As well as that final episode, with a huge twist regarding who the CTU mole is and that very unexpected character death. TV just didn't do that kind of stuff when 24 S1 came out. That finale to Season 1 was just shocking.

>Anyway, it seems to me that Zaslav bought it hoping the era of "content is king" would last longer.

But then why is it that literally very single move that's been made since the merger was to reduce or eliminate content?

Yeah, he gets no respect!

Sure, that's true to a point; the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the SCOTUS has power to invalidate laws or enjoin the actions of Congress or the Executive. BUT from very early on the Court has held this power of judicial review and it's been pretty much consented to and not really challenged by the other branches for more than 200 years, to the point that it really has been baked in to the fabric of our government. The executive could openly flout a SCOTUS decision pretty easily on something like federal gun laws or IRS tax enforcement or something, but it's definitely going to create a Constitutional crisis in doing so. Here, it gets even trickier because the question is whether state governments or the federal government have ultimate final control over voting and elections, and if the federal government tries to ignore a SCOTUS ruling saying states get to decide then the states trying to exercise that control are going to fight back. So you're technically correct that there is no concrete legal requirement to follow SCOTUS decisions, but the traditional peaceful operation of our government has come to sort of expect it and the Executive trying to negate a SCOTUS decision would be messy at best, particularly in a situation like this that would pit the states against the federal government.

I mean, not really. The only real way the POTUS could tell the Court that would be to expand the number of Justices on the Court and install his own nominees to outweigh those already there, but the president can't do this on his own; he'd need Congress to help out too. It would be a big step that seems unlikely to get done.

>But do you have any evidence that the Supreme Court actually cares about any of those things and instead uses those as a cover to be partisan hacks? And that they wouldn't hesitate to throw those things out the window to continue to be partisan hacks?

Scalia was actually a master at doing exactly that.

>That said, any Supreme Court Justice who tries to write a credible opinion supporting the ISLT is going to struggle mightily to deliver.

This question is more honest and genuine than it's going to sound: Do you think any justice on the right wing of the Court other than Roberts actually cares much about credibility? Between Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch, is there worry that they'll just band together and craft some B.S. to further their policy goals and not really care much about the actual legal merits?

This is absolutely not true. Both parties have their problems but at least the Democrats are trying to legislate and get things done, while the GOP is just interested in breaking everything and blaming the Democrats for it. Disagree with the policy goals or substance of the bills all you like, but it's pretty clear at this point that only one of the major parties is actually interested in governing.

Thanks for doing this AMA about such an important case that the media just isn't covering enough! What, in your view, are the number-one strongest arguments for each side of this case?