Steve Vladeck's Taxonomy of Court Reform
Added 2024-05-13 08:56:04 +0000 UTCOA1032
We're very pleased to welcome Steve Vladeck on the show to talk about what's going on with the Supreme Court these days, and how shadowy their docket has been recently. We then dig into (and debate a touch) a recent piece he wrote regarding a different way to conceptualize about court reform, and what he personally sees as viable and appropriate among the various proposals for change.
Be sure to read The Shadow Docket, which will be released on paperback soon, and subscribe to One First to get more of Steve's great coverage!
Then we reveal the answer to last episode's T3BE; did Thomas successfully determine the fate of Rebecca the violinist? And who from the audience will be the lucky winner?!
Remember to head over to www.patreon.com/gavelpod to follow our Trump Trial coverage ahead of the public release of the show!
Comments
I like 5-4 and I feel like my views on the Supreme Court are as negative, or more negative than theirs. Matt feels similarly. I don't really think we're in a bubble on that. Steve is definitely very institutionalist and I am happy with how I've challenged him, though who knows what difference it has made.
Opening Arguments
2024-05-17 05:39:31 +0000 UTCLol I thought you were talking about Thomas Smith for a moment and got very confused!
Jon C
2024-05-15 05:48:03 +0000 UTCSeems smart also because once you have a critical mass of like 47 supreme court justices they cease to seem all that supreme. They should all have to go and help with the backlog in drug court/traffic court or something once a month to remind them they work for their country not vv and no, even they can't use the car pool lane by themselves, not even if they place a bike helmet on top of a large hiking pack in the back seat
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2024-05-14 11:56:44 +0000 UTCI reckon clinton would do it, or Obama if he could use a drone. Now that we have conclusive proof Bush wasn't the dumbest president, maybe, but everyone seems to think he's a chill grampa now.
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2024-05-14 11:33:25 +0000 UTCI see... well I don't really see... Or maybe I do, because maybe it's tautological because if Twatface has immunity, this would by definition imply that the court does not have jurisdiction, because if they had jurisdiction, he wouldn't have immunity. Or something. Whatever, fuck all these people. Part of me hopes they do give him past & future immunity times infinity, and then one of the other former presidents can go "me me me times infinity plus one" and just wing him, at least that is my understanding
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2024-05-14 11:26:58 +0000 UTCThis was fantastic. To show a different angle to these Supreme Court discussions, I think it would be prudent for you to look to something like the 5-4 podcast, Thomas, if you haven't done so in the past. Even if it's not directly to have a guest on the show, you may indirectly be able to collect some contacts, sources, etc. Every time I hear you and Cameron talk about the Supreme Court, I feel like we would all benefit from some viewpoints outside of the liberal bubble that so many American podcasts get stuck inside, and I think your styles would work together really well.
Boris Praversham
2024-05-14 05:29:30 +0000 UTCWoot won t3be for once haha
The Dinosaur Dave, Lego Streamer
2024-05-14 02:32:04 +0000 UTCLOL, I love your terminology. Twatology, even! My understanding was the DC court was asked to address the immunity question, and as a *separate* question they were asked to address whether they, the DC court, had jurisdiction for the immunity question at all. The bit Roberts quoted was the part where the DC court explained why they had jurisdiction. But Roberts was saying (or implying) that was the DC court’s answer to the immunity question. I think Gill was saying that n the context of the jurisdiction question the argument was *not* a tautology (twatology). Either that, or maybe the point is that the jurisdiction question and DC court’s answer don’t matter to what the Supreme Court is hearing, which is the immunity question.
Pixel Mountain (aka Rachel)
2024-05-13 22:26:50 +0000 UTCMaybe it's about the difference between the judiciary stopping the executive (president) from doing certain stuff, vs their ability to pursue legal consequences after he has done it? Read it that way, the DC court thing is saying the only reason they're even talking about prosecution is that due to separation, they couldn't prevent Trump being a twat. That doesn't mean they can't prosecute his twatulence to the fullest extent of the law... idk
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2024-05-13 21:41:06 +0000 UTCWait wait wait. That bit about the DC court decision having an “entirely tautological” argument… In her “Jack” podcast, Allison Gill said something that I thought made sense: The part Roberts said was a tautology is where the DC Court said (in Gill’s words),: “…the separation of powers doctrine necessarily permits the judiciary to oversee the federal criminal prosecution of a president for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means the president has allegedly acted in defiance of Congress's laws. “They were quoting Marbury in a jurisdictional question. They were trying to say, here's why the judiciary can hear this case… “Justice Roberts took it to mean this was their ruling on immunity.” That made sense to me when she explained it, but I’m not the expert. Was she wrong?
Pixel Mountain (aka Rachel)
2024-05-13 20:21:00 +0000 UTCGood to see/hear Steve Vladek on the show. Great get.
Katie Herrmann
2024-05-13 20:13:32 +0000 UTCRe: Court reform, it's all well and good to mull over the pros and cons of various approaches to ensure long-term stability, but in the meantime the Christian Nationalists are seizing more and more power at all levels. All the transparency in the world won't matter one bit if/when we get to the point where the SCOTUS says Congress can gerrymander themselves into a permanent supermajority and the President is immune from prosecution for murdering political opponents as long as he does so in his official capacity as Commander-in-Chief. In other words, when the building is on fire you don't stand around arguing about what kind of sprinkler system you should buy. You put the fucking fire out first, then repair the damage, then do what you can to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Congress- the opposite of PROgress
2024-05-13 18:38:53 +0000 UTCThe whole idea that the members of the Supreme Court could be shamed or impeached seems so fanciful and not based in any of what i see. While I loved the interview that part really depressed me
KeepingThePlatesSpinning
2024-05-13 18:32:27 +0000 UTCI suppose the Devil's Advocate position is that we'd be so confident in court expansion that we'd rest on our laurels and forget the other stuff, but I don't see that happening. If someone like Sen. Whitehouse can pass something as big as court expansion, I feel *very* confident he's going to be fighting to include other safeguards as well.
Gmork
2024-05-13 17:54:09 +0000 UTCYes, it's MAD in a political context. As with gerrymandering, proving that the situation is untenable because of constantly escalating tit-for-tat is the only way to force the GOP to sit down at the negotiating table and hammer out an actual permanent solution to this whole thing. To date all they've done is flip that table over any time the Dems thought, gee, this time they're finally ready to sit down and negotiate.
Chris Conley
2024-05-13 17:45:22 +0000 UTCAround 44:00, my first thought was, why not both? Expand the court AND implement measures to make it more accountable. I don't see why the two are being presented as though they were mutually exclusive. If I have a heavily bleeding wound, I still will put a band-aid on it knowing that that alone is not enough, and then I will seek more serious medical attention. I feel like Vladeck is saying "Well, the band-aid won't 100% fix the issue so don't use it at all." EDIT: I posted this right before Thomas mentioned amputation. Obviously I approve of the analogy.
Jason Valasek
2024-05-13 17:38:15 +0000 UTCYup. If the GOP manages to get a trifecta after the court has been expanded and voter suppression starts really getting curtailed, then I suppose they'd have earned the right to expand it further. I suspect that version of the GOP would look different from what we see today, anyway, considering how recent elections have gone.
Help, I'm trapped in a podcast factory!
2024-05-13 17:36:53 +0000 UTCI, too, appreciate the return to 2 episodes a week. I think 2 is a better balance for the kind of content the show produces. Episodes feel a little more relaxed, and it's easier to keep up with the show. Plus, I think the schedule for 3-per has got to wear on the hosts, and right now I am thoroughly enjoying the overall positive, happy, relaxed vibe of the show. There are some podcasts, especially ones that are all-in on Trump coverage stuff, where it feels like the show is doing episodes for the sake of doing episodes. Even if there is always content to cover, that doesn't necessarily mean you have to cover all of it, ya know? At a certain point, it just saturates the experience beyond it being really enjoyable. TLDR: More is not always better, and less (fewer) sometimes is. This is one of those times.
Philly Basement Bar is back open, and isn't taking this shit lying down.
2024-05-13 17:18:12 +0000 UTC'too rich as a meal, but perfect as a dessert'! perfectly and delightfuy phrased. (I agree)
lauren
2024-05-13 15:58:07 +0000 UTCI love the new old OA format. I wasn't listening to solo T3BE because it was just too much. It is too rich as a meal but perfect as a dessert. re: court reform it seems like limiting nationwide injunctions in federal district courts would be a good way to pressure the supreme court. They have inherent national jurisdiction but if there were fewer national injunctions it seems they would have to proactively decide to expand a decision in order to reach their most devious political machinations. That might push the marginal vote on the court but most importantly it would show them for the blatant partisans they really are.
Drew Vogel
2024-05-13 14:10:12 +0000 UTCI used to make that argument against expansion before realizing that never-ending expansion would still be better than the status quo. Plus, expanding the court into one that protects elections would make it less likely for the GOP to get back into a position to re-expand it.
Gmork
2024-05-13 12:32:09 +0000 UTCRe: "If Dems expand the court Reps will expand it more." Let them. Keep adding justices, let any decisions they have to make need 7, 9, 11... 25, 50(!) for a majority. Even zealots will have challenges holding the ranks together the more they need consensus for.
Apple Ventus
2024-05-13 12:09:53 +0000 UTCThe end of the conversation was really telling in terms of how good faith liberal actors hamstring themselves on court reform. Expanding the court is a brute force solution that basically admits that court results aren't the result of constrained jurisprudence or brilliant legal maneuvering, and honest, clever people like Prof. Vladack hate seeing the institutions they've devoted their lives to being reduced to who wields the stick. But Thomas accurately recognizes that so long as the FedSoc and Crow and McConnell use brute force solutions freely, all of Vladacks clever legal maneuvering is just bringing a feather duster to a knife fight.
Gmork
2024-05-13 12:09:04 +0000 UTCThomas' blatant corruption unfortunately demonstrates how little efforts like a powerless IG would have. A giant light has been shown on his corruption as Prof. Vladack suggests an IG might, and not only has Thomas not been shamed into stepping down or changing his behavior, but not even one justice on the court even acknowledges it.
Gmork
2024-05-13 11:56:39 +0000 UTCI love this interview, but I think Prof. Vladack is tackling a strawman in suggesting that there's anyone who backs court expansion but would oppose the other types of reforms he suggests. I think if you can get expansion, the other more modest reforms will easily pass along with it.
Gmork
2024-05-13 11:49:22 +0000 UTCI get really frustrated over the silence of the liberal justices on these issues. I think efforts at reform would get a shot I'm the arm from justices asserting that the court is not alright and needs oversight. But once even liberal justices join the court, they all seem intent on declaring that everything is fine no matter how bad it gets.
Gmork
2024-05-13 11:40:09 +0000 UTC
