Dissed

What a great show! That’s a wonderful balance of new and old cases to highlight how the Court has changed. It leaves no stone unturned. The hosts do a really good job, and it’s well produced

Love to see a women-led podcast about SCOTUS. Even better that it focuses on dissenting opinions. This podcast is fun and educational for lawyers and non-lawyers alike. Well done!

Every episode tells a new story; the hosts are funny and smart ladies who break legal cases down so they’re easy to follow and entertaining. Scots for anyone interested in SCOTUS!

The episodes are wonderfully written to concisely explain complex issues. The hosts have insightful, smart remarks. The pace is perfect to keep things interesting. The audio clips of the Justices are great; and I love the efficient use of audio clips of guests/commentators. I’m so glad I found this podcast. It’s so well done. Keep up the excellent work!

What an enormous letdown. Here I thought I would get a civic education in the Court’s most famous dissents. Boy, was I wrong. Especially with respect to the Court’s recent decisions, these hosts offer decidedly (but misleadingly, not at all self-identified as) *deeply* and *unbalanced* conservative takes on virtually every single case—whether they are discussing the facts, the issues, the outcomes, the history, or the doctrine. (The episode recapping Dobbs and Bruen is an appallingly representative example.) And this practice is not, as one of the disingenuous, condescending hosts claims, “nuance”—it’s deliberately and insidiously unacknowledged partisanship. It should come as no surprise to listeners what the podcast’s info section fails to make clear: the hosts are scions of the Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, Cato Institute, and other right-wing judicial think tanks. They have an agenda. And that agenda permeates the entirety of their commentary. What a waste. If you want a real education on the Court and its decisions from women with actual expertise, listen to the podcast Strict Scrutiny. Those hosts actually clerked—and clerks for Supreme Court justices. And they actually teach law. They aren’t foot soldier attorneys for a “libertarian” advocacy group pretending to educate a pool of unwary listeners. This podcast needs to be honest about what it’s doing or hang up its hat. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

While most episodes are informative and entertaining, it’s incredibly clear that there is conservative cis white bias to the podcast that doesn’t even try to entertain differing views when political topics come up. Personal and theoretical level views promoted on the podcast lack research on how such a policy does or would negatively impact millions of Americans.