You've spent much of your career talking about justice, but you've also spent a lot of time thinking and teaching about things most law schools don't talk about, and that is forgiveness.

Well, it is, [laughs] you know, I've mentioned how compromise and negotiation are critical to human existence.

So is forgiveness.

And interestingly, the people who study large animals, large mammals, have discovered that there are forgiveness rituals that they have, too, that any creatures that have a social interaction, as, you know, part of what our day-to-day existence is, we're gonna have conflicts.

And so to building the capacity to actually let go of anger, resentment, violence, it's critical to survival.

Uh, every religion, every philosophy has celebrated this capacity of forgiveness.

And [clears throat] it, it just has struck me as curious that here we are teaching people to be lawyers, and we don't teach about forgiveness.

What do you hope Americans understand about what it takes and will take to keep this experiment going another two hundred and fifty years?

What is an ordinary thoughtful citizen to make of this idea that it seems to be the Court is saying, "Well if you have an, you know, an, an out of control, um, outlandish, overreaching executive in the form of a president, sorry, not our problem"?

To the extent that there is a system, it was designed in the 18th century.

The metaphor was a clock and a machine that would go of itself, was how commentators talked about it, with powers given to these different branches and also to the federal and state government and to the people who could vote, which at the time was a limited number.

And all of that was supposed to provide the checks and balances.

It w- wasn't a two-person game.

And that's how I read Justice Barrett's comment.

The problem with her statement is that the Supreme Court has built itself to be supreme.

In a nutshell, what- why do you write about it and what do you mean by it?