Should Unelected Judges Be Deciding National Policy?
Every week, headlines tell us that a single federal judge has blocked a presidential order—sometimes halting major policies for years. But should that be possible? Is it democratic?In this episode, we dig into the rise and fall of universal injunctions—a little-known legal tool that allowed one judge to freeze nationwide policy. With a recent Supreme Court decision, those injunctions are now off the table, but the ruling raises bigger questions: Has the Court consolidated power for itself? What does this mean for the balance between the executive branch, lower courts, and the justices in Washington?We talk with Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant Attorney General and Harvard Law professor, to unpack the legal mechanics, political stakes, and the hidden negotiations between the Supreme Court and the presidency. The result is a story about law, politics, and power that goes far beyond the headlines.
--------
1:09:52
--------
1:09:52
Do Politicians Really Have A Conservative Bias?
Political scientists have long argued that legislators believe the public is more conservative than it really is—potentially shaping policies that don’t align with what voters actually want. But what if that story is incomplete?In this episode, we talk with University of Chicago political scientist Adam Zelizer, who challenges the conventional wisdom. His new research suggests that politicians may not be systematically biased to the right, but rather exhibit something he calls “midpoint bias”.We unpack why this matters: How do politicians perceive their constituents? Are surveys of public opinion misleading policymakers—or are policymakers just inattentive? And what does this all reveal about the messy relationship between democracy, representation, and what voters actually want?
--------
53:41
--------
53:41
Do We Understand Members Of The Other Party?
Do Democrats and Republicans really misunderstand each other as much as we think?This week, we dive into a surprising new experiment that puts that idea to the test — literally. Psychologist and researcher Adam Mastriani created a kind of “political Turing test,” asking people to write persuasive statements from the perspective of the opposite political party. Then, he tested whether others could tell the real from the fake. The results? Most people couldn’t.We unpack what this means for our understanding of polarization, partisan animosity, and political identity. Is the problem really misunderstanding — or something deeper? Are partisans more empathetic than we give them credit for? Or are they just really good at writing what they think others want to hear?We also explore the experiment’s implications for political science research, theory-building, and the broader sociology of science.
--------
54:14
--------
54:14
MechaHitler and The Political Bias of AI Chatbots
When you ask ChatGPT or Gemini a question about politics, whose opinions are you really hearing?In this episode, we dive into a provocative new study from political scientist Justin Grimmer and his colleagues, which finds that nearly every major large language model—from ChatGPT to Grok—is perceived by Americans as having a left-leaning bias. But why is that? Is it the training data? The guardrails? The Silicon Valley engineers? Or something deeper about the culture of the internet itself?The hosts grapple with everything from “Mecha Hitler” incidents on Grok to the way terms like “unhoused” sneak into AI-generated text—and what that might mean for students, voters, and future regulation. Should the government step in to ensure “political neutrality”? Will AI reshape how people learn about history or policy? Or are we just projecting our own echo chambers onto machines?
--------
57:28
--------
57:28
Does The Supreme Court Need Term Limits?
We're taking some time off to regroup over the summer, but we’re not just dusting off this older episode for no reason. When we first released it, we were grappling with what Supreme Court reform might look like—specifically, whether we should rethink lifetime appointments and move toward term limits.Now? The stakes feel even higher. In just the last few weeks, we’ve seen the Court issue decisions that fundamentally reshape presidential power—often in ways that don’t reflect where the broader public seems to be. Once again, the question has come roaring back: should nine unelected justices hold this much sway for life?In this episode, we dive into a proposal that’s gaining more traction: fixed 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices. It’s a reform that President Biden’s commission studied—and one that could change the balance of power in U.S. politics for decades. Whether you’re a reform skeptic or a true believer, this conversation is more relevant than ever. Let’s get into it and we’ll be back in two weeks with brand new episodes.
With all the noise created by a 24/7 news cycle, it can be hard to really grasp what's going on in politics today. We provide a fresh perspective on the biggest political stories not through opinion and anecdotes, but rigorous scholarship, massive data sets and a deep knowledge of theory. Understand the political science beyond the headlines with Harris School of Public Policy Professors William Howell, Anthony Fowler and Wioletta Dziuda. Our show is part of the University of Chicago Podcast Network.
México