Let me turn back to the Supreme Court, Joan and Jan.

I'm very curious if you could talk about what this means, how you interpret this term and this ultimate decision.

What does it tell you about the court today, Joan and then Jan?

JOAN BISKUPEIC: I just think it's a real turning point for this court.

You know, we've seen various steps since we've gotten the supermajority, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September of 2020, quickly succeeded by Amy Coney Barrett, there was a supermajority.

And, you know, the power of just one more justice on the right wing has made such a difference, obviously, with the reversal of Roe v. Wade two years ago and the ending of all constitutional abortion rights.

But this decision is more in keeping with something that John Roberts did, for example, in 2013, when he really narrowly construed voting rights in the Shelby County versus Holder case, or in 2019 rejecting the idea that federal judges could hear partisan gerrymandering cases.

This is kind of a larger question that goes to core Democratic issues.

And I think just -- all of us know his background, cutting his teeth in the Ronald Reagan administration, then being in the George H.W.

Bush administration, you know, just -- he has believed in robust executive power.

But what he and the majority breathe into executive authority and protection, real protection, is of a different magnitude, at least as we understand it now.

And, you know, Jan and Charlie have talked about how things might play out going forward, and maybe it won't immediately have all that much consequence for Donald Trump.

But I think in the whole scheme of things, what this Supreme Court has done, not just for the presidential power, but for its own power, is big.

Its own power is also enhanced by the fact that it will be judges deciding what are official or unofficial acts.

You know, we've talked about, you know, at other times the imperial presidency, but there's a certain imperial notion to what the court has done, and just as one other postscript, in other actions it took this term to enhance judicial authority over federal regulators, diminishing regulatory authority, is of that piece, I think, of, you know, giving the court more authority in the separation of powers.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Jan, let me add to your assignment -- let me just answer that question, add to your assignment, by folding in Sonia Sotomayor and her rather dissent.

She wrote at the end of it, with fear for our democracy, I dissent.

And she gave some hypotheticals that are quite dramatic.

But talk about the conservative majority, but tell me where the liberals are, especially Sotomayor JAN CRAWFORD: I mean, Joan and I both have covered the court for over 30 years.

And I've never seen that, ever, with fear for our democracy.

That's new.

And I think that reflects a lot of the language that we saw this term from the dissenters whether it's in the case involving sleeping in parks and whether that could be kind of brought down against the homeless, whether you've got bump stocks.

I mean, we saw some extreme language -- JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Bump stocks on weapons, yes.

JAN CRAWFORD: Bump stocks on weapons from Justice Sotomayor, which I think is really kind of a residual, anger and resentment about the court's decision to overturn Roe versus Wade.

I think they're still dealing with the fallout from Dobbs and the court's decision to overturn Roe.

As far as the executive immunity decision goes, again, Roberts really cares about executive power.

He cares about the structure of government and the roles of the different branches.

Chevron, the administrative state, that's been in -- which they overturned, that's been in the crosshairs for conservatives for years.

The court has not cited it in almost a decade.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: This is another -- JAN CRAWFORD: Scaling back the power of administrative, yes.

That was one of three cases, and in many ways, perhaps -- JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Constraining The executive branch bureaucracies.

JAN CRAWFORD: Or as conservatives would say, unelected federal bureaucrats, it's the middle in American life.

So, there's three cases -- JOAN BISKUPIC: Or protect the environment and labor and all that.

JAN CRAWFORD: There's three cases.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: We'll settle that issue, yes, the difference.

JAN CRAWFORD: And they scaled back the power of those agencies in all three cases in significant ways that will make it harder for the agencies to, I think, function.

But Roberts, again, this case, I agree with Dan, on immunity.

It helps both sides.

John Roberts cares about the power of the president and at least five or six -- five others do.

And what they're worried about is future presidents.

They're writing for the ages.

They're worried about a situation, which we see now, where you've got these kind of state level prosecutors who are progressive.

You've got these Republican rogue attorney generals.

And it is about prosecuting future presidents.

And as Donald Trump pointed out, if you think that's farfetched, as Donald Trump pointed out in the debate, Joe Biden, he believes, could be prosecuted for his immigration policy.

He concedes that at the debate.

They're worried about, as Roberts put it in his opinion, this routine prosecution.

And that is something that if Trump were to win, and Biden is the loser after a bitter divisive campaign, this decision will prevent Donald Trump's attorney general from appointing a special counsel to prosecute Joe Biden.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Joan, how much of this decision by the conservative supermajority was about making sure that Joe Biden isn't prosecuted by Donald Trump?

JAN CRAWFORD: I don't think it's just Joe Biden.

I mean, I think that's a serious concern.

Not just Biden, future presidents.

JOAN BISKUPIC: Well, the chief wrote that he didn't want to be concerned with present circumstances, and he really minimized any details about January 6th, 2021.

You know, the dissent said, did you forget what happened then?

Really minimize that, you know, did not want to refer to Trump much.

So, overtly said this isn't about Trump.

I don't think overtly or subtly it was about Biden at all.

I don't think this court was worried about what would happen to Joe Biden.

They definitely are worried about the future.

But, you know, how could they not be aware of the political situation now?

John Roberts is and was an excellent lawyer, but he was also pretty politically savvy.

You know, when he was in the White House, he was aware of -- he worked on strategy, helped pick judges.

He knows the politics of the situation, even though he can frame this in the larger sphere, which I -- and I think that's truly what he's interested in.

But it's not that he's unaware of Donald Trump.

And earlier this week, when we had the Manhattan judge say that that case was -- the sentencing was going to be postponed just in case there would be some evidence that had been used against Donald Trump in that case, the business records case, maybe it might not be able to be used, several people said to me, do you think the chief would have ever envisioned the idea that this ruling could have been used to help Donald Trump in that Manhattan trial?

And, I don't think so, but, you know, I don't want to discount that this is a court and with several clerks who are just aware of this whole political picture involving Donald Trump.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Right.

In the time that we have left I want to talk, just for a couple minutes, about the apparent polarization and the politicization of the court generally and how this feeds into the largest political trends we're seeing.

Dan, I'm sure you have thoughts about the reduced status of the Supreme Court in the eyes of a lot of different people.

It's just another -- there's been controversies, obviously Clarence Thomas and so on.

Talk about what this all means in terms of intense polarization.

DAN BALZ: Well, I mean, we are in such a polarized environment that when this court moves to the right -- and I think your point is exactly right, that we are living in a post-Dobbs political environment for the Supreme Court.

And that hangs over almost everything they do and the way people interpret what they do.

I mean, one thing we know is that the -- JEFFREY GOLDBERG: And literally the mood in the building at a certain point, right?

JAN CRAWFORD: Oh, definitely, very bitter.

DAN BALZ: I mean, we know that, that public opinion has shifted dramatically against the court.

That, that a majority of people before Dobbs approved of what the court does.

Today, it's down to about 40 percent.

Historically low.

That's the situation we're in.

I think the court is part of the backdrop of any presidential campaign at this point and abortion is in the forefront.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Charlie, last thoughts on what this does politically, seeing the Supreme Court as just another partisan and polarized playing field for American politicians.

CHARLIE SAVAGE: I mean, it's certainly a corrosive aspect of the times we're living in.

Is it inaccurate?

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: That's a good question.

And I think we'll have to deal with that question on our next show, because, unfortunately, we have to leave it there for now.