Law school gives you the tools to think about cases like a lawyer, and five to four gives you the tools to think about them like a human being.

Hi, everybody. It's Peter, one of the hosts of five to four.

We had to travel this week for a speaking engagement, so we were going to take the week off, but instead we're going to share with you a panel we were on at Harvard Law School

a few months back with Ryan Dorfler, a Harvard Law professor, and Medeba Denny, a legal analyst

and author. We were there to talk about court reform as well as how to build a response

to originalism, which dovetails nicely with the fact that Medeba's new book,

the originalism trap, just hit the stores. And no, I'm not being paid to say that. I'm just

trying to get better at networking. This is five to four, a podcast about how much the Supreme Court

sucks. Rianann and Peter and Michael

have seemingly done the impossible, found a way to talk about

the many failures and absurdities of the Supreme

Court and make it entertaining.

Please put your hands together for Mediba Denny,

Ryan Dorfler, and 5'4. and five four. Well, first of all, thanks for the warm welcome.

This is very nice.

I do want to preface this by saying this isn't the most hungover I've been while talking about law, but it's up there.

You know, we're in contention. It's in the conversation. I think it makes sense to sort of like

walk through our perspectives about court reform one by one. I think, you know, we've always sort of

push this basic line that you need to decide what you are trying to accomplish when you talk about court reform.

That some people are talking about trying to sort of just take the heat out and reduce the power of the court and, you know, sort of address it at a structural level and therefore, Sam Alito has less power or whatever.

Others, you know, we've always sort of endorsed this idea that if you're really talking about

trying to accomplish progressive political goals, then what you should be talking about is

...