SCOTUS Through the Decades | Interview: Nina Totenberg
5/26/20261 hr 10 min
Sarah Isgur and David French discuss an anticlimactic dig from the Supreme Court over IQ tests and the death penalty and challenges to the $1.8 billion slush fund President Donald Trump created on weaponization, and they talk with NPR's Nina Totenberg about covering the Supreme Court. The Agenda: —Hamm v. Smith —How many IQ tests does a person on death row need to take? —Who can challenge the slush fund? —James Comey as the platonic ideal plaintiff —The embarrassing DNC autopsy, and Grifter Sarah makes an appearance —Interview with Nina Totenberg Order Sarah’s book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch’s offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. If you’d like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Clips
Transcript preview
First 90 secondsSarah Isgur· Host0:01
You ready?
David French· Host0:01
I was born ready.
Sarah Isgur· Host0:03
[upbeat music] Welcome to Advisory Opinions. I'm Sarah Isgur, that's David French, and today we do have an opinion from the Supreme Court. Well, wait, no, we have an outcome from the Supreme Court. Hamm v. Smith, death penalty and IQ. How many IQ tests do you need to take to be ineligible for the death penalty, and what do those scores need to be? And how many times does the case need to be relisted before we actually get a decision? And speaking of court cases, what's a girl gotta do to get into court to challenge the $1.8 billion slush fund that Donald Trump has created on weaponization? More on that. And lastly, David, an interview with the OG, man, Nina Totenberg from NPR. She has covered the Supreme Court for nearly 50 years, and I spoke with her a couple days ago without David, and you'll get to hear all of that right here on Advisory Opinions. Well, David, we got one decision from the Supreme Court that is worth at least a few moments of our time. This was Hamm versus