Is A New Supreme Court Emerging?
Slate Daily Feed
Slate
3.9 • 1.1K Ratings
🗓️ 15 June 2023
⏱️ 6 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
This episode is a part of Opinionpalooza. Slate’s coverage of Supreme Court decisions. Thank you to our Slate Plus members for making this episode available to all listeners. The full version of this episode is now exclusively available to our Slate Plus members. If you want to have access to bonus content like this, go to slate.com/amicusplus to become a member.
Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern join forces for this Opinionpalooza extra episode of Amicus where they discuss Haaland v Brackeen, a case that could have upended Indian Law, but didn’t. The case concerned the Indian Child Welfare Act, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion also reveals some tensions among the Supreme Court’s conservative justices. Together, Dahlia and Mark assess what another unexpected win can tell us about the shape of the current court.
Dahlia’s book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout
Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | Hi, I'm Dialithwick. I'm the host of Amicus Slates podcast about the courts, the Supreme |
| 0:10.6 | Court, and the law. We are so glad you've joined us for our Opinion Polusa coverage, where |
| 0:16.4 | we have been all over the Supreme Court's slew of end-of-term decisions. Mark Joseph |
| 0:22.2 | Stern and I are a little punch drunk, but we wouldn't have done it with anyone else. |
| 0:27.1 | This was one of the emergency episodes we released as part of our work, trying to define |
| 0:32.8 | a new approach to how the media covers the Supreme Court. |
| 0:37.5 | Bonus episodes of Amicus are usually reserved for slate-plus members, but due to the urgent |
| 0:42.4 | nature of this work at this time, we were really glad to share these extra episodes with |
| 0:47.3 | all of our listeners for a limited time. And we're able to do that in large part because |
| 0:52.3 | of the support of our amazing slate-plus members. So thank you, slate-plus members, for |
| 0:57.0 | sharing the bounty. It's been a wild ride. |
| 1:00.5 | We're going to bring you this emergency edition of Amicus in the wake of a big and unbelievably |
| 1:05.8 | surprising decision that came down from the court Thursday morning to not further |
| 1:10.8 | eviscerate what's left of the Voting Rights Act. |
| 1:14.1 | It's this idea that you can totally cut race out of VRA claims and still come up with |
| 1:19.9 | the fair map. And what Robert says is, that gets this entirely backwards. |
| 1:24.2 | Seeing an indictment like this, if it were not Donald Trump, I would say, of course, |
| 1:28.5 | the defendant is going to plead guilty. |
| 1:34.2 | Hi and welcome to another special edition of Amicus. This is slate-plus. |
| 1:38.0 | We really are at an important milestone of accountability. The legal system is where |
| 1:43.4 | alternate facts don't work. The legal system is where all of these bogus made up arguments |
| 1:50.4 | that are just ridiculous will not withstand scrutiny. |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Slate, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of Slate and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.