It was a really big term, and usually those big terms are followed by something of a recalibration,

a more muted term, and that's not what we got this term. Like the court was back on its hustle,

still burning down barns, and, you know, the real question is, after this term, which was a

barn burner of a term following another barn burner of a term,

the real question is, like, how many more barns can this court burn down? Or is it just going to set

fire to the Constitution? I mean, I think that really is the question. What is the court for?

What would we like to see the court do? I mean, I have a couple of thoughts in addition to

Melissa's. One is to robustly protect the mechanisms of democracy and then to kind of get out of the way.

I mean, those are the things that I think are the most important to facilitate self-governance,

which it kind of once did, you know, most prominently in the one-person, one-vote cases and a handful of others,

but has acted at kind of direct cross purposes

to in recent years. So facilitate democracy, get out of the way and not second guess most

of the decisions of our policymakers. And I would add that I think that some individual rights

protection is a component of the facilitation of democracy, right?

Like actually protecting our ability to make core decisions about our lives, our autonomy, our families,

those things are part of meaningful participation in a democracy.

The first step is admitting we have a problem and we need to convince people that the Supreme Court is a problem.

And we need to convince elected officials that it's actually not breaching some sacrosanct

institutional norm to treat the court as part of our democracy instead of above it and treat

the court as part of our political system, especially when they act politically.

Thank you. system, especially when they act politically. Hello and welcome to Wise.

It's Happening with me, your host, Chris Hayes.

...