Trump and Vance Pick a Fight with the Pope

You know, one thing I love about summertime is how easy everything can feel. The days are a little more relaxed. I find myself reaching for the same comfortable go-anywhere clothing again and again. And that's why I keep coming back to Quince. They focus on well-made essentials that naturally become those everyday staples you actually live in all season long. Quince's 100% European linen pants and shirts are breathable. They're easy to throw on. And the summer upgrade your rotation needs starts at just 34.

Their teas are soft enough to live in all day, and the lightweight cotton sweaters are exactly what you want when summer nights get a little cool. Everything at Quince is priced 50 to 80 percent less than similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen, so you're paying for exceptional quality, not brand markup. And it's not just clothing. Quince has become a trusted favorite for everything from home to travel to everyday essentials. I have been living in the linen pants from Quince. I have worn them to the beach, to the pool, also out to a nice dinner. They work in all of those settings.

Make your summer wardrobe easier. Go to quince.com slash LRC for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns, now available in Canada, too. That's QI-N-C.com slash L-R-C for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash LRC. Support comes from Lacey, presenting their summit on July 14th and 15th. Register today and learn how we can help make cleaner air and climate innovation a legacy of the 2028 games. Tickets at laCi.l-a-slash road to 2028. Hey, everybody, I just want to take a minute here to remind you that left, right, and center is made possible by you.

We don't have a mega sponsor. We're not owned by some behemoth corporation. We're not produced by a major network. We are funded by the community. The idea is that even though the show is free, those. who can choose to fund it because you use it. You might even rely on it. You might even say you love it.

So right now, we are here with a reminder. If left, right and center has become a part of your week, if it's helped you see other perspectives, maybe giving you greater empathy, or maybe just help you understand the issues that are shaping our world better, we hope you'll consider giving back with a donation. Do it right now before you move on to the next thing

on your to-do list. We want to keep making this show for you, and this is how we do it. Go to kCRW.com slash give and shout out our show in the comment field. I really, really appreciate it. Thank you so much. And now on to left, right and center.

Welcome to left, right and center, everybody. I'm David Green. You know, President Trump has been struggling with a battle on Earth, and he's made things a lot harder now by taking his fights to the heavens as well. He has gotten into a very public spat over Iran, with none other than the Pope. President Trump took interest in something Pope Leo said during evening prayers.

It was a plea for peace. Dear brothers and sisters, they are certainly binding responsibilities that fall to the leaders of nations. To them, we cry out. Stop. It is time for peace. Seat at the table of dialogue and mediation, not at the table where rearmament is planned

and deadly actions are decided. You probably know, noticed the Pope did not mention any country or name any world leaders there. And yet, Pope Leo said things that are wrong. He was very much against what I'm doing with regard to Iran. And you cannot have a nuclear Iran. Pope Leo would not be happy with the end result. You have hundreds of millions of people dead. Then, of course, the president posted a now deleted AI pick of himself as a Jesus-like figure healing the sick. He's also used social media to go on the saying the Pope is, quote, weak on crime and terrible for foreign policy.

President Trump also wrote, if I wasn't in the White House, Leo wouldn't be in the Vatican. Pope Leo struck a different tone when he was speaking to reporters. I do not look at my role as being political, politician. I don't want to get into what to make with him. I don't think that the message of the gospel is meant to be abused in the way that some people are doing. And I will continue to speak out loudness. against war. President Trump, I think we can say claim some level of moral authority when he launched the war in Iran. But what does this fight say about his struggles to maintain it? Moelethy is here

on the left. On the right, we have Mike Dupke back. He's a veteran GOP communication strategist. Mike was White House Director of Communications under President Trump in 2017. Mo, let me start with you. Pope Leo there saying he doesn't want to be a politician. But I feel like one thing I felt over the last days as he's been thrust into this position. Is Pope Leo maybe the most powerful politician in the world at this moment? I think the Pope is doing what popes are supposed to do, and that's being a moral voice for the world's Catholics. And popes tend to generally be anti-war, at least in the modern era. And so he's being incredibly consistent, delivering a message of peace. The fact that the president heard a message of peace and decided it was a personal slight and then used it to try to attack the popes as a whole hell of a lot more about the president than it does about the pope.

The popes are influential. Catholics across the world look to them for moral clarity, for moral and theological guidance. And so in that sense, sure, the Pope has a lot of power. But I've been impressed isn't the right word because it's sort of what I expect. The Pope's not taking the president's bait. The president's taking his own bait and digging a bigger hole for himself. Is it a bigger hole, Mike? And what is the hole if President Trump is digging a bigger hole? It is a strange spot for the president to be.

And I mean, much like you don't pick a fight with those who buy ink by the barrel, you know, that old adage, don't pick a fight with newspapers. I mean, I wouldn't pick a fight with somebody who's got a hotline to God. And that seems to be what the president has done. We are in this era that everybody who comments is an enemy, and we have to respond. And I don't think he had to respond here. To most point, the Pope has a level of moral authority. We've seen a Pope get political before with Pope John.

Paul II, aiding both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in their fight with the Soviet Union. He brought a moral authority to the argument against communism. The Prime Minister of Italy herself said, and I'm paraphrasing here, it is right and normal for the Pope to call for peace and condemn war. And she's an ally. She's an ally of the president. And she's an ally of President Trump's. And that's exactly where I'm going with this. So this particular fight that the president has picked, weirdly with an American Pope, which I never thought I would see, and I'm saying that as a good Presbyterian, this fight that the president has picked is creating more divide with his allies than I think it has anything to do or any effect on the Iranian regime.

So it's probably time to move on. Well, it could have been time to move on, but then your vice president gets involved. JD Vance, and granted, I mean, this came up at this event he's doing, but vice president, JD Vance, has this event with Turning Point USA. And, I mean, I don't know any other word to use to describe JD Vance's tone, but lecturing. It sounded like he was lecturing the Pope. If you're going to opine on matters of theology, you've got to be careful. You've got to make sure it's anchored in the truth. And that's one of the things that I try to do. and it's certainly something I would expect from the clergy, whether they're Catholic or Protestant. I mean, what is JD Vance doing?

Like if he wanted to use the moment to lay out an argument for the policy in Iran right now that is adjacent to a Pope calling for peace, like I'd be okay with that, but I'm just reading the words again. The Vice President of the United States tells the Pope, if you're going to opine on matters of theology, you've got to be careful. What is in JD Vance's head? the job of the Pope is to opine on matters of theology. That's what he's supposed to do. There's nothing about this that makes sense. Well, look, I think the vice president really should have emphasized what the president did in the earlier clip you played, which is nuclear weapons in the hands of the Ayatollah and the Supreme Leaders, the Revolutionary Guard, whatever in Iran was more dangerous for the world and needed to be stopped. I don't know that those are matters of theology.

what those are differences in opinion as to what the greatest threat to the world is. Sometimes it does take force to make change. That doesn't mean the Catholic Church or the Pope should support it, or we should expect the Pope or the Catholic Church to support it. Both can be the true at the same time. So I'm not sure where the vice president was going with that. He's a recent convert to Catholicism. I think he felt like he needed to make a point.

but I'm with you, David, on this one. I'm not sure why he felt he had to make that particular point. Look, the president, he has done well politically with evangelicals, and he's done well politically with Catholics in both in 2016 and in 2024. Right. Those communities are really unsettled, to Mike's earlier point, they're really unsettled by these developments over the past week. evangelicals know in their heart of hearts that it's a bad idea for one to depict themselves as

the Messiah. And yet this president put out that AI-generated self-mesionic image of himself. He retweeted it. And look, Catholics, even those who support the president, tend to support the Pope at the same time. I think he's totally mistaken if he thinks he's going to force them to choose between him over the Pope. And what's really interesting to me about the vice president's comments at the Turning Point USA conference, an organization for young conservatives. Friendly audience, one would think. A lot of reporting that the audience was less friendly than it normally is that there were a lot

of people in the room who were unsettled by the war in Iran who did not like picking the fight with the Pope. the Catholic Church is seeing a membership boom right now in the United States. And where the biggest growth is is among young Catholics. So like the vice president's comments were pretty awful on their face, but he didn't read the room, right? To say this in front of a room of young people, many of whom were young Catholics, I think left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. You know, this is not the first time and won't be the last time that President Trump, you know, retweets or post something that just like is absurd and over the top. I mean, obviously, I'm stating the obvious.

But, Mike, I wonder, is there some particular political risk here in terms of the base for Trump that involves a lot of Catholics, a lot of evangelicals? Like, that's it. It's hard to take back something like that, putting your own face in the mold of Jesus. I mean, it's an image to remember as much as the president tried to dismiss it and say that's not what he intended. Like, could this have a lasting impact? I think picking a fight with the Pope is going to have more of a lasting impact on the debate than one meme. And I want to go back to what Mo was saying, though, because I think this is a really important point. We talked about young men in the Manosphere going for Donald Trump in 2024.

Yeah. That is the group that seems to be most upset about the conflict in Iran. right now. CNN had some reporting that seniors are still with the president in terms of support. He's only lost like two points of support, which is within the margin of error. But younger, younger conservatives are the concern here. But younger conservatives are the group that when you look at the president's poll numbers, that's part of the group that's pulling this down. And to most point, at the same time, young men are also the fastest growing segment, if I understand this correct,

within the U.S. Catholic Church. So you've got this dual role that's happening. And I think the president does need to be careful with that. So I'm more worried about picking a fight with the Pope than I am a meme or two. I know you're going to hate when I say this, David, but that's a media creation because we're drawing attention to it. I don't hate that. I would never talk about something like this on this show. No, I don't hear what you're saying.

You're making a good point. Yes. But my point is really here that this segment of the popular. that has pulled back at support of the president, partly because of the actions in Iran, are also the group that's looking for some level of certainty. They're looking for something, and that might explain whether flocking to the Catholic Church at the moment. Well, we would love to hear what you all think about anything we've talked about and anything

we're talking about on the show today, and I love to give all of you listening the opportunity to engage with one another, across the aisle, across your kitchen table, perhaps. If you have something to say, get on the left, right, and center, substack. You can sign up for a weekly inbox reminder to hone up on the show and get to talking to one another and debating. Join on the latest discussion by going to KCRWLRC.com. That is kCRwlrc.com. Mike mentioned the latest developments in Iran and how voters and people are feeling about it. We're going to talk about some of those latest developments right after this break.

you're listening to Left, Right, and Center. Do you ever get something in your head? Like, I would love a cashmere sweater, but it has to be affordable, like one you can actually get at a good price? Well, I've been looking around and have actually found some options on What Not. What Not is the largest dedicated live shopping platform, whether it's beauty, collectibles, electronics, luxury fashion, even cookies. Anyone can sell, whether you're,

business is big, small, or yet to exist. People selling on What Not sell 10 times more than on other major marketplaces. That's because you're not just listing products. You're building real connections with buyers. What Not buyers also spend more than an hour a day in the app. They're not just browsing. They're engaged, buying, and coming back. You go live, show off products in real time, and turn what you love into real income.

Time to shop and sell on What Not. Search What Not W-H-A-T-N-O-T in the App Store. Download, and you can start selling right away. You know, I've started a few of my own businesses. I'm sure many of you have tried this as well, and you know how hard it is to really get out there on your own. If you've been sitting on your own business idea but worried about what it's going to be like to do it, Shopify makes it easy to make it happen.

Shopify has everything you need to start selling, and it's ready from day one. And because Shopify handles the setup and checkout, you have more time to focus on growing your business and the tools to do it. Speaking of checkout, Shopify has special features to help more of your first customers finish their purchase. And when they come back, their details are already saved. One tap, and they're done. Shopify powers millions of businesses worldwide from household names like Mattel and Jim Shark to small businesses that are just getting started. With Shopify, nothing stands between your idea and a real business. So go make it one.

Start your free trial at Shopify.com slash LRC. The United States is about to mark its 250th anniversary. And so on the Global Story podcast from the BBC, we're telling surprising tales of American influence on the world stage and in ordinary people's lives all across the globe. We have this ability to export our story, and a lot of people have bought it. I feel like the American dream is alive, but not well.

From the BBC, it's the United States at 250. Listen, wherever you get your podcasts or find us on YouTube. All right. We're back again with left, right and center. I'm David Green. On the right, we have GOP strategist Mike Dupke with us. He was White House Communications Director for President Trump in 2017. And Moalathie is here, as always on the left. The ceasefire and peace talks between the United States and Iran, safe to say, started off pretty uneasy. But now, after the first round of talks failed, they're just hard. The two sides seem further apart than when they started. And President Trump has now turned up the pressure by ordering

a naval blockade of Iran's ports in the strait of Hormuz. This is the president speaking to reporters. What's the endgame? Is it to force Iran back to the negotiating table? Is it to open up the straits so the gas prices ultimately come down? Maybe everything. I mean, both of those things, certainly, and more. We can't let a country blackmail or extort the world. opening the shade of Hormuz, of course, has been a key goal for everybody. But what does he gain now by closing it off? And who might be winning, who might be losing? The White House argument is that shutting off access to those ports will put a lot of pressure and create more desperation on the part of Iran to actually come to the negotiating table and perhaps agree to some of the terms that the United

States has laid out. But Mike, I want to start with Trump saying that the end game is may be everything. You know, as you were saying, a lot of particularly young conservatives are wondering where the president is on this and what the strategy is. I feel like the demands should be crystal clear unless I'm missing something. I mean, could we read this ambiguity as a negotiating tactic and to have some faith and patience here? Because on the surface, that just sounded like a frustrated leader.

Look, I think you need to give a little bit of wide berth here in terms of where these negotiations are going to go. And the president and the Secretary of State have said multiple times, getting control of nuclear material within Iran is a stated goal. Getting Iran to agree not to enrich further uranium is a stated goal. Taking out the Iranian Navy, taking out the production facilities for further armaments, all stated goals. Some of these have already been accomplished. So I think he left some ambiguity because it has been a really hard negotiation with this regime. At the same time, he's saying that, we are also sending 10,000 more Marines and troops to the region.

And Iran has ratcheted up their rhetoric and saying we're going to now not just target vessels in the Arabian Sea, but also in the Red Sea. So both sides are escalating, I would hope, to de-escalate at the negotiating table. And that may be possibly what's happening here. The bigger thing for me, and this is the, I don't know, for those fans of Game of Thrones that might be listening to us, I think a lot about what Littlefinger, who is a character in that show said, which is chaos is a ladder. And what he meant by that really is, the more chaos that's out there for those who can capitalize on chaos, the sky is the limit. And this is how he grew his power within that story. And I think for Donald Trump, chaos has been a ladder in most of his career.

It has been very difficult for others to keep up with Donald Trump. He does thrive in chaos. And he finally may have met his match because I think Iran is the kings of chaos. For 47 years, they have directed Hezbollah, Hamas, Houdi rebels, others to do their bidding and created a level of chaos that they have now taken to the Strait of Hormuz and their Mosaic defense and firing on not just military installations in the UAE, but also Amazon delivery depots. They have matched his chaos with their chaos. I don't know what our pathway forward is in terms of the peace negotiations and how everybody

walks away from this. But I'm actually glad that the president is not putting extra pressure on whatever's going to happen in Pakistan, because I think this is a difficult road for both the United States and Iran to navigate to get to peace. Why are you glad that the president's not putting pressure on these peace talks in Pakistan? I mean, just because he benefits from more chaos and let's just keep the chaos going? No, because I'm not sure what the end game is here. I think we've gotten to a point where we've accomplished the degradation of their Navy,

of their military, their Air Force. I don't know at the end of the day what a secession of hostilities is going to look like. and I'm not sure where we can get there in a timely manner if the president had extra demands on top of this. So guess what I'm saying here is I think the vague answer he gave to that question is probably the right place to be. Mo, do you get Mike's point that the vagary is the best case scenario right now? I don't see another option right now other than get out in this war.

Look, I think Mike's point about chaos is so interesting to me. Yeah. Because the president has, you know, his North star, at least in terms of politics, going back a decade, has been chaos. He personally thrives. He seems to like to govern through chaos. Yet if anything was learned in his loss in 2020, it's that the American people have a low threshold for chaos. I think they wanted Joe Biden to come in because he promised to be the grownup in the room. And the chaos followed him.

And he created some other chaos. And so people rejected Democrats. Right now, Donald Trump's approval ratings are lower than they have ever been because people are exhausted by the chaos. And Iran knows that, that the political pressures in the United States, as we have approach a midterm election, help them. They operate on a different playing field and a different timeline than we do. We think in terms of weeks and months and years, they think in terms of decades and generations. So they can wait us out. They have already proven to be far more resilient than I think this administration expected them to be. And sure, we have degraded, the United States

military has degraded their military capabilities, but degraded is not the same as eliminated. The president can keep trying to do this game, or he could just find the off-ramp. But it's hard to find an off-ramp when you're not sure where the destination is. And I don't think they know what their destination is. I don't think they have a good sense of what the overall objective is. And so this folly continues. Well, the folly continues. And I mean, I'm interested in some of the hidden costs of this continuing sort of chaos agent against chaos agent.

The longer this goes, I, you know, I think about this Navy blockade. And again, it's, you know, it's supposed to be, if we listen to White House, targeted to punish Iran. You have China, though, that, you know, moves a lot of oil through the straight, publicly saying this is dangerous and irresponsible. But then Charlie Campbell, who's the editor at large at time, he did some interesting reporting about how China could actually benefit from all of this in ways we're not fully contemplating because the action that the U.S. is taking in the Gulf is making an argument that national security can trump like treaty. law when it comes to bodies of water. And, I mean, you talked to some experts who said that this could lead China to be able to start taking military action in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, which is terrifying. But it leads to me like this larger question, Mike, back to the chaos agent.

It's like the precedent that Donald Trump is setting, that I mean U.S. foreign policy can be more about being a chaos agent to reach its goals. I'm just afraid that it could open a lot of doors for other countries who like, okay, Like, it's open season for chaos, and that's really scary. President Chief China did say recently that we need to respect international law. And all I could think about is I hope he really believes that, because that's the only thing that's going to save Taiwan. To your point, we are opening up to a certain extent Pandora's box when we take action that creates situations like the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. for centuries.

This strait has been open waterway. Now we've got, you know, the Iranians running a toll booth on one end and the Americans blockading it on the other. So we've got to solve for that problem. And I think that might be the lasting issue. But we're saying, how do we get out of this? I think the negotiation of opening the Strait of Hormuz back up is probably the most difficult item that the president and the American negotiators

are going to have with the Iranians. That is a problem that is of our own making, unfortunately. A hundred percent. I mean, when you look at where we are now, what, six weeks in or so, you've got the same regime is still in power. Iran still has its nuclear capabilities. And the Strait of Hormuz, which was once open, which was open before this, is now closed. There is no scenario right now where we can say we are meeting strategic objectives that may have called for us to do this.

I do not see a single strategic victory yet. I've seen military tactical victories. The U.S. military has once again proven its dominance. But strategically, we are actually in a worse place today than we were before we launched this. We've either got to come up with a new narrative or we need to end this. But I think Mike's right that now that Iran has actually seized control of the straight, they hold more cards than the president would like us to believe they do. Right. You're listening to left, right and center from KCRW.

We've been talking about the developments in the war with Iran and the President's, President Trump's naval blockade and kind of what is the path forward. But I want to turn sort of more to global politics in general and some developments we've seen. I want you guys to check me because I know that all politics are not interconnected and we can't always draw big conclusions from a few moments. But I think it's worth talking about, for one thing, what we saw in Hungary. You know, the far right prime minister, Viktor Orban, who JD Vance went and campaigned for. was ousted. But then you have north of our border in Canada, the liberal party secured majority control of that government after its own elections this week. And, you know, before

Donald Trump took office, there were a lot of people saying that conservatives were in a very strong position in Canada. And now that doesn't seem to be the case. Mike, are you seeing the beginning of a trend in our global politics that might be away from far right leaders, individuals, politicians, and perhaps something that sort of the magasphere should be taking note of, or is it too early to say something like that? Well, I think it's too early to say something like that. And I actually did do a little bit of a deeper dive on where the more, we can call them, far right, more nationalistic parties are, especially in Europe and who's trending up,

who's trending down. And when you look across the swath of Europe, it's kind of a mixed bag. We've got Austria and France and their more nationalist parties trending upwards. We've got Germany kind of with a very strong showing of their more nationalistic party, but kind of in a holding pattern. And then in Italy, you've got the prime minister who I mentioned earlier. She's from the far right party and she's holding power. In the Netherlands, it's trending down.

Although she in Italy is creating distance between her and Donald Trump, interestingly, and also not supporting his war with Iran. So even though she is a far-right politician, maybe there's something else going on. There is something else going on. And this is actually where I want to go with this in Hungary. I think Viktor Orban's problem was less his nationalist policies internally and more his foreign policy of warming up to Vladimir Putin and Russia, coupled with terrible economic times in the country. So if there is one theme that I think maybe over top all of this, it's that A word. affordability. And we're seeing in countries where the economy is not going well, the incumbent

party is doing poorly. And so I don't know that it's a far right, far left thing. It's more a economics issue. And we're seeing throw the bums out. If that is a ideology, I think that is the rising ideology across Europe and, you know, the rest of the world right now. Well, what's interesting you're saying there, Mike. I mean, when it comes to affordability, when it comes to, you know, people not feeling economic improvements that were promised by, you know, far right leaders. Mo, I wonder what conclusion, if any, you draw from that, maybe both in the United States as a warning signal to President Trump as we're heading into this election season. But like, is there something about populist far right leaders who present, you know, a really persuasive, dynamic case for change? but if people don't feel it at some point, they start to move in another direction. I mean, I think if the politics of the past decade plus tells us anything, it is that globally there is a complete and total collapse of trust in institutions. You can go back to the Brexit vote back in 2015 to see how that has played out

electorally in Europe and then in the United States. when you have that kind of a collapse of trust in institutions, you are looking for relief from somewhere. Enter the angry populist borderline authoritarian, borderline in some places, outright authoritarian and other, right, who basically said, screw the institutions, put all your trust in me, and people were willing to give it a shot. But if you don't deliver, then you become the institution. You become the institution that people are rebelling against. In Viktor Orban's case, couple that with 100% agree that people in Hungary do not like either Vladimir Putin Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump.

And people said, we don't want. We see what's happening to the South, and we don't want that happening here. And they pushed back. It wasn't enough at the time to win an outright majority in Parliament, but he got it this time. I do think that there is a pushback against this style of authoritarianism and sort of strongmen leaders who are saddled with all this corruption, but aren't deletionism. You think back in our own history, a leader like Huey Long back in the day in Louisiana, who was an incredibly corrupt politician, but he at least delivered for people. And so they were willing to deliver for him.

They're not delivering right now. And that's why you see Trump's numbers plummeting, why you see Viktor Orban lose. I'm with Mike. Too soon to call it a trend. Nigel Farage is still leading the polls in the UK. The reform parties poised if there were to. to be an election now, it might actually be the majority party in the UK. But there is a sense out there that people are rebelling against failed promises by authoritarian leaders.

We can't declare a trend, but we can at least say that we're learning lessons about the context for our politics right now. Yeah, that affordability is important. And when you're a leader like Donald Trump, when you're addressing it, you can succeed. And when you're not addressing it, you can be very vulnerable. Fair? I think that's very fair. Yeah, very fair. But, you know, it comes to promises made, promises kept. If the promises ain't kept, you know, you're going to lose support.

If we learn anything about this, this is, to me at least, this is less about ideology, this is less about any of that, when the establishment, to most other point about institutions, and maybe institutions have degraded because of a whole bunch of things, our media structure has gone, has diversified, and has become more fluted. flat than vertical. We've had, you know, COVID. It was a shock to the system. Whatever it may be, when you've got a, when you've got politicians who become the establishment and don't deliver, people are looking for something new. And I, that's a truism and a trend that I think we can look back for centuries and count on. Guys, I hope you won't be offended. I am going to kick you out

because I'm bringing Sarah Isgar in. She's out on book tour, and we're going to talk about her book after the break. But no offense, Mike Dupke and Moelatha, you are the best. And thank you. Thank you, David. Tell that to Sarah. I don't say this to everyone. I mean, but maybe I do.

All right, we will be back. We're going to bring Sarah Isgar in to talk about her new book all about the U.S. Supreme Court when we come back with more left, right, and center. Support comes from Lacey. Lacey's Road to 2008 summit at the Intuit Dome on July 14th and 15th will bring together policymakers, industry executives, community leaders, team USA athletes, and others working to accelerate climate innovation, action, and investment in greater Los Angeles. Help make cleaner air a legacy of the 2028 games.

Register to attend at laCi.lai.org slash road to 2028. All right, welcome back to left, right, and center, everyone. I'm David Green, and I now want to bring in a familiar voice from our show. It is Sarah Isgar. She has been out on book tour. Her new book, Last Branch Standing, a potentially surprising, occasionally witty journey inside today's Supreme Court, was released just a few days ago. We all know that Sarah is not just our usual panelist on the right. She is our resident lawyer, and I will say this, the combination of legal acumen and wittiness that she brings.

to our show all the time. It just spills onto the pages of this book. Sarah, congratulations. It's really wonderful. Fun to read your words. It's like a different feel than talking to you, but your personality just comes through in the same way. Wait till you try the audio book. That I feel like I'm used to.

That'll be the serious girl I'm used to. Well, I mean, it doesn't surprise me that you have taken this imposing, intimidating institution and used sort of a breezy, accessible, sometimes funny style to take us into this place that feels unfamiliar. And I really got to know the justices as human beings. I mean, you took almost like a baseball card bio approach to telling us who they are, like Amy Coney Barrett's binge movies Meet the Parents, Elena Kagan's favorite treat is Froyo. I think my favorite detail was, if I have this right, learning that Sonia Sotomayor at one point in her life was a,

bouncer, but she didn't want to allow girls into the bar for free without paying cover, as was the routine for other bouncer because she felt that that was sex discrimination. Yeah, she got fired for that. And I love it because that is me. Like, I would absolutely be like, no, girls have to pay because feminism. Right. Funny I bring up bouncer is because you had your own version of being a bouncer. When you started getting obsessed with the court, I think during law school at Harvard, right,

you were worried that no one was policing the lines that were forming overnight to get into oral arguments, and you decided that you were going to take that on yourself? Yeah. So the Heller case was the first major case on the Second Amendment in 100 years. And I decided to camp out in front of the court to see the argument, but quickly became apparent that this was like Lord of the Flies out there. And like, this is why governments are instituted among men. and so I created a sheet with a number assigned to everyone and a name, and you'd have to come check in with me when you got into line. We had rules about how long you could be gone for the

bathroom, and I still have those sheets of paper, and I was number six. In total, they let about, between 40 and 50 people are going to get in into those public seats. Number seven became a lifelong friend, and I did not tell him that I had this story in the book or that he was mentioned. in it. And so he just texted me this week and was like, oh my God. I made the book. That's incredible. No, and you not only met that friend as you were taking these trips and beginning to get obsessed with both the Supreme Court and also the Federalist Society where you met a lot of young conservatives when you were coming to Washington. You met your husband these days, right? Yeah. And I write about this because I think the left is often baffled by the success

of the Federalist Society. They're like, oh, they must be doing super-partisan. and things or their operatives. The Federalist Society stands for three things only. One, and I know this because I used to have to say it before every event. One, the state exists to preserve freedom. Two, separation of powers is essential to our form of government. And three, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is and not what the law should be. So why has it been so successful and why has the left not been able to replicate that with their own three principles? And the answer is because the Federalist Society is a social network. It was like Facebook before Facebook. It's how all sorts of people met their spouses. So this is really weird,

David, but we had new neighbors move into the house next door to us. They're a Federalist Society couple too. They met at a Fed Sock lunch in D.C. in like 1985. They're like an OG couple. But, you know, there's like Fed Sock babies now all over the place. Your boss, you'll have met through that. Your spouse, your best friend. And so it's this, you know, social network that's far stronger than I think any network would be if it were a partisan one. I want to talk about some of the things that we really learn from your book as you're giving us this tour. And one is this incredible reminder that the court's constitutional role, if they're taking it seriously, they're not deciding issues.

they're deciding who gets to decide issues, which I think is really important to remember. They are literally never deciding the issue. Even when it's a constitutional case, all they're deciding is whether this is a decision that can only be up to a super majority of Americans. So like when they say that every individual has a right to keep and bear arms, they're actually just saying it's up to a super majority of Americans to decide this question. A previous supermajority when they ratified the Second Amendment gave this language. If you want to change that, that's just fine with us.

Our only job is to read the contract that was agreed to, so to speak, and say who decided that question. And so often, you know, when I think of the big cases this term, the question of whether Mississippi can accept mail-in ballots five days after election day, or the question of whether the administration can prevent people from applying for asylum when they get to the southern border. Those are just questions about what Congress said in a statute. The only thing the Supreme Court's deciding is like, oh, this is up to Congress, and we're going to read what Congress wrote. We're going to try to come up with our best interpretation of it. But if we're wrong, if Congress doesn't agree with the interpretation we came up with,

they can just amend the law in question. The problem that we have right now and the reason that the court is in the center of so many of our fights that we're also mad about it that people, you know, are angry about the court and think it's partisan is because nobody believes that Congress will do that role anymore. And nobody believes that we have the power to ratify new amendments to the Constitution. So instead of the court being that part of this dialogue, you know, the counter-majoritarian institution that protects minority rights like the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment, that could be overcome by a supermajority or changed by an act of Congress. But because we don't think of it anymore like that, we think the Supreme Court's the last word. And then the pressure is going to rise because there is no political accountability. People don't have the ability to voice frustration.

And so the steam just builds and builds. And I get that. It's just that you're blaming the wrong branch for that pressure building. You're thinking it's the Supreme Court's fault when in fact it's Congress's fault. It's our fault for not even trying to ratify amendments anymore. Well, and that's what really came across. Like, when I first heard, when you first brought up the title of your book, I was thinking it was going to be kind of making the case that this branch has survived and remained strong. And it's the most important branch.

It's really a story of like two branches that are failing in many ways. Like an executive branch that's becoming too powerful and throwing executive orders around, you know, like their footballs. A legislative branch that's not doing its job at all. So you have this third branch that is standing that people are putting all this pressure on. And that's not what they want to be at all. How is that reality in Washington changing the role and image of the court? Yeah, I mean, the better title for the book might have been last branch standing for now. Yeah.

Because the court is really a lagging indicator of our politics for all sorts of reasons. It is supposed to be as far removed from our politics as it can get compared to the other two branches, right? Congress is supposed to be the most responsive. We elect them every two years. The presidency is supposed to be a couple steps removed. One, we only elect one every four years. And two, there's the electoral college that was meant to sort of be this buffer. The court is supposed to, you know, yes, it's appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. But then they sort of become trapped in amber, like Encino Man, frozen in time. And they stay on for life. You know, it's very hard to remove them. And that's the point because the court, when it's doing its job well, is supposed to stand athwart those other two branches.

But when those other two branches aren't doing their jobs, the court as a counter-majoritarian institution kind of feels wrong, right? Because like, where's our chance to have say in public policy issues? And then we like, you know, yell at clouds and the Supreme Court. And I go into a lot of the history in the book about why that happened, how we got here. here, how easy it is to fix. I mean, it really is up to us voters. And yes, there's some things we can do to change the incentives for Congress. But the court is doing its best as well to do that by telling presidents no to government by executive order, whether it's Biden with student loan debt forgiveness, Trump with tariffs or federalizing the National Guard, or Alien Enemy's Act,

or almost certainly birthright citizenship. All of those are just questions for Congress. The answer the court is saying isn't, oh my God, nobody can do this ever. It's just who decides? Not the president. It's Congress. And they've been saying that now to several presidents in a row of different political parties with the hope that we, the voters, will start realizing that the problem is Congress and that we will start electing people to that body who actually want to do something other than make Instagram reels. Wouldn't that be nice? You do set up a framing for how we should view this court that I found very helpful. I think, as you said, it is so easy to fall into this narrative that we have a conservative majority court that is like six conservatives and three

liberals. And what you tell us is it's much better to think of this as three, three and three. Why is that? And what do you mean by that? So the ideological bend of the court doesn't line up with our politics exactly, but there obviously is one, right? There's more conservative justices and there's more liberal justices. But it's not very good at predicting the outcomes of the cases. So 15% of the cases last term were decided along ideological lines with all of the liberals and dissent. Not a lot. That's not a lot. 15%. I mean, that's 85% of the time you would be wrong if you guessed the outcome based on ideology alone. Forty-two percent of the cases, nearly half, were decided unanimously. That's about average. It goes a little bit up to 50.

sometimes depending on the term. And that complicates it, right? It means you're missing something because you're not able to predict. And my argument is look at Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. They literally went to the same high school with the same history teacher. It's amazing. By the way, is still teaching today. Isn't that cool? Setting the bar high, though, for students, like thinking, like, if I don't become a Supreme Court justice, I've failed. You're not going to be Mr. Oaks'C's favorite alum. That's for sure. Exactly. But yes, you were saying Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, yeah. Yeah, they clerked for the Supreme Court for the same justice in the same term. They, you know, both have senior jobs in the W administration.

They are federalist society lab-grown justices, you know? And yet, they only agree with each other 50% of the time. It's a coin flip, even though they're both conservative guys. And so I try to explain in the book why. And it's because one of them is an institutionalist, an incrementalist. That's Brett Kavanaugh. He thinks this of like a middle school group project where, you know, you all work on it. But then when you're turning something into the teacher, it's one diorama, you know, about like dinosaurs in the Cretaceous period or whatever.

And Justice Gorsuch is like, no, my voice, it's just me. My only job here is to say yes or no. It doesn't matter what the rest of you are doing. Precedent, meh. And I don't need to be incremental. If the law is what it is by God, I don't care what the consequences are. because Congress can jump in and fix that or a super majority through the amendment process, it's not my job to worry about how radical the shift may be. All of the justices are along that

spectrum too. So Justice Gorsuch and Jackson are actually together on that end of the spectrum, and they're together in concurrences a lot, even though they're ideologically about as far apart as you can get. Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan are very close to each other on that spectrum. even though, again, ideologically, they're not particularly close bedfellows, but Brett Kavanaugh is more likely to agree with Elena Kagan and Sotomayor, by the way, than with Gorsuch or Jackson. Which is amazing. But it doesn't fit our partisan narrative.

So nobody talks about it. And we ignore the cases that don't fit the narrative of the court. Because they don't feel newsworthy because they're not in this sort of partisan narrative that we have. Yeah. You name the three, three and three that you say is a better way to look at this than six and three. Just so just who everyone knows. And you've got the sort of two-dimensional axis, so they're both like, you know, along one line and up and down. But it's Elena Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor are sitting at a lunch table together.

The Chief Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, they're, you know, the jocks and the high school cafeteria sitting together because they're the deciders. They're going to be in the majority more than 90% of the time. And then the conservative honey badgers, they're sitting together, but they're not talking actually that much. They're kind of reading their own books. You know, one's like reading 1984 and one's reading the fountain. head. That's Thomas Samuel Alito and Gorsuch. My last question for you, do you really listen to oral arguments sometimes in the shower? Like you can't even give yourself a break to take a shower when oral arguments are happening?

It's just so efficient this way. And it like, it means I can have a nice long shower. Maybe I can put like a mask in my hair or something because that has to sit for like 10 minutes. I enjoy it. It's become a really a tradition. Like for the biggest oral arguments, I bring my phone in shower. I put it in a little plastic baggy and it's just, you know, me and the justices hanging out. That is wonderful. All right, well, you and I are finishing off the show this week, so we get to rant and rave. So what's on your mind from recent book tour and your travels? So I say this rant more out of sadness than anger, but after spending several days in New York and having several taxicab misadventures, I just long for the era when when someone had a taxi cab

medallion, they knew the city backwards and forwards, and it was crazy. You could name like a random restaurant in Soho, and they'd be like, yep, on our way. Boom, they just take you there. I had a taxi cab driver head 10 minutes up towards Queens when I was trying to go to the financial district. And by the way, this was before I was doing the view. So like, we went 10 minutes the wrong direction. So that was 20 minutes added to the time. And I was having a total freak out that I was going to be late to the view. It happened again. where I was like, we're going to 47th. And he's like, 42nd.

I'm like, no, 47th. It's the, you know, hotel. And he's like, I think that hotel's on 42nd. I'm like, it's not on 42nd. He went past 47th. We couldn't get back around. It was going to be 25 minutes. So I ended up walking further than I would have if I had just not gotten in the cab in the first place.

But like, this is this knowledge base that we have lost as humans in New York taxi cab drivers. Encyclopedic. They used to actually like scan their brains. They could see that the visual spatial cortex of their brains were larger than the rest of us. I'm sad. I don't think it's true anymore. No, I do. I totally think you're right.

It's a tradition lost. Speaking of traditions that should not be lost, I would like to rave about ice looges, which for one thing, my friends and I love them, even though we're getting really old, we still, when we get together, my college roommates and I will go and order an ice luge for a party. It's hard to find, but there are still places that will make them. You know, you put the canal down the ice and have drinks from it. I know my, probably my friends are saying, please, why did you ever say this? But what we learn in the book is that there was an ice loose tradition among Supreme Court law clerks until a certain Chief Justice got involved. What happened? I was really proud of getting this story.

So the Supreme Court clerks hold a happy hour every Thursday. And each chambers host, they take turns hosting all nine chambers. And so, yes, one of the chambers had a. an ice luge. Everyone had a great time, maybe too good of a time, and someone snitched to the chief justice. And to this day, nobody's quite sure who did it. They initially blamed one of the staff secretaries, but the chief clerks defend her adamantly and that she would never, ever rat them out on the ice luge. But regardless, the next day, the chief sent out a memo to the entire court that banned ice luci's from the Supreme court.

And like the fact that he had to write that down, like the chief justice of the United States just brought me endless merriment and joy. I love that. Well, everyone out there go get Sarah's book. It's called Last Branch Standing. You will learn fun facts like that and also get an incredible tour of this institution. Sarah, congrats on the book. This is a lot of fun.

Thank you, David. Also want to thank Moelaiti and Mike Dupke, who you heard from earlier. in the show and the entire Left, Right and Center team. The show is produced by Leo Duran, our executive producers, Arnie Seipold. The show is recorded by Phil Richards and Nick Lampony. It was mixed by Nick Lampony. Todd M. Simon composed our theme music. Big thanks to Jason Munduck and So Good Media here in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, for hosting me again this week.

Left Right and Center is a co-production of KCRW and Fearless Media. We're distributed by PRX. I'm David Green. Come back next week for more Left, Right, and Center.

Download and subscribe at KCRW.com slash LRC, the KCRW app or wherever you find podcasts. Left, right, and center is produced and distributed by KCRW. Support comes from Lacey, presenting their summit on July 14th and 15th. Register today and learn how we can help make cleaner air and climate innovation a legacy of the 2028 games. Tickets at laCi. L-A-Slashrode to 2028. From PRX.