I'm Elizabeth Lattery and welcome to SCOTUS 101, where we break down what's happening at the Supreme Court,

what the justices are up to, and other things related to our favorite branch of government.

The court is out this week as the justices get to work writing the final opinions of the term.

In lieu of a normal episode, I'd like to share a clip of former Solicitor General

Paul Clements remarks at a symposium put on this week by the Heritage Foundation and the Bradley Foundation.

Paul offered his thoughts on the old adage that changing one member of the Supreme Court creates

a whole new court, and he provided tips for how to get the justices to overturn past decisions.

I hope you enjoy this episode.

I'm going to talk about sort of stare decisis from a lawyer's perspective, and the reason that

lawyer's perspective is in the title is to sort of, excuse me, from the need to have a grand

theory of stare decisis or what the proper role of star

decisis really ought to be.

I'm going to talk about it really from more of the perspective of the litigator, which in

the Supreme Court means trying to get to five for your client.

So with that caveat in mind, I want to start by talking

about kind of the current Supreme Court.

One of the oldest adages in Washington, D.C.

is if you change one member of the Supreme Court,

you really get a whole new court.

And I think that's actually generally true.

I think people who are watching the court not as closely as Supreme Court litigators

sometimes fail to appreciate how much the interpersonal dynamics of the justices make a huge difference

...