Every American should realize that they will not be able to protect themselves in court if the courts are biased and are subject to this kind of political attack.

Hi, and welcome back to Amicus.

This is Slate's podcast about the law and the rule of law and the Supreme Court and the judiciary.

I'm Dahlia Lithwick.

And I cover these things for Slate magazine.

There have been plenty of court-related headlines in the past few weeks while we were focusing on our election meltdown series, with the president's call for two justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to recuse themselves in all Trump-related matters because he says they're biased.

More abuse from the president directed at the judge and jury four women in the Roger Stone trial.

Attorney General William Barr hinting he might quit if the president keeps tweeting, but I guess getting over it, getting over it is the new integrity.

Next Wednesday, the court hears arguments in June medical.

That's the abortion challenge, raising the same exact issue as Whole Women's Health decided in 2016. We will devote the next show to covering those arguments and what comes next. This week, because there is just too much, too too much happening, Slate Plus members are going to have access to a brand new segment in the second half of the show with Slate's own fantastic Mark Joseph Stern, where Mark is going to try to round up all the big Supreme Court and federal appellate court news.

We just cannot get into the main show, like the Supreme Court's decision to take up a controversial Philadelphia religious freedom case next term and a Second Circuit ruling this week on sanctuary cities, plus the court's 5-4 opinion in a cross-border shooting case to become a Slate Plus member and access that and a whole bunch more add free bonus Slate content.

Go to slate.com slash amicus plus.

You're also supporting Slate and all the journalism we do here.

Now, I want to turn to what has become a kind of foundational question when we think about the Supreme Court, the federal courts, and the rule of law.

And it's a big, big question that thus far we've just not really been able to answer. On one side, we have the conservative legal establishment, this juggernaut that is the Federalist Society and the well-funded, often very secretive legal groups that have packed the courts with lifetime appointments for very young, hardline judges. The left's answer to that machinery,

rather more muted, includes the ACS or American Constitution Society. And this week, after a

lengthy search, ACS announced that Russ Feingold, the former Democratic senator from Wisconsin,

will lead the group in its efforts to push back against what's been a sea change in the federal judiciary and what Fingold sees as fundamental threats to the independence of the Justice Department.

Senator Fingold, who served on the Judiciary Committee for 16 of his 18 years in the Senate has among the items on his new to-do list at the helm of ACS the job of answering the conservative juggernaut question.

He has to think about ways to counter the more than 190 new judges that have been seated, including two Supreme Court justices and more than 50 federal

appeals court judges, all of whom are going to shape the legal landscape for probably decades to come.

So no mean feat.

...