From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Free Expression with Jerry Baker.

Hello and welcome to Free Expression with me, Jerry Baker, from the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

We're delighted you listening to this podcast. If you enjoy it, please be sure to subscribe at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you listen to your podcasts.

And please be kind enough to leave us a favorable review. Now, at the journal's editorial page, we believe strongly in free expression. And each week, we explore in depth and candor on this podcast, issues of topical and other interest. We speak in depth to people who are leading figures in their field, practitioners, experts, commentators to try to give us a better understanding of the major issues of our times. Now, our topic this week is the Supreme Court, particularly in the light of the extraordinary

leak of the deliberations of the court in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health,

a case that could overturn the 1973 ruling on abortion of Roe v. Wade. My guest is Jonathan Turley,

lawyer, legal scholar, writer and

professor at George Washington University Law School. Professor Turley, of course, is a distinguished

practitioner in and commentator on constitutional law and legal theory, among other things. In

addition to his extensive writing and public speaking, he's testified on many occasions before

Congress, including during some impeachment proceedings.

There's an attorney, he's worked on many notable cases in the field of civil rights,

as well as on national security and military law. Jonathan Turley, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you very much. It's great to be here. Let me just start. I want to get into the details. You've spoken a lot and I want to get into more details about the leak itself and then also about the future of Rofi Wade from what we've learned in the last week or so. Let me just start. You wrote a very interesting piece this weekend in which you talked about the nation's addiction to rage. And it is

very striking that we seem to be in an age now when whatever your views, whatever your

political views, we no longer seem to rely on sort of procedural

formalities that we used to to get things done. We no rely only on those and that there's an

increasing interest in, if you like, direct action, breaking the norms, breaking the rules,

challenging the existing procedures that we normally have. And this late Supreme Court

League is obviously one of the most extraordinary examples of that.

It seems as though we live in an age where what matters is winning above all else, however

you do it, and ignoring the rules and the norms.

Again, you wrote about that today.

...