The idea that these people are so satisfied and are so convinced by what they are doing,

it's grotesque because you think about, for example, the court's inability to imagine a post-Roe versus Wade future where you have justices

confidently predicting that the federal courts will be out of abortion cases once they

overrule Roe, that was nuts. And similarly when the court overruled Chevron they're just like yeah

here's some random thoughts about what the push Chevron world will look like but

gosh knows we haven't decided to actually hammer them out because we've just

drank the cool aid the The court has just it

seems to me given a permission structure for Trump to do everything in his

wildest imagination he might want to do but might have been somewhat

constrained by the prospect of legal accountability from doing all of that is now gone

so you have I just it seems to me an not only a wildly wrong but just an unfathomably dangerous decision.

If you think about the whole system of constitutional design, the point of the

point of the Constitution and the separation of powers is that you don't want any one of these branches to consolidate power in a way that allows them to dwarf any of the others and you have this court essentially creating a king and

creating within itself kind of would be kings. Hello and why is this happening with me your host Chris Hayes.

Very quick intro today because things are dire and we got to get to the point

but we are reprising what is quickly becoming an annual tradition which is

when the Supreme Court finishes doing its worst in June and this year into July,

we do a term review with the hosts of by far my favorite legal podcast, really my

favorite podcast with three of my favorite people, one who is particularly my

favorite. The podcast is called strict scrutiny. You can find it wherever you get

your podcast. It is hosted by three women law professors Melissa Murray who's at

NYU lay a litman who's at Michigan and my wife Kate Shaw who is at pen

...