I think that all of the substantive questions have to be about legitimacy.

I gotta say, like, as an African-American, not having the courts to rely on is nothing new.

Hi and welcome back to Amicus.

This is Slate's podcast about the courts and the law and the rule of law, Supreme Court.

Thank you all so much for sticking with us through a lot of shows this week.

It's a week that has been sad and enraging and frustrating and alarming in about equal measure.

Well, Donald Trump will name a successor to Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Saturday.

And no matter who that person is, he's told us they will devote themselves to reversing much of her legacy at the court.

Also, no matter who that person is, Mitch McConnell has told us he already has the votes to confirm her.

So what are Democrats gonna do about that in the Senate?

Well, we said last show that we would be bringing the sound and the fury to this conversation.

So buckle up for a discussion about, well, at least metaphorically, burning some stuff down,

joining us to talk about arcane Senate procedures, tricky confirmation tactics,

and the prospect of court reform are Mark Joseph Stern.

He covers the courts and the law for Slate and Elie Mistal who covers the courts,

the criminal justice system and politics at the nation.

Now, later on in this show, Slate plus members will have access to a conversation about what in the what is happening

with these several hundred election and voting rights lawsuits all around the country.

In particular, we're gonna focus on what we should maybe be worrying about in Pennsylvania.

So if you wanna hear that and you don't have a Slate plus membership,

check out how to join and all the benefits that you will reap at Slate.com slash Amicus Plus.

You will also be helping support the journalistic work that we are doing at this time.

...