SCOTUS Through the Decades | Interview: Nina Totenberg

Advisory Opinions

The Dispatch

News, Government, Politics

4.7 • 4K Ratings

🗓️ 26 May 2026

⏱️ 68 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss an anticlimactic dig from the Supreme Court over IQ tests and the death penalty and challenges to the $1.8 billion slush fund President Donald Trump created on weaponization, and they talk with NPR's Nina Totenberg about covering the Supreme Court. The Agenda: —Hamm v. Smith —How many IQ tests does a person on death row need to take? —Who can challenge the slush fund? —James Comey as the platonic ideal plaintiff —The embarrassing DNC autopsy, and Grifter Sarah makes an appearance —Interview with Nina Totenberg Order Sarah’s book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch’s offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. If you’d like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Ready?
0:02.0	I was born ready.
0:04.0	Welcome to Advisory Opinions. I'm Sarah Isger. That's David French. And today, we do have an opinion
0:25.6	from the Supreme Court. Well, wait, no, we have an outcome from the Supreme Court. Ham v. Smith,
0:32.6	death penalty, and IQ. How many IQ tests do you need to take to be ineligible for the death penalty?
0:41.1	And what are those scores need to be? And how many times does the case need to be relisted before
0:45.1	we actually get a decision? And speaking of court cases, what's a girl got to do to get into court
0:52.8	to challenge the $1.8 billion slush fund that Donald
0:57.1	Trump has created on weaponization? More on that. And lastly, David, an interview with the OG man,
1:05.7	Nina Totenberg from NPR. She has covered the Supreme Court for nearly 50 years. And I spoke with her a couple
1:13.3	days ago without David, and you'll get to hear all of that right here on advisory opinions.
1:20.0	Changes in sexual performance are more common than most people realize, and support doesn't
1:24.3	need to feel awkward. With MedExpress, everything happens privately online.
1:29.4	Start by completing a short consultation reviewed by UK-registered clinicians.
1:33.6	If eligible, treatment is delivered discreetly to your home,
1:36.7	with ongoing support whenever you need it.
1:39.0	You're not alone in this.
1:40.5	Visit Medexpress.co.c.c.c.com.uk slash podcast to learn more.
1:45.2	Well, David, we got one decision from the Supreme Court that is worth at least a few moments of our time.
1:52.2	This was Ham versus Smith.
1:55.1	This case has been around for two decades at this point.
1:58.1	It holds the record for relists at the Supreme Court in history.
	...

Transcript will be available on the free plan in 19 days. Upgrade to see the full transcript now.

Previous episode | Next episode

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

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