This week, the National Constitution Center and Texas A&M University School of Law

convened a Supreme Court Review Symposium with leading constitutional scholars and commentators.

Hello, friends. I'm Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center,

and welcome to We the People, a weekly show of constitutional debate.

The National Constitution Center is a nonpartisan nonprofit, chartered by Congress, to increase awareness and understanding of the Constitution among the American people.

In this episode, I'm joined by three of America's leading Supreme Court commentators, Jess Braven of the Wall Street Journal,

Jan Crawford of CBS News,

and Fred Smith, Jr. of Stanford Law School.

Together we explore polarization on the court

and the role of the media and the president

in shaping public perceptions.

Enjoy the show.

Friends, our last panel ended with a vigorous discussion of whether the current court represents the triumph of John Marshall or Neville Chamberlain.

And also the competing visions of Justice Jackson and Justice Barrett.

And I want to start with that remarkable debate now.

In the Trump and Casas case, Justice Jackson, in her separate dissent,

accused the conservative majority of creating a zone of lawlessness that represented an existential threat

to the rule of law,

and Justice Barrett responded

for six justices in the majority,

that Justice Barrett's dissent

has no basis in two centuries of precedent,

...