Oh, yay, oh, yay, oh, yay, oh, yay.

The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court.

Unless there is any more question to be able to find an argument in this case.

All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are in honorous to give their attention.

Welcome to Divided Argument, an unscheduled, unpredictable,

Supreme Court podcast. I'm Will Bode. And I'm Dan Apz. So, Will, we are aiming to keep this

one short today. We'll see if we succeed. But our strategy for that was I have a set in time

when I'm supposed to go home. So that does mean we're going to

scale down the ambition a little bit, rather than saying we're going to talk about two merits

opinions and then only going to get to one. I think we're going to say we're only going to get

to one. And presumably we can neither overpromise and under deliver nor under promise and over deliver. We're just

going to promise and deliver. Not yet had an episode where we said we were going to get to one

and then didn't get to any. That may yet happen. I'm not even sure that's true. I'm sure.

Listeners, could you find an example of that, please? Because I bet there's something sort of like

that. So we'll dig into some stuff.

Maybe a couple pieces of follow-up.

One is from Will Frankel, a 1-L at Stanford Law School, and a fan of the show.

We talked last time about kind of I Am Stunned, which was in Justice Alito's descent in Shatter-Docket case, and how that was kind of unusual.

Will found a couple examples where something like that had appeared in prior Supreme Court decisions.

So one is the phrase, perhaps almost anyone would be stunned if a state sought to take away a man's house because he failed to prove his political loyalty, refused to answer questions about his political beliefs.

That's from a dissent by Justice Black in a 1971 case, lost student CR Research Council

Incorporated versus Wadman, and then a dissent by Justice Marshall in Kleinandst v. Mandel in 1972,

...