Advisory Opinions Supreme Court Justices Spar Publicly
18 snips
Mar 12, 2026 They dig into polling that shows a steep decline in public trust for the Supreme Court. They discuss a public clash between Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson and whether public sparring helps or harms the institution. They cover a takings case about home seizure over small tax debts and the debate over auction price versus fair market value. They also touch on limits to coached witness testimony.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Supreme Court Confidence Has Fallen Significantly
- Supreme Court public confidence has fallen sharply since 2000, with those expressing very little or no confidence doubling to 38%.
- NBC polling shows only 7% now have a great deal of confidence and 15% quite a bit, while most shifted to a neutral "some" category instead of strong trust.
Public Sparring Balances Transparency Against Institutional Risk
- Public, civil disagreement between Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson over the shadow docket can build transparency but risks spur-of-the-moment missteps.
- Sarah prefers more joint appearances to humanize the Court; David warns spontaneous exchanges lack the deliberation and safeguards of written opinions.
Presidential Attacks Could Harden Court's Long Term Authority
- The Court's long-term credibility grows when it weathers challenges from popular presidents who attack it publicly but ultimately comply with rulings.
- David and Sarah debate whether Trump's attacks damage credibility short-term while potentially strengthening institutional resilience long-term.
