>> THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HOLDS THE MOST POWER IN THE NATION'S FEDERAL JUDICIARY, BUT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, A SERIES OF DECISIONS HAS LED UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR LEAH LITMAN TO BELIEVE THAT THE COURT IS NO LONGER PRACTICING LAW, BUT RUNNING ON PERSONAL BIASES INSTEAD.

SHE DETAILS THIS IN HER NEW BOOK "LAWLESS" AND JOINS MICHEL MARTIN TO DISCUSS.

>> THANKS, BIANNA.

LEAH LITMAN, THANKS FOR JOINING US.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> YOUR NEW BOOK, THE TITLE LAYS IT OUT THERE.

IT'S TITLED "LAWLESS: HOW THE SUPREME COURT RUNS ON CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCE, FRINGE THEORIES, AND BAD VIBES. "

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE IS THAT THESE THINGS ARE MORE RELEVANT THAN CONSTITUTIONAL REASONING.

SO THE FIRST THING I WANTED TO ASK YOU IS, HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

>> HOW DO I KNOW THIS, A COMBINATION OF FACTORS.

ONE IS, I CLERKED ON THE SUPREME COURT IN 2011 TO 2012 WHEN THE COURT HEARD THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND CAME WITHIN ONE VOTE OF STRIKING DOWN THAT MAJOR LAW THAT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED AND DID PROVIDE SO MANY PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE.

SO, THAT DEFINITELY INFORMED MY THINKING.

BUT SECOND AND THIRD, I FOLLOW THE SUPREME COURT CLOSELY, BOTH AS A LITIGATOR AND A PROFESSOR.

AND I ALSO COHOST A PODCAST ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT.

AND WE FOLLOW WHAT THE COURT IS UP TO DAY IN, DAY OUT, EVERY WEEK.

SO I HAVE BEEN READING THEIR OPINIONS EVERY DAY FOR OVER SIX YEARS NOW.

AND THEN I ALSO LISTEN TO THEIR ORAL ARGUMENTS.

AND SOMETIMES DURING THE ORAL ARGUMENTS WHEN IS THEY REALLY GIVE THEIRN VARNISHED TAKE ON WHAT IS MOVING THEM TO DECIDE THESE CASES IN THIS WAY.

>> SO WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT ANTHONY KENNEDY, FOR PEOPLE WHO MAY REMEMBER, WAS --WAS A CONSERVATIVE.

BUT HE WAS ALSO UNDERSTOOD TO BE A SWING VOTE.

COULD WE SURMISE FROM THAT THAT THAT IS IN PART YOUR --WHAT INFORMS YOUR THINKING ABOUT THE WAY CASES SHOULD BE DECIDED?

THAT YOU FELT THAT BECAUSE HE WAS A SWING VOTE, THAT HE WAS FAIRLY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES?

>> I THINK JUSTICE KENNEDY WAS FAIRLY DEPICTED AS A SWING VOTE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T ALWAYS VOTE WITH THE REPUBLICAN JUSTICES, AND HE DIDN'T ALWAYS VOTE WITH THE DEMOCRATIC JUSTICES.

THAT BEING SAID, HE HAD VERY FIRM VIEWS ON A RANGE OF TOPICS FROM CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO LGBT EQUALITY.

I DO THINK THAT MODEL OF A JUSTICE THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS VOTE WITH THEIR IDEOLOGICAL OR POLITICAL COUNTERPARTS IS SOMETHING OF A BYGONE ERA, BECAUSE IN AN ERA OF PARTISAN POLARIZATION, IT'S SO MUCH EASIER FOR THE PARTIES TO FIND PEOPLE WHOSE VIEWS WILL RELIABLY TRACK THOSE OF THE PARTY THAT APPOINTED THEM.

>> IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE COURT NOW WHO YOU THINK EVEN APROXIMATES THE ROLE JUSTICE KENNEDY PLAYED?

>> I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYONE ON THE COURT LIKE JUSTICE KENNEDY.

THAT ISN'T TO SAY I THINK ALL THE JUSTICES ARE DOING SOMETHING UNTOWARD OR IMPROPERLY.

THE DEMOCRATIC JUSTICES, WHILE THEY VOTE TOGETHER IN HIGH-PROFILE CASES, ARE NOT IN THE HABIT OF REACHING DECISIONS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, MAKE IT HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN DEMOCRACY OR DISMANTLE A KEY PART OF THE VOTING RIGHTED ACT ON THE BASIS OF A MISLEADING ELLIPSIS AS THE REPUBLICAN JUSTICES HAVE DONE.

>> WHY DO YOU SAY CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCE, FRINGE THEORIES, AND BAD VIBES?

WHY DON'T WE START WITH BAD VIBES.

IN A CHAPTER ON LGBTQ EQUALITY, THE COURT'S REASONING IS OFTEN GRANTED IN INTUITION AND PARTISANSHIP THAN THE LAW.

SO COULD YOU JUST SAY MORE ABOUT WHY YOU SAY THAT?

>> SURE.

SO, VIBES, I JUST MEAN TO DRAW A POINTED CONTRAST WITH LAW, TO SUGGEST THEY ARE BASING THE LAW ON THEIR FEELINGS OR POLITICAL TALKING POINTS OR THE ZEITGEIST OF THE PARTY.

JUST TO GIVE ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT, IN THE OBERFELL VERSUS HODGES DECISION RECOGNIZE IS MARRIAGE EQUALITY, JUSTICE ALITO WROTE A DISSENT JOINED BY OTHER REPUBLICAN APPOINTEES IN WHICH HE DESCRIBED THE COURT'S DECISION RECOGNIZING MARRIAGE EQUALITY AS FACILITATING THE MARGINALIZATION OF RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES WHO HAVE TRADITIONAL VIEWS ABOUT MARRIAGE AND EQUATED THAT MARGINALIZATION, SAYING IT RECALLED THE HARSH TREATMENT OF GAYS AND LEASE BEANS IN THE PAST.

SO HE IS TREATING MARRIAGE EQUALITY AS BASICALLY THE SAME AS THE HARSH TREATMENT OF GAYS, LESBIANS, AND BISEXUALS THROUGHOUT THE 1900s AND EARLY 2000s.

THAT IS A FAIRLY WARPED WORLDVIEW THAT DEFINITELY REFLECTS FEELINGS RATHER THAN REALITY.

>> WHAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF FRINGE THEORIES YOU SAY HAVE INFORMED TOO MANY OF THE COURT'S DECISIONS?

>> I WOULD GIVE AS ONE EXAMPLE THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE THEORY.

THIS IDEA THAT WAS PUSHED BY THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION, AND IT MAINTAINS THAT THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT ALONE POSSESSES ALL OF THE EXECUTIVE POWER, AND SO MUCH POWER, HE HAS TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL AND SUPERVISE EVERYONE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

BASED ON THAT IDEA, THE REPUBLICAN JUSTICES RECENTLY ALLOWED DONALD TRUMP TO FIRE PEOPLE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

COMMISSIONERS ON THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND THE MERIT SERVICE PROTECTIONS BOARD.

SO IT'S THAT IDEA, I THINK THAT HAS EXPANDED PRESIDENTIAL POWER SO MUCH THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NOW ABLE TO ACT IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAWS.

>> AND WHAT ABOUT CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCES?

CONSERVATIVE, SMALL "C" CONSERVATIVE, HAS GENERALLY BEEN UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN, YOU KNOW, A PREFERENCE FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT OVER EXPANSIVE GOVERNMENT, A PREFERENCE FOR, SAY, MINIMAL INTRUSION INTO PERSONAL LIBERTIES AS OPPOSED TO SORT OF A MORE MAXIMALIST VIEW.

YOU USE THE WORD GRIEVANCES.

SO TELL ME WHAT YOU SEE AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, SAY, A CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCE AND CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY.

HOW DO YOU THINK THAT'S PLAYING OUT?

>> YEAH, SO I AGREE THAT SMALL "C" CONSERVATIVE GENERALLY REFERS TO LIMITED GOVERNMENT, NOT INTRUDING ON PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.

I DON'T THINK THAT DESCRIBES THE MODERN COURT.

THEY HAVE BEEN WILLING TO MAKE RATHER RAPID AND SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE LAW IN WAYS THAT I DON'T THINK CAN BE DESCRIBED AS SMALL "C" CONSERVATIVE.

BY CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCE, I MEAN THIS FIXATION ON THE IDEA THAT THE COURT CONSTITUENCY OF THE MODERN REPUBLICAN PARTY, SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES, AS WELL AS REPUBLICAN POLITICAL ELITES, THAT THEY ARE THE VICTIMS, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE PUT UPON.

SO IT'S NOT THE TEENAGER IN TEXAS WHO IS VICTIMIZED BY THE ABORTION RESTRICTION THAT PREVENTS HER FROM OBTAINING HEALTH CARE.

IT IS, INSTEAD, THE RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVE MAN WHO IS NOW FORCED TO OBEY AND ABIDE BY CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS THAT PREVENT HIM FROM DISCRIMINATING ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY, THAT HE IS THE ONE VICTIMIZED.

THAT'S THE IDEA OF CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCE THAT I THINK ANIMATES SO MUCH OF THE LAW TODAY.

>> ONE OF THE MOST CLOSELY WATCHED CASES THIS TERM ENDED IN THIS SURPRISE.

THIS HAPPENED JUST LAST WEEK.

THE SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO ALLOW OKLAHOMA TO OPEN A PUBLICLY FUNDED GATH LICK CHARTER SCHOOL THAT HAD PLANNED TO --I GUESS INFUSE RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS OR USE RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS IN ALL ASPECTS OF ITS CURRICULUM.

THERE WAS A 4- 4 SPLIT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE --WELL, WE DON'T KNOW HOW JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT WOULD HAVE VOTED.

WE CAN SPECULATE, BUT SHE RECUSED HERSELF.

HOW DO YOU LOOK AT THAT DECISION?

>> I THINK THIS DECISION IS ABSOLUTELY STUNNING IN WHAT IT SUGGESTS FOR --AT LEAST FOR REPUBLICAN JUSTICES ARE WILLING TO DO.

HAD THEY SAID THE STATE HAS TO CREATE THIS RELIGIOUS PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL, WHAT THEY WOULD BE SAYING IS, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES STATES TO CREATE SOME RELIGIOUS PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND.

WE USED TO THINK THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITED STATES FROM OPERATING RELIGIOUS PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THIS IS SUCH A SHIFT AND MAJOR TRANSFORMATION IN THE LAW.

YOU KNOW THERE USED TO BE THIS PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

THERE IS AN ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT IS SUPPOSED TO PROHIBIT GOVERNMENTS FROM ESTABLISHING RELIGIONS, FROM TEACHING RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE AS TRUTH.

YET FOUR REPUBLICAN JUSTICES WERE WILLING TO SAY THEY THOUGHT THAT, THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, WAS A KIND OF RANK DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES WHO WANTED TO OPERATE A RELIGIOUS PUBLIC SCHOOL.

IT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS CONSERVATIVE GRIEVANCE MINDSET IS CANNIBALIZING THE LAW.

JUSTICE BARRETT THERE ARE MANY OTHER CASES THAT ARE PERCOLATING IN OTHER COURTS THAT RAISE THIS SAME QUESTION.

SO SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CASE IN ORDER TO EVENTUALLY DECIDE THIS QUESTION, WHICH I IMAGINE WILL RETURN TO THE SUPREME COURT IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WRITE IN YOUR BOOK IS THAT YOU WRITE ABOUT THE DANGER OF TREATING THE SUPREME COURT AS A NEUTRAL GUARDIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION.

YOU WRITE THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS EXTREMELY POWERFUL, IT'S ALSO POORLY UNDERSTOOD, AND THE COMBINATION MAKES THE COURT DANGEROUS.

WHY DANGEROUS?

>> PEOPLE ARE NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION TO WHAT THE SUPREME COURT IS DOING, AND SO THAT LEADS THEM TO MISUNDERSTAND WHO THEY SHOULD HOLD RESPONSIBLE FOR VARIOUS DECISIONS THAT OUR GOVERNMENT MAKES ARE IF YOU LOOK AT RECENT POLLING, FOR EXAMPLE, SOME VOTERS ACTUALLY HELD JOE BIDEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OVERRULING OF ROE V. WADE.

BECAUSE THAT HAPPENED DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION.

OTHER VOTERS DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IN THE 2024 ELECTION BECAUSE JOE BIDEN HAD NOT DONE ONE OF THE THINGS HE SAID HE WOULD DO, NAMELY, OFFER STUDENT DEBT RELIEF.

HE TRIED TO, BUT THE SUPREME COURT --SIX REPUBLICAN JUSTICES --PREVENTED HIM FROM DOING SO.

I THINK THE MORE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ABOUT OUR GOVERNMENT, THE BETTER INFORMED THEY WILL BE ABOUT WHO TO HOLD RESPONSIBLE AND HOW THEY SHOULD VOTE IN DIFFERENT ELECTIONS.

>> I THINK THAT SOME PEOPLE MAYBE LISTENING TO OUR CONVERSATION MIGHT THINK, WAS IT EVER -- WAS IT EVER DIFFERENT?

WAS IT EVER DIFFERENT?

THAT THESE JUSTICES --THAT THESE FOLKS, THEY COME FROM --EVERYBODY COMES FROM A CERTAIN CONTEXT.

THEY HAVE BELIEFS THAT THEY GROW UP WITH THAT THEY ADOPT.

WAS IT REALLY EVER DIFFERENT?

>> SO I THINK THE COURT HAS ALWAYS BEEN POLITICAL IN THE SENSE THAT PEOPLE'S LIVED EXPERIENCES AND WORLDVIEW PROBABLY INFORMED THEIR JUDGING.

THE COURT HAS AFFECTED THE NATURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND HOW IT OPERATED.

BUT I THINK THE COURT HAS BECOME PARTISAN IN A WAY THAT IT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN.

THAT IS, THE COURT'S JUSTICES PROBABLY ALWAYS REFLECTED SOME IDEOLOGY OR WORLDVIEW IN THEIR DECISIONS, BUT WHAT IS DIFFERENT IS THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE JUSTICES NOW DIVIDE ALONG PARTISAN LINES WITH THE REPUBLICAN JUSTICES DOING ONE THING AND DEMOCRATIC JUSTICES DOING ANOTHER.

YOU ADD TO THAT THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE JUSTICES ARE NOW REACHING DECISIONS THAT CATER TO AND ARE SUPPORTED BY AN INCREASINGLY NARROW SEGMENT OF SOCIETY.

I THINK THAT ALSO DIFFERENTIATES WHAT THE COURT IS DOING TODAY FROM WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.

>> SAY MORE ABOUT THAT, LIKE WHY YOU SAY THAT.

JUST IN TERMS OF PARTISANSHIP, COULD IT BE THAT THAT'S WHAT OUR LENS IS NOW?

THAT THE POLITICS OF THE COUNTRY ARE SO PARTISAN, COULD IT BE US THAT'S MORE PARTISAN AS OPPOSED TO THEM?

>> I THINK WE ARE ALL PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT MORE PARTISAN.

BUT THE REASON WHY I THINK THEIR DECISIONS ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO PARTISANSHIP IS THESE ARE VIEWS THAT ARE PUT IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM.

THAT ARE CHAMPIONED BY REPUBLICAN POLITICAL ELITES.

SO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN 2016 RAN ON A PLATFORM IN WHICH THEY PROMISED TO APPOINT JUSTICES WHO WOULD OVERRULE ROE V. WADE.

AS WELL AS OBERG HALL VERSUS HODGES, MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

WHEN SOME REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVES ATTEMPTED TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD HAVE REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN POLITICS, THEN REPUBLICAN MAJORITY OR MINORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL CHASTISED THEM, SAYING, LOOK, WE OWE A LOT OF OUR POWER AND OUR SEATS TO A LOT OF MONEY IN POLITICS.

I THINK THESE ARE VIEWS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT THE PARTY HAS COME TO EMBRACE, THAT THE REPUBLICAN JUSTICES HAVE NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN DISCOVERED ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

>> WE ALSO SEE THAT MANY OF THESE DECISIONS ARE DEEPLIN POWER PLAY LAR FROM A PUBLIC OPINION STANDPOINT.

THE DOBBS DECISION OVERTURNING THE NATIONWIDE LEGAL ACCESS TO ABORTION IS DEEPLY UNPOPULAR.

AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT EVEN IN CONSERVATIVE- LEANING STATES, WHEN VOTERS HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE, THEY HAVE CONSISTENTLY VOTED TO EXPAND OR REMAIN OPEN OR CONTINUE TO HAVE ACCESS TO ABORTION RIGHTS, RIGHT?

SO, DO THEY CARE?

DO THEY CARE ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T AGREE WITH THEM?

>> NO, I DON'T THINK SO.

THE CONSERVATIVE LEGAL MOVEMENT HAS CREATED THE SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES THEM AFFIRMATION FOR REACHING DECISIONS THAT ARE MORE BROADLY UNPOPULAR.

SO THEY STILL RECEIVE SOME POSITIVE AFFIRMATION.

BUT SECOND, I THINK THAT ALSO SPEAKS TO HOW FAR REMOVED THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME FROM THE PEOPLE AND OUR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.

AS THE SENATE HAS BECOME LESS REPRESENTATIVE, AS IS POSSIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY WITHOUT WINNING THE POPULAR VOTE, AS PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING HAS MADE THE HOUSE LESS REPRESENTATIVE.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS COME TO CARE HE IS ABOUT PUBLIC OPINION BECAUSE THE INSTITUTIONS THAT COULD PROVIDE SOME CHECK ON THE SUPREME COURT ARE THEMSELVES LESS RESPONSIVE TO PUBLIC OPINION.

>> IS THERE AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE HERE -- WELL, THIS IS AN ARGUMENT THAT MITCH McCONNELL MADE, RIGHT?

WHO WAS THE LONGTIME SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER.

HIS ARGUMENT, I THINK THE ARGUMENT THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE, IS ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

AND THAT IF THE REPUBLICANS SUCCESSFULLY MADE THE COURT A VOTING ISSUE, THAT'S HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS AND THAT LIBERALS COULD HAVE DONE THAT AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO.

FOR WHATEVER REASON, OR AT LEAST WEREN'T AS SUCCESSFUL AT IT.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THAT?

>> TWO THINGS.

ONE IS, I ACTUALLY DO THINK DEMOCRATS AND PROGRESSIVES NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB OF INJECTING THE COURT INTO THEIR POLITICAL LIFE AND GETTING VOTERS TO CARE MORE ABOUT THE COURT ON THE LEFT AS VOTERS ON THE RIGHT DO.

BUT SECOND IS, IF ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, THEN I THINK ALL ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

AND IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WHEN JUSTICE SCALIA PASSED AWAY IN 2016, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA WAS STILL PRESIDENT.

SO AS PRESIDENT, HE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE NOMINATIONS AND HAVE THOSE NOMINEES CONSIDERED.

AND SO IT WAS ONLY SOME ELECTIONS THAT MITCH McCONNELL SEEMED TO THINK HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

>> THERE ARE THOSE WHO WOULD ARGUE THAT THE REASON YOU'VE WRITTEN THIS DAMNING INDICTMENT OF THE WAY THE COURT OPERATES IS THAT YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR DECISIONS AND THAT IF YOU DID AGREE WITH THEIR DECISIONS, THEN PERHAPS YOU'D SEE IT DIFFERENTLY.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THAT?

>> I THINK IN THE BOOK, I AM ABLE TO POINT TO SOME PRETTY OBJECTIVE SHENANIGANS THAT THE JUSTICES HAVE USED IN ORDER TO REACH THE DECISIONS THAT THEY DID.

JUST TO TAKE ONE EXAMPLE IN SHELBY COUNTY VERSUS HOLDER, THE PRETTY CATASTROPHIC DECISION TO END THE PRECLEARANCE PROCESS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, THAT WAS THE PART OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT THAT REQUIRED CERTAIN STATES WITH ESPECIALLY BAD HISTORIES OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION TO OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEFORE CHANGING THEIR VOTING LAWS OR POLICIES.

JUSTICE ROBERTS' MAJORITY OPINION RELIED ON A PREVIOUS CASE THAT HAD SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE SAID IT MEANT.

HE INSERTED A MISLEADING ELLIPSIS.

HE HE SAID THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT VIOLATES THIS DOCTRINE OF EQUAL SOVEREIGNTY WHICH DOESN'T PREVENT CONGRESS FROM TREATING THE STATES DIFFERENTLY ON THE BASIS OF NEWLY DEVELOPED OR LATER DEVELOPED CONDITIONS.

THE FULL QUOTE SAID THAT DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY BEYOND THE TERMS ON WHICH A STATE IS ADMITTED TO THE UNION.

SO HE TWISTED THIS DOCTRINE, WHICH PREVIOUSLY HAD ONLY GOVERNED WHAT CONGRESS COULD OFFER AS CONDITIONS FOR A STATE'S ADMISSION TO THE UNION, AS SOMETHING THAT RESTRICTED CONGRESS WELL AFTER STATES HAD BEEN ADMITTED TO THE UNION.

>> WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THAT INCREASINGLY, WE FIND THAT CONSERVATIVE LEGAL JURISTS HAVE RAISED OBJECTIONS TO SOME OF THESE CASES, AND ALSO, SPECIFICALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE QUESTION OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER --I MEAN, I THINK A LOT OF CONSERVATIVE JURISTS HAVE BEEN PARTICULARLY VOCAL AROUND THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE WAY THE SUPREME COURT HAS EMBEDDED A MAXIMALIST VIEW OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER.

AND I WONDER HOW YOU THINK THAT'S PLAYING OUT.

>> I JUST WORRY THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE BEING WRITTEN OFF AS RINOS, REPUBLICANS IN NAME ONLY.

THE SUPREME COURT RECENTLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CUT BACK ON THEIR IMMUNITY DECISION AND REIN IN THEIR EXPANSIVE VIEWS ON PRESIDENTIAL POWER.

WHEN DONALD TRUMP ASKED THE COURT FOR PERMISSION TO FIRE THE NLRB, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AND ANOTHER COMMISSIONER IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT DO?

THEY DOUBLED DOWN ON THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE THEORY AND SAID, YES, DONALD TRUMP BASICALLY GETS TO PRE- EMPTIVELY OVERRULE OUR PRIOR CASE THAT HAD UPHELD THE EXISTENCE OF INDEPENDENT AGENCIES.

SO IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THEY HAVE ANY BUYER'S REMORSE OR THAT THEY ARE BEING INFLUENCED BY WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS DOING WITH THE EXPANSIVE VISION OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER OR THE CRITICISM THEY HAVE FACED FOR ENABLING IT.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S REALLY INTERESTING TO ME OVER THE COURSE OF DONALD TRUMP'S RISE TO POLITICAL POWER HAS BEEN HOW HE HAS UPENDED, PARTICULARLY ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE, A NUMBER OF SORT OF --OF SORT OF PUBLIC- FACING INDIVIDUALS, THINKERS, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO HAVE RESIGNED SAYING, LOOK, I CAN'T FUNCTION IN THIS PARTY WITH THIS PERSON AS THE HEAD OF IT.

THERE ARE, LIKE, SUBSTACKS AND NEWSLETTERS BEING WRITTEN BY PEOPLE WHO ARE LIFELONG CONSERVATIVES WHO JUST SAY, THEIR GOAL NOW IS TO CALL ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY SEE AS THE ABUSES OF THIS ECOSYSTEM, AS YOU PUT IT.

I JUST WAS WONDERING ABOUT YOU AS A PERSON WHO CLERKED FOR JUSTICE KENNEDY.

IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CURRENT ERA THAT HAS KIND OF CHANGED YOU IN SOME WAY OR CHANGED THE WAY YOU HINK ABOUT THINGS?

>> I THINK IT HAS CHANGED THE EXTENT TO WHICH I FEEL OBLIGATED TO MAKE MYSELF HEARD AND MAKE MY VOICE HEARD AND MY WILLINGNESS TO BE MORE OPENLY CRITICAL.

I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE THINGS I HAVE WRITTEN PROBABLY RENDER ME UNCONFIRMABLE FOR VARIOUS OFFICES, AND YET I STILL FEEL COMPELLED TO SHARE THEM.

I THINK IT HAS ALSO LED ME TO RETHINK THE WAY OUR INSTITUTIONS ARE STRUCTURED AND WHETHER WE SHOULD BE REVISITING BIGGER QUESTIONS, LIKE THE SUPREME COURT'S AUTHORITY TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN CASES.

SEEING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COURT HAS GONE ASTRAY AND ACCUMULATED SO MUCH POWER OVER TIME HAS LED ME TO THINK MORE DEEPLY ABOUT THE WAY THINGS ARE AND WHAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO CHANGE.

>> LEAH, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SPEAKING WITH US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.