Just listened to the podcast around criminalization of pregnancy. A really important topic. And a topic that impacts women! Stop using the term pregnant people. It minimizes the impact on pregnant women! Women are the people being persecuted under these laws! If you want to make a statement And get people to rally behind the cause, you need to focus on the fact that it is women who are being persecuted, not pregnant people.

Where are native voices in this discussion? Without native voices this episode is a caricature of colonialism.

Yea, Mark Joseph Stern is in the house! Love his serious about the judiciary reporting, thank you!

To call this show partisan or biased would be too charitable—and mistakenly imply the presence of coherent arguments. What you get instead is a cloying slurry of sanctimony and selective outrage, offering little more than affirmation for listeners already convinced that any ruling they dislike is not just wrong, but illegitimate. Amicus is not useful. It’s ideological performance art masquerading as legal analysis. As a law professor reviewer put it here, it’s “more partisan hacker than clear and sober thinking.” Sadly, it seems the show’s true function is not to illuminate or educate but to inflame. It substitutes moral preening for legal reasoning, and treats disfavored rulings as heresy. Ironically, while paying lip service to the judiciary as an institution, it performs its own assault by undermining the legitimacy of any decision that doesn’t align with the host’s (strikingly leftist) political preferences as “dangerous” without bothering to unpack the court’s reasoning about questions presented. If you’re looking for intelligent insight into the law, the courts, or a deeper understanding of our constitutional system, Amicus does not deliver that. I recommend Advisory Opinions or SCOTUSblog.

Informative and clearsighted Supreme Court podcast

Yikes. Recent episodes show so little introspection and awareness of how issues are viewed outside the bubble on the extreme left. Lithwick and guests are more about being on a sports team or in a creepy cult than applying rigorous analysis. “What is Kagan’s strategy!?!” Forgive me but her job is not to be a political operative, it is to interpret statutes and the constitution. The fawning interview of Strangio was ridiculous. He asserted that his side was upholding science. Well that’s funny because the medical orgs internationally that have conducted scientific reviews have asked for a pause on minor gender transitions. U.S. orgs have not conducted reviews or have suppressed ongoing reviews. It is absolutely grotesque and shameful.

I am a law professor with my fair share of disagreements with the conservative legal movement. Yet if a student of mine offered up the “analysis” that this show provides—which is more partisan hacker than clear and sober thinking—I’d have no choice but to stick them right at the bottom of my grading curve. Anyone interested in actually learning something useful should turn elsewhere where for their legal news and analysis.

A one-sided, extremely liberal take on court rulings. More partisanship than jurisprudence. This podcast drips of agenda-driven commentary, with hyperbolic “end of democracy” because a duly-elected president gets to be president for his four years.

Love this its like hanging out with your two nerdy law friends picking their brains. They pick apart the issues regarding the supreme court in an easily digestible way

I know nothing about law and have little interest in it, but Amicus is the most entertaining and enlightening podcast I subscribe to…and funny to boost!

How do you talk at length about the upcoming shadow docket without any mention of the judgments being temporary? I had to stop listing after the hosts summarized Trump v USA as the court crowning Trump as king, granting him blanket immunity!?! How did they come to that conclusion?

I get it: I’m white. Not only that, but I’m a man. I regularly take my lumps because I’m part of the majority in the horrific decisions being made over the course of history. A couple of episodes ago, I couldn’t help but feel two things: attacked and confused. Dahlia unabashedly kept stressing the latest topic was because of “mostly white males.” She loves stressing it like someone who feels green-lit to make disparaging remarks about obese people, but this episode was more like a drunk person going off on minorities. If we fight for equality for one group or the other, or want equality for a few groups but think it’s OK to beat on this group, we keep all of these fights going. One would think someone as smart as Dahlia would understand this. If I’m not going to be included in an otherwise equal world, why do I bother standing up for the wrongs I see or hear? Why am I reading books to get a better understanding of a minority’s plight so I can speak more coherently when talking to others?

This was en excellent episode! I have listened to 2 other podcasts in my effort to understand issues of birthright citizenship & nationwide injunctions. Amicus has done far superior job in clarifying what is at play, particularly when highlighting what was said by the justices, solicitor general. I thank u for this cogent discussion.

I love Amicus and learn so much from Dahlia and her guests.

it seems like a coordinated effort that brought mr. garcia back to el salvador - like a trade with already imprisoned gang members: he for information. Chances could be then that the US is bucking all return orders because he's dead...

I don’t know how I found AMICUS but I couldn’t be happier. Thank you for the deep dive into the horrendous agenda of the current WH.

Excellent, timely, and thoughtful. Thank you for your diligence.

This podcast gives insightful analysis and facts that you won’t find in many news stories. It gives perspective on important stories and issues that give the listener a whole new level of understanding and can often help clarify stories that are tricky to interpret with any depth. I appreciate your work!

Thomas Jefferson considered the alien enemies act “worthy of the eighth or ninth century“

If this is such a serious topic, and we know that it is, why so much giggling?

Great info but can tolerate the laughing

The delivery, the guests, the research and the information is a must listen. This show is life changing.

Lithwick is erudite and is able to cut through the chaff. She illuminates the issues with a spotlight. However, some of her guests cannot stop the lawyer-speak which circles around and around without getting to the point. I can tell they are unaware sometimes that they are obfuscating, but Lithwick does her best to focus them into plaintalk and clarity. In the case of trained lawyers, employing the phrase “use your words” in a discussion needs a moderator moderating the conversation.

Take time for Dahlia.

This is my absolute go-to podcast for current, thoughtful, erudite legal commentary. As Dahlia says of Mark, it’s my “ride or die”.

This episode with Kim Lane Scheppele painted the precise picture I've had in my head this past week. The United States as Hungary. Victor Orban as the felon's model. What she had to tell us is terrifying and motivating. I'll be doing everything I can to help slow this attempt at demolishing our democracy.

Dahlia, This week’s episode and your guest Ms. Scheppele was the first time all the elements of this moment were put together for a clear understanding of what is going on. I think we all had some pieces of this but your guest put in historical context the complete picture. I get it now! Thanks to you and all your hard work and humor! Much appreciated in these most frightening of times. Great show!

Great discussion. Your guest was very knowledgeable. He surprised me when he said that Trump’s Exec Orders do not prioritize violent criminals first. This is at odds with what I have heard and read. Can you folks identify exactly where this is written in the EO’s. Great stuff!!!!!!!!

The more I read about this Justice, the more I believe that he was never the legal scholar we were told he was. But when I listen to Ms Lithwick and Ms Ifill, I can still believe that there remains much integrity among legal advocates. To this particular podcast, I say BRAVO! Thank you.

I love hearing how the distant obscure workings of the Supreme Court do actually affect the lives of everyday people. I have listened for several years and I look forward to this podcast every week. The style is comfortable and friendly, a real joy to listen to! Dahlia has a great way of making sure we all get on the train before it leaves the station; i.e. always makes sure the topic is clear and explained in non-legaleze. For anyone who is concerned about the Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United, Dobbs, or about the ethics quagmire some justices have fallen into, try out this podcast!

SCOTUS will never be trusted and SCOTUS is helping with destruction of The People’s Democracy.

Definitely one of my favorites. If you’re interested in understanding the details of how our judicial system and government work, this one fits the bill!

Dahlia is excellent but she does suffer from compulsive nervous laughter. If she could do some mental work on trying to overcome that habit, she’d come across more effectively. These are serious topics, to troubled listeners, and downplaying her integrity — like saying to an interviewee, “Explain this to me like I’m five years old” — along with the giggling is not doing Dahlia (nor women who want to be taken seriously) any favors.

You keep asking questions to lawyers and think tank authors that you should be asking people like labor organizers and civil rights activists. This is why this podcast is informative but disempowering doom listening. The host would feel less helplessness too. Because, no, lawyers and academics are not the front lines of anti-fascism.

Can’t listen to this garbage anymore than dismisses anyone who disagrees with the host. Prefer listening to Strict Scrutiny. Still liberal but presents the other side intellectually.

Can we stop talking about age as if it’s a disease? What difference does it make that one person is X years? I am weary of people saying “in my day” or “I don’t want to say but when I was…”. Sounding apologetic If someone feels uncomfortable with their age then I respectfully ask they keep it to them selves. I love the podcast and the info it offers me in the way I think. Keep it up, please. From someone who’s “old”. AKA still breathing?

This podcast is the place to be to learn about what the SCOTUS is up to in the shadow docket, what their decisions mean, & how those decisions may affect our daily lives. The hosts & guests make all that legal mumbo jumbo easy to understand. Dahlia & Mark are just the best.

I enjoyed this week's Amicus pod with Mark Joseph Stern talking to Eric Tirschwell of Everytown Law. Super informative and interesting ... a maddening topic for folks who are fed up with the gun lobby's bad-faith approach to public safety. Every time Mr. Tischwell noted that cases would be decided by the courts, I couldn't help but be reminded of how the Supreme Court's recent decision overturning the Chevron doctrine will inevitably play out. All those hard facts and statistics studies, gathered and marshaled toward good-faith efforts to protect Americans and their families won't do much good when SCOTUS and lower courts can simply decide for themselves what the facts are. Super depressing.

Thank you for addressing what Trump said about letting things be decided by the states and how that’s not the same necessarily as letting things be decided by the people. It’s been bugging me ever since he said it.

Dahlia and her guests provide engaging conversation on ideas, insights, and information that are truly important for ALL people in American to learn about and consider. You don’t need to be a lawyer or a policy wonk to understand and learn from these people’s brilliance. Many of the topics addressed recently are all the more relevant to historically disempowered people, who also, as a result, tend to have less disposable income and for whom close to $100 yearly to just listen is not doable (especially with increasing prices of bare basics such as food and housing). Since this excellent podcast doesn’t include hired actors, complex sound production, or the licensing of loads of copyrights, and thus likely has lower production costs than some other podcasts, perhaps Slate (and Dahlia) might do the country a good one by significantly lowering the cost of subscription to SlatePlus for listeners who write in to confidentially request it? There is precedent for such allowances, by other popular podcasts and hosts. Please seriously consider! This regular listener would tolerate listening to another (tasteful, ethical) ad or two during the show if it would make a Slate Plus sliding scale subscription possible.

Excellence! Now how can we get this into the ears and eyes of the majority?

Is he still an Order Muppet?

Overall I find the episodes to be informative, with guests that are directly relevant to the episode topic. But I’m getting more and more concerned about the member only content. With more & more podcasts having member only content at a cost, it’s becoming more expensive to stay informed about the news and due to cost limiting number of podcasts listening to, might end up with an increased siloed population of listeners. Good example is the current topic today about the dismissal of the classified documents case in Florida. It seems that a topic like this is too important to only provide a “preview” for non members and full episode for the members. I understand it’s not easy to both fund a podcast & find quality content for paying members, but there should really be a focus on informing as many people as possible with the topics often discussed here.

Episode “bleeding out” w ER doc & Idaho’s abortion lawsuit is “ear opening” required listening before SCOTUS oral arguments. Host Dahlia L. has been writing some of the most pointed and clarifying on Dobbs/post-Roe landscape. Glad to have her writing and this podcast so I can listen and share. Note: Please say “women” instead of “pregnant people” - If we can’t even say this is an attack on “every biological woman” then nobody else will either.

Yes, it would be nice if this was free. However, I hate listening to ads. Plus, the content is worth the small subscription fee. Thanks for the enlightening and informative content.

A great show for trying to understand the judicial system, which is…complicated! I appreciate your take, your guests, your humor. It is a relief to have intelligent and knowledgeable people translate and chaperone.

I really appreciated that you guys did not focus on Thursday night’s debate and Biden’s age like all the other media did the past few days. No one is disputing that he had a horrible night and that he is elderly - those are facts. Another fact is he is more experienced, compassionate, level-headed and honest than Trump. Thank you for marking the crucial point that the power of the Presidency is not as encompassing as people think and the current Court is consuming that power all for itself.

I was listening to a recent episode and while the content was very good I had to stop listening because of the “uptalk" of one of the guests - who was male, and kind of “speak yelling” with this high rising terminal sort of like a wealthy entitled valley girl/boy and I had to turn it off. Maybe I’m getting old but in my opinion if you want to be listened to - than learn to speak like an adult, like a regular person. Even if you’re smart, if you sound like an idiot, people will tune you out.

Requiring money to listen to you is a hypocritical treatment of the public you pretend to serve.

See previous review she said it all perfectly. I’m on disability I can’t afford to pay for content. Wish it was still free