Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts

Thank you both for making the subject of the law so relevant and interesting to me, a non-lawyer who loves fairness.

I have subscribed and followed just about every SCOTUS podcast there has been since the pandemic. Most were a flash in the pan. Most of the rest are so loaded with snark and attitude that it clouds the quality of the legal analysis. Amicus stands head and shoulders above the rest. Dalia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stearns have carefully laid exactly how the justices on this Supreme Court have stopped practicing law. 1) There has to be an actual controversy? No. 2) The plaintiff must have proper standing? No. 3) The plain meaning of the text of the law should be interpreted as the actual intent of the legislature when the law was enacted? No. 4) The actual facts of the case are pertinent to the case? No. 5) The plain meaning of the text of the Constitution and amendments should be understood as the meaning and intent of these passages? No. 6) Actual historical precedent at the time of the writing of the Constitution and subsequent laws are pertinent to an “Originalist” interpretation? Not if it contradicts the desired outcome. The only piece that is missing here is the trail of dark money from the Koch Brothers and fossil fuel interests to the Federalist Society that Senator Whitehouse has exposed; the litmus test of “absolutist anti-abortion” to identify True Believers who think the End Justifies the Means—such that all crimes and sins are forgiven in pursuit of advancing “Conservatism” and contracting “Progressivism”.

I listened to Amicus for one or two years before subscribing. I subscribed not to skip the ads, but to support a quality of legal analysis that I, as an attorney since 1979, recognize as spot on. Given the quality of the main show, I didn’t believe that the bonus episodes would be worth paying for. I was wrong. I admire, respect, and enjoy Mark Joseph Stern’s bonus commentary. There is no podcast that I have followed longer than Amicus.

First rule of womens fight clubs across the world: Don’t argue or debate with men about abortion. Men go through none of the physical issues with abortion or a pregnancy. Mens voices should be silent yet women with power have allowed them to once again control us and note for the record, I am not a male hater. control over my own body without meddling and legal coercion to steal my rights to my body is wrong. Mens voices on the abortion issue is absurd and we have to stop them having the control over our bodies via the law and religion.