Ross Douthat hosts Sarah Isger, a conservative court watcher, lawyer, and author of Last Branch Standing, to discuss the Supreme Court's role as the dominant power center in American democracy.

The conversation examines Trump's attempts to expand presidential power through executive orders, most of which have failed in the courts, and explores the internal dynamics of the Supreme Court.

Isger argues that the judicial branch has become the primary check on both presidential overreach and congressional abdication, with the court consistently blocking Trump's major policy initiatives while trying to force legislative action.

The discussion covers potential Supreme Court retirements, the temperamental differences between justices that matter more than ideology, and whether the court's imperial role is sustainable long-term.

Trump's Executive Power Failures Mount in the Courts

Trump has amplified existing presidential power trends rather than creating new ones, building on Obama's "pen and phone" approach and the progressive era's executive branch expansion.

Major Trump policy initiatives have failed legally: "Alien Enemies Act, federalizing the National Guard, worldwide tariffs, birthright citizenship. These are the main pillars of Donald Trump's policy presidency, the substantive aspects of it. And they've all failed" - Sarah.

Trump's legal retribution campaign against enemies has failed in courts but succeeded politically, affecting universities and creating cultural pressure despite no legal victories.

The Supreme Court blocks presidential overreach while allowing maximal control within the executive branch: "Maximal presidential freedom within the executive branch and minimal presidential freedom vis-a-vis Congress" - Sarah.

Supreme Court's Constitutional Project to Restore Congressional Power

The Roberts Court has shifted from limiting Congress vis-a-vis states in the 1990s to limiting presidential power vis-a-vis Congress in the 2000s and 2010s.

The court is trying to force legislative compromise by blocking executive orders: "If one side knows they can get everything they want through executive order, they don't need to compromise" - Sarah.

Congress has lost safeguards like the legislative veto and independent agencies while executive power accumulates, creating an imbalanced system.

The court expects to rule against birthright citizenship by executive order with a 7-2 to 9-0 majority, viewing presidential citizenship changes as constitutionally impermissible.

Internal Court Dynamics: Temperament Trumps Ideology

Justice Kavanaugh is in the majority more than any modern justice, even exceeding Anthony Kennedy's influence as the key swing vote.

Justices divide along a vertical "institutionalism" axis beyond the horizontal ideological spectrum, with Kagan and Kavanaugh as high institutionalists seeking larger majorities.

Gorsuch and Jackson are "low institutionalists" who write frequent separate opinions and care less about precedent or the court's institutional reputation.

Justice Barrett combines conservative formalism with frequent votes against Trump, making her "the most interesting justice in the world" for her unique jurisprudential project.

Liberal justices pursue different strategies: Kagan seeks incremental wins that could work with a flipped seat or two, while Jackson writes for a future liberal majority requiring five seat changes.

Potential Alito Retirement and Trump's Supreme Court Strategy

Justice Alito's retirement decision remains uncertain despite twin grandbabies and a book release scheduled for October oral argument week.

Solicitor General John Sauer emerges as the likely Trump Supreme Court pick, combining demonstrated loyalty with confirmable credentials similar to Elena Kagan's path.

Trump's circuit court nominations follow traditional Federalist Society patterns despite his anger at previous Supreme Court picks, suggesting institutional constraints remain strong.

More controversial Trump picks like Todd Blanche or Eileen Cannon would face confirmation challenges, limiting Trump's ability to install pure loyalists.

Court Reform Debates and Long-term Institutional Health

Last Branch Standing defends the court as an institution while acknowledging the problems of having crucial questions decided by "five to four votes from a bunch of increasingly Ivy League lawyers."

Term limits would create perverse incentives, turning justices into campaign assets and making them dependent on post-court employment opportunities.

Better reforms include ending forum shopping, binding ethics codes, and making constitutional amendments easier to create more democratic accountability.

The court's independence remains its "superpower" for protecting constitutional rights against "bare and fleeting majorities in our pluralistic society."

Historical perspective suggests optimism: "This is not the biggest threat the court has faced in history" - Sarah, citing Thomas Jefferson's attempt to impeach justices and end judicial review.