Advisory Opinions

I would love more one act plays of SCOTUS opinions! Very entertaining and I came away from the episode with a more nuanced perspective on the Heller opinions.

I thoroughly enjoy it and feel like I learn something from every episode. David French is good, but Sarah Isgur really brings energy to the episodes. AO and Divided Argument are my two favorite legal podcasts--they are different but both excellent in their own way.

Still a very good podcast and one I’ve listened to for years, but I do worry it has shifted somewhat from its earlier feel. The conservative legal analysis seems softer than it used to, and I increasingly get the sense that institutional cross-pressures — David’s role at The New York Times and Sarah’s role with SCOTUSblog — may be affecting the tone of the show. On Trump-related cases in particular, David’s anti-Trump priors feel more prominent, while Sarah often seems to take a more passive interviewer role rather than actively challenging or complicating his analysis. I still value the podcast, but I miss the stronger back-and-forth and pressure-testing that made it feel less predictable and more balanced.

This is a “must listen to” podcast! Honest and refreshing take on the topics! Listen on this one paired with The Dispatch podcast - you will not be disappointed! Highly recommended!

I need to open with a confession: I loved this podcast. Loved it. I told people about it at parties. And admitting what I'm about to admit feels a little like a food critic confessing he ate at Chick-fil-A twice a week for three years and only then noticed it was fast food. Because that's what Advisory Opinions is. The Chick-fil-A of legal podcasts. And I want to be clear that in my mouth that is nearly a compliment. Chick-fil-A is delicious, the line is long for a reason, and I will indulge. But no matter how good it tastes, no matter how polite the person handing you the bag, it is still fast food. And a diet made up mostly of one thing, no matter how tasty, is not good for you. What AO serves is partisan commentary, and a steady diet of partisan commentary is not good for your mind. Hold that thought. I'm going to make you read the whole menu first. Sarah is the waffle fry. A fry is the most basic thing a fast-food joint can sell, and the genius of the waffle fry is that it doesn't look basic. It's the same potato as everyone else's, but cut into a shape that lets Sarah insist she's offering something more elevated than the competition. And at first you believe it! Then you bite in, and you discover the truth of all fries: a crunchy, over-salted shell around a soft, mushy inside. This is the standard structural integrity of a Sarah argument. Beautiful golden exterior, holds up right until you apply the gentlest pressure, at which point it collapses into starch. They are also, in the finest waffle-fry tradition, absolutely riddled with holes. There is a long-running bit on the show about "Grifter Sarah," her old political-operative self who supposedly resurfaces now and then to give you the cynical operative's read. The joke is that she can switch it on and off. But the waffle fry gives the game away: it takes the exact same amount of potato and folds it so there's more air, so you feel like you're getting something special while actually getting less fry per box. That is the grift. Grifter Sarah's greatest con was convincing an audience that Grifter Sarah is a character she puts on. It's not a bit she does. It's the potato. David is the fried chicken. Now we get to the reason anyone shows up. David is the actual product. He's technically a guest these days rather than the host, off to bigger kitchens, but he remains the beating heart of the menu, the sandwich the sign is advertising. Sarah is the side. And credit where it's due: his arguments have weight. Where a fry folds, the chicken holds. Crispy exterior, real pressure tolerance, and inside there's actual juicy meat that delivers something worth chewing on. If you only ever ate the fries you'd wonder what the fuss was about; the chicken is the fuss. Here's the catch, and it's the same catch that makes the chicken so good: it has been sitting in pickle brine and then buried in salt. Most of the time that's exactly why it's tasty. But every so often David gets going on someone's moral failings, the perceived wrongs of people outside the tent, and he serves you a rant with all the vinegar and sodium of the brine itself, undiluted. Getting one of those straight is like being handed a cup of the pickle juice and told to drink it. Bitter, acidic, and you're not totally sure why you agreed to this. The trouble is that when it comes plated with the chicken, the brine tastes like flavor. You swallow the argument because the meat around it is genuinely good, and only later notice your mouth tastes like a jar. And still, it's fried chicken. However good, it's a thing dropped in hot fat, and too much of it will clog you up. Which brings us to the beef. Or rather, the total absence of it. You will notice Chick-fil-A does not sell a hamburger. This is a point of pride; it's practically the brand. And AO has its own animal that never, ever makes it onto the menu: the Federalist Society. The hosts are more than happy to explain, at length, who is wrong, dishonest, or acting in bad faith. They'll walk you through the failings of, say, a scandal-plagued Senate candidate with real relish. But a FedSoc member on the receiving end of that same scrutiny? You won't find cow here. When one of their own does something genuinely hard to defend, the show doesn't argue the other side. It simply changes the subject and lets the moment quietly pass, as if it never happened. To be fair, it's not an ironclad rule. Drift into Trump's orbit and hold a FedSoc card and you'll catch a little heat. But the FedSoc justices on the Supreme Court are the sacred cows. Sacred cows do not go on the menu. That's kind of the whole point of a sacred cow. So here's the check. I still think AO is well made. The chicken is good. And I don't listen anymore. I indulged too much, too often, and the only fix was quitting cold turkey, which is a hard thing to do to yourself when the food is this tasty and it's right there and it tastes like being right. But that's the thing about fast food. Tasty, confident, professionally salted fast food is still fast food, and if it's most of what your brain consumes, you are not on a healthy diet, no matter how good it goes down. One star. Delicious. Bad for you. I had to walk away.

4 stars for French, 1 for Isgur. Both hosts wrestle with their conservative priors but Isgur frequently gives partisan presentation of cases while claiming it is an objective overview. French seems to know this but fails to call her out.