Podcast appearances and mentions of David A Kaplan

In the past few weeks alone, the Supreme Court has delivered a firestorm of conservative legal victories. States now have far less leeway to restrict gun permits. The right to abortion is no longer constitutionally protected. The Environmental Protection Agency has been kneecapped in its ability to regulate carbon emissions, and by extension, all executive branch agencies will see their power significantly diminished.But to focus only on this particular Supreme Court term is to miss the bigger picture: In the past few decades, conservative court majorities have dragged this country's laws to the right on almost every issue imaginable. Shelby County v. Holder gutted the Voting Rights Act and opened the door for states to pass restrictive voting laws. Rucho v. Common Cause limited the court's ability to curb partisan gerrymandering. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission unleashed a torrent of campaign spending. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 weakened unions. A whole slew of cases, including some decided on the shadow docket during the Covid-19 pandemic, undercut federal agencies' power to help govern in an era of congressional gridlock. And that's only a partial list.Kate Shaw is a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, a co-host of the legal podcast Strict Scrutiny and a former clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens. In this episode, she walks me through the most significant Supreme Court cases over the past 20 years, from the court's decision to hand George W. Bush the presidency in 2000, to the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act, to the assertion of an individual's right to bear arms.Along the way, we discuss the right's decades-long effort to transform American law from the bench, how Republican-appointed judges have consistently entrenched Republican political power, the interpretive bankruptcy of constitutional originalism, how the Warren Court radicalized the conservative legal movement, what might happen to decisions like Obergefell v. Hodges now that the court majority seems to be so comfortable throwing out precedent, what cases to watch in the Roberts Court's next term, and more.Mentioned:“After Citizens United: How Outside Spending Shapes American Democracy” by Nour Abdul-Razzak, Carlo Prato and Stephane Wolton“The Most Important Study in the Abortion Debate” by Annie LowreyBook recommendations:The Turnaway Study by Diana Greene FosterTorn Apart by Dorothy RobertsWho Decides? by Jeffrey S. Sutton51 Imperfect Solutions by Jeffrey S. SuttonThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin and Rogé Karma; fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Rollin Hu, Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair; original music by Isaac Jones; mixing by Isaac Jones; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Special thanks to Kristin Lin, Kristina Samulewski, David A. Kaplan, Ian Millhiser, Aziz Rana and Kate Redburn.

As the US and its NATO allies anxiously await Vladimir Putin's response to their written letters addressing Russia's security concerns, Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, joins Christiane for an exclusive interview … Javier Bardem, who plays Desi Arnaz in Aaron Sorkin's new film Being The Ricardos, joins the show from Madrid … Michel Martin interviews David A. Kaplan, author of The Most Dangerous Branch, which deals with the growing polarization of America's Supreme Court. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

David A. Kaplan was a senior editor and legal affairs correspondent at Newsweek for 20 years. While there, he wrote several dozen cover stories on the Court and other topics. He is the author of numerous books including The Silicon Boys and most recently, of The Most Dangerous Branch. He now teaches journalism and ethics at NYU and at CUNY. David Kaplan Book Recommendations: Charlotte's Web - E.B. White Cadillac Desert - Marc Reisner The Power Broker - Robert Caro The Impending Crisis - David Potter A Sense of Where You Are - John McPhee About The Inquiring Mind Podcast: I created The Inquiring Mind Podcast in order to foster free speech, learn from some of the top experts in various fields, and create a platform for respectful conversations. Learn More: https://www.theinquiringmindpodcast.com/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theinquiringmindpodcast/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theinquiringmindpodcast Twitter: https://twitter.com/StanGGoldberg Subscribe to the Inquiring Mind Podcast: Spotify: http://spoti.fi/3tdRSOs Apple: http://apple.co/38xXZVJ Google Podcasts: http://bit.ly/3eBZfLl Youtube: https://bit.ly/3tiQieE

The Supreme Court is the new political battleground in the United States, with the passing of feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg opening up a seat at the country's highest judicial authority. In this special edition, we delve into the inner workings of that institution. We tell you how the Supreme Court works and take a closer look at two of the female nominees who could fill the crucial seat. Plus, we get analysis from author and journalist David A. Kaplan.

“If you want to build a democracy that works for everyone, you must have an honest judiciary. If you want an honest judiciary, you #PackTheCourts”— @PackSCOTUS Twitter accountTwo weeks ago, David A. Kaplan warned that the judicial branch had become far too powerful. I agreed.We've felt the effects in the form of bitter partisanship over judicial nominations. When Mitch McConnell gambled on denying Merrick Garland a hearing until after the 2016 election, Democrats saw it as their responsibility to respond in kind by turning Kavanaugh's nomination into a circus. Since that failed to stop his nomination, some have escalated their rhetoric even further — going as far as reviving FDR's failed court packing scheme.Ilya Somin says this is a terrible idea. The Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law and blogger at The Volokh Conspiracy (now hosted at Reason.com) has written several articles explaining why.Dangers of Growing Support for Court-PackingThe same logic that ultimately put the idea to rest back in 1937 holds today. Somin quotes a Democratic senator who put it concisely back then:“Create now a political court to echo the ideas of the Executive and you have created a weapon. A weapon which, in the hands of another President in times of war or other hysteria, could well be an instrument of destruction. A weapon that can cut down those guaranties of liberty written into your great document by the blood of your forefathers and that can extinguish your right of liberty, of speech, of thought, of action, and of religion. A weapon whose use is only dictated by the conscience of the wielder.” — Sen. Burton Wheeler (D)But the political heat of the moment has apparently made some Democrats forget that the power to turn 9 into 13, 19 or more, could backfire in the hands of the “wrong” president. And without judicial independence, “right” and “wrong” are all a matter of perspective.Even liberal scholars and politicians, he notes, have opposed the idea — from Noah Feldman and Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School, to Senator Corey Booker of New Jersey. They say that court packing is not a proportional response to the failure to give Garland a hearing, and note that it would only worsen the legitimacy crisis that the court's detractors claim as the reason for packing it.Somin's take on the legitimacy crisis is more subtle. He thinks it's overblown, but with so many mainstream Democratic candidates talking about court packing, it's not as unthinkable as it once was.The primary race has barely just begun, but this already seems to be an area in which Democrats have started a race to the bottom.Ilya returned to the show to talk about the the history of court packing, and why it's just as bad an idea today as it was 80 years ago.

Join David A. Kaplan in conversation on his book, *The Most Dangerous Branch*

In the bestselling tradition of The Nine and The Brethren, The Most Dangerous Branch takes us inside the secret world of the Supreme Court. David A. Kaplan, the former legal affairs editor of Newsweek, shows how the justices subvert the role of the other branches of government—and how we’ve come to accept it at our peril. With the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court has never before been more central in American life. It is the nine justices who too often now decide the controversial issues of our time—from abortion and same-sex marriage, to gun control, campaign finance and voting rights. The Court is so crucial that many voters in 2016 made their choice based on whom they thought their presidential candidate would name to the Court. Donald Trump picked Neil Gorsuch—the key decision of his new administration. The next justice—replacing Anthony Kennedy—will be even more important, holding the swing vote over so much social policy. Is that really how democracy is supposed to work? Based on exclusive interviews with the justices and dozens of their law clerks, Kaplan provides fresh details about life behind the scenes at the Court – Clarence Thomas’s simmering rage, Antonin Scalia’s death, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s celebrity, Breyer Bingo, the petty feuding between Gorsuch and the chief justice, and what John Roberts thinks of his critics. Kaplan presents a sweeping narrative of the justices’ aggrandizement of power over the decades – from Roe v. Wade to Bush v. Gore to Citizens United, to rulings during the 2017-18 term. But the arrogance of the Court isn’t partisan: Conservative and liberal justices alike are guilty of overreach. Challenging conventional wisdom about the Court’s transcendent power, The Most Dangerous Branch is sure to rile both sides of the political aisle.