Strict Scrutiny - When Reality Is Surreal

Episode Date: December 21, 2020

Leah and Melissa are joined by Alexandra Petri, author of Nothing Is Wrong And Here Is Why, and Washington Post columnist. They discuss how to cover news by laughing rather than crying, and how to satirize reality when reality is surreal. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

During the Amy Coney Barrett hearings, I had the same thought. I'm like, am I being oppressed by virtue of not being a Supreme Court Justice? I didn't realize this was like an oppression, that we were all suffering. Who knew? It's an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word. She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity. She said, I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks. Welcome back. This is a very special episode of Strict Scrutiny where your hosts, I'm Melissa Murray. And I'm Leah Littman. This episode, we have something different in store for you. As a special holiday treat, a stocking stuffer, if you will, we have as our guests, the brilliant satirist and humorist,

Alexandra Petrie, columnist at the Washington Post and author of Nothing is Wrong and Here is Why, a collection of essays that covers the surreality of the Trump administration. So welcome to the podcast, Alexandra. Thank you for having me. We want you to tell us, to show us really, in a kind of Scrooge-like way, how we can shed these tendencies and actually laugh when we want to cry. So how is it that we can cover the surreal and laugh about the horrible as this administration winds down? And we have lots to ask you.

But the first thing, I mean, it's just a basic thing. How do you do what you do? Like, first, if you could tell us how you got into doing what you do, that would be really informative. Because as far as I can tell, every time I've sent a resume to The Washington Post like a decade ago, literally like over a decade, which is wild. I'm like the rare millennial who's only had one job for the past 10 years, which is nifty, because then you get to write all the editorials, not all of them, but some of them about topics like, you know, should we put a stop sign at this intersection? And like, what's going on with the internet, and so forth, a broad range of topics, stop signs to the internet. But I kept being like, I would like to write things with jokes in them under my own name. And every so often, I would do that. they would let me. And then they kept just sort of, gradually, I just sort of refused to leave, basically. Like, they just continued not firing me and continued letting me work.

And suddenly I had a column. This is not a good, feel all, like, you know, I, I, it's so sad because I get all these lovely emails. That's basically how tenure works. That's how tenure works in the academy. No, I get all these lovely emails from, like, you know, high school students how tenure works in the academy. No, I get all these lovely emails from like, you know, high school students or like college students who are like, so like, give me career advice.

I'm like, I wish I could. I know this is not how this usually happens. I'm very sorry. There's a lesson there. I mean, sort of be persistent, be authentic. Like you wanted to be your authentic self and you were and they liked it and you just refused to leave. I think that's a model for lots

of people. Yeah, you got to change yourself to the door and see what happens. I mean, I think it could have worked for some chiefs of staff at the White House. They just tried it. Could have worked. All right. So we have just general questions about this entire four years where you've been unbelievably productive. You have actually been the Beyonce of newspaper writing because you've taken the incredible lemons of this administration and you've made fantastic lemonade out of it. So how did you do this? I think we should stop after that compliment because it's all going to be downhill. I mean, we're starting it here. It's the Petri hive. We're doing it.

Okay. How did you do this? I feel like the bonus and the downside of having a job where you have to pay attention to the news is on the one hand, like I'm the sort of person who would constantly be staring at a newspaper anyway. But since I'm like, well, it's my job to obsess it over what's going on. I at least have a place where I can go and put the screams that I could just type them out and they'll become a column.

So it was nice to feel like, I know I'm obliged to scream into the void. That's my job. That's what I have to do. So the biggest problem for the past four years, wasn't like, Oh no, what am I going to write about today? It was like, how am I going to possibly write about the hundreds of things that are going on today? All of which are like alarming none of which are particularly funny and plenty of which are deeply absurd because like the things you would normally write about like back you know when in the before times in the before times when there was like that whole week of like

tan suit news cycle and it was just like what about this tan suit I cycle. And it was just like, what about this tan suit? I believe I called that the audacity of taupe. That's great. Thank you. I feel so seen. So, you know, we thought we would kind of use your book. Nothing is wrong. And here's why, which is the collection of essays about the Trump administration to kind of shine a light on how you can laugh about the truly horrible, terrible, no good, very bad things that are happening and do so in a way that kind of makes people appreciate exactly why they are no good, very bad and terrible. So if you don't mind, like, I'm just going to kind of run through some of my favorite essays from the book and then watch you react uncomfortably as I pay you some compliments. So, you know. Oh, this is great.

So one of the essays that kind of fell into this bucket for me was the why won't this career die piece, which isn't about the Trump administration, but is about Me Too and the reemergence of men accused of misconduct. So you write, she felt bad for the career. It was not the career's fault, the things the man had done. The career had been a source of joy. And it just so brilliantly satirizes the idea that there is this disconnect and space between the person who did these bad things and their career. And it also like pokes at how women are described as killing the man's career when the career never dies. And I just love this because, you know, we have talked on this show about some judges who were accused of misconduct and how, you know, women who accused them, you know, killed

their careers and whatnot. And most recently, one of those men who resigned from the federal judiciary after being accused of misconduct, Judge Kaczynski, had his writing featured in a book by another judge as like the epitome of good legal writing. And it's like still featured at law firm events. And it's just wild to see this personification and anthropomorphization of these men's careers. And you just so perfectly capture so much of the insanity of this Me Too process and the idea that Me Too has gone too far. I think you really hit on the fact that people tend to anthropomorphize these careers. They're just always like, but what about his career? As though there's this sort of poor poor maybe furry creature somehow sort of weak and vulnerable

that this woman is going and really doing damage to and that like it's being given equal weight she doesn't have like a career that's distinct from herself she gets to have just like sort of be a person it's like oh no it's like what about her career it's almost like she's just doing this to advance herself which is bizarre also uh getting to deal with it as sort of the horror formula that it was because i feel like the center of a lot of horror sort of stories and movies is this idea that you're like in a reality where nobody believes what you're seeing and you're seeing something that nobody else is seeing and it feels sort of that continual sort of, am I detached from reality? When you're looking at a lot of this Me Too stuff, when people are sitting there saying like,

but what about his career? Like, oh, what a promising young man. He's like 53. And you're like, this is not a promising young man. And also he harmed someone with his actions. There should be some consequences for that. I enjoyed getting to try to use that trope to explain why I thought that it was bad. That is like such a like wonderful parallel between the idea of like the horror movie and you can't believe what is happening.

And you kind of like look around at your friends and you're like, is that insane? I think that's insane. Right. Like what? It's just. Yeah. Yeah. That's why we had to start this podcast because we were looking around. We're like, this is insane. But no, everyone else is like, it's insane. Right. Like what it's just, yeah. That's why we had to start this podcast because

we were looking around and we're like, this is insane, but no, everyone else is like, it's fine. And then we got to the podcast. We were like, okay, good. You think it's insane too. Right. That's the best feeling in the world is like just making eye contact with somebody else and be like, you're, oh, you're also seeing this. I'm not the only one seeing this. It's yeah. That's a whole faculty meeting right there. That's a faculty meeting. One of my favorite essays is this is like perhaps the best title ever an essayist could offer. But Keep Scott Pruitt Moist is my particular favorite. And so I remember this when there was all of this news coverage. It was like, I guess, right at the beginning of the Trump administration when he, as you say in the book, nominated all the best people to be in his cabinet. And among them was Scott Pruitt, who was nominated to head the

Environmental Protection Agency. And it came out that he was getting his staff to basically drive him around D.C. to the Ritz-Carlton to collect bottles of lotion from the hotel. And it was just like, it was like bananas, like, oh, like, it was so mundane and trivial, but yet spoke volumes. And having now with, you know, four years of distance, it was almost like, like, prescient, like the lotion was the least of our worries, but yet encapsulated everything. The staffers on the hunt for the expensive lotion to keep Scott Pruitt moisturized. No, I agree. I feel like the sad thing about that is twofold. A, that was the minor scandal, but it was a scandal that weird is the third or fourth story. He's driving around to have his

staffers get him moisturizing lotion. How good is that lotion even? I don't know. I feel like it's in a bottle and it smells nice. I don't know. It's so inefficient. Like, I mean, just like, just order yourself a vat of cocoa butter if like moisturizing is the issue, but it's, it's this lotion that he, I mean, it's very specific that he wants this lotion. No, exactly. Yeah. It's like, clearly he's not like, moisturization is not first and foremost on his mind. So I'm like, I know what it is. He's a crustacean. But the funny thing when I kept working on that, I'm like, you know, this will be good

for whenever. Like this can go whenever. And then like the day that he was like, suddenly he was quitting and I'm like, oh my gosh, I've got to. So I like literally like either the day that he quit was when I posted or like right after he quit it posted that was the thing about this administration you had to jump on it while you could yeah no like you could have gone on vacation and missed Scaramucci's entire tenure yeah but also I kind of yearned for the days when the scandals of this administration were federal officials driving around searching

for Ritz-Carlton moisturizer rather than trying to overturn an election. Like, it's kind of making me nostalgic a little bit. But it was a slow build. It was a slow build. And you can see the through line from the lotion to the election. Yeah, it's like the whole boiling a frog thing where it's like, well, if we've accepted moisturizing Scott Pruitt, we can get from there to the four seasons total landscaping. We've actually tried to cover the election related litigation that we were just alluding to and do so in kind of like a lighthearted way because it is so absurd. And so we did dramatic readings of some of the most insane portions of these legal filings, you know, because like, it's funny, but also, like, you know, the people trying to overturn the election are very bad at it. And like, that's a reason why we can kind of

like, not worry. It's difficult because if you could just, if this were Veep, because everyone's always likening it to Veep, because it's like, well, Veep, there's sort of, you know, it's something you have to watch on your TV and turn it off and no one's affected by it. And which is a thrilling feeling when you're watching something in government go terribly wrong. Because in this case, it's like, oh, they're trying to overturn the election, literally the votes of millions upon millions of people. And they're very bad at it. It's kind of funny to watch. But as usual with the sort of bumbling horror, it's like, but you can't drop that. It's got my family in it. And so it's like, you can't drop that it's got my family in it and so it's like it's hilarious but it's also deeply unfunny because he doesn't he's not like this is a

hilarious joke that i'm playing like that will clearly have no consequences he's hoping it'll work yeah and hoping something will happen if it's a joke like all of the kind of state level officials you know pitching this litigation and the federal officials like supporting it, like, they're not in on the joke, I guess. Yeah, no, it's the whole thing with like, the bully is always like, Oh, no, it's joking. Can't you take a joke? Like after you've been like bullied within an inch? Have you just been punched in the face? And it's like, that was a good one. Another theme in the book that's, I think comes out really well in many of the essays is sort of gender and just the difficulties of being a woman in spaces where you're not expected to be or historically you haven't been. And you talk about in one essay, playing the woman card, reaping the rewards of

the woman card. And you say it entitles you to a sizable discount on your earnings wherever you go, which obviously is not the case. And then you talk about the way women are in particular circumstances. So famous quotes, like you take these very famous quotes that we all should understand, and then you sort of play them out again as if a woman were saying them. So for example, give me liberty or give me death, you say, Dave, if I could, I just really feel like if we had liberty, it would be terrific. And the alternative would be awful. It just strikes me, I know, that we should probably have liberty. And that's how the woman would say it. And these are dead on. I was just in a Zoom workshop with some young women academics, and almost every intervention was prefaced with, I'm not an expert in this, but I thought, like, this may sound crazy, but I thought. And finally, I put in the chat to one of them, please stop discrediting yourself. I mean, you're either inviting people to discredit you or just calling attention to something that no one would have identified to begin with. But like, what's

going on here? Like, why do women do this? Do you see this in your own work? Is this something you're responding to in the newsroom? Or just generally in society, the discrediting of women's thoughts and women internalizing that too? Yeah, I think it's complicated because part of it is that when you start opening your mouth in a room, you're trying to achieve something, which is like, ideally, the people in the room will listen to you. And so I don't think it's like, oh, like women are bad and foolish for like talking in this way. And like they're undervaluing themselves. I mean, to a degree, it is that because like, that's what it sounds like coming out of your mouth. But it's also like they've realized that if they just say things like they know stuff then people get weirded

out by that like it's the response that they've gotten when they've been more assertive I think that leads people to say stuff like one of the biggest arguments my husband and I will have like just like not really arguing but sort of pointing out is like he'll just say something he'll be like that song is bad and I'll be like i don't like that song and it's like that's the way we say exactly the same thought but if society's like your opinions are true versus like oh like that's what you think it isn't that nice the way you present what you think changes and sometimes i wonder if we wouldn't be better off if more men were like you know maybe deborah i've got a thought but i'm not actually an expert on this and like if everybody were just like, very clear about like, what are their thoughts? And what are their

true facts to which they're scaffolding those thoughts? But it would also lead to a certain amount of inefficiency. So I feel like there's a there's a middle ground to be located somewhere in there. Yeah, I think that's right. And like, along the lines of like women trying to get things done when they are talking, like some of that is in reaction to a perceived felt need to make themselves seem less threatening to men. And so they can't couch their statements in terms of truth, fact, declarations, because otherwise they would be perceived

as like bitchy or aggressive or whatever the term would be. Well, I mean, this is the perennial problem, I think, that women of color experience. And Simone Sanders had this tweet yesterday when she noted that, you know, when she comes into the room with a low cut top and she's curvy and she's got her nails done and she's wearing makeup, people don't expect her to be able to offer really trenchant analysis of these ideas. And she was just like, these nails are bedazzled,

but my brain is not. Like, this is all completely together. And so many women responded to this. And we're like, yes, that's exactly like, you know, and I think we have that in academia too, Leah. I mean, the whole idea that, you know, if you like fashion, if you like, you know, clothing, you're somehow frivolous or not serious about ideas in any event. It's such an interesting sort of delicate balance that you have to thread between being likable on the one hand, being credible on the other, but not too credible because then you're unlikable. And I mean, you really capture it in that essay where it's like, these are things women do. Give me liberty. Well, I mean, is liberty important? I mean, you really capture it in that essay where it's like, these are things women do. Give me liberty.

Well, I mean, is liberty important? I mean, I think liberty would be good. What do you think about the liberty? Much better than dad. I feel like there was a study once that said that like when people are trying to present themselves as less threatening, they try to sort of really crank down the slider on their intelligence. And so I feel like it could also be part of that. I feel like maybe it's partially that like people are trying to seem more approachable and less threatening. And so it's weird how people calibrate themselves on the sliders. Like you will see Queen's Gambit speaking of, because I feel like the most

enjoyable escapist element of that other than like the point where all of her like ex-boyfriends got in a room together and we're like let's figure out how to do the chest together just amicably which is like a dream was just like she got to just sort of be in the world and people were like oh yes like you're a lady that's cool but she could like fashion like i'm just like wow like this is like the bizarro 60s i never knew i wanted and i think part of it also somebody was saying like the author was a man and he never realized that like all of all of the problems you would actually encounter in these scenarios. And so he just wrote what turned out to be like an escapist fantasy. And I'm like, honestly, maybe not wrong.

It was sort of Mad Men, but without like Don Draper trying to sleep with everyone and with chess. Yeah, no, I'd been like overwhelmed by her skill. I'm like, yeah, let's help get you ahead. And I will come and read chess books to you and not make sexual advances unless you'd like me to. All right. Little things like that, that I guess this author just took for granted. So another theme in the book is kind of how to cover reality when reality is surreal. So like, how do you satirize like what is happening around you when that already feels kind of insane? So one of those essays, to me was actually about the Supreme Court and specifically about the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. In the essay, you know, how dare you do this to Brett Kavanaugh, which is about, you know,

if Brett does not secure a lifetime appointment, this country will be in shambles. This is his birthright. You know, are you going to believe her America over him America? This is oppression, you know, to be denied power over others. And part of what was so striking for me going back and reading this essay is that this idea that Brett Kavanaugh had been somehow egregiously wronged by airing the accusations of Dr. Blasey Ford actually came up as a justification that Republican senators used as a reason why they had to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett, even while the election was underway and against Justice Ginsburg's wishes. So like here again, like you are mocking what they are saying, but like they're actually saying it. And it was just really wild for me to go back and revisit that essay for that reason.

It was funny because during the Amy Coney Barrett hearings, I had the same thought. I'm like, am I being oppressed by virtue of not being a Supreme Court justice? I didn't realize this was like an oppression that we were all suffering. Who knew? But it is wild because sort of yesterday's satire is today's like genuine arguments being put forward in the course of a confirmation hearing or on the Senate floor or whatnot. And I think you see that also with like a lot of the sort of Bush era satire with like, you know, the Daily Show or the Goldberg Report, which is like, oh, people are just saying these things now.

Like you thought that maybe if you like showed how if you heightened it to 11, it would just be completely absurd. It would shame people. And the answer is no, they just decided to go for it. Right. I mean, like this is in some ways what we're seeing about the, you know, Trump administration's response to the election, given that before the election occurred, you know, President Trump was always saying, you know, there isn't, I'm not going to commit to a smooth transition of power, I won't accept the results of the election, like unless I win. And people were like, okay, but he doesn't actually mean that. And it was silly to worry

about that. But then it turns out, like, actually, that was kind of true. And it's just it's really wild to see that kind of, again, just like playing out before our eyes. Yeah. No, when people tell you they're not going to accept the results of the election, believe them. Can we go back to Brett Kavanaugh for another minute? There was another essay that was timed September 19th, 2018, although it does not mention Brett Kavanaugh by name, but it seems to be Kavanaugh adjacent in terms of timeline. And that was some interpersonal verbs conjugated by gender. And so if I could do a dramatic reading for the listeners, because I thought this was both funny, but also really poignant in its way too. So this is the last part of the essay. We cannot know what happened. She does not know what happened. He knows what happened. Nothing happens. Nothing happened. Something happened to her. He did nothing.

This is how it always happens. This is how a thing he did become something that happened to her. This is how something he did become something that happens. This is how a thing he did becomes something that happened to her. This is how something he did becomes something that happens. This is how this keeps happening. I thought this was like the most moving essay. It was like sort of captured the absurdity of the whole question, like, you know, who to believe? How did we talk about it? And then, of course, whether it's 10 years from now, 20 years from now, we're going to have this conversation again, because this is how this keeps happening.

I mean, words can be such a powerful tool for actually shedding light on what's happening, but they can equally work to obscure what happened because you get this very passive sentence construction in which people are able to hide all kinds of horrors and you don't see the responsibility of the sentence being placed clearly on the active party there. And so I thought it was as good a time as any to try to dive into the language and be like, let's at least make explicit what we're doing. Because sometimes if you can point out that there's like, oh, there's a whole grammar for this. And we've just been talking around it in this very specific way, then at least people will get to see it the next time they do it. And it'll become less of a thing. I feel like there's other things that everyone always sort of talks around, but like enough people have started noticing that when you do

the elision, people are like, oh, wait a second, you're doing that thing again. Like, remember a few years ago, maybe months, I truly have no conception of time. It could be literally any point when everyone was always like, someone made a racially tinged remark. And it's like, what was in the remark? How tinged? Like, I feel like people have gotten better at just being like, that was a racist remark. It took some doing, and it still needs to take doing, but that particular evasive construction, at least, has gotten lampooned often.

Well, probably because you wrote an essay about it. Right. No, not to call racist remarks instead of calling them racist remarks. A very helpful field guide. Well, you gave a great list. Racially tinged was one of the options you could use for racist remarks when you don't want to actually call them racist remarks. You could also say they are very fine remarks, heritage loving remarks. Economically anxious remarks. So one other essay that I wanted to highlight that's kind of at the intersection of the court, Oh, yeah. that I would just be personally annihilated. And the essay was just called, It is very difficult to get the train to stop. And here, you know, the train is very, very urgent. It is moving a man's

career forward, you know, again, gesturing at kind of what we were talking about earlier. You know, it's painful to watch a woman caught and torn in the gears of a man's progress to watch the meaning of her name change into a thing that happened to her once. And again, this essay was also just interesting for me to revisit now, because now we are at a time where Justice Kavanaugh has become kind of the median justice on the Supreme Court. And people just talk about him as the court's new median justice as and the person to whom you have to pitch your arguments if you want to have any reasonable prospect of success. And, you know, that's his story. It's become completely unmoored from, you know,

what Dr. Blasey Ford experienced and like still experienced. And it's, again, just like really wild to revisit what was like a very, like significant event in like many people's lives, including mine, just to like see that testimony play out and then now see Justice Kavanaugh just like on the court being treated as, you know, the court's new media justice. I mean, that was a very raw and emotional time for me as well. So I'm glad that we were both making eye contact, as it were, through the course of that. But yeah, it is very strange. I think part of the advantage and disadvantage of writing daily is that you don't think, oh, like, how will the

meaning of this have changed over the course of a few years? And so now it's just like, he's been able to get the meaning of his name to change that median court justice, and he's able to keep going on. And now he's just like a thing that is a fact, an unpleasant fact, but he's on the court, and he's just, you have to use the court. So it's a strange dynamic where things that shouldn't be the case are the case, but that's often a dynamic of the sort of current administration where you're just like, well, this is happening. The only way out is through, I guess. Like the train is truly not going to stop. And on the note of just like making eye contact,

like on a personal note, like your commentary was truly a lifesaver. And on the note of just like making eye contact, like on a personal note, like your commentary was truly a lifesaver for me on this. Because like at the time, I was visiting at another school in a Supreme Court litigation clinic. And the Blasey Ford hearings happened the week I started that job and was like giving an introduction to students about litigating at the Supreme Court and like trying to, you know, encourage them to pursue Supreme Court litigation. And I just felt constantly like I was, you know, starting off on my back feet. I had no idea what to do. And so it was really wonderful to have your commentary at the time. Oh, I appreciate that. It wasn't just a week. It felt like so much more than a week. It felt like, as usual, sort of the dilation of time but I mean yeah I guess these sort of

watershed moments feel longer and you have more memories clustered around them than you do for sort of the days on which nothing happened right like something's usually happening even like pandemic time I don't know right days weeks months I have no idea. It's all run together. But I can remember like discrete, you know, where I was, what I was thinking, what I was doing during that entire week of testimony. Yeah. Another theme in the book is crisis and how government officials respond to various crises or don't respond as the case might be. And there's one essay, Trump's budget makes perfect sense and will fix America, and I will tell you why. And here you write, but how will I survive on this budget? You may be wondering. I am a human child, not a costly fighter jet. You may not survive,

but that is because you are soft and weak. And again, that sort of captures it. There are other crises that you opine about, one in which you imagine the Republicans as a large spider slowly devours them. If this were a crisis, something would be done by someone, a hero would emerge. If there were an occasion, I would be rising to it. And all of this seems sort of tailor-made for this particular moment where we're in the middle of the pandemic and we would like someone to come and rescue us from the spider that is slowly devouring us. But yet no hero has risen to the occasion. It is funny because sort of things like a pandemic or even, you know, the word coup, all of these things are ideas that you all, at least I used a picture is like, well, if something that alarming were going on, it would be very clearly labeled and there would be flags and signs of all kinds. And you would turn on the TV and the TV would say, we're in the midst of this very specific crisis and the

world is different now and you can make heroic choices. And in fact, it's just sort of another thing that you slide into and it sort of, it slowly escalates. One day, Scott Pruitt is rubbing lotion on himself. And then the next day, you know, Rudy's running around from state to state spreading COVID and misinformation. And so I do think you forget that it's usually just sort of a Tuesday when this kind of a thing is going on. And they're not saying, ah, yes, here's the choices. I feel the advantage of sort of storytelling and fiction is like all the choices are clearly labeled and you know, oh, this is a turning point and this isn't. And instead, it's just sort of like, ah, well, we have to get through this week. But in the course of the week that you're just getting through, you know, lives are being lost and horrors are being perpetrated.

And look at my lovely passive sentence construction. See, now I'm noticing myself doing it. Most of your essays are about politics and the players who kind of make up our national landscape. And you don't always or like often write about the court, even though a number of your essays about, you know, gun control laws or Justice Kavanaugh touch on topics that are in the Supreme Court wheelhouse. So why have you just focused more on kind of our other governing institutions? Just because there's been so much chaos concentrated in them. I know the court also has its chaos. But yeah, oversight.

That's judicial oversight. I was just about to say, like, what can we do to convince you to write about the Supreme Court more? We promise there is a lot of material to work with. I always feel bad because I'm one of my friends. As a person who lives in D.C., I feel like statistically six of your friends are lawyers. You have to get a little card and it's stamped and it's like, here are your lawyer friends. You now have six of them.

Your friend Josh, who didn't used to be a lawyer, is a lawyer now. She used to be your funny friend and now she's a tax attorney. All right. Okay. So all your friends get handed back to you and they're lawyers and so i'm like well you say this as though it were bad but i'm also maybe like i'm the english major with the classics minor that's not a law degree that's something different but then again whenever i do actually wind up reading like

an opinion i'm just like, this is absolutely as bananas as most parts of the government are. There's so much stuff here that relates to what you talk about. I mean, like there were like the oral arguments where Justice Sotomayor kept getting talked over or the time where they skipped over Justice Breyer altogether. I mean, like that was sort of a classic moment of just cacophony that you could have like captured. I mean, like, that was sort of a classic moment of just cacophony that you could have, like, captured. I mean, we want you on this beat. We want, like, take your elbows and, like, shove Robert Barnes out of the way and just get in there. Like, this is your moment.

Like, there's so much good stuff in here, right? Don't you think? No, there's tons. And you didn't even mention the mystery flush. Yes, yes. Exactly. Fleshgate. We talked about F flushgate a lot.

Yeah, I know. I feel like there's been thorough coverage, but yeah, just one of the many. But not your coverage, not your trenchant coverage. You could have brought a different slant to flushgate, I think. You know, if only to entice you further on the interruptions that Melissa was mentioning where the chief justice tried to call on Justice Sotomayor and Justice Alito just kept talking. We can play a clip for our listeners of that here. I want to give you six categories of people and ask you to answer yes or no to the extent you can, whether you think each of these people in each of these categories must be counted for apportionment purposes. That person is a resident like any other undocumented person.

Justice Sotomayor? Justice Sotomayor? Justice Sotomayor? We polled our listeners about what this should be called. Should it be called Sam-splaining or toxic masculino? And are these acceptable puns, according to the pun queen? I like both of them. I feel like toxic masculino, there's a couple of syllables off there, but it also has like a more judicial ring to it. So I think I like it.

Okay. Well, that's also what our listeners selected. So they can feel extremely validated by their choices. So you also have a side hustle. In addition to writing these columns for the Washington Post, you also host a trivia hour, a weekly trivia hour for The Washington Post on Instagram. Yes? Well, I periodically guest host it. Okay. It only feels like an hour.

It's theoretically just 15 minutes. But I do enjoy trivia very much. You like trivia, yes? Yes. How much? That's the con yes? Yes. How much? That's the concession Melissa wanted. A great deal. Same.

I love trivia. And for the last two years, I've been wanting to incorporate into this podcast a Supreme Court trivia segment. And no one will let me do this. And the fact that you are here has finally given us an opportunity to do that. So would you like to play SCOTUS trivia with us? I'm scared, but I'm ready. You're ready. Okay. I think you got it. Okay. You're going to play against Leah. Oh no. Well, come on. Yeah, this is not, this is stacked. All right. All right. Ready? Okay. So, okay. How about we both get to answer and this

is a team okay be a team you ask the questions we try to answer them and our listeners see if they can answer the questions before we do they can play along but i think the answer is and then you'll say what the right answer is we can do it however you i'm just so excited to finally get to do this because literally i've been waiting for two years and notice we had Kate isn't even here. We had to get Kate out of the way for me to be able to do this. She's really been an obstacle to this. Okay. All right. Question number one. This person is the only president to also serve as chief justice of the United States. Taft. Yes. I knew that one. Okay. All right. So it was William Howard Taft is the only person to have served both as president and as chief justice of the

United States. Second question, twist. Taft was the only person to serve as both president and chief justice, but he was not the only presidential candidate to also serve on the Supreme Court. What presidential hopeful was also a justice, even though he was never president? Ooh. Plot twist, yes. Leah, do you know? It's Field. I only know this from my habeas paper. He was a presidential candidate, the author of Chez Champagne.

No. He was a candidate for, the author of Chez Champagne. No. He was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. OK. So I actually needed someone who was the actual nominee. So that may be where we are having the problem. So the correct answer that I was seeking, though, I understand Leah was really getting into the weeds here with her arcane knowledge of California electoral politics. The correct answer that I was seeking was Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. So he was. Oh, Charles Evans Hughes. Dang it. I did. I've heard that. You knew that.

You knew that. Here's another one. This one, this one, I think you probably. He was really boring, I think. Yes. I mean, according to Alice Roosevelt, but she thought everyone was boring. Well, I mean, when you're Alice Roosevelt, everyone is boring. Alice Roosevelt was, yeah, she was getting things done. Okay. Who was the only justice to also serve as Secretary of State? Marshall? Yeah! Yeah, that was it.

That was good. Good. Good. John Marshall. That was good. Okay. Here's another one. This is also, this is more arcane. Who are the only two justices to have been featured

on American currency? Salmon P. Chase? No, he wasn't a justice. Really? Really? Salmon P. Chase. Yeah, that was one. That was one. He was on the $10,000 bill. I knew that. $10,000 bill. Briefly, and it had Sam and Pete Chase on it. That was it. And there's one more.

Marshall. Yes, on what bill? God, I don't know. The $500 bill. We had a $500 bill? Right,

exactly. These bills are no longer in circulation, but those are the only two justices to have ever been featured on American currency. Okay,

this one's super easy. You were very good together. Which president threatened to pack the court with his chosen appointees? FDR. Okay. That was easy. All right. Also easy. Who was the first woman to be appointed to the court? Sandra Day O'Connor. Perfect. Okay. Now it gets harder. Who was the first justice whose swearing-in ceremony was televised? Rehnquist? Nope. Am I too late or too early? Too early. I want to say it was Roberts or Sotomayor. No?

Oh, wait. It was Sonia Sotomayor on August 8, 2009. It was the first one to be televised. I remember the image of the chief being sworn in on the Lincoln Bible that Tanya used. So I guess that. But I guess that wasn't actually televised. There were just pictures. I just play the hits.

I don't write the history. It's all fine. Last question. There have been a number of current justices who have also clerked for the court. Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh. But who is the only current justice to serve as a member of the Supreme Court alongside the justice for whom he clerked? Well, the he really narrows it down. Well, I mean, it is the Supreme Court.

I'm going to say Alito. Alito did not get a Supreme Court clerkship because unfortunately, his charming personality did not win over any of the justices. It was Neil Gorsuch. We actually don't know that. Sorry, I had to fit that in. I had to fit that in. That is wild speculation. I have no inside knowledge about why the Supreme Court justices did not hire Samuel Alito. I'm sure he was a super charming law student. You are very good at the Supreme Court trivia. This is very, very good.

Some of these were really esoteric. I am especially impressed about the salmon piches. You really pulled that out of your back pocket. That was like, I mean, it's all about the salmons, baby. That was great. Good for you. Good for you. Oh, man. Yeah, I'm emotionally exhausted, but thrilled.

You can use any of those on your WAPO trivia night if you want to. I should use all of those. I should also get back on the trivia night. I think they've had like, they were cycling away. I don't know what the deal is with it. This is a pandemic. People need amusement. I've done the trivia night and I've gotten a bunch of them right and I never won anything. Oh no. I know. I know. I'm just like letting you know that. Like I actually got a bunch right like on a number of occasions, like a hundred percent. Speaking of grievance campaigns and

grievance being the tone of the movement. No, I'm just kidding. I won and, like, I was robbed. This is oppression. I'm filing a case. This is oppression. Denying people Supreme Court seats. Yeah, no, you need to file a Supreme Court, yeah. Yeah, exactly. Melissa Caron is going to plead my case at a hearing in Michigan.

She's going to tell everyone. I'm sure she'll do a great job. Melissa for Melissa, yep. All right. So that's probably all we have time for but thank you Alexandra so much for joining us oh this was a blast thank you for having me and your book Nothing is Wrong and Here is Why

is available as the perfect holiday gift for all the Cassandras in your life show them that they are seen, that they're not alone. This is a great book and it fits in a stocking. It actually literally fits in a stocking.

So yeah, you can get it. Especially wide stocking, but yeah. If a stocking is appropriately sized. Exactly, yeah. It depends on the stocking. Everyone should also, of course, check out Alexandra's columns in the Washington Post

and catch her on Instagram when she is allowed to guest host the Washington Post Trivia Night. Thank when she is allowed to guest host the Washington Post Trivia Night. Thank you to our producer, Melody Rowell. Thank you to Eddie Cooper for making our music. And you can support the show by becoming a GLOW subscriber at glow.fm forward slash strict scrutiny. Thank you, everyone. Happy holidays. Happy holidays.