Sarah and David are fantastic minds. I enjoy listening to people at the top of their game. I’m not a lawyer but they explain things well enough for non-lawyers to follow. I find it very educational and helpful for following all the Trump cases.

I left a poor review a month or so earlier praising David but criticizing Sarah. I deleted that review and am writing a new one in its place. This podcast rocks. It certainly grew on me, as did Sarah. After I wrote my negative review, I reflected on my current political podcast diet that skews moderate. Ultimately, I am grateful this podcast exists. David and Sarah are excellent legal minds- bright, funny, and insightful. Both ask great questions of their guests and expose listeners to an under-appreciated (and importantly, under-reported) side of the legal landscape. Both appear to freely express their views without fear of criticism or scorn. They take time address criticism they receive and state their opinions. I can’t think of a better opportunity for someone like me (who doesn’t agree with them on every viewpoint) to learn and develop my views on legal issues. And finally, as a legal layperson, I learn a lot about the court systems and the law. 5 stars!

Impressive

Although I lean more liberal than conservative, this podcast instantly became my go-to for legal current-events coverage. I love that there is no culture-war pandering, or partisan dog-whistling, just law and facts. Sarah and David are two of the sanest voices in the legal and political opinion space, and I appreciate what they are doing so much. Our country needs to amplify more grown-up voices like Sarah and David’s. Thank you for what you do!

I started listening to this podcast a couple years ago when my daughter started law school. I appreciate the historical look back at how cases and opinions link back to the UK and our US Constitution. David and Sarah are terrific together!

David seems like he tries and is a really decent person, but half the time he’s delusional. “Failing upward” comes to mind. Sarah is obviously smart but immature and a shill for power, willing to be bought. Both treat politics as a sport and are willing to lie and misinform to serve their own interests

What a wonderful, informative program. Very touching Thank you

I wish Sara would stop talking long enough to give David a chance to weigh in. I find Sara very annoying to listen to and disagree with much of her analysis. David needs a new podcast without Sara!

The audience doesn’t need to hear about your high school life. There is quite a bit of self indulging and it only comes from one of them…comes across childish and annoying

She is an apologist for Donald Trump and I am sickened by her apparent belief that any legal accountability for him is lawfare. I won’t listen anymore.

This is an excellent podcast for people interested in smart legal takes. Definitely better when David and Sarah disagree.

David has kind of lost his mind.

Love the chemistry of the two hosts, if either is gone I typically skip the episode haha. Sometimes Sara is a bit aggressive but honestly that’s part of what makes it entertaining

“I’m not a partisan hack since I love Kagan, KBJ, and Sotomayor” hmmm

Even at normal speed. Try it at double.

As a listener since the show’s inception, I would like to hear Sarah state that she will not cast her ballot for Trump in November. While, generally, I believe one’s vote to be private, it has always felt foundational that staff at outlets like Dispatch Media and The Bulwark are resistant to Trump, and the unique threats he poses to our constitutional democracy. I was stunned when, twice on The Dispatch podcast, Sarah tried to turn the J6 spotlight on Nancy Pelosi. Sarah did this immediately following J6 and again on an episode earlier this year. It’s like pointing to a mouse in your room when an elephant is sitting right next to it. The logic of ‘nine justices agreed with me so I must be right’ is just terrible. Stuff like this should certainly keep this podcast from qualifying as a source for CLE. Fortunately, David takes the time to explain his position despite the quick-moving nature of the show. Two episode recommendations: 1. Sarah Isgur v. Akhil Amar on this CO case 2. Kathleen Clark on SCOTUS ethics

David French has disqualified himself as a conservative voice, because he has continued to deal damage to the conservative movement over the last five years with intellectual hubris and a failure to read the political landscape. Sarah is pretty good though!

The hosts have become WAY to certain of their absolute legal righteousness. This pod desperately needs a contrasting voice. The leaps Sara will go to in order to defend FedSoc legal practices is plain insulting. They both talk down/try to talk over and past their listeners.

It’s disconcerting how Sarah is still Pollyanna about FedSoc & the movement…she has yet to realize that we conservatives are NOT operating “in good faith”. It’s over and she refuses to see it (or is working to further it). My concern is that she’s giving a venere of legitimacy (as she’s smart & a good person) to corruption, NOT fighting it. Just b/c something is legal doesn’t mean it is just/moral. How can anyone in “good faith” defend any American (oligarchs/judges/politicians) refusing a subpoena, or SCOTUS spouse bragging re pressuring GOP Senate to vote no on 1st impeachment [published by Jane Mayer]…I could go on! If we are the company we keep/defend, then Sarah is as legitimate and as moral as Ginny Thomas and Steve Bannon?!? What a horrible thought!!! I listen w/the hope to be “present”when she stops using intellectual arguments to defend the destruction of America and our institutions by FedSoc, et al. and starts using her talents to expose corruption in our own house.

So delighted to hear very bright, timely legal analysis of court decisions. Also, the light but keen banter between Sarah and David reveals the breath of their talents. Sing and banter away!

Initially, I enjoyed this podcast because it focused on legal analysis and cases. It now spends too much time providing personal opinions on politics and career advice. As a highly successful law student and federal law clerk, I find the advice limited and unhelpful. I hope the hosts find their way back to legal analysis sooner rather than later.

As a progressive on most issues with no legal training but a fair amount interest in law, I enjoy Sarah and David’s show a great deal. I listen to every episode. The only reason I rate their podcast a 4 is because occasionally I hear head bangingly frustrating comments on specific, classically conservative topics. The episodes that discussed Israel’s legal right to its behavior in Gaza with no mention of. Or, Trumps actions, or lake thereof, on Jan: sitting taking no action (aiding and abetting) except for flaming the fire by calling Pence while police get their heads bashed in by Stop the Steal radicals. Only a jury could see clearly about what was going on. Great legal minds like Sarah are sometimes still subject to bias. Keep your whole conversation as objective as most of your conversations and you’ll get 5. I do appreciate your work.

I greatly appreciate the validation of my perceptions regarding President Biden subsequent to the release of the report. As an avid listener of various democratic podcasts, I had developed a sense of being subjected to a perpetuation of the party's rhetoric emanating from the White House. Therefore, I found it highly gratifying to encounter your episode that offered a distinctive perspective, deviating from the aforementioned narrative.

To take Colorado’s case of Trump’s ballot ineligibility as the correct interpretation of the 14th amendment is Stage 5 Trump Derangement Syndrome.

90% informative in-depth discussions of current legal issues with focus on Federal Appellate courts and Supreme Court. 10% entertaining, David and Sarah sometimes remind me of Click and Clack from”Car Talk”

Active attorney who did two pumps in OEF with the USMC infantry in 2010-12. French citing the Afghan Army casualties is misleading. I operated with them closely. Commandos, MPs, and Army and they collectively had the commitment of a sporting event parking attendant or DMV worker. I cannot overstate how intoxicated and lazy they were. At most we could pay them to stand in uniform in designated areas. They fled at any sign of danger. Troops perishing while in flight is more representative of their capabilities that the imagined battles they dug in their heels and won. Name a significant independent Afghan counterattack on the Taliban? The fact that it took the Afghan military 11 days to dissolve is flattering to their capabilities. Please speak to vets who operated in combat areas for perspective.

Context: I am quite conservative. I graduated with a degree in political science, and I am currently waiting to hear back from law school admissions. Hopefully that info gives you context for my review. TLDR: -Thorough/high level -Both Sides -Personal -Up to date This is, by far, my favorite podcast. I started listening to this podcast halfway through my undergraduate degree. I have long wanted to go to law school, and this podcast solidified my earnest. I also feel like this podcast has helped me grow. I feel like I understand “the law” (as a profession, as a course of study, as a political topic) much better after listening to this show. Honestly, it took me a month or two of listening to be able to follow everything David and Sarah say, but I got used to it. They use some legal jargon and move quickly through complex subjects. Experts might really jive with everything they say, but non-lawyers require some time to accustom to the level. That being said, this is not a podcast of overly academic, esoteric musings. It took me a few listens and I soon felt at home. I feel like this podcast pushed me to grow, but also was not overly strenuous (it’s a podcast! It is not a college course with homework, exams, and grades). Sarah and David strike a good balance between being high level while still being enjoyable. I now listen to the podcast on 1.5x speed. This podcast is very thorough. Any top-line legal question you might see in the news is likely to be covered by Advisory Opinions. The hosts do an excellent job of giving both sides to arguments and providing refutations to everything. “Steel-man”ing arguments is a regular and familiar occurrence. They do fall on the conservative side, Sarah more than David, but they do a great job at analyzing arguments in good-faith. They are right of center, moderate Republicans who want the best for our country. Apart from their excellent analysis, Sarah and David are interesting people who make the law interesting. They are very relatable for any legal nerds out there willing to spend a couple hours a week listening to legal talk. Their show is lively and uplifting. I appreciate the mature tone of the podcast. Sarah and David are able to handle cases dealing with what I would consider “adult” topics in a mature, respectful way. They try hard to keep the podcast “family friendly,” and they do a good job. I would listen to this in the car with children no matter the episode, almost without exception (although it would put them to sleep. What child wants to hear about case briefs and court opinions?) I would recommend this podcast to anyone with interest in the legal world.

Sarah can’t analyze. She sees what she wants to see. Unimpressive.

David is really becoming annoying (and predictable). I hate Trump, but his hatred goes so far that he can no longer see the forest for the trees. In the question of disqualifying Trump (without due process) he is so blinkered that he cannot see how that same “logic” could be used elsewhere. He also seems completely unaware that they’re trying the same gambit with Republican Congressman. It would have been interesting to see how he would have turned himself into a pretzel with no way to maintain consistency.

Seems like those hanging around the water cooler at the Times is rubbing off on you

In Texas (in most transactions) the realtor fee (usually 6%) is paid by the seller per the listing agreement signed by seller & listing broker. That listing agreement also designates how much of the 6% (usually 3%) will be paid by the listing broker to a buyers rep. The buyer pays no realtor fees. There are exceptions such as FSBO where the sellers and buyers represent themselves and no realtors are involved or buyers may choose to have representation and pay the buyers agent directly.

Sarah can be obnoxious, but it’s nice to listen to the reality that our Supreme Court justices live in. It’s making a lot more sense now. David French is somewhat more listenable.

I listened to the discussion of the Harvard and UNC cases, and while I found the legal analysis excellent and interesting, both hosts completely ignored the trial court record. Ignoring the actual facts is par for the course for the current SCOTUS, but analysis of that aspect of their review should be an element in legal analysis. The hosts skipped that element. This is strictly a podcast for those who only operate and believe in alternative facts and the hosts, mostly Sarah, constantly carry water for racist and sexist arguments. A conservative law podcast hosted by conservative shills. This is not a place for learning about the law.

Thunderstruck with despair. Seeking low born monster for perdition and calamities.

I’m not a nerd, just an eager learner. Also not a lawyer.

This podcast’s strength is general coverage of (mostly) Federal court cases. However, Sarah Isgur, the main host, makes it difficult to listen to. She tends to make everything about herself, e.g., reminders of her attendance at Harvard Law School and of the powerful people she knows, arguing just to argue, not being as funny as she thinks she is, etc. I listened regularly until some episodes with a guest host in Oct.; I haven’t bothered to put up with that junk since.

But what happened to the audio?

I learn so much listening every week. I’m not law trained, but I like to stay informed. I appreciate that they analyze issues using their heads, not in the kneejerk ideological way you’ll find in so many other places. I’m a lifelong liberal, and I probably differ politically from the hosts on some issues, but I really don’t care. I appreciate their clear respect for judges, lawyers, and politicians of all stripes who put public service and intellectual integrity ahead of partisan games.

Really happy I discovered this show after watching you on Bill Marher last week.

I loved this episode! And that’s saying a lot given that this pod is in my top three. Hearing Lisa B on life and work and Hello Kitty was a ton of fun—and useful. Many thanks to her and Sarah H! (Has Lisa ever gone up against Paul C? That’d be one to hear.)

I’ve been defending Sarah from NPR listeners for some time now. I was disappointed to see similar complaints in AO comments. Check yourselves, gents - you know you’re all dudes. Sarah is brilliant (though for balance sake…lean in less on Taylor Swift’s new handbag-we all know- resist being a feminist bully lol). Sarah is an amazing voice for the conservative movement. Snap out of it gentlemen.

The D&D show was much better than having Sarah talking over David for most of the episode.

Really enjoyed the D & D show! I could actually stand to listen to the entire podcast without pulling my hair out. Yes, Sarah makes me want to pull my hair out.

As a trial paralegal for 13 years and now project manager for a software company for 11 years this content hits right at home for me! I look forward to each episode! Pray Sarah is enjoying her leave, and while the D&D show is getting me through, I do miss her insight.

Sarah and David are smart and informative on Supreme Court cases and workings. But wish they would find someone without the most annoying voice in podcasts (David Lat) to replace Sarah.

Sarah is so shallow and immature, and her immaturity even affects David at times, shame on him for allowing it. I’m talking about how, according to Sarah, certain desserts are “stupid” or how immature paintball is and on and on. It’s like listening to a group of middle-school girls. I think she means this all in jest, but it’s narrow-minded, dismissive, and off-putting. Everything she says is tainted by this “cool-kids” perspective. It’s astonishing to me that someone so shallow has served in such high levels in the Justice Department and on political campaigns.

Engineer, SCOTUS follower for 40 years. Love the analysis and humor. David is PCA. I used to be. Now EPC. I agree with him on so much. However, the visceral animus w.r.t. 45 is baffling to me. At a dinner party would probably find more common ground w David but Sarah is incandescent! So brilliant. And she is gur too. I’m getting most of the acronyms. DIG - improvidently granted. DOG - on grounds? But what is NAWDOG? Love ya both. Larry OK. Naw dog. That is Sarah. So are buckets. 😎

By far the best law podcast

David French is always worth listening to. He is so intelligent, fair minded and thoughtful. Sarah Isgur’s mocking, disrespectful and arrogant tone when analyzing the latest indictment really turned me off. Maybe I am just too sensitive, since, as a Pennsylvania voter, Trump was trying to throw out my vote.

Love the show. Mostly love the analysis. Disappointed in Sarah’s take on trump J6 indictment because, in a nutshell, it’ll be difficult and “scary” and long and the case is not as strong as docs case. What??? So people aren’t held accountable because it’s scary and hard and unpredictable??? Yikes. Pretty dour view of America. (And frankly your slip is showing; your empty “trump did outrageous things” caveats before downplaying his actions are starting to sound like my racist ranting uncle.) And, unlike in some instances, your legal analysis is flat wrong on this. David is right that the facts are there. And intent seems rather easy. Either Trump is a liar OR his defense must be that he’s a delusional idiot who hires people he can’t/doesn’t trust (even though he trusted them for months, years, etc.). What am I missing???