THE HOT BENCH FEAT. NINA TOTENBERG | The Supreme Court on the Debate Stage | Baby I Swear It’s Déjà Vu

October 20, 2016

This Fall, SCOTUSDaily will feature a Q&A series every Thursday with our country’s leading Supreme Court correspondents and commentators. We’re calling it The Hot Bench. Only this time, we’re asking the questions to learn more about the Supreme Court, how it operates, and how our nation’s finest writers cover the court. Today, we kick things off with none other than NPR’s Nina Totenberg.

I asked her why following the Supreme Court matters and she had this to say: “This is the third branch of government. And while members of Congress are popping off every day, and the President is popping off almost every day, and candidates for the White House are popping off almost every day, members of the Supreme Court do not. And they have just as much an effect on people’s lives. And so it’s my job to explain why and how in individual cases — and to make it interesting enough that people will stop and listen.” Read the full interview here.

Last night was the third and final presidential debate, with the very first question pointed at the subject of the Supreme Court. HILLARY CLINTON said she wants a Supreme Court that would “represent all of us,” citing the importance of marriage equality and abortion rights. Meanwhile, DONALD TRUMP said, “The Supreme Court, that’s what it’s all about.” (Too true, Donald.) He also added that he wants a Supreme Court that will uphold the Second Amendment which he noted is “under absolute siege.”

Reason’s Jacob Sullum argues that the candidates responses in last night’s debate made clear that neither candidate actually understands the role of the Supreme Court. Represent us all? “That is what a democratically elected legislature is supposed to do,” he says. Appoint justices that are pro-life? Sullum: “A justice’s personal views on abortion are logically and legally distinct from the issues of Roe’s soundness.”

The biggest headlines from last night’s debate are focusing on DONALD TRUMP’S unwillingness to go on record and say that he would accept the results of the November 8 election. For CNN, Steve Vladeck considers whether Trump could legally challenge the election.

Given DONALD TRUMP’S comments last night, could we have another Bush v. Gore on our hands? Is Trump trying to pull off a revival tour of AL GORE 2.0? Almost everyone is saying no. No, this time it’s different. Nick Baumann in The Huffington Post writes, “What Trump is doing is vastly different from what Gore. He’s calling the election into question well before it’s even happened, and alleging it is ‘rigged’ against him.” In TIME, David Von Drehle notes that Al Gore didn’t keep fighting after SCOTUS ruled in favor of a BUSH presidency, instead giving a concession speech that was “widely hailed, by Republicans as well as Democrats, as a model of statesmanship and grace.” And in The Washington Post, Philip Bump asserts, “Gore’s fight was over counting ballots, not over an allegation that the election itself was unfair.”

Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick reacts to SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN’S recent promise to ensure all of HRC’S SCOTUS nominees would be obstructed, which she says reveals how the GOP’s Supreme Court strategy is backfiring. “It hardly warrants saying, but whatever insane argument the GOP once proffered about refusing a hearing for Obama nominee MERRICK GARLAND for more than 200 days are now shown to be the sham they are.”