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

They don’t even try to hide their bias. At least better legal podcasts like “more perfect” had a visage of non-partisanship, though I do agree with some of what they say. They really need to work on how self-important, sullenly superior, and arrogant they sound while talking about it. It’s actually kind of embarrassing listening to them because you can tell they think they’re so smart/enlightened whenever they say obvious things.

And there it is — the country was founded for freedom of religion and Jack has run his new book onto the rocks of the New England myth. He’s ignoring Jamestown in 1607 — happily Anglican and looking to make money for the Queen and themselves.

I’m giving Dahlia five stars because she is an unparalleled legal journalist and an absolute delight to listen to, and also because I’m guessing she doesn’t have a lot of control over Slate’s subscriber model. But that model is disappointing. Amicus recently announced a weekly-free-episode-plus-bonus-episode-for-paid-subscribers model, but it seems the actual model is a formerly-free-episode-gets-cut-in-half-and-only-subscribers-have-access-to-the-second-half model. For example, episodes used to be over an hour. Now they are usually only 30-40 minutes, and the bonus episode is the same length or shorter. Substantively, the bonus episode often feels like the missing half of the free episode (like Pam Karlan on presidential immunity). If you’re going to charge subscribers for “bonus” content, Slate, make it an *actual bonus,* not the other half of an episode we used to get in full for free. We aren’t paying for bonus content, we are paying not to have a reduction in the content we used to get for free. This model feels gross and it’s really disappointing.

If you don’t love my Texas go live in one of the ruined blue states. What an affront to our great State! Thank goodness for Greg Abbott . You will NEVER take away our Texas , the Lone Star State 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

Judge Merchan called for an anonymous jury for a reason. As a member of the public I do NOT need to know ANYTHING about the jurors! Report on the case, the evidence once presented etc… it shouldn’t be an agonizing decision to refrain from doxxing the jurors Slate.

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.

First off all I know is what I’ve learned from watching and listening. With that said, I thank you for all that I have learned from you. I just wanted to say on the topic of Justice SotoMayor, how fast did you forget about Justice Merrick Garland?!? You don’t think Joe Mansion and Kyrsten Sinema wouldn’t hold that seat open?!? Thank you for everything!

The (wonderful) episode with Juliette Kayyem seems to be duplicated as the slate plus special episode…

I really enjoyed this show until all the Supreme Court opinions reviews got moved for subscribers only. The “main” show is now just another political podcast, and it is not Dahlia’s forte. I understand the need for revenue but I will now listen to the competition.

Love Dahlia, but can’t listen during a workout bc there are so many ads, frankly I fwd through them.

Love this show. But stop calling them pro-life!

This podcast is more important than ever for all the court news

Love Dahlia & B. McQuade!!! Great interview and interesting highlights of her book. I already bought it.

Gives examples of all the dirty tricks conservatives are pulling then says yeah but we all just want to hear good things about our guys so it’s kinda both sides do this but offers no examples of liberals pulling all these dirty tricks. EXACTLY what I would expect from an MSNBC contributor. And yes I have seen a lot of MSNBC. Was hoping this would be better.

This podcast is unfailingly smart and illuminating. Regardless, this episode on disinformation is a standout. Should be shared far and wide, including all civics and politics classes.

"...finds our listeners crying into their Saturday morning beer..." (part of a recent question lead-up from Dahlia)...i mean with lines like that what else needs to be said? I have no criticisms of this podcast. Dealing with Slate's bottomless pit of invitations to subscribe is a small price to pay to have access to Dahlia's deep and keen insights, never mind getting to hear her engage with other prophetic voices who know how to ask tough questions of our society and frequently themselves provide the tough answers that we need but hate to hear. Bravo bravo bravo, Dahlia, and please keep pressing.

Advocacy for liberal beliefs.

Where would I be without Dahlia’s sharp insight and drive to get to the meat of the matter? Her guests are equally valuable when it comes to interpreting current legal news and how these cases affect all Americans. I come away with a greater understanding than before.

Dahlia Lithwick is absolutely terrific, but her sidekick Mark Joseph Stern’s hyperventilating style is irritating and doomed this podcast for me.

I’ve been enjoying Amicus free episodes for a few months now but I want to really commend the show on the Feb 3 episode with Prof Manisha Sinha. The “in the weeds” stuff is often actually very helpful to me making up my mind about the issues. Dahlia has been asking really good questions of the guests, so that the detailed responses fit into a more coherent picture. And I felt like Sinha’s historical arguments were the clarity I needed, against a backdrop of right wing propaganda and mushy liberal talking heads. Even the lawyer for Colorado wasn’t bringing this stuff up in TV interviews after the oral arguments. I also really liked Dahlia’s interview with Judge Michael Luddig.

Tried listening to the non-Plus version and 50% of it is commercials for the Plus version. I won’t be signing up for either.

You have important things to say, but I cannot listen to you when you do this. The rising inflection as you say your sentence makes you sound like a valley girl or Kardashian when I know in reality you are a very smart person. Please take note and maybe get a vocal coach.

Thank you Dahlia! Your conversation with Molly Jong Fast was excellent.

I’ll start by saying the Amicus podcast has so much potential but due to the not subtle bias of the host the show is only okay at best. The host is intelligent, well spoken and well researched. The issue is that b/c of snippy and snarky comments and an overt left leaning opining as if fact, the host (and sometimes the guests) destroys the credibility of each episode. One feels like they are listening to only one side of each issue / case. The host’s bias is so predictable that I felt to walk away from each episode ‘educated’ that I needed to hear and understand the contrary point of view. Often we seek out content that reinforces and rewards or belief system. Sadly the host and guests are speaking directly to those people. At the level of SCOTUS rarely do we have black & white choices to make. Our host approaches each episode as if complex choices have simple answers and that those answers almost always align with a singular political philosophy. For those of us that simply want to understand and learn, the nonstop progressive presentation of SCOTUS happenings is just too much. I think I survived five episodes before I realized this wasn’t education. Back to the search bar to see if I can find a non-opining SCOTUS show. I’ll check back occasionally but I suspect the tone and bias won’t change.

AMAZING Podcast! I look forward to every drop to better understand the hypocrisy that is the Supreme Court.

I was hoping this would be an informative podcast. Unfortunately, all you learn is the political bias of the hosts. Their analysis seems to be consistently “I disagree with this ruling so the judge is either evil or incompetent”. They seem to genuinely not understand that the judiciary isn’t supposed to rule based on polling data. Worth listening to if you want insights into how bad legal education has become and how some on the left view the role of the courts.

Cover anti BDS laws

It’s extraordinarily frustrating you paywall information (mifepristone) every pregnant person needs while espousing in this episode the obvious fact that most people needing abortion healthcare are not in a financial spot to travel or take on the immense expenses

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. She 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?

Well it DOES matter…always has. My entire life Ive watched my fellow Dems just not care enough about the courts. Every show Dahlia gives the reasons why it matters(why its always mattered). Let’s just hope its not too late to save our democracy.

Dahlia Lithwick needs to learn to speak in an appropriately serious manner, rather than repeatedly laughing, giggling, or overly dramatic, while discussing gross and devious topics. Some issues are not junior high school cute topics.

I was a youth in Chicago in 1968/69. I know why the trial went from 8 to 7. We seemed to call it the trial of the Chicago 7 at the time. Why is Posner referring to it as Chicago 8? BTW years later I lived in New Haven. So Bobby Seale was on my radar for awhile.

I’m not sure I’m ready to become a slate plus member, but I really appreciate the way Dahlia and guests speak about the law. It’s easy to understand without making you feel stupid. I appreciate that it feels like a conversation among friends. Concepts are well explained, and even though the US Justice System has been hijacked by billionaires, at least this podcast will be there right beside you, holding your hand, while it happens.

Great podcast and episode! Senator Warren is great!

Your fawning remembrance of Senator Feinstein was disturbing. Feinstein voted for Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett, Alito and Thomas, and yet you describe her a a champion of women and their rights. She tolerates and enabled CIA spying on Americans only until it was revealed they were spying on her. She was so addicted to power that she continued to run even after it was obvious to Democrats like me and millions of others that she no longer could do the job. And she personally profited off her votes in favor of the Iraq war and failed to hold anyone accountable for the lies, torture and criminality that came from her support. Please do better, Dahlia.

Extremely informative show with Joseph Stern. His explanations made the issues so understandable! Thank you both!

Love the gun show!!!!! FINALLY! Someone who was in the know of the thing we postal people saw years ago!!!! We had to sort/case and deliver those hateful NRA letters and we saw this coming!

Wonderful podcast, very informative, with great comments and contributions. And with Dahlia’s unique voice makes this podcast even more special. I truly appreciate Dahlia’s contribution by informing us through this podcast. It’s just amazing podcast! Love it.

I listened to about two-thirds of the interview with Mark Elias but had to stop. I couldn’t take hearing anymore of the lies from this blatantly partisan hack. Everything he accused the Republicans of doing the Dems are guilty of doing in spades. Another thing, why would any Republican vote for the so called “for the people act “ when it was written to ensure that no Democrat would ever lose another election. This was the most biased interview I have ever heard on this podcast, and that is going a long way considering all the guests who have libeled Clarence Thomas.

Stop asking “Right?” You need an 8th grade English teacher

Great look at Supreme Court even for non-lawyers like me. Dahlia Lithwick is a national treasure and Mark Joseph-Stern is an incredible collaborator. I subscribe to Slate Plus and bought her book so I won’t miss a thing. I learn so much and deeply enjoy each and every episode.

Does a terrific job of bring diverse an knowledgable guests to her podcast. She shared that she had, like much of the media covering the court, been too restrained in questioning rulings, motivations and reasoning of the justices. She also has a book out (look for the pink cover). Lifetime appointments with no code of ethics? Lets all think about that!

Much good, but also frustrating, consequential lapses, like in the July 15 “Zero-Sum” show with Heather McGhee when Dahlia Lithwick said, “neoliberalism is as much a culprit here as is conservatism,” and specifically describing the “high water mark” of New Deal attempts to “rectify centuries of oppression and racial discrimination” as “still getting it wrong,” due to results like “redlining.” Leaving aside the maddening, self-defeating, oversimplified both-sides-ism here (the attempt should not be negated because bad things resulted in our complicated and racist world, but more should be tried toward the good), it’s even more wrong because (frustratingly) the term “neoliberal” does not mean a “new” version of liberalism or leftism in the way “neoconservative” or “neoclassical” or “neocolonial” do; instead, “neoliberal” is the ultra *right* wing, laissez-faire economic principle of an unregulated free market as the highest goal, as promoted by Milton Friedman and implemented by Reagan and Thatcher on the right and Clinton from the center, and weaponized by corporate-corrupted, omnicidal gangster capitalists who have successively and successfully victimized the poor and robbed the shrinking middle to lavish ever more profits on the obscenely rich 1% while tearing apart our social safety nets and civil fabric, and turning the planet to disease and dust. It’s bad enough the bad faith right wing has skewered language and truth and demonized “liberal,” but their sick “conservative” economic predation is also called “neoliberal(!)” which is linguistically correct but politically unfortunate for the left, because not only do many people hear “neoliberal” as “new liberal” like it seems to mean, instead of “old conservative” like it actually means, we have people like Dahlia in positions of influence getting it wrong on the front end, too. The left needs more guts and better messaging, and the dim, self-beleaguering media needs to stop congratulating itself for constantly and co-dependently jumping into right wing traps with false equivalencies. Hey, progressives and mainstream media? Let’s boldly state truth upfront instead of mewling half truths out of “both sides” of our mouths, which just helps perpetuate right wing hate, lies, profiteering, and injustice. Yes?

The podcast is honestly a pleasure to listen to, but the hosts can be dishonest on the scale of Fox News. SCOTUS cases are rarely black and white, but Dahlia deceptively presents certain decisions in those terms. Coming from a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, this is not acceptable.

If Mark Joseph Stern is actually Dahlia's co-pilot, as she has said not a few times (she could just be brown-nosing, which she does a lot with nearly every guest) it's time to bring him out from behind the paywall and treat him like a real cohost, and not just as Dahlia's moneymaker, or give him his own show and make Dahlia stand on her own as a host that listeners want to become slate plus members to hear more of

I was looking for a neutral or balanced podcast. This is heavily left. Limited to no effort to present both sides.. too many opinions. Not enough review of the legality of cases.

How can you review the Affirmation Action case and not one mention of Asian Americans? They were the lead plaintiff in the case. Come on, you can do better.