4.8 • 14.7K Ratings
🗓️ 1 June 2023
⏱️ 45 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
This week, we revisit one of the most important Supreme Court cases you’ve probably never heard of: Baker v. Carr, a redistricting case from the 1960s, which challenged the justices to consider what might happen if they stepped into the world of electoral politics. It’s a case so stressful that it pushed one justice to a nervous breakdown, put another justice in the hospital, brought a boiling feud to a head, and changed the course of the Supreme Court — and the nation — forever.
Voices in the episode include:
• Tara Grove — More Perfect legal advisor, University of Texas at Austin law professor
• Guy-Uriel Charles — Harvard law professor
• Louis Michael Seidman — Georgetown law school professor
• Sam Issacharoff — NYU law school professor
• Craig A. Smith — PennWest California humanities professor and Charles Whittaker's biographer
• J. Douglas Smith — Author of "On Democracy's Doorstep"
• Alan Kohn — Former Supreme Court clerk for Charles Whittaker (1957 term)
• Kent Whittaker — Charles Whittaker's son
• Kate Whittaker — Charles Whittaker's granddaughter
Learn more:
• 1962: Baker v. Carr
• 2000: Bush v. Gore
• 2016: Evenwel v. Abbott
Music in this episode by Gyan Riley, Alex Overington, David Herman, Tobin Low and Jad Abumrad.
Archival interviews with Justice William O. Douglas come from the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections at Princeton University Library.
Special thanks to Jerry Goldman and to Whittaker's clerks: Heywood Davis, Jerry Libin and James Adler.
Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School.
Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund.
Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
0:00.0 | This is more perfect, I'm Julia Lungoria. |
0:14.5 | When more perfect released, it's very first episode, seven years ago. |
0:19.5 | The Supreme Court looked very different. |
0:22.5 | Justice Scalia had just died, so there were only eight justices. |
0:27.4 | It's hard to imagine it now, but they were evenly split across the political divide. |
0:33.1 | Four were appointed by Democratic Party Presidents and four from Republican Party Presidents. |
0:39.2 | No side was in a position to make broad, bold decisions about a political issue. |
0:45.6 | But now, fast forward to 2023, conservatives are in the majority. |
0:50.9 | Six to three. |
0:52.6 | And the six seem willing to dive into the political fray, |
0:57.1 | taking on cases about subjects like abortion, affirmative action, gun rights, |
1:02.6 | and they've been willing to overturn long established decisions. |
1:07.5 | I'm how perfect, I'm more perfect, Pete. |
1:09.4 | Hi guys, I teach American history. |
1:12.3 | And I don't have to tell you this. |
1:13.8 | I'm gonna try to say this without saying like an idiot. |
1:18.2 | Many of you wrote in to ask about this change. |
1:21.1 | I can't stop thinking about how we frame the Supreme Court in terms of liberal and conservative |
1:25.4 | justices. Different groups with different ideas hold power at different times. |
1:29.0 | And we are calling our way, things aren't going the liberal way, I guess. |
1:34.7 | Nationwide polls show that approval levels for the current court are at all time lows. |
1:40.8 | Only 25% say they have a lot of confidence in the court. |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from WNYC Studios, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of WNYC Studios and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2025.