I’m a high school dropout. I am a plumber. I love Strict Scrutiny. It really requires some mental focus to digest and understand what a bunch of lawyers are saying. And I’m fine with that. BUT. It would be great to get a bilingual communicator who could speak both legalese and layperson languages. I just think the issues that you folks are talking about are too important for the general public to miss. Women’s lives are being lost to the stupid and or evil ideas of our supremely fucked up court. And here is Prelogar bitch slapping these evil/ stupid assholes around and nobody is really seeing the drama and importance of this conflict. It fucking kills me. I love the work you guys are doing, I just want more people to see it.
Thanks for the praise and keep listening. This can and often does "get deep." Please note that you can ask AI to translate it to whatever 0level with which you are most comfortable, as well as entering any specific references with which you are unfamiliar. Fight the good fight...with liberty and justice for us all.
Listening to Prelogar speak at SCOTUS is a key component of my personal wellness plan, because I am always left feeling reassured that there are brilliant and hardworking people out there protecting our rights.
Thank you so much for this episode. Prelogar is concise, germane, and indisputably correct. She makes it impossible for the Court to argue against a strawman, thus keeping them honest insofar as she is permitted. I admire her tremendously.
Why does listening to General Prelogar remind me so much of listening to Pete Buttigieg? They both seemingly have a similar gift of extremely quit witted response timing
I am not an attorney but I have been listening to some of the oral arguments in front of SCOTUS. I have always been very impressed by the advocate for the people. Thanks for publicly recognizing Prelogar’s outstanding job performance and I agree she would make an excellent Supreme Court justice. Unfortunately, it seems that politics have more to do with nominations than qualifications.
she’s the smackdowner of gaslighting. bravo! can we talk about her argument prowess and have guests that are other lawyers that are as astute, agile and piercing a legal athlete as Prolager?
Wow. She is like the legal equivalent of 1980s Michael Jordan. What was remarkable about him then and her now is that there is such an overwhelming amount of skill, mastery and raw talent on display that it almost seems unreal. They not only do things that are amazing. They make them look effortless. It’s really a treat to watch and listen to.
Unbelievably high intellignece, communication, and professionalism particularly compared to some of the sitting members of the court. We'd be lucky to have her speaking into a different microphone on the other side of the room.
Alito is not only a prick, but also an incorrect one. Glad we have a Solicitor General like Prelogger advocating on behalf of our government and it's citizens. I have no legal training, but as a pediatrician, that's a fetus, not a child. It goes embryo --> morula --> blastula --> gastrula --> fetus |-- not a person a person --| neonate --> infant --> child --> adolescent --> adult
I've spent way too much time during the last 9 years wondering why my country has lost it's moral compass. Today I discover that there is someone who is eloquently and brilliantly standing up to our SCOTUS justices who have apparently traded their oaths, their ethics and their legacy for a red hat. My question is why I've never heard of Elizabeth Prelogar until today?
@@TheMonkdad I hadn't heard of her before either and then today they were quoting her on NPR. Maybe because the court is wack so people are paying attention and there are podcasts with amazing details!
I strongly disagree with you that the supreme court rulings have been as bad as you claim. They are generally not portrayed fairly in the media; the reporting on the rulings often spend more time focusing on the dissenting arguments rather than the actual text of the majority opinion even if there are massive flaws in the dissenting opinions. The immunity ruling in particular had both a better founding in law and the constitution, and it was also a lot less impactful than the media leads you to believe. The dissenting opinions on that case in particular had some statements that were extremely off base. Having said all of that, I have listened to Prelogar argue several cases before the supreme court, and I completely agree that she has an amazing talent and is extremely qualified.
what a satisfying clips segment! i admire the Solicitor Generals patience and ability to stay calm. I really liked hearing about originalism and other ways the constitution should be interpreted. will add the book to my list.
I have a saying, “Great Spirit is a Great Heyoka”. Heyoka is a Native American term for ‘trickster’. Although infuriating to no end, these bozo dinosaurs trying to pull off this disgraceful Vatican mafia grift on the USA are providing all of us and the future generations the opportunity to educate our citizenry in our Constitutional Rule of Law. There is such incredible material flowing forth from the passionate, loyal and brilliant Americans who are in service to our US Constitutional rule of law. I personally consider our US Constitution to be my 2nd Coming of Christ as it is a blueprint for living the ‘Golden Rule’ amongst a diverse group of individuals. It provides for us the actualization of our next level of human evolution - to love ourselves enough to be an individual and, from there how to love/honor the other as an individual as well. Before this sacred social contract existed there was no consciousness of the individual and, thus, no actual capacity for living the ‘Golden Rule.’ I hope that makes sense? 😂
Prelogar's rebutals of Alito's attempts to willfully misread, misinterpret and redefine the Idaho anti-abortion law were calm, rational and conclusive. She spoke respectfully but schooled him on a woman's rights regarding her own healthcare.
Wow! I’m so glad that I came across this podcast episode. Higher Power works through You Tube! Thank you for sharing her olympic arguments. What a Superstar! I am soooooo inspired. Subscribing now!
I think something missed with the idea of originalism are two gold. First, the founders were so sure that this should be set law forever that they immediately added 10 amendments. Second, they say "in order to form a more perfect union" which looks a lot like we are constantly moving to be more perfect not that it is currently perfect.
OK, I’m not even a lawyer, but I think even I could run circles around Kavanagh!😂 I love how the real justices are using her to make the case for them, which I think is brilliant when it comes around to doing the decision-making because she is making arguments that those justices would’ve made themselves
It has been pointed out elsewhere that Chief Justice Roberts no longer assigns writing the court's majority arguments to Alito. He is embarrassed by Alito's awkward verbal gymnastics that defy the gravity of the law and fail to stick the landing.
The discussion is good, some short videos could illustrate what we are up against. The catastrophe that another Trump administration is profound. The possibilities of a Harris appointed judge and the impeachment of the corrupt and reform would be transformational.
There is no law that dictates only 9 members of scotus. We need to pack it with progressive judges who understand the past and the present, and have nothing to do with the heritage foundation.
@@dusty4047 so disappointed with the timidity of every progressive democratic admin that fears riling the repigs. Exactly parallel to their policy,toward the failed state of Russia.
I liked this show. Another positive show you could do is a review of the Biden judges. You could contrast them with the Trump appointees. How many people know that now 58% of the district judges were appointed by Democratic presidents (the highest % this century)?
Let's not give in to gloomy pessimism just yet. The voters surprised us in a bad way in 2016, yet they may surprise/reassure us in a good way next month. Let's just hope that the election doesn't get thrown to the House of Representatives....
Love this. Also that whole originalism thing is such moronic drivel. It’s so easily debunked that it has always astounded me how much credence it’s given. I’ll have to get that book for all the details.
Alito: "I'm not saying seatbelts are bad, they're safety rated, it's safer to wear them than not wear them, I'm not saying seatbelts are dangerous, I am not making that point. But. Isn't it true that some people are injured from seat belts? and does that not mean they can be dangerous and therefore wearing them should be the driver's choice?"
I'm more conservative, and I actually agree with the vast majority of the supreme court rulings (not because I agree with them politically but because I agree with the fundamental law behind them, and have identified flaws in the dissenting opinions). All of that being said, I also think Prelogar is amazing. She has argued her case extremely well, and I think she is highly qualified to be a supreme court justice. The one case in particular where she stood out to me, and I somewhat question the Supreme Court's decision, was when they granted legal standing to the state of Missouri in the student loan forgiveness case. I think the ruling itself was probably the best for the country, and I think it was founded in solid law once you look past standing, but I'm not sure that Missouri's argument was strong enough to show they were directly damaged by the forgiveness.
Alito is such a tool. Again, I referred the fact that I am not a lawyer, though I have many friends who are and we discuss the lot length. I also made it through two years of lost school with someone else as my partner and learned and enormous amount. so when I say it is horrifying that I know more at times than Alito or Thomas! I think what flummoxes Alito is that a woman is telling him (a pale-skin man) he doesn’t know the law.
I find it amusing that a number of the Justices ask the General if she is suggesting they reconsider long precedence of some law when this court has had no problem with overlooking stare decisis.
Why address a Solicitor General as "General?" In that context, "General" is not a noun, but an adjective modifier of "Solicitor." It would be like addressing a Major General at "Major." Word function takes precedence over word order.
Prediction: If and when she becomes a Supreme Court Justice, the right becomes more open to changing the rules regarding the number of justices or their terms.
I’m going to be very presumptuous. I note that most of the speakers you use (and especially Elizabeth Kagan) have very fluid speech, a nice tone. Elizabeth Prelogar often uses a back palatal voice that comes over as a croak, a harsh sound. I would recommend a voice coach would help make her statements even more forceful.
Not to sound negative however any realist knows that if Harris is your next President and say Alito leaves his position on the 07th of January then McConnell and the Republicans will say it is too soon for Harris to make an appointment to the Court.
Isn't Progress antithetical to "originalism"? I mean, Progressives are labeled that way for a reason. I think that means that one can build upon the 1800s, but cannot grab back to it for interpretation, no? Like when I want to get somewhere and if I think I made a wrong turn, I go back to the last known correct point, not back home to restart. That would simply be completely nonsensical. And antithetical to progress... Do I miss something?
Not sure she owned any Justice with the arguments that were put forth in VanDerStok. Justice Amy Coney Barrett left the SG making a ridiculous argument. If a grocery store advertises "making omelets week" and lists different types of omelets along with their recipes in their ad, then if the exact same ingredients from one of those advertised recipes are the only things in my brown paper grocery bag when go through the check out, does that mean the grocery store sold me an omelete? PS The SG is a very good attorney and often makes very good arguments, so I am not attacking her skill just that she doesn't "own" justices in the cases.
Prelogar owned Alito and he knew it. I felt like i was listening to a bad parent beating their child in public and a well-intended stranger steps between them and the parent hems and haws about "don't you tell me how to raise my child!"
Please no. The Supreme Court can't all be from the same two law schools, anymore. That diversity has DECREASED over time, and it's harmed our jurisprudence.
Paying for other people mistakes and problems one way or another is wrong. Most of these cases in court usually boils down to money. People like myself who did hard labor as a living understand wast.
