Part 1 (55 minutes):

The hosts take on one of the Supreme Court’s most famous decisions, Roe v. Wade. In this first episode of a two-part series, they look at the legal and factual origins of Roe v. Wade. They also discuss how Roe was weaponized by the conservative legal movement to rally against an interpretation of the Constitution that allows for flexibility in favor of a far more rigid approach.

• Apple Podcasts

• Stitcher

• Spotify

Part 2 (61 minutes):

In the second part of a two-episode series on abortion rights, the hosts discuss Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 case in which the Supreme Court made it easier for states to restrict abortion access so long as abortion regulations don’t create an “undue burden.” The vague standard set lawmakers on a new path of attacking abortion access and fueled anti-abortion groups’ efforts to spread stigma and misinformation, setting up Roe v. Wade for a death by a thousand cuts.

• Apple Podcasts

• Stitcher

• Spotify

(it's impossible to link to podcasts in a simple or easy way...if anyone has a better way of doing this I'm all ears...)

5-4 (pronounced "five to four", as in the vote total of a closely-divided court case from 9 justices) is one of my favorite podcasts. It's lawyers dissecting Supreme Court cases in a way that is very understandable to non-lawyers, from an explicitly and unabashedly left-wing perspective.

This is an extremely informative primer on the entire arc of abortion rights in the US, from the actual case everyone has heard of (Roe v Wade in the 1970s) to the case in the 1990s that actually superseded Roe and a case from last year that was seen as a victory because it upheld a previous case but it also contained a poison pill that significantly weakened that precedent.

For those not aware, packing the court in this context refers to expanding the size of the U.S. Supreme Court so that whoever's in power can nominate judges they prefer to the newly-created seats, thereby creating a favorable majority for them where there might not have been one previously. It was attempted once in 1937, but failed, and has not been attempted since.

As for term limits, Supreme Court justices have none; the position is for life. The reasoning for this is primarily so that they can't be influenced as easily for political gain, as they've already achieved the final step in their careers.

Personally, the concept of court-packing has worried me no matter who does it, because from what I can tell (though granted I've not researched this), the Supreme Court has thus far done a decent job of avoiding partisanship; I'm concerned packing the courts would damage this precedent. I do believe that term limits could work, though I suspect they'd require a clause prohibiting justices from holding any jobs after their term expires, lest they become politically influenced by down-the-line job offers.

That said, what's your take?

^{(By the way, CGP Grey has a great video on some parts of the Supreme Court if you're interested in learning more about it)}