Advisory Opinions - Podcast Rankings and reviews

I’m a retired high school teacher and college mathematics professor. I started listening to this pod in order to learn more about SCOTUS. It is accessible in that they know they have a lot of listeners who aren’t attorneys, they review legal terms frequently, and I listen to each and every pod. I’ve learned a great deal not just about the current SCOTUS but also about law in general. It’s highly entertaining, and I’d recommend listening to it for any nerd.

I love this show, and everything you guys explain. But please, PLEASE, start saying case names and citations when discussing particular cases. It’s sometimes nearly impossible to find the cases you are discussing without even a case name. And links to news articles discussing the case in the show notes are not really all that helpful. Often those articles do not contain links to the case text or case names.

I adore this show and find the intelligent analysis refreshing. But the idea that drug smuggling from undocumented migrants in Mexico could constitute an invasion would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. The “ultimate geographic source of the fentanyl crisis” has been declared as China, according to Congress’ Select Committee on the CCP. A vast majority of the trafficked drug comes through legal ports of entry (see Customs and Border Patrol Statistics for the proportion of seizures reported between Office of Field Operations [ports] and Border Patrol [border]). And fiscal year 2022, 84% of offenders were *American citizens* (United States Sentencing Commission).

So the premise of “illegal migrants are the cause of fentanyl trafficking” is in itself flawed, and the implications of a resulting declaration of “invasion by undocumented migrants who are swimming across the river” is woefully misplaced, to potentially chilling consequences. I was shocked David could not convince Sarah of this. If drug smuggling is an invasion, then we should expect Greg Abbott to next declare war on China and American frat boys coming back from spring break.

I don’t know if anyone actually reads reviews of podcasts (I don’t), but for those who do, this is a great one! I found David French from reading his newsletters in a subreddit, ended up following him to the Dispatch and then, surprisingly, here! Up until a couple of years ago I cared very little about law and the Supreme Court, and now wish I had started learning about this fascinating area decades ago.

Sarah Isgur and David French are just brilliant together. Do yourself a favor and check them out. Go ahead, be a nerd. You know you want to.

After years of listening, I’m weighing in. When I first started listening, I could hardly tell which way Sarah and David leaned politically. Their well-reasoned arguments analyzed the merits of both sides of the cases before the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, events preceding and following the 2024 presidential election proved too strong a siren’s call…and into the cesspool David dove. French argued that voting for Harris would somehow “save conservatism.” He lost most conservatives even before he presented his first ill-conceived argument.

Then, CEO Steve Hayes launched an ad hominem attack against Sarah simply because she argued for one of President Trump’s nominees. That convinced me to never give one cent to The Dispatch. Hayes seems upset because people didn’t buy the tired argument that the angry rioters of Jan 6 should somehow disqualify Trump. French and Hayes might both want to consider how the left tried to bait the average American into voting against Trump through constant fear-mongering about threats to democracy. Well, democracy has firmly spoken. They would do well to listen.

I’m disheartened. AO listeners have long enjoyed a serious legal podcast that has stayed above the mud-slinging filth of the political world. It’s not too late to return to merit-based legal analysis. I pray you do.