The only reason I listen to this podcast is because I respect David French so much, but Sarah has become so insufferable since this new administration that I don’t think I can listen much longer. The latest episode on “The collision is coming” was the first time David actually pushed back on Sarah’s nonsense. The fact that he hasn’t been doing that more makes me sometimes wonder if the David French of the NYT is different from the David French of this podcast. The problem with Sarah is that she just simply can’t separate the forest from the trees in her legal analysis. And while she may argue that “the trees” is all that matters with the law, all legal cases and decisions happen in the real world context of “the forest”, not for the purposes of a scholarly law review article. Her actually not agreeing with David’s point that the Bill of Rights can and should trump the Executive Power is really the last straw for me. She has become increasingly partisan, while claiming not to be, which makes it even worse. I’ll catch you all later, and just content myself with reading the version of the David French that writes for the NYT.

Today I got out of NYT Spelling Bee with “dicta”

I just listened to the Rights of Detainees podcast. The discussion was all over the place. I’m an attorney and had difficulty tracking it. Laura appeared to workshopping her analysis during the podcast. Lots of spewing of ideas/possibilities. Please do that before recording! Also — distinguish between the court decisions and say what they have in common and how they differ and how that relates to your analysis. In such critical times of chaos and human rights abuses, we need clarity. Please stop muddying the waters.

Came here to say, David how can you stay on a pod with this woman who doesn’t even tell the truth any more???? Then I read my previous review. You know…when it’s time to go _________ Has become a Sarah vanity project. David, please leave this…

Please consider having an immigration attorney join to explain what happens in immigration court. Listening to Sarah describe it is nearly as frustrating as hearing people say that a trade deficit must be a bad thing for us. Listeners could benefit from hearing from others than just than former government employees who describe a system they didn’t practice in actually operates.

Great perspectives on the significant legal concerns of the day. Informative and entertaining.

Sarah and David are smart and passionate, but provide various points of view on different judicial decisions. They often show how judges’ decisions really do transcend partisan labels and ideologies. It’s also refreshing to have analysis based on philosophy, history, and legal theory rather than overly simplified political commentary. Finally, both of them are just absolutely charming. I’ve never been a conservative, but I’d join that team if conservatism was David and Sarah. My favorite friends on my commute!!

Used to look to this show to provide balanced and intelligent legal analysis of recent Court decisions and news events. Now it’s become mostly Sarah giving long irate monologues providing her personal opinion. Will be moving on!

The only podcast on my feed where it’s an informative, convivial, and well explored episode each and every time. Your guests are impressive and engaging. My attorney friends and colleagues are among the most interesting and thoughtful people I know. Advisory Opinions circles the wagon around my experience that legal professionals have humor as well… Anyone looking to deepen their understanding of our tremendous legal system and traditions along with its living nature will be a Tears of Scrutiny fan.

Pros: semi-entertaining, engaging, thought-provoking, pithy summaries of complex and current legal issues. The editing is quite well done and the personalities of David and Sarah are amicable. Cons: the pair can be pompous and self-contradictory and the show may leave you frustrated at the pair’s dismissiveness. Despite the lawyer circle-jerking and apparent obliviousness to the reasons lawyers are often despised, I’ll continue to listen to the podcast since the above pros outweigh these disappointing cons. If they toned down their (and their profession’s) self-importance, they’d have a podcast I would be proselytizing for.

Kudos to Sarah for finding a way to make the left the bad guy in this Thursday Night Massacre. Sure, the right wants me to betray my principles and engage in open corruption, but the democrats praised me! That’s partisan! And we all know that’s the worst thing of all!

Becoming a favorite pod because the hosts, David & Sarah, do prepare in advance and preparation is consistently a hallmark of the better podcasting Renaissance. May i suggest all avid listeners, that they avail themselves of the several volumes of the GAO Redbook, Title 31 USC, the office & history of the Comptroller General. In these times, one is well-served by studying up upon the singularly arcane field, Fiscal Law, aka Appropriations Law. and hopefully in their sanctimony and “pearl clutching” members and staffers of the House of Representatives, can find their way to understanding the plumbing of how an advanced sophisticated republic exercises the taxing and spending power and the power of the purse, now and back to the very founding of the republic. John Atty, Massachusetts.

In terms of emotional presentation, Sarah reveals a strong bias for Republicans over Democrats. However, her legal opinions are well-reasoned and worth listening to.

After years of listening, I’m weighing in. When I first started listening, I could hardly tell which way Sarah and David leaned politically. Their well-reasoned arguments analyzed the merits of both sides of the cases before the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, events preceding and following the 2024 presidential election proved too strong a siren’s call…and into the cesspool David dove. French argued that voting for Harris would somehow “save conservatism.” He lost most conservatives even before he presented his first ill-conceived argument. Since this podcast is a product of The Dispatch, I wasn’t surprised to hear CEO Steve Hayes on the show. I was surprised when he launched an ad hominem attack against Sarah simply because she argued for one of President Trump’s nominees. That convinced me to never give one cent to The Dispatch. Hayes seems upset because people didn’t buy the tired argument that the angry rioters of Jan 6 should somehow disqualify Trump. French and Hayes might both want to consider how the left tried to bait the average American into voting against Trump through constant fear-mongering about threats to democracy. Well, democracy has firmly spoken. They would do well to listen. I’m disheartened. AO listeners have long enjoyed a serious legal podcast that has stayed above the mud-slinging filth of the political world. It’s not too late to return to merit-based legal analysis. I pray you do.

Used to really appreciate the academic, straightforward, non partisan discussions on this podcast and trusted their general ratings of high on fact/analysis and middle on politics - but now they can’t seem to help but routinely out themselves as highly partisan. David and Sarah have unfortunately given in to snark, disrespect, and a lack of good faith. Guess I’ll have to look elsewhere. Bummer.

I agree with Sarah’s recent rant against Biden for his pardons, especially of his son Hunter and Biden’s words justifying the pardons. But, I challenge Sarah to think deeply about her rant, specifically the blatant emotional anger and rage that she expressed, and compare that to any of her reactions to anything that Trump has ever said or done against our justice system, electoral system, etc. which has been, and still is, far worse than anything Biden has ever said or done. No comparison. I am a long time listener and I have never heard anywhere near the same kind of emotional outrage against Trump. Sarah’s bias against Democrats/for Republicans seems more and more obvious, the difference in the level of outrage is blatant. For example, I will be waiting to hear how Sarah reacts to Trump’s blanket pardon of the January 6 rioters/insurrectionists. What level of outrage will we hear from Sarah regarding Trump? Kudos to David French, Jonah and Steve Hayes for being much more un-biased and balanced and therefore much more credible.

I like Sarah a lot, which is good since she appears on must be 5 or 6 podcasts I listen to, but she’s hopelessly biased towards ‘her team’ even though she hates trump. Citing the hunter pardon as Biden being more lawless that Trump? Really?? It was a terrible pardon and made Biden a liar, but it wasn’t half as corrupt as Trump pardoning his own lackeys and co-conspirators. Give me a break. Still like the pod though, thanks guys.

Sarah’s desire to jump to conclusions or to whatever stance she feels is correct (usually from smugness rather than her intelligence, and she clearly is intelligent) is disappointing. I am a Democrat and lean pretty left, but contemplate issues with reason rather than pure emotive ideology- especially legal issues I don’t know enough about- and had found this show educational and interesting. Recently I’m not so sure how much I can trust Sarah’s opinions, and now David’s- since he seems to bend to her will rather than challenge her more often than not. Sarah should show more humble contemplation since her ego seems to take over any reason she has left. Any one have another show to recommend?

I adore this show and find the intelligent analysis refreshing. But the idea that drug smuggling from undocumented migrants in Mexico could constitute an invasion would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. The “ultimate geographic source of the fentanyl crisis” has been declared as China, according to Congress’ Select Committee on the CCP. A vast majority of the trafficked drug comes through legal ports of entry (see Customs and Border Patrol Statistics for the proportion of seizures reported between Office of Field Operations [ports] and Border Patrol [border]). And fiscal year 2022, 84% of offenders were *American citizens* (United States Sentencing Commission). So the premise of “illegal migrants are the cause of fentanyl trafficking” is in itself flawed, and the implications of a resulting declaration of “invasion by undocumented migrants who are swimming across the river” is woefully misplaced, to potentially chilling consequences. I was shocked David could not convince Sarah of this. If drug smuggling is an invasion, then we should expect Greg Abbott to next declare war on China and American frat boys coming back from spring break.

You fully expect Biden to be accountable but the same is never expected of Trump !!! Why is that ?? I don’t understand it happens repeatedly Sara calls Biden a liar and a hypocrite. Does she not see Trump the same. If so make it clear. I believe he changed his mind as he saw the way Trump is sweeping into office while ignoring several rules again about how it should be done legally but it’s Trump so that’s OK ??

Sarah is allowed to have an opinion. I don’t like Gaetz either but her reasoning is consistent.

I have been an avid listener to your podcast with David French. I have learned about conservative approaches to the law and the Supreme Court. While I’ve seldom agreed with you and David, I’ve felt respected. Sarah’s interview with James Ho was so worrisome. Her fawning introduction of a controversial judge and lack of bringing up his critics sometimes serious questioning of his rulings and his often outspoken criticism of those before him in personal rather than professional manner. I’d have appreciated a more serious discussion of Ho’s whole career with serious objectives to his rulings. This was a pure hagiography.

David is great but tired of Sarah not being able to call a spade a spade.

Love the show. Not crazy about the new logo.

It’s almost as if the gun industry deliberately flooded the market with weapons & the Republicans deliberately resist all gun legislation and voila you can’t regulate these common guns. It can’t be that simple, huh? Also always remember as long as young men can purchase these types of weapons (military grade) then they will not join the actual military.

I enjoy the show. Maybe get James Rosen on to talk about his book on Scalia.

I love this show, and everything you guys explain. But please, PLEASE, start saying case names and citations when discussing particular cases. It’s sometimes nearly impossible to find the cases you are discussing without even a case name. And links to news articles discussing the case in the show notes are not really all that helpful. Often those articles do not contain links to the case text or case names.

Crazy but I seem to be agreeing more and more with A.O hosts on purely legal issues that is or maybe its that I felt rewarded by guessing correctly that the paper discussed in the recent episode was written by Elena Kagan. Though I notice French tends to agrees with Isgur when she voices her opinion first. When he’s asked to opine without her point of view first his answers are more centrists. Isgur. 2 year + fan of LRC podcast going on a year of A.O fandom and going on 6 and 2 months + of the dispatch and Remnant following respectively. I thinks it’s cause even more than my progressive leftist ideologies I respect the intellectual discourse and breakdown of law, legal analysis and its application to politics and current events. So thank you both for the work you do for us who so enjoy hearing your discussion genuinely appreciate you so much so I often wish I could partake.

Neither host even nudged back gently on Judge Altman’s claims on 10/10/2024. We know, as it has and had been widely reported that it was PM Netanyahu gov and not “Hamas” that blew up hostage negotiations, nor the ICC or UN findings re: legality or justifications for (apparently) Islamophobic / apartheid occupations & settlements. I understand differences of opinions, but factual claims aren’t opinions when they’re incorrect. Please clarify ASAP - I’m checking for later eps myself.

Decided to unfollow the show because of this.

Sarah and David are an excellent team. What a clear and helpful discussion of pending cases and issues. Keep up the great work.

First, as an old, gray-haired, non-lawyer retiree, let me commend both Sarah and David for an outstanding podcast - it is by far my favorite. As a matter of background, I am a retired Air Force fighter pilot who has spent a significant portion of my professional career exploring non-kinetic effects in support of national security objectives. Given this, I would like to submit that the national security risks of a PRC-influenced TikTok go way beyond data harvesting and geo-location of troops and their families. Informational Power is one of the four elements of National Power (commonly known as DIME: diplomatic, informational, military, and economic power). Informational Power goes way beyond most people’s limited view of propaganda. If you can “outmaneuver” your adversary’s information decision loop at critical times (sorry, combining Sun Tzu and Boyd in one phrase), you can significantly impact an adversary response (known as D5: deny, delay, disrupt, deceive, destroy). By allowing the PRC complete control of TikTok content manipulation, the US would cede access to a popular information platform. The potential effects, in theory, could cause public sediment (important in democracies, not as much in autocracies) to yield delays, disruptions, and deceptions in order to interfere in US national responses. The Communications Act of 1934 limited foreign influence of broadcast media. I commend Congress for attempting to protect our 21st-century information systems from unfettered foreign influence.

While I’m really a Remnant fan just stopping by for occasional visits, this episode was like taking a brief online course. There’s nothing partisan or biased, in my opinion about how Yuval lays out one of our main problems (Congress’s failure to do its job) and the many unintended consequences of that failure on the judicial and executive branch. Everyone in American should listen to this episode.

Sarah is a 5 star. I will not listen anymore because of David. Hope Sarah ditches him soon.

Sarah is a Trumper through and through. The last couple episodes made me want to throw up in my mouth a little bit.

Love Sarah, David, used to appreciate your approach but your NYT op Ed is a bridge too far. Sadly, I will unfollow today.

I’m a retired high school teacher and college mathematics professor. I started listening to this pod in order to learn more about SCOTUS. It is accessible in that they know they have a lot of listeners who aren’t attorneys, they review legal terms frequently, and I listen to each and every pod. I’ve learned a great deal not just about the current SCOTUS but also about law in general. It’s highly entertaining, and I’d recommend listening to it for any nerd.

This show is my jam. Almost every episode I would listen to again. The only one I would not replay is the one where they got several article III judges to sing show tunes. Impressive, but also uniquely cringey, in a funny way. Sort of like seeing The Office for the first time and starting with the first season.

I don’t know if anyone actually reads reviews of podcasts (I don’t), but for those who do, this is a great one! I found David French from reading his newsletters in a subreddit, ended up following him to the Dispatch and then, surprisingly, here! Up until a couple of years ago I cared very little about law and the Supreme Court, and now wish I had started learning about this fascinating area decades ago. Sarah Isgur and David French are just brilliant together. Do yourself a favor and check them out. Go ahead, be a nerd. You know you want to.

As a civil engineer (in a family of engineers) who went to law school at 49, I agree with David that STEM majors are great for those interested in law school. I would like to add one piece of advice I gave my own daughter. She was about to start her undergrad in environmental engineering when she called home to announce she was changing her major to political science. She said it was more interesting and she wanted to be a lawyer in the long run. Our advice to her was to choose a major which could pay her bills in case she needed a gap before law school or needed to pay her own way and take a minor in the one that’s more interesting. A lot changes in 4 years so my advice is to choose a major that can stand alone if you need it to! (She took our advice and wound up dropping the minor. Wound up going straight to law school on a full ride. Life’s funny!)

I used to listen to this regularly, but I have stopped caring what David French has to say. I don’t like Trump, but I find DF’s responses are no longer based in rational thinking, unless you presuppose that Trump is Satan incarnate. I am tired of trying to listen to him charitably. It hurts to come to this conclusion, but it takes too much energy to continue trying. I enjoy Sara’s perspective on legal issues.

David French is a fraud. Talk about a person with zero integrity. He purports to be a conservative and is anything but that. What real conservative who cares about America would ever vote for Kamala Harris? he's never been genuine whatsoever, but this is the icing on the cake. What a joke.

If I could get all of Sarah’s commentary without having to endure/support the ongoing David French grift, that’d be great. Four stars for Sarah. None for David. Willing to reassess if—when—he stops calling himself a conservative. For now, I’m out. Also, pretty weird of late having these two claim to be originalists and then repeatedly advocate for things like consequentialism and tiers of scrutiny. Originalists until it’s hard, I guess.

To answer David’s question in the latest episode, the stink eye is beyond the side eye.

I’m an independent who leans left (and a lawyer), and this is my favorite podcast! I appreciate how they are able to (relatively) quickly explain decisions and put them into the context of overall legal trends. They are civil towards all and well-reasoned. That’s not to say I agree with everything they say (Sarah especially has some blind spots that can be frustrating to see in someone of her intelligence) but I always end an episode better informed than I was before.

Sarah can be frustrating at times but she’s generally correct in her opinions and predictions. Amazingly smart and well produced—in my top three “must listen” podcasts

Really appreciate David’s thoughtful and not ideological analysis of key legal issues. However, it’s clear that Sarah is solely motivated by protecting Trump’s conduct at this point. Either she wants to avoid scrutiny for having worked for Trump, or, even worse, wants to preserve a call option to join the next Trump administration. Most of Sarah’s arguments are no longer on principle but rather a reverse engineering of what makes Trump look least criminal and corrupt. Textualism and originalism - all good if it helps Trump. If not, then find a different argument that works!

David is such a voice of judicial reason.

This podcast masquerades as objective but both hosts are apologists for the conservative legal movement. Tread very carefully.

Full disclosure, I consider myself a political moderate who leans slightly left. Sara and David provide engaging content on Supreme Court from a conservative perspective. Relative to the current state of conservative politics, this podcast provides good faith analysis of legal/political issues and engages with the merits of both sides. But given the current state of conservative politics, this is not saying much. In particular, I found Sara’s assertion that the upshot of the liberal’s dissent in Jarkesy is that the executive can divest criminal defendants jury trial rights, if a public right is involved, to be uninformed at best. Sara should know that the 6th Amendment, which, unlike the 7th Amendment, provides that the right to jury trials in criminal cases is categorical.