On this week’s pod we have Osita Nwanevu, contributing editor at The New Republic, columnist at The Guardian, and author of the forthcoming book The Right of the People: Democracy and the Case for a New American Founding! In the interview, Osita discusses many of the major issues around media institutions today. Somehow David relates journalism to both roasted vegetables and dessert, so we either got really metaphorical or were just hungry!

We talk about how to write about politics today from a leftist view point, especially as it seems that the left has energy and new ideas but has trouble garnering broad appeal. We debate whether people are capable or want to absorb news and political analysis that challenges their preexisting beliefs. We zoom out and take a broader look at the role of legacy institutions, like the New York Times, and newer institutions with more ideological missions, examining the role each places in advancing political thought. Osita also defends his New York Times guest essay on January 6th, emphasizing the role political institutions played not only on January 6th, but also in the rightward shift of the GOP and rise of Donald Trump. We end by talking about whether the Constitution is fundamental to the crisis facing American democracy and what that means for reform efforts from the left.

Look out for Osita’s book and sign up for his newsletter!

Referenced Readings

For the second episode of Season 4, Linda Greenhouse joins the pod to discuss her new book Justice on the Brink about the Supreme Court! There is no one who better understands the evolution, context, and operations of the Court than Linda. She is a Clinical Lecturer in Law and a Senior Research Scholar in Law at Yale Law School. After covering the Supreme Court for the New York Times as a reporter, she has written a frequent column for the opinion section since. In her latest book, Linda chronicles the Court with the three new Trump justices.

In our discussion, we ask Linda the major questions about the Court and its future. Should the Court be public-facing and, if so, how? As the Court breaks the fourth wall, engaging fully with today’s politics and polarization, is what is really on the brink the idea of a Court separate from politics? How will justices operate as the Court engages more explicitly in politics, and who are their intended audiences in their opinions and public engagements? What does this Court do next after taking on abortion and affirmative action?

Are we finally at the brink?

Referenced Readings

Guess who’s back, back again?! Back by popular demand, Digging a Hole returns for a 4th season! We have a star-studded line-up of guests this spring. Tired – guessing the Supreme Court nominee. Wired – guessing upcoming Digging a Hole guests.

You don’t have to guess for this week, though! We’re thrilled to kick off this season with Joseph Fishkin and William Forbath discussing their upcoming book The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy. Professor Fishkin, Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law, is also the author of the excellent book Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity. Professor Forbath, the Lloyd M. Bentsen Chair in Law at The University of Texas at Austin School of Law and a Professor of History, has published more articles than you can count.

In this episode, sub-fusc adorned Sam and noted constitutional law scholar David ask the guests how their highly anticipated book addresses how the United States Constitution could and should force legislatures to tackle economic inequality and oligarchy. We discuss why only one side of the political spectrum appears to make strong claims on the constitution regarding economic life during a time of mounting inequality, and, to do so, we trace the tradition of thought regarding the Constitution’s relationship to economic power. As part of the conversation, our guests also tie their findings to the problems Democrats have to passing their agenda today and why they seem loath to proactively draw on the Constitution in their messaging.

We couldn’t have asked for better guests to kick off a new season!

You asked -- we answered! In Digging a Hole’s first AMA (or really Ask Us Anything) episode, we answered your most pressing questions: Is it ethical to move into a gentrifying neighborhood? How should one read articles when considering potential academic appointments? What is cooler -- SCOTUS or the Federal Reserve? What is a professional failure we’ve experienced? Who is our dream sponsor for the pod?

In addition to these and many more questions, we also do a speed segment -- “overrated or underrated” -- about a list of topics, including the bar exam, lawyer credentialing, and Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL).

Come for the legal theory and hot takes, stay for Dave's unified field theory of Sam Moyn projects. There’s something for everyone!

Our final guest for Season 3 is Nikolas Bowie, assistant professor of law at Harvard Law School and board member of the ACLU of Massachusetts, Lawyers for Civil Rights, the People’s Parity Project, and MassVote. In this episode, we dive into two of his recent articles -- “Antidemocracy” and “The Constitutional Right of Self-Government.” We begin by discussing the Court’s recent ruling in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) and how it ties to Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964). As part of this conversation, we touch on the implications of Cedar Point moving forward, whether the Court is operating as a democratic institution, and how our institutions can move toward isocracy, a system of government where citizens have equal political power. Next, we discuss the Assembly Clause of the First Amendment and how early in the country’s founding, activists used their right to assemble to defend their right of self-governance. This history of the Assembly Clause offers new possibilities of interpretation that would lead to a greater protection of self-governance.

Our last episode of the season will be an “Ask Me Anything!” You can submit questions for us at our website, DiggingAHolePodcast.com

Referenced Readings:

This week on the pod we have Jeannie Suk Gersen, the John H. Watson Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a columnist for The New Yorker! We begin by discussing Professor Suk Gersen’s documentary “The Crits,” which focuses on the development and legacy of the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement. Several modern ideas and movements have come out of and splintered from CLS. We compare the evolution of CLS to the law and economics movement, debating both why law and economics has become institutionalized in the mainstream and what constitutes success for a legal movement. After, we transition to discussing “The Sex Burueacracy,” which covers the govenrment regulatory apparatus and university bureaucracies that stem from Title IX and similar policies. Professor Suk Gersen leaves us with thoughts on what might happen under the Biden Administrations Department of Education after educational guidances in the sex bureaucracy varied during the Obama and Trump presidencies.

Referenced Readings:

We’re back with more state, local, and urban issues -- maybe Sam has become a full convert! In this week’s episode, we’re joined by renowned urban economist Edward Glaeser, the Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics and the Chairman of the Department of Economics at Harvard University. We begin by discussing The Survival of the City, Professor Glaeser’s new book written with David Cutler. In just over half an hour, we get through several topics. How will cities adapt to pandemics, will work-from-home continue as it currently exists, and will insider groups continue to dominate local politics? What does the future of work look like in cities; will we ever approach the post-work urban future that Keynes described? Beyond exploring these questions, we also discuss how cities can and should think about race and inequality, both through administration and legislation. All of this and more in less time than it takes to commute on most U.S. subways (and find out why that is while you’re listening)!

Referenced Readings:

It’s SCOTUS reform time! We are joined by Noah Feldman, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and Christopher Kang, the co-founder and chief counsel of Demand Justice and former Deputy Counsel to President Obama. Both of our guests testified to the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. On the pod, our guests explain what they think the Commission should do. We talk through and debate whether the Court is political and/or partisan and whether Supreme Court rulings are un-democratic or lack democratic accountability. Given divergent views on these questions, we also have stark disagreements on the degree to which court reform is necessary and what the ideal reform would be. Our guests are leading thinkers on this timely issue, and their varying perspectives demonstrate the political, institutional, and legal complexities of altering the Supreme Court.

Referenced Readings:

Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States Testimonies:

This week, we have an all-star duo in Daniel B. Rodridguez, the Harold Washington Professor of Law at Northwestern Law School, and Miriam Seifter, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School! Much to David’s joy, we get Sam deep into the muck of state and local government law. We begin by talking about Daniel and Miriam’s new projects -- The SLoG Law Blog and The State Democracy Research Initiative. Sam then asks our guests which issues in state and local government law they’re thinking about right now. We discuss ongoing battles of state legislatures stripping power from governors, how states and localities are using COVID-related federal aid, and state constitutional law. As part of the conversation, we also get into institutional design of state and local governments and how these institutions promote or hinder majoritarianism.

Referenced readings:

Daryl J. Levinson and Richard H. Pildes, “Separation of Parties, Not Powers,” The Harvard Law Review, (June 2006).

David Schleicher, “The Beginning of the End of the Progressive Era in State Constitutional Law?” SLoG Law Blog, (September 17, 2017).

Miriam Seifter, “Gubernatorial Administration,” Harvard Law Review (March 4, 2017).

In this week’s episode, we interview New Yorker staff writer and principal contributor to the Q. & A. interview series Isaac Chotiner. We begin by discussing his challenging interviewing style, which has led to many notable and controversial moments. Seeking controversy himself, David asks why Isaac has seemingly interviewed every Yale Law School professor other than him. Isaac also describes the mission behind his interviews and why he thinks a Q&A format is best for bringing academic ideas to light. Beyond Isaac’s own interviewing and writing styles, we talk about the state of journalism overall, including the role of public intellectuals and the effect of nationalized media coverage. Lastly, we get Isaac’s takes on a variety of topics, including the lack of India coverage in American journalism, the media coverage on Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, media coverage on the War on Terror, and SubStack!

Referenced Readings:

Isaac Chotiner, “LeBron James’s Agent Is Transforming the Business of Basketball,” The New Yorker (June 7, 2021).

Isaac Chotiner, “V.S. Naipaul on the Arab Spring, Authors He Loathe, and the Books He will Never Write,” The New Republic (Dec. 7, 2012).

Isaac Chotiner, “The Limits of Resistance: Are Democrats focused on the wrong things?” Slate (Dec. 12, 2017).