250 Years of Bad Decisions Pt. 2: The Law Was Never Neutral [TEASER]

Leon Neyfakh (0:05)

Hey, everyone. This is Leon from Prologue Projects. On this week's episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are continuing the series they started this past summer, looking back at key moments in the history of the Supreme Court in honor of the country's 250th birthday. Today's episode tackles the idea of judicial neutrality and how right-wing actors on and around the court have weaponized the supposed neutrality of the law to launder what has always been a fundamentally political project.

This is 5-4, a podcast about how much the Supreme Court has always sucked.

Peter (0:51)

Welcome to 5-4, where we dissect and analyze the Supreme Court cases that have humiliated our nation, like Eric Schmidt humiliating himself during a congressional hearing. I'm Peter. I'm here with Rhiannon. Hey, y'all. And Michael.

Michael (1:04)

I actually enjoyed that. I rarely enjoy a congressional hearing, but I thought that one was pretty fun.

Peter (1:09)

Do you want to explain it for the folks at home?

Michael (1:11)

Yeah. Eric Schmidt, Republican from Missouri, was questioning Jack Smith, the special prosecutor who had investigated Donald Trump and prosecuted him for that matter, and was trying to imply or outright state that Jack Smith had colluded with Fannie Willis, the district attorney in Atlanta, to imprison Donald Trump and then had perjured himself at this hearing about it. And his evidence for this were internal communications and text messages showing that Jack Smith had been at an Atlanta Hawks game in Atlanta the day after a big scandal Fannie Willis broke about her sleeping with another prosecutor who had been prosecuting Trump and all that.

Rhiannon (1:56)

What would you say if I had a series of text messages from your team that said you were in Atlanta at a Warrior Hawks game on February 3rd, 2024, the day after Willis and Wade announced their affair?

Michael (2:06)

And surely he got this right. I mean, it's text messages. He had a big poster board he pulled up.

Peter (2:12)

With the text messages on.

Michael (2:13)

Yeah, and he's like, I believe you just perjured yourself. And then they hid the poster board and immediately tried to move on as they realized Jack Smith had no idea what the fuck they were talking about.

Jack Smith (2:23)

It's possible I flew through the Atlanta airport on the way to Florida, but I do not have a recollection of going to Atlanta. I definitely did not go to a Hawks game.

Michael (2:34)

Turns out he had been at the Iowa Hawkeyes game to see Caitlin Clark play college basketball.

Peter (2:41)

In College Park, Maryland.

Michael (2:42)

Yes.

Rhiannon (2:43)

Not in Atlanta.

Peter (2:44)

There's like a long pause in the room where everyone's like, what's going on? Like, what is this accusation? And then Amy Klobuchar, I think, is the one who's like, coming out as a ball knower.

Michael (2:56)

Could it then be that the University of Iowa is the Hawkeyes?

Peter (3:00)

Could that be it?

Rhiannon (3:00)

Yes.

Peter (3:02)

Like a Midwestern lady, obviously, she knows all the college mascots, you know what I mean? She's like, Hawkeyes, right? And then Schmidt gets like angry.

Rhiannon (3:11)

Who's questioning is this by the way, Mr. Chairman? Are you using your time, Senator? Is this what this is? You're using your time to be illiterate, so.

Michael (3:18)

Right.

Peter (3:20)

Pretty good stuff. Politics, very stupid, just an embarrassment.

Michael (3:24)

Yeah, the pulling out of the poster board and then hiding it and then Democrats being like, can we see the poster board? Can you bring that back out? And then being like, we don't have to show you our poster board.

It's so weird. Just absolute clowns, just absolute clowns.

Peter (3:40)

All right, folks, earlier this year, we dropped the first episode in our 250 years of Bad Decision series, a short series reflecting the court's role in our nation's trials and tribulations thus far. Now, we're going to continue that today. Will there be a third episode? Probably. Who knows? We're sort of just vibing this out over the course of the year, frankly. One of the primary thesis statements of this podcast from the beginning has been the idea that the law is not neutral, that it can never be neutral, that the court uses the perception of neutrality to obscure its politics and its ideologies. Hey, folks, if you want to hear the rest of this episode, you're going to have to subscribe. This episode is one of our Premium Patreon-only episodes. Membership starts at just five bucks a month. If you want to hear the rest, join us at patreon.com/fivefourpod.

That's five four pod all spelled out. Members get a bunch of stuff. Not only do you get access to the Premium episodes, but access to subscriber-only events, discounts on merch, and at the $10 a month level, you get bigger discounts on merch and membership in the incredibly rowdy five to four Slack. So again, that's patreon.com/fivefourpod.