Welcome to the commentary magazine podcast for today Wednesday September 21st, 2020.

I am Noah Rothman with us as always is AEI scholar and commentary contributor commentary contributor.

You corrected me on this yesterday, Christine. What is your title again?

Well, you know, I'm still lobbying for Zarina, but I think what John is calling me now is media commentary media columnists.

That's right. It changes with such a reality. But hey, you works for me.

She's the part of the commentary family. Christine Rosen and

senior editor, Ed Greenwald. I know.

Second of, but, but, but, but who's counting?

No, I should be having massacred the introduction of this podcast.

I'm going to introduce today's guest, a also a senior AEI fellow and regular commentary contributor.

Adam White. Adam White, thank you very much for being here.

Neil, that one Noah.

I took my time with that one. Today's a legal podcast.

Yesterday, we were doing a very sober analysis of public health policy.

Today, we're going to be doing a very irreverent analysis of American legal policy as it relates to the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, we spent a fair amount of time talking with Tevye Troy about Joe Biden's not

extemporaneous, but certainly not scripted comments in which he declared the coronavirus pandemic over.

And we're talking about some of the policy implications that might arise from that declaration,

because while the administration might want to say the pandemic is over to achieve some political

benefit, they're not acting like it. In fact, there's quite a few issues before the courts right now

that are predicated on the assumption that the national emergency and the pandemic that spurred it

are very much alive and and with us among them, federal ledges litigation right now over a vaccine

...