Acton Line


Ilya Shapiro on Supreme Disorder and SCOTUS politics

Ep. 248

The untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in February of 2016 amplified questions about the Supreme Court in the 2016 election to new highs. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s high wire act in denying a hearing and vote on President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill that seat, Judge Merrick Garland, ultimately paid off for him: President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch, who was then confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate.

A year later, the political world was rocked again by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy and President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the bench. Following one of the most contentions confirmation hearings in modern American political history, Kavanaugh was also confirmed.

Now, the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has created another election year vacancy on the nation’s highest court. President Trump has nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat. The political temperature has again risen.

In his new book, “Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America’s Highest Court,” Cato’s Ilya Shapiro examines the history of the judicial confirmation hearings, how politics has invaded the Supreme Court itself, and how appointments to the Court have become one of the most explosive features of our system of government.

In this episode, Ilya Shapiro discusses his new book, how our politics of the judiciary got this way, how that politics affecting us as a nation, and what, if anything, can be done about it.

Ilya Shapiro at the Cato Institute

Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court - Ilya Shapiro

Term Limits Won’t Fix the Court - Ilya Shapiro

Roberts Rules - Ilya Shapiro

Everything you need to know about Amy Coney Barrett - Rev. Ben Johnson

‘A different kind of lawyer’: Amy Coney Barrett on Christian vocation - Joseph Sunde

High Court, high stakes: Replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Trey Dimsdale

Religious liberty at the Supreme Court - Acton Line

More Episodes


Joel Sercel on the ethics of space exploration

Ep. 255
In 1958, in the wake of the Soviet Union launching Sputnik 1 – the world’s first artificial satellite – into space, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act into law.The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, was born.And the space race was underway.In the following decades, the world would see the first man in space, the first spacewalk, and astronauts landing on the surface of the moon. Across eight different programs, the United States would fly 239 space missions, with 135 of those representing the space shuttle program.On August 31, 2011, the United States’ shuttle program was officially ended, and the United States government was out of the business of space exploration and travel.Today, private companies like Elon Musk’s SpaceX, Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin are leading the way into the final frontier.Elon Musk has announced his plan is to have 1 million people living in a colony on Mars by the year 2050.As a new space race to settle on Mars and, perhaps, beyond takes flight, significant ethical questions remain unclear and unanswered.Today, we talk with Joel Sercel, an entrepreneur and space technologist, who argues that we need to start building international consensus on questions surrounding bioethics, property rights, laws governing space travel and space settlements, and stewardship of God’s creation outside of the Earth’s atmosphere.Subscribe to Acton Institute Events podcastTransAstra CorpWould Kuyper go to Mars? - Dylan PahmanThe frontier spirit of ‘The Martian’ - Dylan PahmanThe stewardship of space - Jordan BallorThe new space capitalists - Jordan BallorThe cultural mandate and the final frontier - Dylan Pahman

Sam Gregg on woke capitalism

Ep. 254
In the wake of George Floyd’s death in May of 2020, people took to social media to advocate for causes stemming from that horrible incident. Ranging from simply expressing “Black Lives Matter” to posting a black square on Instagram on a designated day and everything in between, an expectation that everyone must make a statement seemed to emerge. It was an expectation that was extended beyond individuals, as major corporations and sports teams were also expected to make a statement of solidarity. Those that didn’t, or who didn’t act quickly enough, were pilloried online.The age of woke capitalism is upon us.This woke capitalism can take other forms besides expressions of solidarity with social causes, such as Nike recalling Betsy Ross flag-themed shoes after activists raged that the flag represents slavery or the increasing frequency of anti-racism training sessions as work requirements.But, as Acton’s director of research Sam Gregg argues, woke capitalism is inherently in conflict with the nature and the ends of business.What is causing the rise of woke capitalism? What’s the impact that it is having on the world of business and on society as a whole? And what can be done about it? Sam Gregg joins us to discuss.Dr. Sam Gregg at the Acton InstituteHow Woke Capitalism Corrupts Business - Sam GreggWhen the Market Meets Morality - William McGurn6 quotes: Milton Friedman on woke capitalism, racism, and equality - Rev. Ben Johnson‘Woke’ NBA kowtows to Chinese communists - Dan HuggerThe social responsibility of Chick-fil-A is to make delicious sandwiches - Dylan Pahman