restaurants and being allowed into a particular movie theaters. and now we see that the other side of it is to say, well, anything i feel is an area that i want to preclude other people, i should be able to do it based on the supreme court decision. it opens the floodgates and goes back to what is wrong with the supreme court decisions. it doesn t have the legal rationale that the american people can follow. more businesses. and that s what the supreme court is supposed to do. it s supposed to give us a rule to follow, and right now, as it is pointed, out we can do about anything we want based on these very vague decisions by the court. jay? do you agree? i want to respectfully disagree with the professor. first, obviously, michael imperioli, thank you for your allyship and i understand he was taking making a lighthearted point. that being said, my general sense is, we should not be giving our enemies, our opponents, more rights than
are out there funding campaigns inorganizations that are out there not only doing alter research on judges or people that could be judges, the same is on the right side. so if we re going to change this, we need to change it across the board for everybody, and let s not kid ourselves and just say it s the republicans and leonard leo and these folks that are corrupting the system. is that right, evan? i think one of the things that my colleagues jane and susan glasser trying to draw attention to is the fact that you ve seen a dramatic effect that everybody is seeing the donald trump was able to pour through conserve justice on the court in a single term, as it is positive effect on the composition of the court and you ve seen the results of the last couple years, especially the dobbs decision, lgbtq, and affirmative action. you see this turn up in attitudes about the court. trust is declining rapidly we get pulaski fall shows that its
that was not justified by the shop is written. it s how it s interpreted that matters. thank you both for those perspectives. i want to bring in evan right now. so evan, you just do this podcast, diners into a portion of, and it was great, about the supreme court and how political so many americans believe that it has become, and in fact you did it with , new york reporter who coined the term the dark money supreme court. what does that mean? as many people will remember, jane mayer gave us this concept of the dark money force in politics. talking about electoral politics. she helped identify the ways in which large sums of money, often from donors that we don t know the full identities of, going to organizations whose names we were unfamiliar to us, we re having a big impact on politics. we used to talk about people like the cote brothers, for
thank you both for those perspectives. i want to bring in evan right now. so evan, you just did this podcast, and i listened to a portion of, and it was great, about the supreme court and how political so many americans believe that it has become, and in fact you did it with jhane mayer, , new york reporter who coined the term the dark money supreme court. what does that mean? as many people will remember, jane mayer gave us this concept of the dark money force in politics. talking about electoral politics. she helped identify the ways in which large sums of money, often from donors that we don t know the full identities of, going to organizations whose names we were unfamiliar to us, we re having a big impact on politics. we used to talk about people like the cote brothers, for instance. these days what you are seeing in the actions of the court is that it is increasingly shaped
by similar kinds of dynamics. take, for example, somebody like leonard leo, a very prominent conservative legal activist who oversees a set of organizations, a web of groups involved in a number of cases. take the affirmative action case. the litigant in that case, the plaintive, students for fair admissions, in 2020 a third of their revenue reportedly came from an organization that leo runs, and many of the briefs that were submitted in support of that position came from organizations that he also supports. so we need to be thinking as much about money affecting the court as we used to think about money affecting electoral politics. jason, it makes americans uncomfortable to think that all these machinations are going on with supreme court, particularly the leonard leo thing, because it as though he has an agenda and then he finds a plaintiff and a case to fit it, concocts it basically. and it went wrong, by the way, with the web designer case, because they forgot to tell the plaint