Opinionpalooza: The Supreme Court Puts Presidents Above the Law (Preview)

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts

Slate Podcasts

News Commentary, Politics, Government, News

4.6 • 3.1K Ratings

🗓️ 1 July 2024

⏱️ 11 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority rounded out the term by gifting massive unprecedented power to commit criminal wrongdoing to presidents. A court that already put a thumb on the scale for former President Donald J Trump by slow talking and slow walking the immunity case in exactly the way he hoped, has now thrown out the scale in favor of a brand new sweeping, monarchic immunity ruling in favor of the former president and any future insurrection-prone presidents. Trump v United States provides that US Presidents may enjoy wide-ranging immunity from criminal prosecution because coups are constitutional as long as you make them official. This episode delves into the decision’s implications for democracy, and for presidential power, while also providing historical context. We also look ahead to the legal battles looming in the various Trump trials at all their various stages. What does this do to the Georgia indictments? The classified documents case? And the felony counts for which Trump will be sentenced next week? Host Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer on the courts and the law, and Professor Corey Brettshnieder, who teaches constitutional law and political theory at Brown University and is the author of the new book The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Hi, it's Dahlia Lithwick, and as we careen to the conclusion of a Supreme Court
0:10.4	opinion Palusa season in which the High Court has grabbed unprecedented powers, Supreme Court
0:13.3	opinion, opinion Palusa season in which the High Court has grabbed unprecedented powers
0:14.8	unto itself. The conservative majority of the Court
0:18.2	rounded out the term by gifting massive unprecedented power to presidents.
0:24.0	The long-awaited immunity ruling that was evidently designed to be long-awaited had already put a
0:30.0	thumb on the scale for former President Trump, but today effectively throughout the scale,
0:35.6	ruling that Trump and any future president may enjoy wide-ranging immunity from criminal prosecution
0:41.9	because coups are constitutional as long as you make
0:45.4	them official.
0:47.1	Here's a taste of my conversation with Slates Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer on the courts
0:51.8	and the law, and Professor Corey Brett Schneider, who teaches
0:55.8	constitutional law and political theory at Brown University, and is the author of the
1:00.5	brand new book, The Presidents and the People, Five Leaders, who Threatened Democracy
1:05.2	and the Citizens who Fought to defend it.
1:09.3	And Mark, I think this is really kind of the core issue that people are going to struggle to
1:14.0	understand today and let's really parse it out. The majority opinion as penned by
1:19.0	the Chief Justice differentiates between criminal acts that are official acts and unofficial acts.
1:26.2	That's the game changer.
1:27.9	And I would love for you to help us understand if the court has a marker of the difference between the two, what that line is and why it really matters.
1:38.0	Yeah, I mean, I do not see how the trial court here can apply this decision with any modicum of
1:46.8	certainty or consistency because what Roberts has delivered is a ziploc bag full of muddy water.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

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

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