Guessing the outcomes of cases brought before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) can be challenging, and, sometimes, the court's decisions leave you scratching your head. Jack and Gonzo discuss our current court’s propensity to rule in favor of popular conservative causes.

If the casinos in Vegas took bets on how SCOTUS were to decide a case, the odds makers probably wouldn't give long odds, because you pretty much know how the justices will rule by their political affiliation. Oh, sure, the justices are supposed to look at each case objectively, but we’re all subject to subliminal inclinations and beliefs that guide us. Even the justices.

Jack and Gonzo take a look at two cases to explain.

The first concerns Marcellus Williams, a black man of humble means, who was convicted of murder. His attorney asked SCOTUS to stay Williams’ execution (legal speak, for temporarily stopping the execution) because of multiple problems with the case. It wasn't a matter of asking the court to overturn Williams’ conviction, just a pause. SCOTUS was asked to intervene so as to avoid the very real possibility that the state of Missouri might execute an innocent man.

Even the prosecuting attorney for the county where Williams was convicted was advocating for a stay, and the family of the person who was murdered stated that Williams should not be executed.

But a majority of justices (all appointed by Republican presidents) couldn't be bothered and didn’t grant the stay. And Williams was executed.

The second case concerns how SCOTUS handled the Trump immunity case. With nothing in the constitution about presidential immunity—literally, not a single word or even an inference about immunity—the court held that presidents have immunity for just about everything they do. Respected constitutional lawyers were stunned.

The court couldn’t be bothered to stay the execution of a black man who grew up in an impoverished and dysfunctional household, but the court went out of its way to protect a man of privilege. The two cases really make you question where the court is.

Does the First Amendment give us the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater? No, and this is one of the very few restrictions on free speech in America. Jack and Gonzo discuss the importance of free speech with Nico Perrino, Executive Vice President of FIRE.

Founded in 1999 as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, FIRE has worked to advance the cause of free speech and the values of the First Amendment at our nation’s colleges and universities. In 2022, FIRE changed its name to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to reflect its broader effort to protect and promote these values off campus as well.

FIRE educates Americans about the importance of free speech and promotes a culture of respect for this right and provides the means to preserve it. FIRE’s mission is to defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society.

To this end, FIRE places a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience. In 2023, FIRE’s Policy Reform team won 43 victories at 22 schools affecting more than 215,000 students.

Our guest, Nico Perrino, was Co-Director and Senior Producer of “Mighty Ira” (2020), a feature-length film about the life and career of former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser. He also worked as a consultant on “Can We Take a Joke?” (2015) and "The Coddling of the American Mind" (2024).

Listen to our conversation with Nico and for more information, visit FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (thefire.org).

Lawyers know how difficult it can be to represent a client with developmental disabilities and how ill equipped our justice system is to protect them. Our guest, McCracken Poston, Jr., is a practicing criminal defense attorney and former member of the Georgia House of Representatives. He just published his new book “Zenith Man: death, love and redemption in a Georgia courtroom,” the true story behind a controversial and unusual murder case.

McCracken’s client, Alvin Ridley, who suffers from autism, was charged with murdering his wife in the late 1990s, only to be found innocent thanks to overlooked, peculiar evidence and the persistent efforts of his lawyer. Decades later, McCracken is retelling the story as a warning about prejudice, a rush to judgment, and how Americans who are different can be swept up unfairly in our justice system.