The Chris Voss Show - The Chris Voss Show Podcast – The Politicization of the American Legal System by Dr. James M. Copas LLM, LLM

Episode Date: April 10, 2026

The Politicization of the American Legal System by Dr. James M. Copas LLM, LLM https://www.amazon.com/Politicization-American-Legal-System-ebook/dp/B0GHZY8PGT The politicization of the American legal system has emerged as a critical concern, raising questions about the integrity, impartiality, and functionality of judicial institutions. This book examines how political ideologies influence the judiciary, the consequences of partisan appointments, and the broader implications of public perception regarding judicial neutrality. Using a combination of historical analysis and contemporary case studies, this commentary explores the systemic and institutional dynamics that have led to the politicization of legal processes in the United States. The paper further evaluates potential reforms to depoliticize the judiciary and restore public confidence in the rule of law. Academic footnotes are provided to support the analysis.

You wanted the best... You've got the best podcast. The hottest podcast in the world. The Chris Voss Show, the preeminent podcast with guests so smart you may experience serious brain bleed. The CEOs, authors, thought leaders, visionaries, and motivators. Get ready, get ready. Strap yourself in. Keep your hands, arms, and legs inside the vehicle at all times.

Because you're about to go on a monster education role. rollercoaster with your brain. Now, here's your host, Chris Voss. Hello, folks, Voss here from The Chris Voss Show, Todd. Ladies gentlemen, they're only as things that makes official. Welcome to 16 years and 2100 episodes of the Chris Voss show. Coming in a little late there with the clapping folks. Come on, audience.

Get with it. Go to Goodrease.com, Fortress, Chris Foss. Forrest, Chris Foss. Forrest, Friends and Relatives, go to YouTube.com, Fortress, Frust, Chris Foss. LinkedIn.com, Fortess, Chris Foss. Facebook. com, Fortess Chris Foss, and all those crazy places we exist on the internet. Opinions expressed by guests on the podcast are solely their own and do not necessarily

reflect the opinions of the host or the Chris Foss show. Some guests of the show may be advertising on the podcast, but it's not an endorsement or review of any kind. Today's featured author comes to us from books to lifemarketing.co.com. With expert publishing to strategic marketing, they help authors reach their audience and maximize their book success. Today, we're an amazing young man. We're going to be talking about his insightful book called Re!

politicization of the American legal system. Dr. James M. Copus joins us in the show. We're going to be talking about his book, his insights, and all that good stuff. And you're going to learn what's been going on out there in the worldwide, whatever. Dr. James Copus was born and raised in Hamilton, Ohio, graduated from Taft Senior High School in Hamilton, Ohio. Then Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Wait, Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. They might have a proximity problem where they're like, do they know that they're in Ohio? No, I'm just teasing. Anyway, he has an AA and a BA. I have a CC, but it's mostly credit cards. He then graduated from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law with his jurist doctor degree. He then graduated from Stetson University College of Law in St. St. Peter's, Florida.

Those are the guys who make one of my old favorite 1980s perfume or cologne from it. Stetson, with his LLM degree in. in international law, business and trade. He went to Chicago. He graduated from the John Marshall Law School with an LLM in intellectual property law. The University of Illinois later issued another LMM diploma to Mr. Copus in intellectual property law after having merged with the John Marshall Law School. Welcome the show. How are you, James?

I'm doing very well. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Thanks for coming. I think I'm going to refer to you as Jim during the show we decided. Give us your dot-coms. Where do you want people to find you on the interwebub, sir? I'm sorry.

What'd you say? Give us your dot-coms. Where do you want people to find you on the interwebs? On the internet? Yes. You know what? I know it sounds silly, but I don't remember the website off the top of my head.

Tell you what, we're going to put that link on the Chris Vos show and people will be able to find it there. How about that? That'll be good. That'll be awesome. Jim, give me a 30,000 overview of your book and kind of an opening thing on it. Okay, very good.

Let's start with this. The American legal system, as you may or may not know, was designed to be a stabilizing force in our constitutional architecture. What? Yes, it was. It exists to ensure that no matter who wins elections, the rules remain predictable, essentially. Now, that's a high-level overview. The predictability is not just a political principle. It's an economic necessity.

Today, many Americans perceive the judiciary as politically aligned, rather than institutionally independent. Whether that perception is fully accurate is less important than the fact that it actually exists because perception drives trust and trust sustains institutions. My book argues that when judicial appointments, media narratives, and litigation strategies become overtly partisan one way or the other, the long-term consequences is not just simply political tension. It's structural instability. Entrepreneurs, investors, executives, communities, frankly, depend on the stable rule of law environment. When courts are viewed as extensions

of political factions, that stability weakens. This book is not about defending one party or criticizing the other. It's about defending structure. Because without structural integrity in our legal system, democratic governance and economic predictability both erode. My book, the politicalization of the American legal system, examines how increasing partisan influence over judicial appointments and public perception is weakening trust in the courts. I argue that judicial independence is not just a constitutional idea. It's a foundation of our economic stability and democratic durability. This book offers nonpartisan structural reforms aimed at restoring the confidence in the rule of law. It's really that simple at a high level. And that's really important. I mean, you surmised it perfectly

there as to why having a judicial system that is impartial? I mean, what's the old, the picture of the woman holding the scales with the blindfold? And yeah, it creates a stable society, it creates a stable system. Now, when did you write this book? When did you publish this? book. I should probably... It was published early December 2025. It's on the market now. It took a couple years, two and a half years, if I remember correctly, to write the book. And it was really, if I may share with you three motivating factors that brought it to mind and actually stimulated the idea of writing the book. The first is, as you cited earlier in the conversation, I've had the good fortune to attend and graduate from several law schools.

I got four legal diplomas hanging on the wall. I understand the law, and I know how the law works. So I have that fundamental understanding from an intellectual perspective. I consider that a positive. On the negative side, I had the misfortune of becoming very active at a high level in one of the political parties, state party. Are you with me? As a consequence of that position,

I was involved with the national party on a daily basis. So I got to see the good and the bad and the ugly from the inside. And while I, as an individual, as a citizen, as one guy that votes, I do honestly believe one party is 1,000 feet underwater. However, the other party is 500 feet underwater. underwater, what's the difference? Either way, you're going to drown and you're not going to make it. And I think that really is the option today for the American people. And it's a sad state of affairs in my view. And to be honest with you, it was very disheartening for me to witness what I

witnessed firsthand. So that was the second motivation. The third motivation is that my wife, Lynette and I are both very, very serious about our Christian faith and we feel it's our duty as individuals consistent with our faith to do everything we can to try to shine the light on the truth whatever the truth is not my version of the truth or the guy next door's version but in fact the truth of this book doesn't target one ideology or another it simply focuses on the truth that the structural integrity of the judicial system has got to be right or the country will fail, the economy will fail. If on the other hand, it is right, and there's a lot of things that at least I believe need

to be done, if it does, if it is structurally sound like it was designed to be when our country was formed, we can be ravingly successful. And it is the backbone of what drives everything, in my opinion. And I think the book essentially argues that. So those were the motivating factors. Do you talk about some of the things that have happened in the course or history of SCOTUS and maybe the broad judicial system? But I think SCOTUS maybe is the, let me ask you this first. You think that SCOTUS is the body that is the one saddled with maintaining the unbiased or of the judiciary and sending an example or leadership position to the judiciary?

Is that kind of where maybe all the problems start? Maybe? I don't know. Well, if they don't start there, they certainly end there. And I do. Obviously, it's the highest court in the land. And, you know, I know that there are some people who will disagree with, there's some legal scholars who will disagree with what I'm about to say.

But my honest opinion is the study of constitutional law is actually the easiest subject matter area of the law. it's not nearly as complicated as tort law or criminal law or or any of the others intellectual property law for sure constitutional law it's it's simple it's there's the constitution issues are either in the constitution or they're not in the constitution the justices have a job to do their job is to know the constitution to interpret the constitution that's their job Their job is not to change it. They're not part of the legislative branch. And that's one of the problems inside the judiciary today, both at the state level and at the federal level, virtually every judge that puts on a black robe gets seduced into thinking that it's okay to legislate from the bench.

And that's not okay. Yeah. It's wrong. It's contrary to the way they're trained. It is, it's, it's, it's, it's bad. In fact, the truth of the matter is, the judiciary has never really been free of political context, but it was designed to be insulated from the political pressure. Yeah.

Even, even back in the early 1800s in Marbury v. Madison, the court stepped straight into political conflict. However, what has changed is not that politeness. exists, it's the intensity and the visibility of partisan alignment. The impact, therefore, for business leaders from a commercial perspective in our economy is really this. The key issue is whether judges have philosophies. It's whether outcomes appear predictable and grounded in law rather than party identity. Markets depend on the perception that contracts, regulations, and constitutional rules will not swing wildly between election cycles. Yeah.

But that's the, you know, the judiciary being the stabilizing factor. You know, up until, I think just like in the last 10, 20 years maybe, the SCOTIS as kind of our infighting in Congress and politics and stuff and parties and just about everything else, you know, between Congress and the presidency, you know, their battles and some skirmishes kind brought down a lot of what a lot of trust that the American people had correct me if I'm wrong too because I'm just going off of my memory but but Scotus usually had a high regard up until recently is that correct that is correct in fact the deterioration at least it's cited by many of the noted legal scholars really began the acceleration began with the confirmation battles when they became

ideological proxy wars. I mean, as an example, the turning point that many identify is the rejection of Robert Bork in 1987, which transformed confirmations into national political campaigns. From a business standpoint, that moment increased volatility around judicial appointments. when every nomination becomes an existential activity, institutional stability weakens. And stability, of course, is the oxygen of markets. It's counterproductive if we don't get it straightened out to be very candidly. But in 87 is really when it got grossly out of line. In addition to that, if you remember the Bush v. Gore,

case, the decision in Bush Gore placed the court squarely and directly at the center of electoral politics. It was as though the United States Supreme Court decided the presidency. Yeah. You know, I mean, no matter who you wanted, who you were for, it was not relevant. The process, in my view, was abused. That issue had no business, in my opinion, being in front of the Supreme Court, that was a, that was a congressional legislative issue that should have been handled, at least in that regard. I think the same thing to be very candid with you, and I know this is a sensitive subject for a lot of people, but what was it? The 60s and the 70s, a liberal, very liberal Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, of course, a big case. That's an example

of a subject matter, whether you're pro or pro-life, choice or pro-life is not relevant. What is relevant is that subject matter should have never been before the Supreme Court in the first place. That is an issue that should have been dealt with with U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate. And if they had the votes to pass a law, they could. If they didn't, they wouldn't. And it was an absolute legal fiction.

that the liberal Supreme Court of the day dreamt up when they passed, when they affirmed Roe v. Wade, and it all centered on the concept of a woman's privacy rights in her own body, which is not expressed anywhere in the Constitution. Yeah, that's good point. Okay?

And so what did the court do to fix it? They turned around in Dobbs and turned it around. Now, on one hand, they in fact corrected it. On the other hand, they created the same sin, or excuse me, they actually committed the same sin, in my view, that the court in Roe v. Wade did when they got involved in a subject matter, they shouldn't have been involved in. So it's really, it's really kind of a, at least in my view, there's two processes going on. One is I'll refer to as the rule of law. And I'm not, I don't mean that term in the cute way that politicians throw it around when they really don't even know what they're talking about, frankly. What I mean when I am referring to that, what I'm talking about is the purity of the study of law, the logic of law and the proper application of the law.

When that's done right and the law is applied properly as you are trained in law school to do it, and by the way, they all have the same education because it's highly regulated and every law school teaches essentially the same curriculum. The rule of law is pure. Now, separate from that, you got the judiciary. And, you know, the judiciary is just a bunch of people. All of us are fallible. We all make mistakes. judges make mistakes and they get tempted into thinking somehow when they put that black robe on,

they can do pretty much whatever they want and they legislate from the bench. And they sometimes don't even realize what they're doing. And they dream up these legal fictions that it's really outside of the scope of their job, frankly. Their job is to apply the law and create the law. up to the legislature. And so those are functional, functional corrections that, at least in my view, need to be dealt with so as to restore a high level of integrity in the courts, trust, predictability, and it all leads to a stable economy and stable markets and just predictability.

Yeah. And I agree with you. Those definitely were flashpoints for, you know, where the, where the, where the court became politicized and different political groups started realizing that if you game the SCOTUS, if you game the court, you could win elections. And I sure saw that with Bush versus Gore. Let me ask you this just for my own knowledge and stuff. We've had people on that we're in the investigations for Watergate and stuff. My understanding, and you're the lawyer and you, you know, I'm just the amateur boy here. So that's why I'm asking. But my understanding was the thing with Bork that was the hangup for most, the hungover in most of the rest of his career, was that he was the one that fired all the people for Nixon.

Everyone resigned, but Bork didn't resign and he fired the people. And that haunted him throughout the rest of his career and was one of the reasons they wouldn't give him the SCOTUS. Is that true or is that, what do you think? You know, I'd have to go back and read the entire file to be able to speak to it. intelligently, but the point is up to that point, confirmations. Let me back up and say this. All nine of the, if you think about this in theory, all nine of the justices graduated from law school. They all studied the same curriculum. They all passed a similar bar exam, right? Okay. If their job is to apply the law, if that's their job, and they can part,

their personal feelings at the door when they walk in with their black robe. If they can do that, park their own individual ideological leanings, whatever they might happen to be at the door, if they can do that. Theory, you're going to have 9-0 decisions almost all the time. Because they all come to the same conclusion because that's what they were trained to do. Okay, since Bork, in particular sense Bork, that's not the case. Now, Prior to that time, you had a lot of 9-0 decisions. You had a lot of 8-1s, 7-2, that kind of thing. Since that time, it's been a lot closer.

And it's all centered around ideological differences, justices of being unable to separate their own personal leanings, whatever they might happen to be, and leave that at the door and actually do their job, which is interpret the law, apply the Constitution. That's it. Yeah.

Let me ask you this. Do you feel that there's people on SCOTUS now that don't have that? I mean, I kind of like the fact that I can buy a judge by just giving them an RV to drive around in. I got to be honest. I honestly believe that while federal judges, including the Supreme Court, they're different animals than state judges. While they are different systems, the fact of the matter is they're both heavily politically influenced. as an example at the state level i mean they're de facto politicians because they actually run for election okay so for them to say that they're not a politician and it's a it's a nonpartisan election

and all that that's that's that's that's laughable it's it's not even i mean i don't know how they do it with a straight face to be honest i've often wondered about that when i vote for judges i'm like you know this seems a little. You know, when I see when I see them seeing showing signs and hustling for money, you know, I mean, that's kind of the problem we have with Citizens United ruling from SCOTUS and other rulings that have made it. So you can pretty much buy you can buy who you want. I mean, it's crazy. Yeah, it is. It's yes. And when I was involved with one of the parties at a very high level at one of the states, what I saw made me sick to be very candid. And it's, it's really out of hand. And both parties are equally guilty in my view. But that's, that's a state level judges. I think

there's tremendous reform opportunities available there. But at the federal level, the whole notion that, you know, a president's elected, the president can nominate. federal judges, right? He's not going to nominate anybody that doesn't, whoever the president is, whether it's a liberal president or a conservative president. They're not going to nominate anyone that's not consistent with their own point of view on these issues. And to think otherwise is just foolish. It's not even, it's laughable to think otherwise. And that's what they do. And so these people, many of them get confirmed, and it's generally a pretty contentious, you know, review by the Senate and so on and so forth. And in fact, it's really such an unprofessional experience. It's

kind of insulting, frankly. At least I find it to be that. It almost has nothing to do to the actual qualifications of the individual. It's entirely addressing down of whatever their political views are one way or the other. And of course, then when they get on the court in a lifetime appointment, Yeah. You know, and they're biased by their own views on this, that, or whatever, that impacts their decisions because they're human. And my view is the reform opportunities at the federal level are dramatic. As an example, one of the things that I believe should happen is that there has to be some way to act. replace justices and federal judges if they fail to apply the law properly.

And it's some weird legal theory they've dreamt up to come to whatever conclusion that they came up with. Now, I realize what I just said isn't very artfully said. But the truth of the matter is, if they stay in their lane, apply the law and quit trying to create law, they would be fine. That is their job. And they've got to be able to do that to be a good judge. And in my opinion, if they can't do that, they shouldn't be considered qualified to be a judge. Yeah.

You know, who would oversee a body like that? I mean, that's one of the things we've kind of discovered with SCOTUS and some of these things like the RV story and some of these other things. you know, who do we have to create a governing body? Because there's governing bodies that oversee all the justice system throughout. You know, you can appeal through the whole system. Having this system where these guys are the final boss, and, you know, we recently found out of the last few years, there was no sort of ethical, you know, most of the justices and attorneys have to adhere to ethical standards and, you know, show that they're, you know, they're not being biased by people buying them RVs. The, you know, we, we found out that these guys didn't have any rules. It's just like they can do whatever they want kind of.

Essentially, yes. And first of all, let me say this. It's not the ABA that should have any involvement in it at all. And the ABA's rules of ethics, the Supreme Court, if I'm not mistaken, have decided that those rules don't even apply to them. But, but that aside, there needs to be an oversight committee that turns over on a regular basis. so that it itself doesn't become corrupt. But there should be absolutely fixed criteria. You cross that line, you get your hands slapped the first time,

the second time you're out, in my opinion. Because people shouldn't people, when I say people, I'm talking you, me, the average Joe that votes, you know, and trying to feed his family, that sort of thing. They deserve consistency of the application. of the law, not prejudicial application. And frankly, I as a voter don't care what an individual judge's opinion of anything is. What I care about are their intellectual capabilities of understanding what the law is and

applying it. That's what I care about. And if they do that, I think they're doing their job. If they muck it up with their own personal feelings and insights, that's where it gets nasty. And that's why we got a lot of five, four decisions and so on and so forth. And I think it's potentially threatening to the overall integrity of the judiciary in general, frankly. Let me ask you this. You know, we're kind of dealing with this thing that we've never really had to deal with as a human,

as human beings in the arc of our existence. We're now living longer than ever before. I mean, I often complain about how old I am. I'm 58 now. But then I'll think and realize that 100 years ago, people didn't live to my age mostly on rare occasions. In fact, when they invented Social Security, it was a great deal for the government

because 10% of people made it to 65. So they're like, we had to keep all the money here. No, they hate it because everyone's living 90 and 100. And, you know, we've seen how our Congress and in our, I think we can say our presidency now twice, have turned in these geriatric rest homes. And they're wonderful people. Let's not put it that way. They're maybe slightly still competent in things. They're a little off their game. I'm 58 and I'm off my game. I mean, I can tell. I can tell them off my game. I'm not 100%. And to have these lifetime judges, and, you know, these people in Congress that, you know, we've been seeing people falling down in Congress,

Mitch McConnell, you know, I mean, and it breaks your heart. I mean, I don't want Mitch McConnell, but to see him falling as an aged person that should probably be, you know, with his family, you know, and there's also a mess of examples of this. I'm going to cry of sorry. And so having these SCOTUSs that are now at this, they can never be removed, they stay in until they're forever. I have a lot of respect for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We had a secretary on the show. But, you know, some of the discussions you see as to how coherent maybe these people are.

And they're deciding the lives and future of people that are going to succeed them by far. And, you know, I really question some of the competency at a certain level of age. Like I say, I'm not throwing rocks. I'm 58 and I'm not sharp anymore. And I don't know how much I'll be when I'm just going to be drawn aside of my face. face when I turn 80 pretty much, I think. So what do you, what do you do your thoughts on that? First of all, keep in mind, these are non-elected people. Yeah. They weren't elected by anybody to any position to do anything. They were appointed. The concept that it's a lifetime appointment

is foolish, in my opinion. And I don't think it's in the interest of the country. To be honest with you, I don't think it's in the interest of the judges themselves when you, if if you could get them to really admit that and think about it. And I don't think it's in the interest of the function that they are asked to provide and serve the people with. I honestly believe that if I had to pick three top reforms, I think the first one would be a very, very, very transparent, highly critical merit-based evaluation process. And part of that is not, just their intellectual ability to understand the law and apply the law, but their ability to be non-biased, regardless of what their personal ideological beliefs are, because that

drags politics into their decision of the law. And remember, the judiciary is to be independent of that, of the politics. That's the case. Now, it has, like I've always, already touched on, gleefully, historically marched into that arena, you know, and it's, it's, I believe was a mistake and a misuse of their authority, but the reality is that's what we're dealing with. But a transparent, merit-based, highly critical evaluation process. And there has to be a body of oversight that takes a look at that and watches that carefully and evaluates their judgments and so on and so forth. And that body, has to be turned over because there shouldn't be any kingdom building at that level either.

In addition to that, there's going to be clear ethical and recusal standards. Whatever they turn out to be, they have to be highly critical, very clear. You cross the line. It doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter how many great things you've done. You're out if you cross the line. And it's really that straightforward. the position of being a judge is so critical, you can't afford to do anybody favors, in my view.

I also think there should be a very, very structured, predictable judicial tenure reform. Lifetime appointments is something that doesn't really apply today, in my view, and needs to be reformed. I think it would be in the interest of the judiciary. I think it's in the interest of the country. I think it's in the interest of the economy. and of course in the interests of guys like you and me who vote and do the best we can and so on and so forth. And that's what I think needs to be taken a hard look at. So when people read this book, that's what they'll come out of it with, I hope.

They'll see that I'm not promoting one ideology over the other. I'm simply focusing on the structural integrity of the system. and offering some ideas about what we might consider doing to correct things going forward. Yeah. And I mean, you see, you saw the abuses in the system. You saw them going on trips. And the other thing, it really bugs me. Like someone was at the Federal Society the day, I think Scalia or somebody.

And, you know, I think we're pretty familiar with what they're up to. I don't know who the leaning committees are on the right side or on the left side. that are on the left side that pick it for the Democrats, you think I know. But, you know, to constantly see the dinners and the awards and the jerk off, really. I mean, that's really, come on. So it's, you can't tell me there it's not a slight of quid pro quo there. I mean, if I take you on enough vacations, whether you're conscious servant or not, you know, you're going to favor me a little bit.

And I'm not picking on one party. I'm just using that example because I just saw it. And I know that goes on a lot. They go on these, you know, both, they both are entertained and they give these stupid awards to them. These people don't need awards. They're on SCOTUS. They're going to be in history for fucking ever. They don't need, they don't need a vacuum cleaner award from some company.

I don't know. That's just my opinion. I don't know. I completely agree. They have to be immune to those things. I mean, it's almost, to be honest with you, it's almost like you're asking a fallible human, which we are all fallible. You're asking them to be a superhuman, which we are. And by the way, if you're not willing to subject yourself to that scrutiny,

you've eliminated yourself as a potential candidate as a judge in my mind. That's how important that position is. If someone is willing to subject to themselves to that level of scrutiny and they have the intellectual ability to understand the law and to apply the law properly, that's at least in my view, what you want as a judge. Somebody that's objective,

fair-minded, sees no color, sees no anything, I mean, other than justice, blindly applied. And each side tends to pick their scotist judges

and recommend the president. Maybe there needs to be like a bipartisan or non-partisan. I don't know how you do that, but non-partisan board that actually pick judges and can offer the, you know, because, you know, we're pretty familiar with what the Heritage

Foundation and the Federal Society have been up to since Betsy DeVos and her father in 1973 with Nixon. They've been trying to stack the court and flip the court. They also realize that the best way to stack the court, win the court, and get what they want in ultimate power is to win, not on the popular vote, but win the game of the, what is it, the college vote? the electoral college vote. And that's been a process they've been actively working at and funding for Cus Nixon. And they won. They seriously won when you really look at Cicid and other things that have been very undemocratic to our process. And, you know, where basically we've sold the country out to oligarchs. If you're a billionaire, you can buy anybody you want, any politician you want. We recently

saw this in Utah where the voters had, I think in 2018 or something, They had voted to have a nonpartisan gerrymandering is the right word, but basically to make sure things aren't gerrymandered and to have their maps for elections and not muck with and hopefully be set up with some sort of anti-biased. The Republican legislature here, as they always do, decided that that was not something that was going to work for them. And so they've been trying to overturn it, throw it out, even assailing the judge and different things, all sorts of devious little tricks. and things they do. And if you lived in Utah long enough, you understand what goes on here. And that was pretty interesting to watch in trying to overturn the will of the people. They even cheated on the names to the point that so many of them got removed. They didn't meet the bar to put on the thing.

But, you know, maybe there needs to be something like that where there's, we need to have more of that. There's that pre-oversight or something where people can't push the buttons. Oh, the thing I was getting to is they were struggling with that process, the Republicans to put it on to the ballot to overturn the will of the people from 2018. And things were going well, and some billionaire or some multimillioner came in with $4 million of money to put his thumb on the scale and buy that conversion. And he doesn't even live in the state. And everyone's just sitting here going,

Jesus. I mean, this is an oligarchy. A billionaire can just come in and buy an election, quote, unquote, or put on the tablet what he wants and forego the will of the people in a state he doesn't even live in? Like the Utahans have to live with whatever they're, whatever they decide and their legislature decides. But to have that, I mean, it's just extraordinary to watch. It is. It is. And I'll tell you again, and I'm certainly no expert. politician by any stretch of the imagination. But the time that I spent inside that political parties, state operation, and right at the highest level, I'm telling you, it's a dirty business. It is a dirty business. And to act like it's not a dirty business is disingenuous at a minimum. It is, it is really, it's not something to be proud of, frankly. And if you will, if we allow that

to corrupt our judicial system, we're lost. We're lost. I mean, just billionaires can buy whatever they want, lobbyists can buy whatever they want. We're kind of there now. I'm trying to think of the other ruling. There was Citizens United, and there was another ruling that basically just opened up to where you can buy your politicians

and fund them with dirty money anyway at which you want and all this stuff. And it really, you know, has accelerated the crisis we've seen, I think, in politics since that ruling. But yeah, and so are there other outlines in the book that you give to remedy the system or trying to prove it? There's recommendations of a wide variety. Of course, as we've kind of alluded, it's really not up to me, of course. It's not up to you.

My hope is to have people read the book, understand the sense of urgency, and start to ask the questions and push their representatives to take this issue seriously. and let's get on with reforms that are meaningful that will allow us to actually restore the court to what it was intended to be. And that really is the referee between the executive branch and the legislative branch. They are the arbiter of those sort of conflicts, what they should be. And the law should be applied fairly and equally and consistently and in a predictable manner. And the truth of the matter is the Constitution is the Constitution. It isn't a living document.

It shouldn't change. The founding fathers didn't say it should change. So one and so forth. Now, I'm not saying that it's absolutely perfectly written, which is why they've left it open for amendments. But there's a process through the legislative branch to, of course, enact those amendments. And that can be done. And that's the way we ought to do it. And I think a lot of, I think a lot of the problem, too, is the politicians, instead of legislating, they've just, they just run courts up the, they just run cases up the court line to take it to SCOTUS and try and see if the conservative leading SCOTUS will wander in their favor.

It's exactly what they do. And to the shame of the judicial system, they allow it to happen. and they know very well that's not their duty. They know very well that that's a legislative issue that should go through the legislature. And those kinds of cases should be turned away, in my opinion. Yeah. We've seen that with Donald Trump and it's 2026 folks that are watching this 10 years from now on YouTube as you do. We went on YouTube for 18 years and people, they're always like writing stuff.

Like the iPhone 5 didn't come out last week. Dude, look at the day. Anyway, you know, he started dragging things directly. to the SCOTUS. And when in reality, to my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an attorney, I just talk to one non-podcast, that really should go up through the court system and be vetted maybe or be, you know, be torn apart and looked at and analyzed through the system that we have. Some, see if some matters should go through the courts, there's no question, but matters that are inherently legislative issues that should be voted on by the, by Congress,

and then ultimately the Senate and so on and so forth and put before the president for a veto or not, those processes are in place for a reason. And that's the way those issues should be handled. Issues that are legitimately inside the judicial system, so be it. But to take advantage of the judicial system simply to bypass the legislative process, which in my opinion is what happened with Roe v. Wade, and it was corrected by Dobbs, which committed the same sin, in my opinion, that's wrong. From a legal perspective, I believe that's just flat wrong.

You know, it's almost like, and I think Justice Roberts has alluded this or one of the other justices, but they've alluded that, hey, Congress and President, you guys need to legislate more stuff instead of just throwing in at us. And I think that compounds the politicization. Is that correct? Absolutely. I think that's part of it as well. Absolutely.

Absolutely. But the reality is justices are, at least in my view, they're hesitant to push back too hard. Yeah. You know, they kind of, it's a kind of a double-edged sword the way I see it. On one hand, I think from a moral perspective, from a legal intellectual perspective, they know that's what they should do. But they're human. And they kind of like the power.

Yeah. Plus those RVs are pretty cool. They are pretty cool. Yes, you're right. I want a free RV. Yeah, yeah. They kind of like the power. And when you actually sit,

when you sit back and think about the fact that the Supreme Court, nine people made the decision as to who the president was going to be, you know, in Bush Gore, that is mind-blowing to me. Absolutely mind-blowing. Again, I'm not criticizing the outcome or saying it should have been the other way or any, I'm not making a judgment. I'm just saying that is a decision that in my view is outside of their lane. It should have been dealt with from a legislative perspective. I just think that was, that was a misuse of the courts. And the courts should not have gotten involved. Really, where I think,

the Democrats woke up and realized Betsy had won the war of being able to stack the electoral college against the popular vote. And I mean, it's kind of this whole electoral college thing. I don't know. You have any thoughts on electoral college? You talked about that in the book at all, whether that thing needs to stay or go? Yeah, I think, first of all, I think the electoral college is a good thing in the sense that it normalizes the effect and the ability of smaller states to be heard. short of that you know

New York City Chicago Los Angeles would rule the country maybe they should they're the ones who bring it all the money not not when you think

about what gave rise to the country in the first place and that was essentially 50 little countries and I mean that metaphorically of course they weren't literally

little countries but essentially they were and they came together as the United States. And so there are rights beyond just individual rights. You've got to remember, Chris, we're not a democracy. We never have been a democracy. We're not going to be a democracy.

The only time in the history of mankind when a pure democracy ever worked was about a 30-year period in ancient Greece with the rule of Pericles. And most of that had to do with Pericles, the individual. He was a highly educated, very affluent, benevolent, honest man who loved his people. Oh, they never like that guy nowadays. Yeah. And how many leaders do you have like that? Narcissism seems to be the rule of the day if you want to run.

I'm sorry. We've had great politicians on the show. we just have the clean, nice, good ones. And a lot of them are bipartisan, too, that we have on the show. But there is a narcissistic ability to it. I mean, even I'm narcissistic, so I can't per rocks. Yeah, but the point is when Pericles died, that's when it all fell apart in Greece from a democratic perspective. So we're a constitutional republic, as you know, and there are reasons for that.

And one thing I'd like to highlight, a lot of people may not remember. this or think about it very much, but in the history of the United States of America, we've had one president, one that got it right as it relates to political parties. And that was George Washington. Oh, okay. In his farewell address from his second term, he warned against the dangers of political parties. He thought it was not in the interest of Americans to be trained. to fight Americans, where you have one party fighting the other party.

What he believed, and this is oversimplified, was that as an American, it is your duty to educate yourself about the issues of the day, the things that are being voted on, develop your own ideas, and vote accordingly. And it's really that simple. That's how simple he saw it. Yeah. I'm not so sure that that isn't what we should. be really trying to get to and sidestepping the parties because I just don't.

Problem. You know, I always say this on the show and I talk to people about this. One of the lines that I use, it's my quote, I guess, is each of us are responsible or each of us are stewards of our democracy. Each of us has to, and I may have ripped that off of George Washington or some, that final speech, but each of us are stewards of our democracy. It is our job daily, daily. to maintain it and force it and have our best interests at heart in that.

But people nowadays, they're too busy watching The Bachelor and the Kardashians and whatever sort of IQ melting bullshit's on TikTok this week. And, you know, I'll talk to me, Alana, I have time to follow politics. You know, I see what you're doing in your life. You sit in front of the TV for five hours a day, drawing out the side of your mouth, watching the most dumbest shit in the world. And if you're not doing that, you're on social media, do it. I'm not I can throw rocks because I do it too.

I do scroll too. But to see the amount of people that I talk to on both sides of parties that are just, the number one, they don't pay attention, they don't follow up, they don't, you know, they just vote and forget for four years. And they don't sit and complain. First of all, I think that's human nature to be a little lazy. But in this country, we've been so blessed with so many great things and so many great opportunities that we have been trained to take advantage of those things and just expect those

things. Can you imagine what would happen if suddenly tomorrow no one had indoor plumbing as an example? What if that just went away? What if there was no natural gas or fuel for your vehicles or this, that, or whatever, that was a result of a crisis of one sort or another? We're working on that right now, 2026. Yeah, you've got that right. You may not be, you want to not be presenting theory on the show.

Yeah. No, you're right. But the point I'm trying to make is we've been, we've been very spoiled. You know, we've had it pretty good. And I think we take it for granted. And that's not the standard of living that the rest of the world is used to. Let me ask you this. And I think I've got the cue from this from the PR sheet.

But SCOTUS has been accused of a lot of originalist creation. Maybe not creationist, but they've been creating originalist sort of interpretations of the Constitution instead of enforcing the Constitution. They've been, to my understanding this originalist thing is like they've been going back to the original Constitution and try to say what it is as opposed to the tort law or the presumed prescience of law that's been established and built on the Constitution since. Does that sound correct or what is the truth on that? The question really is, what is the difference between originalism, textualism, and activism, and how are these labels, how do they become political weapons? I mean, the answer, in my view, is really this straightforward. Judicial philosophies like originalism or living constitutionalism were once academic debates, just academic debates. Today, they're often shorthand for political alignment.

But the real issue is for entrepreneurs, what matters. And I get back to this, the rule of law has got to be predictable because it drives our economy. For entrepreneurs, what matters is consistency. Businesses can adapt to a strict interpretation of the Constitution or an expansive one. They can literally adapt one way or the other. What they cannot adapt to easily is the unpredictability driven by partisan shifts. That's what we've got to be able to protect the judiciary from, in my view. Yeah, and this whole money thing that they've got going on, I just think it's so filthy.

You know, you're paid to come speak. You're paid to go on trips. You know, there's this. I mean, really, if they become, if they, at. to the job, they should just be isolated. I mean, in my mind. A lot of judges can't do what they're, get the griff they're getting.

It's like I said, you know, we're asking them to be superhuman, right? We're asking them to put themselves in a bubble, stay away from everybody else, focus on just their job, five or six years, ten years, whatever the number is, and then they're out. Yeah.

And then we come in with new blood, and it's the same sort of boot camp. So at least in my, opinion. It's highly merit driven, intellectually driven. They've got to be the kind of personality that can park their egos at the door, park their personal bias at the door, apply the law. If they do that, at least in my view, things run smoother. When they start weaving in their own personal ideological preferences and trying to create legal arguments to support those preferences, that's, in my view, abuse of the law.

Yeah. And it's an abuse of their position and it's abuse of their power and they should be gone. Yeah. And plus it just gives anybody who sees it. What is that line, the appearance of indiscretion or? There's no predictability. I mean, you know, you have no trust. Public trust degrades.

Public trust degrades. Compliance degrades. You know, then enforcement costs go. up and so on and so forth and everything spiral out of control. Yeah. And here we are, 2026. Yeah. Amen. Amen. What's that? What's that all line? That's my favorite thing. I say almost on a daily basis now. The Chinese curse, may you live in interesting times. I'm at the point where I'd rather not live at interesting times. I'd take some boring times right now. Just give me a farm and a cow and I could use a break.

this point. Yeah, I'm going to get it. I'm right there with you. I'm glad you've presented reforms. Do you see a vision for, I mean, you're going to get this out there from a book thing, but can we just mail this to each one of the SCOTUS folks and I don't know, see if they got to come with any ideas? Mail the book to them, you say? Yeah, mail the book to them. Maybe we can do that. You know, if it could get through the screening, maybe they might read it. I don't know. But the reality is there's a lot of work that needs to be done. It would have to go through the legislative branch, ultimately, you know, Congress and the Senate and get past the president's desk and all that sort of thing.

But if, in fact, it was taken seriously, it could be done. It absolutely could be done. I think what we need to do is first we need to trick everybody. And I think the White House Congress and SCOTUS can all fit this. And what we're going to do is we're going to build. exact models of those offices and rooms. And then we're just going to make them a giant rest home. It will be a rest home with nurses and children.

And then they're going to think they're going to work every day. They did this with Donald Trump's father for 10 years when he had Alzheimer's. They gave him a fake office. And so he would think, and you kind of have to do that with people in Alzheimer's dementia because something familiar comforts them. And if you throw them in it completely anyway. And then what we do is pass some term limit laws and say, you know, none of this bullshit anymore.

and then we have some rules, regulations for these people. You know, the presidency and SCOTUS were two of the things we learned in the last 15 years that a lot of the stuff was just based upon integrity. And instead of law, like I always thought a lot of the shit that got broken in the last 15 years, there was like laws for it. And they're just like, no, it's just kind of an appearance of integrity. And, you know, no one's ever been an asshole so far in 230 years, whatever. You know what I'm talking about.

And, you know, it's, so we just do that and reset it. Let's get in really quickly. I think you had some other plugs for some of the other work you're doing as well, other books that are coming up. Yeah, I have a few that should be out in the early summer, artificial intelligence and global security, the implications of AI for warfare and international peacekeeping. It should be interesting.

International peacekeeping. It's a two-volume set. It invokes international. law, the sovereign law of individual nation states. There's a lot of technological AI-related stuff in the book that needs to be dealt with and addressed. And the truth is, from a legal perspective, internationally, we're not in a position currently to actually get our arms wrapped around it, which even makes AI used for these purposes more dangerous. But it's a big deal, and I've tried to address it comprehensively in the book, and the book will be out this summer. In addition to that,

I got a second one, the impact of globalization on the sovereignty of nation states. And a third one, and stay with me on this title, as to the question of saving America. That's the title. The subtitle is, the United States Constitution is the answer. Are we going to still have a country in a constitution when this gets published? I hope. I hope so. You might have to call a Trumpistan. I don't know.

I hope so. But I will tell you, on the lighter side, you might get a kick out of this. My wife, who I love dearly, Lynette. I hope so. Oh, I do. I love her dearly. She's my angel. She challenged me recently, telling me that she didn't think I had what it took to write a fiction novel.

And it was because, you know, these academic books that I loved the right are so detail-oriented and you try to, you have to prove everything and it's, you know, it's not an entertaining book like a fiction novel, which she loves to read. So I'm working on a couple that I think by the end of the year I might be able to turn loose. So those are coming and they're cut from different fiction novel genres, sub-genres, so to speak, and I'm kind of excited about that. And it's a whole different kind of writing. but I love to write. So yeah, I got a lot going on.

I love it. So people can watch for that. You know, make sure you do a bet with the wife, since she doesn't have any faith in you on that point there. She's making it. You need to make a bet. I don't know. If you get a book out, you get to have your own man cave.

And if she gets a book out, she gets a new kitchen or something like that. That's a good idea. I need to factor that into my negotiation. Husbands, you guys kill me. You always give it up. Anyway, but it's good that you'll always give it up. Anyway, but it's good that you love somebody because I can't find anybody worth loving out here in the streets. Anyway, guys, give us your dot-coms.

Where can people find out more about you on the interwebs, stay in touch with you, find out of the releasing new books, etc. Thank you, Jim. I'm sorry? Give us your dot-coms and all those other things where people can find you on the interwebs. Yes. You know what? Sadly, I don't have that set up at this point.

It's at the early stages of being developed by the marketing group. Oh, that's right. So when you get that up, just send us an email or have them send us email and we'll put the link on the Chris Vos show. The link will be there for the Amazon book. I can give you the email that if you would like to do that. I'm happy to take emails and answer questions. It's my name James Copus, J-A-M-E-C-O-P-A-S at proton.m-E. Proton.

Dot-me. Proton.com. It sounds like a, I don't know, a cinnamon bun. made of protein. I don't know. It's the end of the show, folks. I'm out of jokes. It's got to be lame at this point. That's this way it is.

Thank you very much, Jim, for coming to the show. Very insightful, wonderful discussion. And hopefully we can get some reform done to bring, you know, the belief of people, you know, I think one of the biggest problems is now after losing the faith in SCOTUS, I remember those graphs over the last 10 years where just shown SCOTUS was like the one that everyone trusted. And they were like, yeah, the Congress, those president people, we don't know about them, but the SCOTUS we believe in, and then that just all went down to. And now it's

kind of seems more people in American society, like, you know, just throw the whole baby out with the bathwater and start over. And you're like, I don't really think you realize the implications of that. Maybe that's what we're seeing. I don't know. It'll be interesting. Anyway, fun is fun. Thank you for coming to show, Jim. Order up his book, folks, wherever fine, books are sold. And please advocate for your democracy every day. Seriously, those people on the Bachelor are full of shit. The politician of the American legal system is out. You can find it wherever fine books are sold

by Dr. James M. Copus. I've got February 2nd, 2026. This is probably for the Kindle version. Thanks for tuning in. Go to Chris Vaugh, Facebook.com, LinkedIn.com, YouTube.com, for it's Chris Vaugh, that's one word, and all that good stuff. Be good to each other. Stay safe.

We'll see you next time. You've been listening to the most amazing intelligent podcast ever made to improve your brain and your life. Warning. Consuming too much of the Chris Walsh Show podcast can lead to people thinking you're smarter, younger, and irresistible sexy.

Consume in regularly moderated amounts. Consult a doctor for any resulting brain lead. All right, Jim. Great show, man.