This is the podcast we need in these times. We absolutely need scholars and debate like this and commentary that brings us closer to the heart of the Constitution. Well worth a listen!

Thank you for the discussions. I particularly enjoyed the discussion with Alison LaCroix and William B. Allen. As an immigrant I understood the constitution better than most, but still don’t know enough. In recent years, it seems to me there are forces seeking to destroy this country. Keep in mind that we have a Supreme Court justice who does not know what a Woman is. If you can redefine Woman, you can redefine freedom, patriotism, honesty, integrity, or any other word. With regard to succession, we had better hope that is an option. Do not look to the constitution or the civil war to decide this issue, but rather the Declaration of Independence. With the insanity of the authoritarian left, a total collapse of America is a very real possibility.

As an undergraduate pre-law student, I’ve turned to this show many times to hear liberal and conservative perspectives. The commentary has always been insightful, although I’ve repeatedly noticed a Left-wing and anti-Trump bias (see episodes on Donald Trump’s criminal trial and the merits of the indictments). No surprise there: Mr. Rosen wrote an anti-Trump piece for the left-wing Washington Post calling Trump a “demagogue.” Still, he facilitates great dialogue in each episode of this podcast and deserves credit. Criticisms of this podcast from the Left are insane. They range from smearing conservatives who appear on this show as “right-wing hacks”, such as Sarah Isgur, an accomplished, Harvard-educated attorney and former spokesperson for Trump’s DOJ; to accusing Mr. Rosen himself of spreading disinformation (whatever that means). They seem to prefer no conservative perspective at all. Good on Mr. Rosen and TCC for resisting the ugly Left-wing mob, and for championing the essential democratic principle of free speech from opposing viewpoints.

Many non-partisan media shows suffer from this issue, but you can’t platform right wing hacks and pretend you are unbiased. Putting them on as if they speak in good faith is in itself a form of bias. Sarah Isgur is a right wing hack and has no credibility on the law or in any legitimate legal circle. On almost any issue Sarah debates and equivocates in bad faith. As per usual, her conservative method of analysis is to accept what the court says as fact, despite the obvious holes, and then say “look, it must be right, they wouldn’t spin or lie and they have no agenda.” People understand that it is very difficult to get a reasonably mature or “normal” conservative to speak outside their bubble, but that shouldn’t mean you lower the bar for them. Don’t platform people who are fail to critically assess legal opinions and instead only see them through their political bias. Sarah Isgur cannot remove her conservative colored glasses. Amplifying that viewpoint injured the show’s nonpartisan stance.

Hi, I am listening to Tim rebut Chris’s point about public accountability. He says that agencies do not allow for accountability to the voters and that is simply not true. Agencies have a very strict administrative rule making process that REQUIRES NOTICE AND COMMENT from the public and only that after that process can the agency begin to write the rules for the legislation. So what is he talking about? There is a process already built in for accountability to the voters. I took an Administrative Law class in grad school and the APA IS SUPER STRICT. Q: for Tim: Using your logic about the constitutionality of Chevron, do you think judicial review (Marbury v. Madison) should be overturned? This case gave SCOTUS their judicial review power, not the Constitution.

Another publicly funded (or created) outlet that try’s to put forth an “unbiased” show and yet is clearly left. I’ve not heard a single show that doesn’t take the Biden/Democrat side.

I am continually amazed by the job Jeffrey Rosen and this podcast do in making contemporary and historical legal issues interesting and educational, even to non-lawyers like me.

Information dissemination in the 21st century - the nucleus of multiple crises in America. So great to have reasoned and good-humored experts identify problems and propose solutions. Perhaps Mr. Musk will tune in. Ms Smith perpetuates the impulse to recreate Jim Crow laws in a new guise - free speech. Joshua makes a clear and convincing case for the chaos such a ruling in favor of Smith would unleash and the setback for civil rights. Thank you for celebrating Ned Blackhawk’s monumental book. I have read it and will look for Brenda Child’s book about the boarding schools for native children. Organizations like The National Constitution Center can override the damage some leaders are doing by further truncating the American history curriculum.

I understand this is a both-sides approach to looking at issues; however, a bit more effort should be put into recruiting conservative voices that are informed and interested in engaging in good faith debate. This does not mean the “liberal” voice is always correct, but the consistency of disinformation from the right side of the panel is hard to ignore. It has not improved.

Love this podcast!!! I love learning and you make it so easy