The Least Dangerous Branch? The Supreme Court on Trial
Your civics textbook says the Supreme Court is a neutral umpire, nine robed experts reading the plain text of the Constitution, above politics. Does that hold up? The Least Dangerous Branch is a 12-part ReThink History series that puts the ideal on trial. It traces the Court from the Framers' bargain in Article III, where judicial review isn't even written down, through the decisions that betrayed the promise: Dred Scott, which chose slavery and helped light the fuse of civil war; Plessy, which blessed Jim Crow; the Lochner era, which struck down child-labor laws in the name of liberty; and Korematsu, which saluted while 120,000 Americans were interned. It follows the fight over who sits on the Court, from FDR's court-packing gambit to the modern confirmation wars, and asks the question the textbook avoids: has one party shaped this Court disproportionately, or did things even out? Then it tests the modern legitimacy crisis, Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, Shelby County, and Dobbs, steelmanning both the it's-just-politics charge and the answer that the Court is finally staying in its lane. The host, a physician, opens with the day he lost faith in the Court's impartiality: when it ruled that nicotine, literally the name of a drug class, was beyond the FDA's reach. It ends where every civics teacher has to: what do we tell the next generation of students? Not the myth, not cynicism, but civic realism. Narrated by AI voices from sourced, human-reviewed research. © 2026 Selway Solutions LLC · <a href="https://history.selwaysolutions.io/index.html#license">Educational & Institutional Use License</a> · <a href="mailto:nick@selwaysolutions.io">Contact</a>
Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or paste the RSS link into any podcast app.
Episodes
Term Limits, Ethics, and Reform: What Do We Tell the Students?
If the Supreme Court was never a neutral umpire, what do we teach the next generation? We end on the ethics controversies and the live reform debate.
Bush v. Gore to Dobbs: Is the Supreme Court Just Politics?
Is the modern Supreme Court just politics in robes? We test the charge against Bush v.
How the Supreme Court's Seats Were Won
Has one political party shaped the Supreme Court disproportionately, or did it all even out over time? We follow the facts, not a villain.
The Warren Court: Judicial Activism From the Other Direction
Brown v.
Court-Packing and the Switch in Time: Why the Court Has Nine Justices
The Supreme Court's size isn't in the Constitution, it changed seven times before 1869, often for raw political advantage.
Korematsu: How the Court Upheld Japanese-American Internment
In 1944 the Supreme Court upheld the internment of about 120,000 people of Japanese descent, most of them U.S.
The Lochner Era: When the Court Struck Down Child-Labor Laws
For roughly 40 years the Supreme Court struck down minimum-wage, maximum-hour, and child-labor laws in the name of 'liberty of contract,' a right found nowhere in the text.
How the Supreme Court Legalized Jim Crow
How did the Constitution's promise of equal protection become constitutional cover for segregation? Two rulings did it.
Dred Scott: The Ruling That Helped Cause the Civil War
In 1857 the Supreme Court ruled that Black Americans could never be citizens and that Congress couldn't ban slavery in the territories.
Marbury v. Madison: How the Court Gave Itself Its Greatest Power
In 1803 the Supreme Court claimed the power to strike down laws, judicial review, in a case John Marshall engineered to win without a fight.
Judicial Review Isn't in the Constitution. So Where Did It Come From?
The Constitution never fixes the number of Justices and never explicitly grants the Court its defining power, judicial review.
The Supreme Court on Trial: Is It Really a Neutral Umpire?
Your civics class taught you the Supreme Court is a neutral umpire calling balls and strikes on the Constitution.