Jed Purdy: The courts, Trump and politics in the context of ecological crisis

The Dig

Daniel Denvir

News, Politics

4.8 • 1.7K Ratings

🗓️ 21 February 2017

⏱️ 61 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

All eyes have turned to the judiciary. It’s the one potential institutional check on Trump—aside, of course, from the shadowy national security state— at the federal level. The courts have the power to stop and strike down laws and actions that violate the law or the Constitution. Recent rulings by a federal district judge in Washington and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made this clear after they blocked Trump’s Muslim and refugee bans. But the judiciary, despite pretenses to the contrary, is fundamentally political. It can shred civil rights and economic protections as efficiently as it can protect them. Ultimately, major judicial conflicts get decided by the Supreme Court, which has been split 4-4 since Republicans blocked President Obama’s effort to nominate Merrick Garland to take the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat. Today, Dan Denvir speaks to Jed Purdy about the judiciary and other matters. Purdy is a professor at Duke Law and the author of three books on American political identity including The Meaning of Property. His most recent book is After Nature: A Politics for the Anthropocene and he has published articles in many, many publications.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Welcome to The Dig, a podcast from Jacobin Magazine.
0:08.8	My name is Daniel Denver, and I'm broadcasting from AS220 in Providence, Rhode Island.
0:14.9	After weeks of mass protest against presidential malfeasance, all eyes have turned to the judiciary.
0:21.6	It's the one potential institutional check on Trump at the federal level, aside, of course,
0:26.6	from the shadowy national security state.
0:29.6	The courts have the power to block laws and actions that are illegal or unconstitutional.
0:34.6	Recent rulings by a federal district judge in Washington and the Ninth Circuit
0:38.9	Court of Appeals made this clear after they stayed Trump's Muslim and refugee bans. But the judiciary,
0:45.4	despite pretences to the contrary, is fundamentally political. It can shred civil rights and
0:50.7	economic protections as efficiently as it can defend them. Ultimately,
0:55.6	major judicial conflicts get decided by the Supreme Court, which has been split for four
1:00.5	since Republicans blocked President Obama's effort to nominate Merrick Garland to take the late
1:05.9	Justice Antonin Scalia's seat. Today, I speak to Jed Purdy about the judiciary and other matters.
1:13.0	Purdy is a professor at Duke Law, a contributing editor at dissent, and the author of three
1:17.9	books on American political identity, including the meaning of property. He is currently writing
1:24.0	After Nature, a politics for the Anthropocene, and has published articles in many,
1:29.8	many publications.
1:40.0	Jed, welcome to the dig.
1:42.7	Thanks, Dan.
1:44.7	Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch was, like his choice of Mike Pence, a payback of sorts to the mainstream right, which was initially quite hostile to him.
1:54.5	But despite Trump's unique bizarreness, there's nothing at all friendly about more ordinary Republicans.
2:01.3	What does the Gorsuch nomination signal politically and what might his impact be on the court?
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Daniel Denvir, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Daniel Denvir and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.