Part One:
John Nichols, editor of The Nation, discusses potential scenarios whereby Trump manages to retain power even if he loses the election. He will try to control the narrative — that he won! — and we have seen that Trump is very skillful at this, even if he’s lying about it. The media and the public can be persuaded to believe Trump’s narrative and to accept it as true. Therefore the Democrats must learn to fight on the president on that turf.
We also discuss Amy Coney Barrett’s potential impact on the Supreme Court and American law. Will her impact be reduced if Chief Justice Roberts is able to take Neil Gorsuch under his wing and maintain a position of “reasonableness” in the center of the two larger factions on the Court?
Part Two:
We speak with Ilan Wurman, Assoc Professor of law at Arizona State University, about what Amy Coney Barrett means when she says she is an “originalist.” Does this mean that the Constitution is only applicable today in the context of legal concepts as they were envisioned by our country’s founders more than 230 years ago? Or would an originalist like Barrett try to apply 18th century concepts to 21st century facts/ science/social norms/and cultural mores? What would the founders have thought about climate change or the internet? Is originalism the analysis that judges would rely on if it reached a result they favored, but the analysis could be jettisoned if it led to a contrary result?
