Guessing the outcomes of cases brought before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) can be challenging, and, sometimes, the court's decisions leave you scratching your head. Jack and Gonzo discuss our current court’s propensity to rule in favor of popular conservative causes.

If the casinos in Vegas took bets on how SCOTUS were to decide a case, the odds makers probably wouldn't give long odds, because you pretty much know how the justices will rule by their political affiliation. Oh, sure, the justices are supposed to look at each case objectively, but we’re all subject to subliminal inclinations and beliefs that guide us. Even the justices.

Jack and Gonzo take a look at two cases to explain.

The first concerns Marcellus Williams, a black man of humble means, who was convicted of murder. His attorney asked SCOTUS to stay Williams’ execution (legal speak, for temporarily stopping the execution) because of multiple problems with the case. It wasn't a matter of asking the court to overturn Williams’ conviction, just a pause. SCOTUS was asked to intervene so as to avoid the very real possibility that the state of Missouri might execute an innocent man.

Even the prosecuting attorney for the county where Williams was convicted was advocating for a stay, and the family of the person who was murdered stated that Williams should not be executed.

But a majority of justices (all appointed by Republican presidents) couldn't be bothered and didn’t grant the stay. And Williams was executed.

The second case concerns how SCOTUS handled the Trump immunity case. With nothing in the constitution about presidential immunity—literally, not a single word or even an inference about immunity—the court held that presidents have immunity for just about everything they do. Respected constitutional lawyers were stunned.

The court couldn’t be bothered to stay the execution of a black man who grew up in an impoverished and dysfunctional household, but the court went out of its way to protect a man of privilege. The two cases really make you question where the court is.

Does the First Amendment give us the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater? No, and this is one of the very few restrictions on free speech in America. Jack and Gonzo discuss the importance of free speech with Nico Perrino, Executive Vice President of FIRE.

Founded in 1999 as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, FIRE has worked to advance the cause of free speech and the values of the First Amendment at our nation’s colleges and universities. In 2022, FIRE changed its name to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to reflect its broader effort to protect and promote these values off campus as well.

FIRE educates Americans about the importance of free speech and promotes a culture of respect for this right and provides the means to preserve it. FIRE’s mission is to defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society.

To this end, FIRE places a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience. In 2023, FIRE’s Policy Reform team won 43 victories at 22 schools affecting more than 215,000 students.

Our guest, Nico Perrino, was Co-Director and Senior Producer of “Mighty Ira” (2020), a feature-length film about the life and career of former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser. He also worked as a consultant on “Can We Take a Joke?” (2015) and "The Coddling of the American Mind" (2024).

Listen to our conversation with Nico and for more information, visit FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (thefire.org).

Lawyers know how difficult it can be to represent a client with developmental disabilities and how ill equipped our justice system is to protect them. Our guest, McCracken Poston, Jr., is a practicing criminal defense attorney and former member of the Georgia House of Representatives. He just published his new book “Zenith Man: death, love and redemption in a Georgia courtroom,” the true story behind a controversial and unusual murder case.

McCracken’s client, Alvin Ridley, who suffers from autism, was charged with murdering his wife in the late 1990s, only to be found innocent thanks to overlooked, peculiar evidence and the persistent efforts of his lawyer. Decades later, McCracken is retelling the story as a warning about prejudice, a rush to judgment, and how Americans who are different can be swept up unfairly in our justice system.

Ever think about the social determinants of health? At the top of the list: zip codes. Neighborhoods can differ dramatically in terms of safety, education, housing, green space, grocery stores, etc. When you lack these things—a world where options are limited—stress sets in, and the sole focus is just getting through each day; there’s no planning for the future. It shouldn’t be a surprise that good things happen when inner-city single moms and their children are given assistance in relocating to affluent suburbs. Listen to the conversation we have with Amy Klaben, president of Families Flourish, and Dr. Howard Levitin.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been in the news lately and not because of its popularity. The court’s recent decisions reflect more ideology than neutral analysis and a disregard for the ramifications of those decisions. Certain decisions are not supported by the text of the Constitution, even though some of the justices regard themselves as “textualists.” Some justices display an arrogance that is disquieting. How did we get here? Let’s remember, the justices were confirmed by a senate that is largely dysfunctional because of its own partisanship. Listen to what Jack and Gonzo have to say.

Patriotic Millionaires is a group of high-net-worth Americans who are committed to making all Americans, including themselves, better off by building a more prosperous, stable, and inclusive nation. The group focuses on promoting public policy solutions that encourage political equality, guarantee a sustaining wage for working Americans, and ensure that millionaires, billionaires, and corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

Listen to our conversation with Morris Pearl, former managing director of the investment firm BlackRock, who serves as the chair of Patriotic Millionaires.

Dr. James, an OB/GYN and pediatrician, has spent his professional life trying to achieve equality in birth outcomes. Everyone should receive equal medical care, but that’snot the case in America. According to the Centers for Disease Control’s latest report on infant mortallity, babies born to Black women have teh hightest mortality rate. In addition, Black mothers report they aren’t treated as well as white women by medical professionals.

Dr. James explains that achieving equity will require at least three things: (1) respecting all individuals and populations the same, (2) recognizing and rectifying past historical injustices, and (3) taking a targeted or proportionate universal approach; providing the most assistance to the groups experiencing the worst outcomes. A race-neutral approach will not result in achieving equity. This means we must improve the maternal and infant mortality rates for Blacks and other minorities at a faster pace while working to improve those rates for other groups, without slowing down our efforts to achieve the best birth outcomes for everyone. Listen to our conversation with Dr. James.

Everyone regards humility as a virtue, but how many of us appreciate its importance or, more importantly, how the absence of humility impedes societal discourse and hurts personal relationships. When we allow overconfidence bias and the Dunning-Kruger effect to control us, we are far too quick to offer opinions, no matter how little we might know, and refuse to listen. It’s as if we’re spring-loaded to spouting an opinion and defending it, not matter how little we might know.

The result: we spend much time arguing about things that may not be true and trying to convince others how wrong they are. Instead of seeking to learn from the other and figuring out a solution, we focus on suppressing the other person’s point of view. And with this comes resentment, distance, a breakdown in personal and professional relationships and ineffective government.

Richard Rohr said it best: “Those who know, know they don’t know.” Listen to what Jack and Gonzo have to say.