
The Agenda
How a Republican Supreme Court Is Reshaping America
No se pudo agregar al carrito
Add to Cart failed.
Error al Agregar a Lista de Deseos.
Error al eliminar de la lista de deseos.
Error al añadir a tu biblioteca
Error al seguir el podcast
Error al dejar de seguir el podcast
3 meses gratis
Compra ahora por $9.00
No default payment method selected.
We are sorry. We are not allowed to sell this product with the selected payment method
-
Narrado por:
-
David H. Lawrence
-
De:
-
Ian Millhiser
From 2011, when Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, until the present, Congress enacted hardly any major legislation outside of the tax law President Trump signed in 2017. In the same period, the Supreme Court dismantled much of America's campaign finance law, severely weakened the Voting Rights Act, permitted states to opt-out of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, weakened laws protecting against age discrimination and sexual and racial harassment, and held that every state must permit same-sex couples to marry. This powerful unelected body, now controlled by six very conservative Republicans, has and will become the locus of policymaking in the United States.
Ian Millhiser, Vox's Supreme Court correspondent, tells the story of what those six justices are likely to do with their power. It is true that the right to abortion is in its final days, as is affirmative action. But Millhiser shows that it is in the most arcane decisions that the Court will fundamentally reshape America, transforming it into something far less democratic, by attacking voting rights, dismantling and vetoing the federal administrative state, ignoring the separation of church and state, and putting corporations above the law. The Agenda exposes a radically altered Supreme Court whose powers extend far beyond transforming any individual right - its agenda is to shape the very nature of America's government, redefining who gets to have legal rights, who is beyond the reach of the law, and who chooses the people who make our laws.
©2021 Ian Millhiser (P)2021 Random House AudioListeners also enjoyed...




















Las personas que vieron esto también vieron:

Clear, Succinct, Insightful
Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.
Essential book
Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.
short but informative
Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.
It isn't about the politics.
Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.
Millhiser instead lays out how Gorsuch, who seems to be the ideological leader, longs to lead the court back to the freedom of contract doctrine of the Lochner court, which would comprehensively strip the American worker of power and tip the scales even further in favour of the wealthy. I was struck by the anecdotes of the shocking conditions bakery workers experienced in the Lochner era, working mercilessly long hours in revolting environments. When one thinks of what Amazon et al. are already able to get away with, the prospect of handing them even more power to dominate their workforces fills one with dread. Gorsuch's other big project, to dismantle the administrative state and agency regulations (because blah blah chevron deference and non-delegation doctrine), seems potentially so vast in its consequences I can scarcely even imagine the damage that could be caused if he's successful.
Millhiser engages in a bit of lawyerly gotcha rhetoric of the sort that I often see in Supreme Court journalism where the hypocrisy of conservative self-proclaimed textualists/originalists is pointed out (Millhiser points out that they used two different definitions of "commerce" in Circuit City v. Adams, depending on which suited their preferred outcome). I often feel authors can get a bit too wrapped up in criticism of this sort, taking elaborate routes to their gotcha moments that conservatives don't pay one iota of attention to, as they're too busy thinking "haha, majority opinion go brrrrr." I always think about the peyote case on this point: one might think that a conservative would consider the case to have raised perplexing issues about how to consistently apply the principle of free exercise of religion and respect the rights of religious minorities, or something to that effect; an actual conservative seems just to think, "Are the plaintiffs Christians? No? And they're doing drugs? They can fuck off, then." Conservatives have no problem discarding their professed principles as soon as it suits them, and liberals arguably waste their energy when they tie themselves up in knots trying to wield conservative jurisprudential philosophies that they probably shouldn't really care much about in the first place.
The other topics Millhiser addresses are just as alarming—voter suppression, exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for religious conservatives, allowing class action lawsuits to be quashed before they occur. I think my biggest takeaway lesson might be on the decidedly more law school 101 matter of the Carolene Products footnote, the source of strict scrutiny, which I must have heard of before, but now I'll actually remember it (it has already popped up in the next book I've started reading, so it truly is the most famous footnote in constitutional law).
A concise look at the supermajority's plans
Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.
Partly by implication, the persistent myth of a non-partisan Supreme Court takes a major hit.
Like a Journal Article, but Good
Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.
Extraordinarily important, educational & insightful foray into the greatest existential threat to our democracy
Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.
Post-script (Spring 2022): Now that Roe vs. Wade is apparently to be undone, the author's points do have an added relevance. I would like, however, more of an exploration of the arguments and exponents of the other side of these debates. I prefer that sort of more rounded and complete explanation, from either side. I don't mind that an author has a point of view (and bias), but I think it most respectful to the reader when the viewpoints are fleshed out. To this author's credit, some effort on that is apparent here.
Pretty alarmist, but well thought, a worthy listen
Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.