@carlossalgado5524

This is a GOOD reminder that IF you give the state TOO much power in a democracy, you will EVENTUALLY regret when somebody you DON'T like is elected.

@MattyV001

I will never ever get over that immunity decision.  That is as crazy as anything our reality show president has done or tried to do.

@Happy1-t4z

34:35 LOL none of us, literally none, are concerned about firefighters and teachers. We are concerned by administrative non elected beaurocrats forgiving trillions in student loan debt or mandating CO2 restrictions in a way that Congress never approved. It's time for Congress to do their job and actually vote on hard things instead of grandstanding.

@MrRhomas913

I knew that getting rid of the filibuster for the appointment of federal judges, cabinet members, and ambassadorships would come back to bite us. Trump got his 3 SC justices and here we are.

@Jay-z2x

The one Ezra Klein episode worth listening to in months because he’s not in it

@Happy1-t4z

29:20 The SCOTUS of the early 1930s was correct and this is a return to correct Constitutional principles.

@carlkuss

Franklin: "You have a Republic if you can keep it."  Now we have a corrupted system with a narcissistic Strongman at the helm with substantial set of emboldened henchmen around him.

@ThinkingMan482

Immunity from prosecution for illegal acts would never have mattered to any other president in my lifetime (with the exception of Richard Nixon.) With Trump, it's a prospect at any moment.

@Happy1-t4z

24:48 This argument is garbage. Congress cannot delegate interpretation of a staute to a regulatory agency. Interpretation of a statute is by definition a judicial duty and Congress cannot subvert the judicial branch in this way. If Congress wants to make an ambiguous statute clear, it can legislate, so this decision actually increases the power of the legislative branch. The problem is that Congress wants to dodge all decisions so they can grandstand and raise campaign money while unelected beaurocrats make all the hard choices.

@insertname5371

Wait did she just say that the court started to accept the changes in 1937? As in the year of the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 the one that Stacked the courts? Well that seems an important detail to leave out.

@af031987

I am honestly shocked at the dishonesty and bias displayed in this conversation. The fact that the reasoning behind thing like unitary power theory or reduction of the administrative state isn’t discussed is borderline journalistic malpractice. You can disagree with the legal theories but at least discuss why you believe they are wrong rather than just decrying their follow on effects.

@Miiro55

Can't trump just blanket pardon his staff or key members like biden did to his son?

That gives the executive branch immunity just like the president in that case no?

@Frank-gk4mu

This lady can replace Klein as moderator imo.

@CharlesWasserman

As is his usual MO, Trump will just do things (which are outside of normal convention) and dare someone or something to stop him.

@aleccraig7283

I know this conversation isn’t the exact place for the argument… but the argument is Removing Government Fat/Gridlock vs. Status Quo

I feel like this is the actual conversation that isn’t happening, but it more closely addresses the motivations behind the actions.

@collinbober6707

nothing like drinking 2 to 3 beers watching new ezra klein podcast

@scarletsletter4466

This podcast was so disappointing that I’ll never listen to legal analysis from NYT again. I’m a Dem but I’m also an attorney and it saddens me that NYT has become so partisan & ideologically captured that you’re incapable of providing a balanced analysis on ANY TOPIC. 

On this podcast, the legal doctrines and the rationales for SCOTUS decisions weren’t even explained. It’s like a child’s level convo where you just babble from the assumption that the current SCOTUS is “the bad guy” & therefore everything they’ve done is wrong & just meant to politically serve the GOP. For example, why would you post a discussion of unitary executive theory without explaining it? There’s zero substance here, & no point in listening to it. 

NYT legal content is very poor and you should either stop producing it or pay attorneys who are capable of giving a balanced informative analysis rather than partisan babbling. I cancelled my subscription after your purported “fact checking” on the VP debate, which was objectively incorrect on the few legislative points I was familiar with. When you’re supposedly the “paper of record” but not accurately providing basic legal info that any midlevel associate could produce, I can’t chalk it up to incompetence. Your management either doesn’t care about accuracy or outright tells the staff to reach pro-leftist conclusions. I’m a progressive, but I don’t want to pay for that. I want the actual information. It should disturb SOMEONE on NYT mgmt that you got everything on the election wrong & even your legal analysis is wrong. 

Another example of NYT legal content being absurdly partisan: you recently published a legal opinion that Trump couldn’t have won that ABC case, but any mid level attorney can tell you that’s not true. In fact, as a defense attorney, if I were representing ABC, I’d be thrilled that Trump accepted $15 million. Would you really want to bet that in discovery there won’t be evidence that the pundits false statements were malicious? Let’s get real

@x.GHOB.x

both of these people sound so arrogant and full of themselves.

@Nicolas-uu3jr

your court is a joke, and it's the highest court in the western world, now think about "trickle down" 😉

@donbalduf572

I see what you did with the "sword and shield" language. Perfect.