The 2024 Mailbag Episode [TEASER]

Did I just put you on the spot like that, like all the time?

The professors, yeah, they tend to do that Socratic method.

So, if you don't know the answers, they're just gonna kick you out.

Hey, everyone, this is Leon from Prologue Projects.

On this episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are taking your questions.

This is an extremely heightened moment in American politics, and the questions you all sent in very much reflect that.

So the host will be addressing a range of issues.

Why the liberal justices seem to be taking a laissez-faire approach to the conservative takeover of the judiciary, what to do with your vote in the 2024 elections, and why law professors still seem to think it's fine to date their students.

This is 5-4, a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks.

Welcome to 5-4, where we dissect and analyze the Supreme Court cases that have ignored our civil rights, like the Pulitzer Prize Board ignoring journalists in Gaza.

I'm Peter.

I'm here with Michael.

Hey, everybody.

And Riannon.

Hello.

Congratulations, of course, to the New York Times

for their 150th consecutive year of winning a Pulitzer or whatever, just a guess, for their, quote, wide-ranging and revelatory coverage of Hamas's lethal attack in southern Israel on October 7th.

You know that that coverage was good because for the good coverage to outweigh the objectively false coverage, that's something.

So again,

again, congrats.

Congrats.

Yeah.

To the New York Times.

Pat on the back, everybody.

Great work.

All right.

So we are doing a mailbag episode today.

We

have your questions.

We

have reviewed your questions.

We've chosen our favorite questions.

We've chosen our least favorite questions.

We're not going to read them, but we have talked about them amongst ourselves and we've laughed at them.

That's right.

We've laughed at you for sending them in.

And those are the only two categories.

Yeah.

If you don't hear your question read

on this podcast.

So I will say up top, we got a good amount of questions about like protesting and what's going on on campus.

And because we did the episode about the campus protest last week, we're going to more or less leave those alone.

They should be addressed by our harrowing episode.

Comprehensive coverage.

But not Pulitzer Prize winning, weirdly.

No.

It hadn't been released yet.

I think that's the only reason.

That's right.

It's up for 2025.

Guaranteed.

Might as well make room in your shelf right now.

Yeah.

So jumping in, our first question from James, is there a good faith reason the liberal establishment isn't playing the SCOTUS game as aggressively as they really should?

Are they really just clinging to the idealized, non-partisan institution that they believe the Supreme Court ought to be?

This is a good question.

We had a few questions along these lines.

Like, what are the libs doing?

Yeah.

Why are they seemingly sort of still embracing the institution?

Do they have lead poisoning?

Yeah.

Did somebody drop an anvil?

Right.

All the questions that their conduct would naturally lead you to ask.

That's right.

So,

first things first, I think it's very hard for the average five to four listener to put themselves in the mind space of the average liberal Supreme Court justice, right?

Yeah.

For the most part, yes, these people really do believe in the institution of the court and not just the court, but courts generally, the law generally.

They are deeply entrenched in the politics and culture of the institution.

If you're like a young law student or even anyone like under 40, it's probably a lot easier for you to shed your prior understanding of what the court is or was

because that understanding is a few years old, right?

I mean,

if you're 40 right now, you were 32 when Merrick Garland happened, right?

Which means like you weren't that deep into paying attention to politics, right?

This was one of the first major events in the history of the Supreme Court in your adult life.

So I think a lot of people, including in like our age group, but especially if you're a bit younger,

they look at this and they're like, isn't this so obvious what's happening?

But you have to think about someone who has believed one thing about the court for 40 plus years.

And that's a major part of their life, right?

The major part of their life.

That's decades of understanding and analyzing the court as like a largely apolitical actor, right?

A noble idea.

That's not something that you can easily shake if you're in their shoes, right?

And they have been rewarded, right?

Their approach to the law and to politics has been rewarded with career advancement, with fame, and with good fortune.

Like they're at the peak of their career.

Like it's very hard to turn around and look at it and be like, yeah, but it's all trash.

You know, that is

you're asking a lot of.

Hey, folks, if you want to hear the rest of this episode, you're going to have to subscribe.

There are a few ways to subscribe to and support 54, get our premium episodes, and you can learn about them all at five fourpod.com/slash support.

Subscribers get a whole bunch of benefits, including exclusive episodes, members-only events, first dibs on live show tickets, and access to our very lively Slack channel.

So, if that sounds good, head over to five fourpod all spelled out.com/slash com/slash support.

Thanks.