Welcome to the dig, a podcast from Jacobin magazine. My name is Daniel

Denver and I'm broadcasting from AS-220 in Providence, Rhode Island.

After weeks of mass protest against presidential malfeasance,

all eyes have turned to the judiciary.

It's the one potential institutional check on Trump at the federal level,

aside of course from the shadowy national security state.

The courts have the power to block laws and actions that are illegal or unconstitutional.

Recent rulings by a federal district judge in Washington and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

made this clear after they stayed Trump's Muslim and refugee bans.

But the judiciary, despite pretenses to the contrary, is fundamentally political.

It can shred civil rights and economic protections as efficiently as it can defend them.

Ultimately, major judicial conflicts get decided by the Supreme Court, which has been split

for four since Republicans blocked President Obama's effort to nominate Merrick Garland to take the

late Justice Anton Scalia's seat.

Today, I speak to Jed Purdy about the judiciary and other matters.

Purdy is a professor at Duke Law, a contributing editor at dissent,

and the author of three books on American political identity,

including the meaning of property. He is currently writing after nature a politics for

the Anthropocene and has published articles in many many publications. Jed welcome to the dig. Thanks Dan.

Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch was like his choice of Mike Pence,

a payback of sorts to the mainstream right,

which was initially quite hostile to him.

...