4 ms·

Check out the podcast Strict Scrutiny for good coverage of what SCOTUS is up to on a weekly basis: https://crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/ https://c

Check out the podcast Strict Scrutiny for good coverage of what SCOTUS is up to on a weekly basis: https://crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/ https://crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/ It’s hosted by three con law professors, but they’re all extremely adept at avoiding jargon and explaining how the cases tie back to everyday life.

nonethewiser 2y ago
Hard to take a law podcast seriously when it openly broadcasts a political agenda. The image with Trump with a partisan caption, all the partisan logo T's in the merch shop ("abortion is healthcare", "leave trans kids alone you absolute freaks", etc.). The one linked here and SCOTUSBlog seem much better.
- monocularvision 2y ago
  I highly recommend Advisory Opinions (https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/ https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/) for legal podcasts. The two hosts are center-right, but I think their takes are largely pretty fair. Note: Sarah Isgur worked in the Trump Justice Department but is hardly a fan of Trump… again, I find her pretty fair minded).
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Just sounds pro-democracy and pro-ethics, of that's an "agenda" then it's a good one. What you've described increases my desire to watch it, not decrease.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    Openly calling people "freaks" is not exactly indicative that you can expect that person to be impartial and accurate in their reporting of the facts. Moreover, calling abortion "healthcare" is disingenuous at best. Everyone knows damn well why people oppose abortion, and trying to euphemistically refer to it as healthcare is willfully ignoring the dispute.
    - aaronbrethorst 2y ago
      I don't know how you can read a story like this one and not conclude that abortion is healthcare. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/04/25/1171851775/oklahoma-woman-abortion-ban-study-shows-confusion-at-hospitals https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/04/25/1171851...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- stvltvs 2y ago
  Having a viewpoint isn't a sin. The SCOTUS justices are allowed to rule on cases from a political viewpoint - even if it's euphemistically called a judicial philosophy - so why hold podcasters to a higher standard? At least they're upfront about it and you know what you're in for. That's what people say they like about the president elect.
- lemonberry 2y ago
  I like knowing someone's bias. It makes it easier to understand their viewpoint whether I agree with it or not. It's the people that claim to be unbiased that worry me the most. While not always true, I suspect them of lying or lacking self-awareness.
HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
Thanks for this
treetalker 2y ago
For those interested, here are some other good resources: * The Oyez Project has 2 podcasts (really just pure SCOTUS audio): oral arguments and opinion announcements. (SCOTUS justices verbally announce summaries of their written opinions from the bench on the day they are released.) In lieu of links, I advise just searching on your podcatcher of choice. * The National Constitution Center’s “We The People” podcast is excellent. It’s constitutional-law debate on current topics, but very academic and generally non-partisan. Again, search on your podcatcher. * Justia provides e-mail newsletters and RSS feeds of opinion releases (summaries and links to the PDF opinions) for both (1) federal appellate courts (SCOTUS and the courts of appeals) and (2) state courts of last resort. There are also weekly newsletters and RSS for opinions by subject area (maritime, bankruptcy, business, etc.). The summaries are … okay. Not terribly well written but they give you enough of an overview to determine whether to pull and read the opinion. Link: https://connect.justia.com/about-daily-summaries https://connect.justia.com/about-daily-summaries * The federal court websites are generally pretty good and provide their own RSS feeds of opinion releases.

nonethewiser 2y ago

Hard to take a law podcast seriously when it openly broadcasts a political agenda. The image with Trump with a partisan caption, all the partisan logo T's in the merch shop ("abortion is healthcare", "leave trans kids alone you absolute freaks", etc.). The one linked here and SCOTUSBlog seem much better.

monocularvision 2y ago
I highly recommend Advisory Opinions (https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/ https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/) for legal podcasts. The two hosts are center-right, but I think their takes are largely pretty fair. Note: Sarah Isgur worked in the Trump Justice Department but is hardly a fan of Trump… again, I find her pretty fair minded).
HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
Just sounds pro-democracy and pro-ethics, of that's an "agenda" then it's a good one. What you've described increases my desire to watch it, not decrease.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  Openly calling people "freaks" is not exactly indicative that you can expect that person to be impartial and accurate in their reporting of the facts. Moreover, calling abortion "healthcare" is disingenuous at best. Everyone knows damn well why people oppose abortion, and trying to euphemistically refer to it as healthcare is willfully ignoring the dispute.
  - aaronbrethorst 2y ago
    I don't know how you can read a story like this one and not conclude that abortion is healthcare. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/04/25/1171851775/oklahoma-woman-abortion-ban-study-shows-confusion-at-hospitals https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/04/25/1171851...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
stvltvs 2y ago
Having a viewpoint isn't a sin. The SCOTUS justices are allowed to rule on cases from a political viewpoint - even if it's euphemistically called a judicial philosophy - so why hold podcasters to a higher standard? At least they're upfront about it and you know what you're in for. That's what people say they like about the president elect.
lemonberry 2y ago
I like knowing someone's bias. It makes it easier to understand their viewpoint whether I agree with it or not. It's the people that claim to be unbiased that worry me the most. While not always true, I suspect them of lying or lacking self-awareness.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago

Thanks for this

treetalker 2y ago

For those interested, here are some other good resources: * The Oyez Project has 2 podcasts (really just pure SCOTUS audio): oral arguments and opinion announcements. (SCOTUS justices verbally announce summaries of their written opinions from the bench on the day they are released.) In lieu of links, I advise just searching on your podcatcher of choice. * The National Constitution Center’s “We The People” podcast is excellent. It’s constitutional-law debate on current topics, but very academic and generally non-partisan. Again, search on your podcatcher. * Justia provides e-mail newsletters and RSS feeds of opinion releases (summaries and links to the PDF opinions) for both (1) federal appellate courts (SCOTUS and the courts of appeals) and (2) state courts of last resort. There are also weekly newsletters and RSS for opinions by subject area (maritime, bankruptcy, business, etc.). The summaries are … okay. Not terribly well written but they give you enough of an overview to determine whether to pull and read the opinion. Link: https://connect.justia.com/about-daily-summaries https://connect.justia.com/about-daily-summaries * The federal court websites are generally pretty good and provide their own RSS feeds of opinion releases.