William Baude: On the Supreme Court after Dobbs
After the historic Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, what should we look for as the Supreme Court begins a new term? How will the Court handle controversial subjects such as affirmative action and religious freedom? How should we understand the current Court’s jurisprudence? To discuss these questions, we are joined by University of Chicago law professor William Baude. According to Baude, with its emphasis on originalist jurisprudence, the Court has become more willing to take bold actions—and likely will continue to do so this year. Yet Baude argues that the centrality of the Court today in settling the most controversial matters in our politics is as much a consequence of the failures of Congress as the judicial philosophy or temperament of Supreme Court justices. Kristol and Baude also discuss similarities and dissimilarities with eras like the New Deal when the Court acted as a counter-majoritarian force against a popular and unified Congress. Kristol and Baude also consider the threat of election subversion, a theme Baude addressed in greater depth in a memorable and important Conversation last year.
Conversations with Bill Kristol · William Baude, Bill Kristol
Audio is streamed directly from the publisher (dts.podtrac.com) as published in their RSS feed. Play Podcasts does not host this file. Rights-holders can request removal through the copyright & takedown page.
Show Notes
After the historic Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, what should we look for as the Supreme Court begins a new term? How will the Court handle controversial subjects such as affirmative action and religious freedom? How should we understand the current Court’s jurisprudence? To discuss these questions, we are joined by University of Chicago law professor William Baude. According to Baude, with its emphasis on originalist jurisprudence, the Court has become more willing to take bold actions—and likely will continue to do so this year. Yet Baude argues that the centrality of the Court today in settling the most controversial matters in our politics is as much a consequence of the failures of Congress as the judicial philosophy or temperament of Supreme Court justices. Kristol and Baude also discuss similarities and dissimilarities with eras like the New Deal when the Court acted as a counter-majoritarian force against a popular and unified Congress. Kristol and Baude also consider the threat of election subversion, a theme Baude addressed in greater depth in a memorable and important Conversation last year.