I'm John Batchel with my colleague, Professor John U of the Civitas Institute, University of Texas at Austin

and Berkeley Law School. We're looking at the learning resources in terms of the details of the

dissent and the majority opinion. However, or is this other matter that's been around as a partisan

talking point for some time that the so-called conservative Supreme Court is a partisan talking point for some time, that the so-called conservative Supreme Court

is a handmaiden to the president's power. And in the case of Mr. Trump, it's gone along with

all of his non-normative conduct. I'm being very diplomatic here. There have been sharp

partisan allegations made. This one decision, John, undoes all that allegation, doesn't it?

I have to agree with you, John. We've seen, I think, an unprecedented attack on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court for the last few years, which I think really had to do with pressuring the justices not to overturn Roe versus Wade. And you might remember when the court took up that case, you had threats from members of Congress. You had an

leak, unprecedented leak of an opinion, obviously from someone inside the court who was

disgruntled that the court was overruling. Roe. You even had an assassination attempt on

Justice Kavanaugh. You've had stories attacking the personal ethics and finances of the justices, which I think have been, which I think are just completely flawed these attacks.

And I think the mistake that these critics have made is they think that justices worry about the fate of the Republican Party or the fate of the Democratic Party.

They are ideological, but they're not fighting over partisan politics and outcomes.

What they're fighting about is really, how do you interpret the Constitution?

It's broader words or its narrower words.

Do you use the original understanding of the founders or do the just the justices have the right to consult contemporary meanings or even their own personal morality when they interpret the Constitution?

That's really what's at stake. And in a way, these fights are more important and longer term than who's up and who's down because of the latest national election.

And that strengthens the court implicitly is my reading as an amateur. Is it yours, John?

I think so, John. But what's more important is what you think, not what I think. What's more important is what do American citizens, voters, members of this great republic, what do they think about the role of the court? It's very interesting. In Federalist Number 78, Alexander Hamilton was quite prophetic. He said, in our Constitution, the president has the power of

the sword, right? Congress had what you call the force of will, and he said the Congress really has

a power of legislation, the power of the purse. And he said, what does the judiciary have? It only has

judgment. It only goes as far as people agree with it. And he really made the argument

...