Unprecedential

Unprecedential

By American Enterprise InstituteSociety & CultureGovernmentHistoryPhilosophy
Download on the App Store

Unprecedential episodes

  • Court of Public Opinion: Dahlia Lithwick on the press and the Supreme Court

    Supreme Court reporters are tasked with the heavy responsibility of telling the Court’s story fairly and accurately. But this job is not as straightforward as it might seem. The Court decides complicated legal issues, and analysts must resist the temptation to treat the Court's work as simply political, or to suggest that the 5-4 rulings are the most important and representative ones.

    Dahlia Lithwick has been writing on the Court and the law for two decades, primarily at Slate. In today's episode, she and Adam discuss the press's work of covering the Court in politically and cultural fractious times. They consider Chief Justice Roberts's sometimes surprising moves to minimize the Court's political footprint, and the ways in which justices’ authentic camaraderie creates an institutional culture of spirited but largely amiable disputes that distinguish the Court from the government's political branches. Often these themes are more complicated—and more interesting—than momentary partisan disputes. 

    *NOTE: This conversation was recorded shortly before the passing of Justice Ginsburg and the nomination of Judge Barrett to succeed her.

    47 min
  • The new superpowers: Klon Kitchen on big tech and geopolitics

    Technology has always played a role in global affairs, encouraging trade, cooperation, and competition among nations. Today’s tech giants, however, are not just influential bystanders in the international arena. They have become peers to global political powers, sometimes going toe-to-toe with state actors. Digital technology, software engineering, and big data companies often find themselves as the gatekeepers of crucial national security information and technology.

    How can the U.S. government best cooperate with tech giants to achieve national security aims and stymie adversaries like China? What strategies have state actors like the U.S., China, and Europe employed to grapple with the rise of big tech? Klon Kitchen joins Adam to consider these themes and discuss his recent essay, “The New Superpowers: How and Why the Tech Industry is Shaping the International System” featured in National Affairs’ special issue, “Big Tech, Big Government: The Challenges of Regulating Internet Platforms.” Klon is the Director for the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Technology Policy. His newsletter, the Kitchen Sync, offers regular updates technology and global affairs.

    46 min
  • The Essential Scalia: Judge Jeffrey Sutton and Ed Whelan on Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence

    It is difficult to exaggerate Justice Antonin Scalia’s outsized impact on American constitutional law. Originalism and textualism, the interpretive methods he championed throughout his career, are key themes in today’s legal landscape thanks in large part to his elegant and witty defense of their merits.

    In this episode of Unprecedential, two former Scalia clerks, Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton and the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s president Ed Whelan, join Adam to talk about the recent compilation of Scalia’s writings they edited, The Essential Scalia: On the Constitution, the Courts, and the Rule of Law.

    Judge Sutton and Ed note that equally significant to Justice Scalia’s legal acumen was his amiable character. They discuss with Adam their memories of his generous mentorship of them as clerks, and his affable spirit even to those with whom he dissented vehemently. Justice Scalia’s playful disposition leaps out of his writings, providing his ideas with clarity, vividness, and pleasure uncommon in the legal profession. His faithfulness to originalism, as Judge Sutton and Ed point out, brought him both critics and admirers. But such principled jurisprudence is a sparkling example to all of judging at its very finest.

    53 min
  • Supreme Disorder: Ilya Shapiro on the politics of Supreme Court nominations

    Americans
    are all too aware of the partisan warfare involved in recent nominations to the
    Supreme Court. Heated political frenzy accompanied Brett Kavanaugh, Merrick
    Garland, and Neil Gorsuch on their path to reaching (or being denied) a seat on
    the nation’s highest bench. How much further will the Supreme Court nomination
    battles escalate? How did we get here? How much of today’s vitriolic atmosphere
    surrounding the nomination process is business as usual, and how much is it a
    symptom of our polarized era?



    Ilya Shapiro, author of the forthcoming book Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America’s Highest Court, joins Adam on this episode of Unprecedential todiscuss the fascinating and sometimes unexpected history of Supreme Court nominations. This history involves idiosyncratic moments, such as men being confirmed to the Supreme Court before they even knew they were nominated in the earliest days of the republic. There are also interesting anecdotes of nominations past, including the fact that hearings for judicial nominees began only in the 1930s.



    This history crucially informs us that disagreement and debate have always been involved in the confirmation process. Today, however, every single political controversy of national significance reaches the Supreme Court’s docket. Ilya and Adam discuss how nomination processes of the past can inform our thinking today, and point us to reforms that can deescalate the Court’s entrenchment in controversy. One especially urgent reform suggested by history is for policy disputes to be redirected away from the Court, back to the branch where they belong: Congress.
    55 min
  • Before and after the people vote: John Fortier on the 2020 election

    Every presidential election involves at least some uncertainty. But usually the uncertainty is the outcome—not the process itself. In 2020, however, with COVID-19 complicating every aspect of our lives, there is great uncertainty around how the basic processes of casting and counting votes will work.



    Will polling places be staffed? Will significant expansion of mail-in voting be sustainable? Will the Electoral College be able to complete its work in accordance with constitutional and statutory deadlines? The elections will present a tangle of legal problems, complicating both people’s exercise of their right to vote and their faith in the security and legitimacy of electoral process itself. 



    To discuss these questions, Adam White is joined by the Bipartisan Policy Center’s John Fortier, author of Absentee and Early Voting and editor of After the People Vote: A Guide to the Electoral College.
    50 min
  • Defender in Chief: John Yoo on President Trump and executive power

    Since the election of Donald Trump, Americans have been sharply divided in their views of his presidency. Has he preserved the Founding Fathers’ vision of an energetic executive? Or has President Trump, in his quest for executive efficiency, sidestepped crucial constitutional constraints? This episode presents John Yoo and Adam White’s conversation from the July 28 AEI webinar on John’s new book, Defender in Chief: Donald Trump’s Fight for Presidential Power. During their conversation, John and Adam examine Donald Trump’s performance as president. But they also unearth and discuss deeper theories about the nature of executive power. John contends that president have a “power to reverse,” meaning a vastly consequential policymaking power to modify the decisions of previous administrations. John also sees a vital role for presidents, not just the Supreme Court, in defending the Constitution. In this episode, Adam and John consider and debate these ideas and others that animate American constitutionalism today.
    57 min
  • The Cost of Greatness: Jay Cost on the Bank of the United States

    When George Washington’s
    Administration proposed to create a national bank, it exploded divisions among
    Americans—and, more specifically, among Alexander Hamilton and James
    Madison—about what our Constitution means. The Bank, and the arguments
    surrounding it, continue to echo today.



    To discuss the Bank of the United States, Adam was joined on the podcast by AEI’s own Jay Cost, who has written about Madison’s concerns that the Bank and other federal initiatives would foster corruption and oligarchy. (See especially his recent two-part AEI essay series.) Jay and Adam discuss problems inherent in factionalism, private-public partnerships, established churches—and whether Madison would have ever admitted that Hamilton was right about the Bank.



    This discussion follows previous Unprecedential episodes on McCulloch v. Maryland (with Gary Schmitt and Nelson Lund) and on Madison’s notion of constitutional “liquidation” (with Will Baude).
    51 min
  • Judicial legitimacy

    The Supreme Court, entrusted by the Constitution with “the judicial power,” is said to wield “neither force, nor will, but merely judgment.” To that end, the Constitution gives judges significant independence from political reprisal. Yet the institution as a whole remains part of our political system. The justices are appointed by politicians. Even the number of justices on the Court, set merely by statute and always subject to the possibility of amendment, is preserved only by tradition and political restraint. 



    How, then, does the independent Court maintain its legitimacy? Can unpopular decisions from a body not democratically elected undermine its ability to maintain its proper role in American governance? Michael Greve, author of a recent essay on judicial “legitimacy” and the current Roberts Court, joins Adam and Tal to work through some of these most challenging issues.
    47 min
  • McCulloch v Maryland at 200

    For the 200th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, AEI’s Program on American Citizenship commissioned six distinguished scholars to author essays related to that decision. Gary Schmitt, the editor of the volume, provides an introduction with his essay, “John Marshall and the Politics of McCulloch v. Maryland.” Nelson Lund of George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School offers his criticisms in “The Destructive Legacy of McCulloch v. Maryland.” And finally, Unprecedential’s own Adam White defends Chief Justice Marshall’s decision with “McCulloch v. Maryland and John Marshall’s Judicial Statesmanship.”



    All three authors join this special episode of Unprecedential to discuss their views on the landmark case that touched on so many fundamental questions of constitutional governance.
    56 min
  • Congress’ proxy wars

    The House of Representatives has resolved to allow members of Congress to vote by proxy. Some members of the House, led by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the measure, citing the lack of historical precedent for a measure allowing representatives to vote from beyond the House.



    To discuss the case, and the broader question of how Congress does its constitutional work in times of crisis, we bring you a special two-part episode. Part One features Chuck Cooper and Joel Alicea, two of the lead lawyers arguing against the resolution’s constitutionality. In Part Two we welcome several experts on congressional procedure and precedent: Kevin Kosar, Michael Stern, and James Wallner.
    1 hr 23 min

About Unprecedential

From the publisher's feed

What does it mean to be a Constitutional Republic? Join host Adam White, producer Tal Fortgang, and guests as they examine the roles of Congress, the president, the courts, and many other American…