Last Branch Standing | Interview: Sarah Isgur

In this episode of The Remnant, Jonah Goldberg interviews Sarah Isgur, legal analyst and host of the SCOTUS blog, about her new book, *Last Branch Standing: The Supreme Court and the Future of American Power*. The conversation explores the evolution of the Supreme Court from its underwhelming beginnings under John Jay to its current role as the last check on executive and legislative overreach. Isgur argues that the Court is not a 6-3 ideological machine but a 3-3-3 dynamic of three distinct ideological and institutionalist blocs: the liberal institutionalists (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson), the libertarian 'honey badgers' (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch), and the popular 'institutionalists' (Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett). She challenges the myth of constant ideological division, showing that many so-called 'big cases' are actually 3-3-3 splits, not 6-3. The discussion also delves into originalism’s rise as a reaction to judicial overreach, the institutional fragility of the Court, and the cultural significance of justices’ personal lives and quirks. Isgur reflects on her own journey from a fired congressional aide to a legal commentator, and the emotional and professional labor of writing a book. The episode ends with a lighthearted lightning round of fun facts about each justice and a heartfelt endorsement of the book’s accessibility and insight. Key takeaways include: (1) The Supreme Court is best understood not as a 6-3 ideological split but as three distinct blocs with different institutional priorities; (2) The Court’s power has grown not because it’s more powerful, but because the other branches have abdicated their constitutional duties; (3) Originalism is a reaction to judicial overreach, not a return to the founding—its rise was delayed and now faces internal contradictions; (4) Institutionalism, not ideology, often determines how justices vote; (5) Precedent is more art than science, and the idea that the Court never overturns precedent is a myth; (6) The book is a must-read primer for understanding the Court’s role in modern American politics. The tone is intellectually rigorous yet playful, blending deep legal insight with humor and personal storytelling.