On each episode’s initial listen through it’s an entertaining source for a layman to learn about what the supreme court is up to. Listen again at bedtime and Will and Dan’s soporific mild manners will lull you to sleep in a jiffy. Highly recommended!

I am glad the show is back from the hiatus and appreciated the post-Fed Soc convention recap. Looking forward to coverage of the Tik Tok case next year.

The best podcast on the Supreme Court. Will and Dan are amazing hosts. While they have their opinions and perspectives, they do a great job explaining the arguments and assessing the merits of the arguments without being partisan or dogmatic. They are also delightful together; have a great rapport and clearly enjoy themselves and have passion for the subject. A nice alternative to other podcasts on the Supreme Court that can tend to be one-sided and not nearly as enlightening as Divided Argument. Keep up the great work Will and Dan!! One request: can you please explain how it is that Supreme Court justices have the discretion and authority to determine when their work papers are made public. I understand the need for confidentiality for some period of time but don’t understand why these documents that are clearly work related and not personal are subject to disclosure based on each individual justice’s own direction. Maybe there are objective legal limits within which they have some discretion but whenever it is normally described it sounds like they have complete discretion, which again seems at odds with the fact that these are clearly work related and should not be considered personal. Thanks for your thoughts and any clarification — love the podcast!!

Lots of fun, very smart, and keeps getting better. Definitely on team “stop-spending-the-first-twelve-minutes-of-every-episode-on-supreme-court-ethics” though. Keep it up guys!

One of these days, Dan will wake up and realize he too is a Bayesian, rationalist, D&D playing, libertarian-leaning ubermensch. He’ll have his laptop open to SlateStarCodex, a dog-eared Rand under the pillow, and a fourth edition guide on the floor. In other words, Dan will wake up and he will be Will.

I love that they keep the temperature so low. It’s like if the Delicious Dish was about Supreme Court decisions.

Between this podcast and Lawfare’s occasional discussion on SCOTUS, I feel like I’m kept up to date in a balanced way. I do enjoy other SCOTUS podcasts but feel sometimes that they are discussions from inside a bubble in a way that this podcast is not. The only minor gripe that I will air is that because both Dan and Will have low voices, their low whispery mumble sometimes fails to overcome ambient freeway noise regardless of how high one turns the volume, making it more difficult to listen on commutes. Speak up, boys!

Professor Baude, I implore you to remember this five-star review when I send you a clerkship application. Of course, you will have succeeded Justice Thomas to the golden bench (it was a gift). This is a great podcast. I guess people can respectfully disagree and flesh out both sides?

An excellent legal podcast that has kept me entertained through long car rides and made me look like slightly less of an idiot when discussing Supreme Court cases with my law school friends. The unscheduled and unpredictable nature of the podcast is great for people (like me) who don't have the time or energy to dedicate hours of their time to a regularly scheduled podcast but also want intelligent and even-keeled commentary. Will and Dan self-consciously balance each other out, and taken together, deliver objective, insightful analysis of major SCOTUS cases. Keep up the good work!

While smart, Will is pathetically unable to acknowledge how his views legitimize partisan actors who only care about their own policy goals—including the Republicans on the Court. He is shocked or confused when an “originalist” abandons the methodology because it would not result in those policy ends. He is so caught up in his own illusion that he can’t admit what the Court is actually doing. Dan, on the other hand, is not a serious legal thinker, and he is incapable of providing coherent counterpoints to Will. As a result, his primary role on the podcast is to get Will talking and fill time with jokes. You could replace him with any curious 1L and the substance of the podcast would be the same. Together, the podcast fails to give an accurate picture of what the Court is doing or its impact on the real world. If you are looking for a thoughtful analysis of the Court’s decisions and their effects, move on. But if you want to play word games in fantasyland, maybe this is for you.