I think Jeffrey Rosen does a truly incredible job moderating thoughtful, and even friendly debates between people who disagree often profoundly. The conversations are subtle, sensitive, deeply informative. I teach moral and political philosophy at a small liberal arts college, and so I often think about how to make conversations just like these possible. Each episode is a wonderful model. In fact, right now I’m teaching a class on the philosophy of law and I am now even thinking of assigning some of these episodes to my students. Thank you, Jeffrey Rosen! I genuinely believe you’re doing a service to our country and its citizens. PS: a couple of reviews have claimed to discover a left-wing slant. I consider myself to be a conservative (in something like the Burke to Oakeshott tradition) and I am often frustrated by ideological bias and dogmatism in public discourse—but I have to say I found the claim that this podcast has any such bias utterly, utterly baffling. Every episode I’ve heard represents views on diametrically opposed sides of a legal or political divide, and both sides are represented by a brilliant, careful, well-informed thinker. This is exactly what makes it such an amazing podcast. So don’t listen to the haters! Instead listen to this amazing podcast.

Legal scholars engage in friendly debate representing opposing views. Immensely refreshing to hear well educated guests calmly and clearly present where they agree and disagree on high profile legal matters of the day. There is the occasional outlier, but it’s obvious that Jeff selects guests who are interested in informing the listener instead of the vitriolic combativeness we’re used to hearing from members of congress.

Just discovered this podcast from another podcast. So far so good! I love the long discussion. They say we the people like clips or short videos and we have developed a short attention span. Well, maybe...but for me I love a good long discussion that you and some other podcasts do offer. Thank you!

Thoughtful, respectful discussion among distinguished scholars. I’m a lawyer, but you certainly don’t need to be one to enjoy this podcast. Please rethink inviting Sarah Isgur on the panel in the future. I value her intellect, and appreciate her viewpoints. However, her manner on the February 27, 2025 podcast was unkind, and frankly appeared to put the other panelists in an awkward position. She poked fun and laughed at an author who was not present to defend themselves. I would love to hear panelists with her views, but without the inclination for this type of behavior.