens can do. Of course, rules and regulations are most of how health, safety, economic rules and regulations are written today. Agencies are such an essential part of modern governance. Justice Kagan wrote in a dissent that if the non delegation doctrine is brought back, then most of government is unconstitutional. And so that is another one of the cases we are awaiting a decision on.

[Sam Seder]

Which case is that specific?

[Leah Littman]

That's the Consumers Research decision. It's about the Federal Communication Commission's Federal Communication Commission's Universal Service Fund, in which a group determines the amount that different common carriers have to pay in in order to fund broadband for rural areas, among other places.

[Sam Seder]

Okay. And so I guess lastly, if we have this shared understanding that the Supreme Court is a political entity identity and that it must be addressed with politics. Do you see any politicians out there who are Democrats who have an appreciation of this? I mean, Biden, to his credit, did a good job of making sure to fill all of the seats that were empty, as opposed to Obama, who left a lot of like, you know, low hanging fruit for Donald Trump to really dominate the judiciary. Biden was very, in my opinion, very good in terms of making sure there were nominees and frankly, having a wide range of nominees that were probably as diverse as any that we've seen in several decades. But are there any politicians. But he was also very adamant in the way that he set up a commission to look at like any type of Supreme Court reform to absolutely deep six it. You know, it was dead on arrival. Do you see any politicians out there that have, like, a better understanding of, like, the moment we're in and what maybe we're going to need to do if there's a, an opportunity to do it?

[Leah Littman]

Yes, I think that there are absolutely some, particularly in the House. So Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, you know, in the Senate, Senator Tina Smith. Back in the House, Representative Jamie Raskin. I think those are people who have signaled they understand what is going on with the federal courts and understand that sort of structural democratic reforms that are necessary in order to protect our democracy from the United States Supreme Court. There's also actually a former legal journalist who is running for a Republican seat in Congress held by Mike Lawler. This is Mike Sachs. And I think he also very much gets what's happening with the federal courts and the Supreme Court as well.

[Sam Seder]

Leah Littman, the book is Lawless How Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories and Bad Vibes. We'll put a link to that as well as your podcast at Majority FM and in the YouTube and podcast descriptions. Thanks so much for your time today. Really appreciate it.

[Leah Littman]

Thanks so much for having me.

[Sam Seder]

All right, folks, we're going to take a quick break, head into the fun half of the program, wherein we will have fun. We have no updates on voting. Let's see a couple of pictures, though. Do we have a couple of those photographs which show you. It is right now in New York City. I'm going to check on this. It is a balmy. Let's see. See here.

[Emma Vigeland]

I get 98 on my watch.

[Sam Seder]

Well, I have 99, but of course, I would imagine it depends on where you are. It's 97 in Manhattan.

[Emma Vigeland]

You're under the lights.

[Sam Seder]

That's in the Seaport area group, Pier 17, apparently. And that's right by the water. So you get a thing of that cool breeze that cools it down to 97.

[Emma Vigeland]

It's like 108 in South Brooklyn.

[Sam Seder]

Is it really?

[Emma Vigeland]

I saw one overhead. Yeah, it's over 100 in a few places in the city.

[Sam Seder]

Here's a image. And where is, where is this from? Do we know?

[Emma Vigeland]

This is Astoria.

[Sam Seder]

Oh, that's the last day of early voting. Okay. Sorry we don't have I don't know if we have any updated pictures in terms of lines and whatnot. But look, if you're going out there and you're waiting in line, you know, take some water, stay hydrated. Obviously it's easier for young people to stand in line.

[Emma Vigeland]

We got you old people. You can let us take care of this one for you.

[Sam Seder]

I would hate to see anybody go out there just to prevent Zoran Mamdani from winning the primary and getting heatstroke. I just.

[Emma Vigeland]

It's not worth it.

[Sam Seder]

It's just not.

[Emma Vigeland]

We have one image here, actually, which is kind of funny. This is from Chris Sommerfelt of New York Daily News. This is a midtown where one of Andrew Cuomo's staffers is holding a parking spot for him in front of a polling site he's soon expected to vote at. Cuomo is registered to vote you if a few blocks from here, but is still driving over, although it looks like he issued a correction here. Let's see, what does that say? Cuomo actually walked up to the pole with his daughter, but I guess they were just holding that spot for him for some other reason.

[Sam Seder]

Wait, wait. Let's say scroll down because I want to see him walking there.

[Donald Trump]

Mr. Mamdani is half of your age, but do you trust and question his ability to leave?

[Sam Seder]

I trust his is experience level. He's never had a real job. He's been a two term assemblyman who only passed three bills. He's never really been interested in government at all. That's weird. He's interested in public relations and he's very good on social media. He was quoted in the Times when they basically said Cuomo's age so much. It just feels like in the last five weeks, Grandpa, grandpa. He's very good with the computers and he. First of all, Cuomo was almost Mamdani's age when he had his first nepotism job in. In the Clinton administration. I think as HUD. Bill Clinton was 35 when he was elected the governor of Arkansas. I also seem to remember that Andrew, the Mario Cuomo, when Andrew turned 50, did not go to his birthday party.

[Emma Vigeland]

I know sometimes was he visiting the grave of a grad student, a friend of his? Like, that's the only excuse I've heard from the Fetterman thing.

[Sam Seder]

Oh, is that what that was? You know, I gotta say, you know, as a parent, sometimes you don't think that your kids turn out the way you want them to. So I understand where Mario is coming from. That's all I'm saying. Not my kids. My kids came out perfect. All right, so go vote. Go vote. And listen, if you are in line right now listening to the show, I am. Us as we are a member. Or call us and send us in on, on, on Twitter at the Majority fm. Oh, no, excuse me. On blue sky. Let's do it on blue sky. Let us know that you're on there. Maybe it, maybe send it to me actually, because I don't, I don't gotta get into the blue sky. Send it to me and give me your area code. We'll pull you out of line. So just at me on, on blue Sky. All right. Just a reminder, it's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a [e-mail] when you do not only get the free show free of commercials, you get the fun half. Also, just coffee, co op, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code. Majority get 10% off. Great company. Oh, wait a second. He pulled away from his. His polling site. That was interesting. All right, we'll see in the fun half way.

[Emma Vigeland]

First tonight, left reckoning.

[Sam Seder]

Oh, sorry, sorry.

[Emma Vigeland]

Back left reckoning. Seven o' clock Eastern time. Iskander Sadegi and Derek Davidson talking about Iran. Check that out. Patreon.com left reckoning.

[Sam Seder]

Three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's going to be the same as it looks like it six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're going to look back and go like, wow. What, what is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on for. Hold on for a second. Emma. Welcome to the program. Matt. What is up, everyone?

[Leah Littman]

No.

[Andrew Cuomo]

Mickey, you did it.

[Sam Seder]

Fun half.

[Leah Littman]

Let's go, Brandon.

[Sam Seder]

Let's go, Brandon. Fun half. Bradley, you want to say hello?

[Emma Vigeland]

Sorry to disappoint everyone. I'm just a random guy.

[Sam Seder]

It's all the boys today.

[Leah Littman]

Fundamentally false. No. I'm sorry. Women.

[Sam Seder]

Stop talking for a second. Let me finish.

[Leah Littman]

Is this coming from. Dude, but.

[Sam Seder]

Dude, you want to smoke this C. Yes. Hi, me.

[Andrew Cuomo]

Is it safe?

[Sam Seder]

Yes. Is this me? Is it me? It is you.

[Andrew Cuomo]

Is this me?

[Sam Seder]

Hello?

[Andrew Cuomo]

It's me.

[Sam Seder]

I think it is you. Who is you? No sound every single freaking day. What's on your mind?

[Donald Trump]

We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism.

[Leah Littman]

I'm gonna go to Hawaii.

[Sam Seder]

Libertarians, they're so stupid. Though common sense says. Of course.

[Leah Littman]

Gobbledygook.

[Sam Seder]

We nailed him.

[Leah Littman]

So what's 79 plus 21?

[Sam Seder]

Challenge. Man, I'm positively quivering. I believe 96. I want to say 8, 5, 7, 2, 1, 0, 35, 500. 1, 1, 1 half.

[Emma Vigeland]

3, 8, 9, 11. For instance.

[Leah Littman]

$3,400.

[Sam Seder]

$1900. 5, 4. $3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game, actually.

[Leah Littman]

You're making me think less.

[Sam Seder]

But. But let me say this. Call it satire. Sam goes satire. On top of it all. My favorite part about you is just like every day, all day, like, everything you do. Without a doubt. Hey, buddy, we see you. All right, folks, folks, folks.

[Leah Littman]

It's just the week being weeded out, obviously.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah. Sun's out, guns out. I. I don't know. But you should know, people just don't.

[Emma Vigeland]

Like to entertain ideas anymore.

[Sam Seder]

I have a question. Who cares?

[Emma Vigeland]

Our chat is enabled, folks.

[Sam Seder]

I love it.

[Leah Littman]

I do love that.

[Sam Seder]

Gotta jump. Gotta be quick. I gotta jump. I'm losing it, bro. Team clock. We're already late and the guy's being.

[Andrew Cuomo]

A dick, so screw him.

[Sam Seder]

Sent to a gulag.

[Leah Littman]

Outrageous.

[Sam Seder]

Like, what is wrong with you? Love you.

[Donald Trump]

Bye.

[Sam Seder]

Love you.

[Leah Littman]

Bye.

[Sam Seder]

Bye.