Speaker 1: Welcome to the Federalist Radio Hour. I am Joy Pulman,
the executive editor here at The Federalist. I'm joined today
by one of our many longtime contributors, Ilia Shapiro. He
is a senior fellow and director of Constitutional Studies at
the Manhattan Institute, and he's also the author of the
recent book Lawless, The Miseducation of America's Elites, and that's
what we're here to talk about today.
Speaker 2: Ilia, Welcome, did to be with you? Going to be
back on the radio Hour. It's been a while.
Speaker 1: It's great to hear your voice, great to talk to you.
How welcome you back to our listeners. Can you start
by giving our listeners kind of the elevator pitch version
of your cancelation story from Georgetown Law Sure?
Speaker 2: Sure, Well. I had worked at the Cato Institute Liberty
thing Tank in DC for nearly fifteen years and got
the opportunity to take my career in a new direction.
I was hired to be the executive director of the
Georgetown Center for the Constitution at Georgetown's Law School and
a senior lecturer there. So I'd be teaching classes, organizing
student programs, publishing, going on TV advocating for originalism. All
of these sorts of good things kind of a different
kind of impact than working at a think tank. On
the eve a few days before I was due to
start that job. In January of twenty twenty two, Justice
Bryer announced his retirement. And the subject of my last book,
Supreme Disorder, was about Supreme Court politics, judicial nominations, all
of that good stuff. So this was my bread and butter.
I was doing media all day, and that evening I
was on the road. I was in Austin, Texas. If
I hadn't been on the road, this probably wouldn't happen,
because would have been spending time with my kids and
gone to bed early and whatnot. But I went back
to my hotel room after dinner with friends, and I
was feeling festive and feisty and doom. Scrolling Twitter not
a not a best.
Speaker 1: Practice, something we've all done.
Speaker 2: Getting more and more upset with President Biden hewing to
his campaign promise of appointing a black woman. Now, nothing
wrong with putting a black woman on a Supreme Court,
of course, but I wouldn't call my candidate pool by
race and sex, whether I was hiring for a janitor
or a Supreme Court justice, and so I fired off
a tweet hot take, as they say, saying that if
I was a Democratic president, I would pick Chief Judge
sries Fron of Austin of the d C Circuit, very
well respected, happens to be an Indian American immigrant, so
has some diversity points there. But given today's hierarchy of intersectionality,
he's disqualified and we will end up with a quote
lesser black woman. And those three words are what got
me in trouble. My ideological enemies. After I had send
on that tweet and then went to bed, my ideological
enemies went after me, demanded that Georgetown rescind my contract,
and away we went. Georgetown did not rescind my contract.
That the dean didn't know what to do. It's kind
of a profile and cowardice. So I had four days
of hell, which I survived. So he onboarded me, but
immediately suspended me, pending an investigation into whether I violated
university policies on harassment and anti discrimination. You know, maybe
I was harassing President Biden. I'm not exactly sure, but
in any event, you would think that you could assign
this to a junior faculty member, you know, the most
junior law professor. Here's the law, very short, clear policies.
Here are the facts, even shorter, tweet and be done
with it in you know, ten twenty minutes. But no.
It went to the DEI office, the Office of Institutional Diversity,
Equity and Affirmative Action. They interviewed me over zoom because
this was still COVID Mania, even though it was already
twenty twenty two. If we had been in person, we'd
have to be masks and none of that. So all
zoomed and they asked me all sorts of banala questions,
try to get me to apologize, whatnot. And I said, look,
I could have phrased it better. This was in artful phrasing.
But I maintained my point that you shouldn't hire people
based on rice and sex. And and then nothing for
four months, this one on this this, after four days
of hell, there was four months of purgatory.
Speaker 1: At the end, you're technically at your new job, but
you couldn't do anything correct.
Speaker 2: That's right. I was being paid. Their employment lawyers correctly
advised them to keep paying me because that way I
wouldn't have a claim. But I was. I was literally
prohibited from being on campus or doing any work for
the university. So I was doing all sorts of other things.
I was writing, I was going to conferences, you know,
I was doing other things. It was actually a fairly
productive part of my of my career, if if surreal,
because I never intended to become the poster boy for
cancel culture or what have you. But at the end
of this this four month period, this this some junior
associate at this expensive law firm that they hired to
advise them, looked at a calendar and found that, oh,
I wasn't employed by Georgetown yet when I tweeted, and
so none of these pauls even apply. So there was
a jurisdictional defect, as lawyers would say. And so they
reinstated me on that technicality, which I celebrated. But then
I got the fine print from the DEI office from Idea,
these ten pages, single spaced, making clear that the next
time that I offended someone, I would be creating a
hostile educational environment. And I realized in consultation with my lawyer,
professor Randy Barnett, who hired me, who founded the center,
my wife, who's a better lawyer than any of us,
that I'd have to quit, that I could not do
the job that I was hired to do. You know,
think about saying something in class about a controversial Supreme
Court case going on TV, discussing some opinion or some argument,
some issue in the news, and that would offend someone
and I'd be back in the inquisition. So I made
what lawyers call a noisy exit. I wrote up a
four page indictment of what Georgetown was doing, published it
in the as a resignation letter in the Wall Street Journal,
as one does, and then announced my move to the
Manhattan Institute on Fox News, as one does. And so
ever since this is now just over three years ago,
I've been using this spotlight that I didn't ask for,
but that I've been given, to shine a light on
the rot in academia. So very soon after that, my
publisher approached me to create this book, to use my
experience as a jumping off point for a broader discussion
of the failures of higher education, and especially legal education. Because,
after all, while it's sad if an English or sociology
department goes off the rails, law schools produced the next
generation of the gatekeepers of our legal and political institutions.
So that's a that's a real danger.
Speaker 1: And one of the things that I found interesting. So,
you know, we at the Federalist kind of had a
front row seat to this situation. You know, I remember,
you know, you kind of going through it and you know,
being there paying attention to all of the developments. So
but so it was somewhat familiar to me. But there
were still a lot of things that I learned from
reading your book that the account that you put in there,
and one of them that I found really noteworthy is
you wrote that fire. So the Foundation for Individual Rights
and Education, it's kind of a libertarian sort of advocacy
for free speech, largely on campus.
Speaker 2: It's what the ACL you used to be before it
became a left wing activist.
Speaker 1: That's a great yeah, great description. So but so they
are obviously involved here because they have an interest in
advocating for free speech, especially on campus. And they advised
you not to make an apology, even though you do
think you know, you've said many times and it's in
the book. You think you could have you know, better worded,
more clearly, you know worded that tweet because the reason
you're right there that they gave you this advice is
because apologies are seen as an admission of guilt. Can
you explain? So? You know, for me, a traditional Christian
who believes that, you know, apologies and forgiveness should be
happening many times throughout the day, and it's actually a
sign of integrity to apologize if you've done something you
know wrong, or even I tell my kids, right like,
even if you didn't mean to, you know, stumble over
and fall on your brother, you know it was an accident,
you should still apologize, right, So that's basic human decency.
Speaker 2: So why should we in Canada? So I'm used to apologizing.
Speaker 1: For decent people are kind of taught that by their parents.
So why in these sorts of situations?
Speaker 2: You know what?
Speaker 1: Actually, you know, you have to basically withhold basic human
decency for to be prudent.
Speaker 2: Actually, so I wrote up all of this what you
should do when when when you're canceled. A big part
of it was should you apologize? What does that mean?
I wrote that up in the City in City Journal,
Manhattan Institute's magazine last year, so you can read all
this in long long form. That was actually originally a
chapter in the book, but it got cut because it
wasn't part of the narrative. It was kind of a
slightly separate issue. But the point is, an apology makes
sense if you have wronged someone and you want to
say my bad, make amends. I didn't you know, sorry,
I was wrong, Please forgive me. In the era of
cancel culture, when it's unclear who you've wronged, you know,
some people are offended, what have you. But it really
doesn't make sense to apologize to the mob or kind
of to social media, to kind of issue this general
apology because a it is seen as that admission of guilt,
be it's seen as a as a sign of weakness,
which might be even worse. And see, there's nobody to
accept this apology. So if it was just a matter of, oh,
I had a bad tweet, this is embarrassing, people are
going after me, then I wouldn't have just apologized for that.
That's that playbook is sound. You don't you know crisis
management one oh one now, and I certainly got a
crash course in crisis management during this experience. Yeah, an
apology like that is pointless or kind of abnegation, just
bending the knee prostrating yourself saying do what you may.
You know, No, that that's pointless. I didn't so much
issue an apology for you know, the substance of my point.
I just said to the dean specifically that sorry, I
phrased this poorly. This was a failure of communication. I'm
a professional in that regard. You hired me for my
verbal and written communication skills, and and in that I failed.
And so my apology was directed to the dean because
my goal, and this is also an important part when
you're when you're figuring out what to do when you
have some kind of crisis situation, you have to set
your goal because your strategy. Uh, obviously it seems obvious,
but uh, you know a lot of people don't. Don't
don't pursue this. Your strategy follows from your goal. So
if my goal had been to monetize the moment, become
a martyr, get a you know, I don't know, contributorship
with Fox News or who knows what, then I would
have acted differently. If if my goal had been to
simply kind of blend in and not make any news whatsoever,
I would have acted differently. But my goal was to
keep my job and to kind of go back to
the same path that I was on as much as possible.
And I was advised by Randy Barnett by kind of
you know, academic insiders that look, your only audience is
the dean. He's the one who's making the call on
whether to fire you, punish you, you know, whatever it is.
So I said, okay, so I have to, you know, say, look,
I understand that words matter, and I failed in my communications,
but you know, I was I was asked by other
Georgetown officials, the DEI office, others whether I would issue
further apologies and start talking in these critical theory tropes
about systemic racism and doing the work and all of
these things. Literally you think that these are at this
point memes, which they are, but this was what I
was asked, and I said, no, no, I'm I'm you know,
if you want to, if you want to reinstate me
and say you don't agree, but this is free speech,
then we can work on a joint statement of some sort.
But no, I'm not going to issue any further apologies.
I've already said what I had to say about this incident,
and that kind of flummekes them you know, both the
Dean who was like a deer in headlights throughout this
whole thing because they didn't want to have to make
a decision of any kind, and and the HR office
in d I because they're used to people just you know,
prostrating themselves, not for forgiveness but some sort of absolution,
because it's quasi religious ceremony of sorts.
Speaker 3: Here's what happens when you pick winners and losers in
a free market economy. The Watch Dot on Wall Street
podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day, Chris helps unpack the
connection between politics and the economy and how it affects
your wallet. Biden gave car manufacturer Rivian six billion dollars.
Now Rivian is losing forty one thousand dollars for every
car sold. That is not a business model. Whether it's
happening in DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting
you financially. Be informed. Check out the Watchdot on Wall
Street podcast with Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Well, I would say, you know, I also say to
my children, I mean, I actually don't think you necessarily
needed to make an apology because you didn't actually do
something wrong. You know, maybe there's a slight inelegance you know,
of wording, but it's your intention I think was still clear.
You were upholding the basic American principle that we fought
a civil war to defend right, that we don't select
people or we don't privilege them or underprivilege them based
on the color of their skin. And you were supporting that.
You were saying, we shouldn't you know, pick people, We
shouldn't advance them based on their race, We shouldn't discriminate
against them based on race. We should treat them, you know,
basically on the unqualifications for the position that is a
fundamental American you know, precept going all the way back
to the founding. You know, so I didn't you know,
you actually don't have anything to apologize for, and you know,
I think it's really elev you know, the whole entire
thing was basically the fact that you were offending today's
leftist pieties that do say that some races are better
than others. And so you know, you're pointing out that,
you know, your skin color is not a disqualification or
qualification for pretty much any job. And so the next
question here. So you're writing about, you know, Georgetown administrators,
they cooperated with students sit ins protesting you working here.
You know, they're making all their usual ridiculous claims like
they're unsafe, like you know, like you're some kind of
axe murder or something, you know, And the administrators were
discussing making sure that students who needed to break down
and cry could have a safe place to go. But
I just wonder, you know, should people who cry over
encountering ideas that they don't like, should they become lawyers?
And what happens when they do become lawyers.
Speaker 2: That's one of the failures of higher education, and especially
legal education. For the reason you're elucidating here. Lawyers, I
talk about my book or these issues to law school
audiences and I say, you know, spoiler alert, you're going
to face a lot more challenging issues in your legal
career than speakers you don't like or things you find offensive.
And you'd think that that law students, you know, would
be young lawyers, would be more resilient than undergrads. But
you know the explosion of this kind of this cancel
culture and this offense culture, the safetyism in law schools
in the last few years really is a terrible development,
and it shows not just you know, this is my
larger point. What I've been documenting, my broader arguments about
the failures of legal education or higher education is not
just the latest in a litany of decades long conservative
concerns or complaints about the hippies taking over the faculty lounge, right,
the left wing faculty bias, which absolutely exists, and you know,
the ideological bias and hiring is nefarious, and it's it's bad.
It's bad for higher education, let alone for those individuals
who are detrimentally affected. But those original hippies that the
Berkeley free speech movement in the sixties, they'd be considered
retrograde white supremacists now by today's radicals. And that's why
I emphasize that this is about the illiberal takeover. This
is not about you know, living constitution versus originalists. This
is not about what the best policy is in a
given area, or the best legal policy or an interpretive method.
This is about the legitimacy of the enterprise of law altogether.
And if, as some of these critical legal studies, folks
believe such cherished values as free speech, do process equality
under law? If these are white supremacist tropes, if these
are illegitimate, then all of the pillars of our society
are in danger. Like I said, this is not just
left and right, this is illiberals against you know, preserving
are often classical liberal ideals, especially in terms of the
core mission of higher education to seek truth and create
knowledge and have civil discourse.
Speaker 1: Now you observe that the law is the domain where
critical theory first arose, and of course critical theory is
where we got critical race theory and all the other,
you know, the parts of communist identity politics. So could
you explain to a listeners how you know your Chapter
eleven heading I think is a great bullet or bullet
point or bumper stick or kind of description. It says,
critical theory destroys the law. How was that the case?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's not. The critical theory originated in the law,
and it originated actually from German and Austrian emigrats during
the World War two era that came to America. A
lot of them settled at Columbia University. So you know,
there's history rhymes sometimes to what's going on at Columbia now.
But yeah, they thought institutions are illegitimate for various ways
power imbalances the truth there's no objectivity in the truth,
and that came out in all sorts of postmodern philosophy
when it came to the law that became known as
critical legal studies, and that said that power imbalances white, black, male, female,
rich poor, all of these different kind of privileged dichotomies,
if you will, meant that even seemingly neutral legal structures
or rules, you know, forget civil rights laws or constitutional
stuff that is the most politically salient, but securities regulations
even they are questionable because they have underlying assumptions about
property ownership and you know, things like that. So they're
really about tearing down all of these institutions a year
zero moment is sometimes called, and being rebuilt according to
other kind of understandings of power imbalances.
Speaker 1: They were really talking about revolutionary politics, right, absolutely. Yeah,
rather than competing you know, visions of what is good
and how to get there, they're kind of the burn
it all down school.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's not you know, what are the conditions under
which there can be an exception to the need for
a warrant to search somebody's house. No, the police themselves
are illegitimate. What are you talking about. Yes.
Speaker 1: Something I do think is very interesting about our current
political times is that the lawyers, judges and law professors
who you know are aligning themselves with the side of
the so called living constitution, that majority side of the
legal profession now you know, are being taken over or
you know, having their kind of institutions controlled by people
who support undermining the very existence of law itself. It's because,
like you said, you know, the idea is coming to
take over. You know, you point out the like the
younger folks in legal profession, and this is a course
rising through the ranks. Currently, this is the future of
the legal profession and all the rest of academia. The
idea of law is a tool of power, and it's
a tool of manipulation based on political considerations like skin color,
rather than an equal objective reality that everyone you know,
applies equally to everyone. So we're in a moment where
kind of the future of the legal profession is working
to erase the objectivity and stability in very existence of
law itself. And I think that's part of the reason.
While supporting the constitution and rule of law, which used
to be kind of something that like you say, classical liberals,
people on the right, people on the left, the Berkeley
free speech folks really largely agreed on. But now that
is coded kind of as a conservative thing and smeared
as white supremacists when it used to be virtually universal.
What are your thoughts on that and the implications of
that for you know, the future of the United States.
Speaker 2: Well, I think there's a correlation between that and you
know what, the news that's come out, the polling that's
come out this week that the Democratic Party is at
historically unpopular levels because the left hand doesn't know how
to deal with the far left hand, I think, and
there's a there's a crack up there. You see that
in the legal front or in the jurisprudential front, in
the differences between Justice Soda Mayor on one hand and
Justice Jackson on the other, they're about a generation apart.
And when you look at not in all cases, but
in some cases where you see the difference between this
sixties seventies liberalism and the modern you know, postliberal illiberalism.
For example, the Harvard Affirmative Action case, Justice Soto Mayor
wrote a dissenting opinion in kind of classic social justice,
we need to remedy past wrongs by considering being race conscious. Now,
you know, very you know, you can agree, you disagree
with that. I disagree with it, but it's very standard,
you know, lots that that's the standard argument from the
left for affirmative action. Justice Jackson talked about systemic racism,
and you have to you know, institutional problems, I mean,
very much of a different ilk. And that's dangerous because, yeah,
if all that's come before is illegitimate, then essentially you're
inviting judges to write law on a blank slate and
to rewrite law and to create new law. It's it's
very dangerous. That's not the way that our system is
supposed to work well.
Speaker 1: And I believe, you know, the American founders directly would
have called that tyranny.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: They didn't believe that the role of judges was to
legislate from the bench, or really the role of any
branch of Congress, right, or branch of government. You know,
they each had specific roles that were delineated for them
by the Constitution, and they weren't to step outside them.
And so if you have. You know, judges thinking of
themselves essentially as petty little dictators is the phrase that
I like to use, right, But basically they're unbounded, right,
there isn't anything that restrains them but their own creativity.
Then we're in a completely different situation, you know, and
have much more difficulties I think in kind of navigating
how to dial that back in.
Speaker 2: That's right, and you know, it's not just about judges.
It's also actually makes it into the content of the law.
So in Canada and certain provinces, they have legislated that
judges are to take race into account and kind of
ethnic background and hardship in their hassed into account when
giving sentences. So two people who have committed the same
crime with the same you know, criminal priors will get
sentenced to different levels based on what skin color they are.
You have it in the private sector and in law
firms where you know, valuable you know, money making partners
are fired because their clients make junior associates uncomfortable. It's
it really is. It threatens a disruption of everything we
know about how our institutions work.
Speaker 1: And now you do have a couple of thing ideas
in the book for what are at least some beginnings
of ways to approach this problem? Do you want to
kind of sketch out for listeners who should read the
book for the more fuller, you know, kind of elucidation.
But what kind of a couple of bullet points would
you give that you really think are crucial ways to
improve that frightening situation.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think these institutions are going to reform
out of the goodness of their hearts, just internally, because
they'll see the light if we just make the right
arguments to the right people, they'll change. Most academic leaders, deans, presidents,
department chairs are not woke radicals. They are spineless cowards.
As I saw personally with it with the dean of
Georgetown Law, who's a very good legal historian. It's unfortunate
that became a dean, although he's thought of as a
successful dean because he raises a lot of money, but
completely incapable of real leadership. And so they placate these
illiberal mobs that dominate cultures on campus and including law schools.
They let the de i deans run the show, or
as well the admissions offices, which put a thumb on
the scales for activists, Like if you write in your
application essay for Yale Law School that you want to
you know, burned down institutions, rewrite legal structures. That's a
plus against someone who just says I want to prosecute
child molesters or I want to advance anti trusts so
prices are cheaper for consumers or something like that. So
it's an institutional problem, so they're going to have to
be external actors that force change. Part of that for
public schools at least is state legislatures and have to
get into the act and cut DEI offices and make
certain other kinds of changes. Part of it is employers
deciding that they're not going to hire people from schools
that don't train lawyers to look at all sides of
the problem because half of those sides are outside the
Overton window inappropriate triggering. You can't look at things that way.
Part of it is a number of federal judges aren't
hiring from Yale, Stanford, and Columbia law schools because of
their dearth of a free speech and academic freedom culture.
For example, there can be exoginous shocks of various kinds,
but even just a little bad publicity, because again, these
leaders are responding to the incentives that are posed in
front of them. Bad pr leads to lower donations, leads
to congressional investigations, all these things things they want to avoid.
And so that is the way of forcing change. My
colleague at the Manhattans to John Saylor, who's an investigative journalist,
has now made kind of a cottage industry out of
using FOYA Freedom of Information Act to look at hiring
practices and other policies at public universities. And then he
publishes like one op ed in the Wall Street Journal,
and all of a sudden the next day the chancellor
has to say, no, this is not appropriate. We're changing
our ways. This has happened like four or five times already.
John's doing brilliant work in that regard. So that gives
me some i won't say optimism, but less pessimism than
when I left Georgetown. That just some of these structures
are to mix metaphors, Potempkin villages guarded by paper tigers.
But it's not going to be an overnight thing. And
some institutions will fail or will continue to decline, while
some ascend relatively Because I think savvy academic leaders or
law school deans will want to change their ways to
continue to draw better people things like that, but some
won't be capable of doing it.
Speaker 1: So it's kind of like a very naughty little child.
If they'renaughty, give them a little spanking or send them
to their room, put them on time out, and they
will be less naughty.
Speaker 2: Benefits Absolutely, it's public choice theory. And I mean, this
is the thing about about academic bureaucracies. Just like bureaucracies
in the public sector or corporate hr offices. They are
there to justify and expand their authority and grow their budgets.
And you know, you have to cut that back, you
have to change those things. I mean, when I was
you know, I went to law school and college, it
feels sometimes it feels like yesterday. Sometimes it feels like,
you know, a long time ago in a galaxy far
far away. But we had civil rights enforcement, we had
Title nine officers, we had equal employment opportunity that is
not DEI you know, we didn't have these again, non
teaching staff that's exploded in the last twenty five and
especially ten years that become the tail that waged the dog.
And again you look at the incentives faculty, you know,
the complaints sometimes that they're not empowered, that we believe
in faculty governance, but then they willingly give up their
power because they don't want to sit on committee meetings.
They'd rather hire these non teaching deans and you know,
other administrators to do all of that kind of work.
And so we end up where we are. Where now
at every university there are more administrators than faculty many
times over, and even more than students. And the joke
is that one hundred years ago Yale's came to campus
with their own personal butler, and now we're going to
recreate that experience for modern Danielias.
Speaker 1: So I think we'll go out on this one. We've
now had two full years of Justice Katanji Brown Jackson
on the bench, and already with this term's rulings out,
it's apparent that even her leftist colleagues are irritated with
her level of legal abilities. Or maybe and there's probably
you know, for I've heard legal scholars say to even
have you know, public rebukes such as have come out
in some of the recent Supreme Court opinions, there must
also be some personal dislike you know they're speculating going
on behind the scenes at the Supreme Court. So do
you feel vindicated and losing your job for accurately predicting
that DEI criteria would elevate a lesser qualified lawyer to
the highest court in the United States.
Speaker 2: Well, well, first of all, I didn't lose my job.
They tried to cancel me. I canceled them. I think
that I came out of this better than Georgetown did,
and in fact, the scuttle but is that Georgetown's dean
trainer who I mentioned, lost out on the presidency of
Fordom because of how he handled my case. So I
think there might be some cosmic karma. But uh, look, uh,
Katanji Brown Jackson was by all accounts, uh uh a
decent to good district judge, but she kept being promoted.
I think what they used to call this the Peter principle.
You're promoted until you're you're out of your out of
your league. And you know, in a sense, as an originalist,
as someone who generally agrees with those who the justices
were appointed by Republican presidents, I think it's good that
she's there because she's not influential, she's not going to
move anybody. She's not going to write anything of lasting value.
So that's that's good. And and in terms of you know,
I told you so, or when when people were on Twitter,
you know, people of the left were complaining about about
Jackson's influence and I said, I tried to warn them.
So yeah, there's a little bit of I told you so,
But I think it, you know it it course and
if if, if, if democratic president are going to continue
in this vein, because there will be democratic presidents. It's
not like we've you know, changed that dynamic, then that
is not going to lead to you know, good developments
for the judiciary writ large, Well.
Speaker 1: If we're lucky, she'll continue to irritate Amy Coney Barrett
and maybe Pusher further right, maybe even some effects on
John Roberts, who knows. Maybe this guy's the limit there
and we can all hope.
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah, well, I mean it seems like interpersonal. Whatever
they write in their opinions, it seems interpersonally. The collegiality
is is okay, I don't know, we were going to
have to wait for some some more leaks or their
papers in well by the time we're all dead or
or something. But historically we're not even close to bad
levels of justices getting along with each other. We've had,
you know, we've had justices getting fist fights. We've had
someone like walk out of the room when their colleague
walked into the room. Didn't want to sit for an
official UH photograph one year, there was some anti Semitism
involved there. I mean, lots of weird things in our past,
as I detailed in my previous book, Supreme Disorder, but
kind of the more doctrinal things are, if less colorful,
potentially more dangerous than these personal disagreements.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 1: Elia Shapiro is a Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional
Studies at the man had An Institute, and the author
of Lawless, The Miseducation of America America's Elite. Ilia. Thank
you for joining the Federalist Radio Hour.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Joy.
Speaker 1: This is Joy Pullman, the executive editor over here at
the Federalists, signing out be lovers of freedom and anxious
for the frame.
Speaker 2: Heard of Fame by Serison