Show Notes
To some eyes, the Supreme Court faces a legitimacy crisis. Favorable views of the court are hovering around historic lows. Just 40-some percent of Americans have a positive view of the institution, down from 60 percent or more in 2020. And views by party are, predictably, sharply divided, with Democratic approval in the 20s. As the country has become more polarized, and the court has become more decidedly dominated by Republican appointees, there is an increasing sense that a branch that describes itself as above politics is, in fact, plenty political — and aligned with Republicans. This has led to suggestions, largely on the left, but not exclusively, for changing the court: packing it with more members, instituting term limits, or establishing an enforceable code of ethics. But today’s guest argues that folks should slow their roll. She argues that the court isn’t as partisan as it’s made out to be, and that it’s in fact the only branch of government that the Founders would have any hope of recognizing today. Sarah Isgur makes the case in her new book, Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court. She joins the podcast to argue that the court is less partisan, more functional and more constitutionally recognizable than its critics allow.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe
More from GD POLITICS
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com
Are you excited for Election Day? Well, get even more excited, because GD POLITICS is teaming up with Silver Bulletin and The Argument to bring you live election night coverage starting at 5:30 p.m. ET. There will be numbers, maps and probably an upset or two. Mark your calendars and join at gdpolitics.com! Earlier this year, while traveling in Ireland, I joined Hugh Linehan of The Irish Times for a crossover podcast comparing politics on either side of the Atlantic. With the midterms approaching, Hugh invited me back to Inside Politics to discuss the battle for Congress. I’m sharing that conversation as a bonus episode in the feed this week. We covered plenty of ground. Hugh asked me how such a polarized country could potentially produce as large an electoral swing as the polls are showing. We talked about how the midterm and presidential electorates differ and which voters are likeliest to change their minds or sit out. We also looked ahead: What will both parties learn from these elections? The temptation to read the midterms as a roadmap to the presidency is powerful. The historical relationship between midterm results and the next presidential election, though, looks less like a trend line than a Jackson Pollock painting. Hope you enjoy the change of pace on today’s episode!
We’re a week out from Election Day, nearly 30 million Americans have already voted, and Democrats are favored to win both chambers of Congress. But how far into Republican territory could a good night take them? We’ve dedicated episodes to Georgia, Texas and Alaska this cycle. So I asked folks in the paid subscriber chat which states they most wanted to hear about before November 3. The overwhelming preference was the prairie states: Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska. The Midwest came next, followed by requests for the reach states of Mississippi, Montana, Minnesota and South Carolina. Sadly, we don’t have time for an episode on every state. Don’t you wish election season could go on forever? No? Me neither. Instead, I’m joined by Jessica Taylor, the Senate and governors editor for the Cook Political Report, to cover all the races you asked about in one episode. We start with the prairie states, where economic frustration and candidates who have distanced themselves from the Democratic Party are testing the limits of Republican loyalty. Can Rob Sand’s blend of faith, fiscal restraint and criticism of both parties win over Trump voters in Iowa? And can Adam Hamilton’s centrism in Kansas and Dan Osborn’s independent bid in Nebraska do the same? Then we head to Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin to explore why the same national environment can produce very different races. We also consider where an upset is most plausible among the reach states and why Jessica is watching South Carolina. Along the way, we discuss what early voting can actually tell us, whether split-ticket voting will hold up and what to make of Republicans spending money to defend states that once looked safe.
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com