Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

The West Wing, Season 5, Episode 17 (Patreon)

Published:
2024-10-07 23:28:59
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • 363025568.mp4

Missing 1 video, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

The Supremes

Comments

Peggy G

FINALLY! It's here!!!! Yay!!! 🫶🫶🫶🫶🫶🫶🫶

Skinny_Obelix

This changed my opinion about local politics. Rather than vote for ideology, I vote for smart people as long as they show a moral compass. That doesn't go for federal politics, where the individual becomes less important (that is here in Belgium)

Cosmic Slice

I love Josh's character on the show. His character screws up a lot on the show (sometimes a lot!) but he also has moments of inspiration and really adds to Bartlett's legacy. He and Charlie are really like his adopted sons. And while i love this epiode so much, I will also chime in on the "omg, I cannot *wait* for the next episode." So good

Kelsey Krehbiel

For me, this episode is a bit of a microcosm of my feelings about the season. This is a great episode of television--it's smart and funny and thought provoking. But this is not an episode that I think Sorkin would have written. For me, the Sorkin seasons are a really idealized version of our government. Sorkin's episodes ask, "what if everyone involved in government were the people who should be the ones in charge. Everyone is just trying to do what's best, they just disagree about how that happens." Post-Sorkin feels more just straight political fantasy. Between this and the SS episode, my suspension of disbelief has been pushed just a tad too far. Plus, I feel like this episode I feel some like there was some forgetting of earlier seasons. We already had a "nominate the right candidate over the expedient one" with Mendoza back in season 1. And the Toby that Sorkin wrote meeting his kids at the end of season 4 would never be as uninvolved as he is said to be in this episode. Still, this is a ridiculously entertaining episode of television and I enjoy every rewatch!

Taylor

While this series has so many quotable moments, this episode is hands down the one I quote the most: “I love her mind. I love her shoes,” is genuinely part of my day to day vernacular. Truly the highest compliment I can give someone.

JENNIFER ELIASON

Don't mind me. Just weeping because we put Donna's Parents' Cats on the Supreme Court.

Adam Crandall

Reminds me of the clip back when Sam saved the day and Admiral Fitz goes "This level of foreign policy is conducted through SAM??" It all came down to Donna's parents and their two cats.

Pam Nail

"Josh Lyman is gesticulating wildly!" Favorite episode of this season and my #9 for the series overall. There's one little subplot with the CODEL, but otherwise it's one of those rare episodes where everyone is working together on one big thing. I remember, after Scalia died, some sweet innocent souls suggested the White House should try this same tactic -- Ginsberg steps down, we put a flaming liberal in her seat, and then let the Republicans on Senate Judiciary pick a conservative to fill Scalia's. Sweet summer children, have you met Mitch McConnell?!

Michelle Taylor

This episode is one of the reasons I love this show so much. I’ve always felt like it really captures the friendship between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia.

jimmy2k4o .

I wanted to add guys. About Supreme Court overturning roe vs wade: In my country as well as many Europeans countries the support for access to abortion is overwhelming. The argument is over and the pro choice people won. Where in America this issue is still hotly debated. And yet you guys have some of the most lenient abortion restrictions on earth. It’s like with Americans, it’s all or nothing. Abortion is either always okey or never okey. Like they’re fully pro life or fully pro choice. Basically everyone I know here supports the woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy but not without restrictions eg no abortion after 24 weeks. No abortion for the purposes for sex selection. Etc Very few want to ban abortion. Also few want absolutely no restrictions to be permitted at all Made me think maybe USA could benefit from compromise ( I know that sounds obvious and condescending, im sorry)

Joy M
>>151699563

The problem is that people who believe that life begins at conception can’t be convinced abortion is ever ok; not at 6 weeks, 8 weeks, and not if the mother’s life is in danger or if the pregnancy isn’t viable. Most women use the pills for unwanted pregnancies now. But it’s only safe 11 weeks for less. The problem is that women don’t know that something has gone wrong in a pregnancy until the 20 week ultrasound. That’s halfway through a pregnancy. And only a few states allow for abortion at 22 weeks or more. So you have to be able to get an appointment and travel there immediately upon finding out that the baby you wanted won’t live and will cause danger to you. It’s heartbreaking.

Sunkrish Bala

Bradley Whitford does such a good drunk. That's not easy!

jimmy2k4o .
>>151699563

I’m sorry I think that’s a complete strawman. Not only do I myself consider life to begin at contraception but I’m open to abortion within a reasonable timeframe. And while I’m not calling you a liar by any means I’ve never heard of or read about any pro choice activists or even advocate that still refuse abortion when the mother’s life is danger say though an egtopic pregnancy or mother being diagnosed with cancer and needs chemo immediately that would be fatal to the unborn child……. Seriously if you’ve got a name a conservative/right wing commentator/talk radio show, obscure congressman who advocates against abortion even when there no viability and poses a real threat to the mother. So sorry but I’m living proof that you’re mistaken, I believe life begins at conception but I still support reasonable laws. I’m unsure what you refer to about they didn’t know if something has connecting until about week 20 ultrasound………. If that ultrasound reveals at 20 weeks the baby is ectopic they will handle it as it a life medical emergency, there no law that makes it illegal to stop an ectopic pregnancy from killing a woman. If on the other hand “something wrong at the 20 week ultrasound ” referring to a disability like Down’s syndrome or a missing limb and you’re arguing that she she be allowed an abortion past the legal limit because until that moment they didn’t know their child would be disabled and no upon knowing that that rather abort the child to spare…..the child…..the pain…. Well I’m sorry I don’t buy that, knows plenty of downs people and they certainly think their life if worth living as much as ours. And truthfully I don’t have much respect or concern for somebody who wouldn’t have a baby but upon finding out the baby is disabled they decide it be better to abort it. If the 20 Week ultrasound reveals a life threatening risk to the mother then abortion is covered, please tell me which state where it’s not) and if a 20 week ultrasound reveals the baby will have a disability so they they want an abortion, sorry that sounds a little too there thrich for me. Just a simple thought experiment, pro life but I’m willing to compromise to allow abortions under the right circumstances. How many pro choice people are also able to compromise and ban them under the right circumstances? It’s just I agree that with the abortion argument one side is clearly not willing to make any compromises, respectfully, I not convinced that’s always and entirely my side.

Heather

I’ve seen every season of the West Wing except for Season 5. I was busy in law school during its original run. Later, I picked up all of the other seasons on DVD, but I kept hearing that S5 was sort of subpar, so I skipped it. Honestly, I’ve been pleasantly surprised, and I’m enjoying watching it with you guys.

Youtalkingtome
>>151695656

I totally agree with you. It does feel like everyone is one big family sometimes. The chemistry is just through the roof.

Youtalkingtome
>>151695718

Yes, I do see what you mean when you say it's more political fantasy. I don't know why but I've really been enjoying that.

Joy M
>>151699563

The “right circumstances” are the ones a woman chooses in consultation with her physician. Why do you think you get a say? Why should lawmakers get a say? Many pro life groups are completely against abortion at any time, especially those associated with religious organizations. You jumped to Down syndrome and missing limbs. That’s not what I am talking about. I’m talking about when the 3/4 of the brain doesn’t develop and fluid is filling the fetus’s head and could kill the mother. When a fetus has a heartbeat but no digestive organs, no liver, no kidneys. I’ve seen children born to a Down syndrome mother who was raped by her uncle. As teenagers they were still in diapers, wheelchairs, had no speech, couldnt feed themselves, needed round the clock care for their entire lives. The Catholic Church said that was protecting the sanctity of life. Quality of life and suffering didn’t matter. A lot of these people who lobbied for the roll back of Roe didn’t realize that it would lead to women dying in parking lots waiting to miscarry and getting sepsis, ruining their fertility or worse.

Alex Lee

According to IMDB ratings, this is the 5th highest rated episode across all seasons. It makes me sad that this kind of bi-partisan co-operation doesn't happen. It's all mud slinging and character attacks now. I'm also looking forward to your opinions on the next episode...

Riesling

That´s my favourite episode. i first watched it when I startet law school and the idea of finding the perfect compromise by letting the extremes discuss stayed always with me. The goal of a discussion should never be one side winnig, but progress in general. Also, I just love to see and hear smart people argue. My Life goal is to argue with the best one day.

jimmy2k4o .
>>151699563

I’m sorry if I offended you. But I’m not sorry for my views. The whole “right circumstances” is whatever is decided by a woman and her doctor n seems like a wide latitude. What if the abortion was requested because if sex selection, would you oppose it then? I know you said it’s not about downs and missing limbs, but why if it was. What if the woman wanted an abortion because she found out the baby would be disabled, do you still support it then? This is strange for me because in my country practically nobody is 100% against abortion, yet also nobody would be willing to say there should be no restrictions at all. It’s not remotely controversial to say I support abortion for ectopic pregnancy or a baby with no brain function, but it’s also not controversial to say I oppose it because the parent wants a girl and not a boy, or because the baby will have a manageable medical condition. It’s seems USA has occupied the two extremes of this issue where most of the world is more in the middle

Aude M
>>151699563

Most of the world ?...I'm really not sure. Also even in our countries, here in Europe (take Poland for example) there is still controversy around abortion, maybe not as much as in the US. But it's still a fight that the alt-right (who is increasingly on the rise almost everywhere in Europe) are willing to do if they are in power. (But otherwise, I understand what you're saying and I agree with you, mostly).

D Gyre

It's here! It's finally here!

jimmy2k4o .
>>151699563

Oh sorry I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. My bus route takes me by a hospital with abortion clinics within and I regularly see protesters there. Just like in the USA, the people that feel strongly about this issue go full force at it. Like environmentalists, or nra fanatics…….they’ll vote purely on that issue every time. I just meant the idea that abortion would ever be made illegal in the UK is ludicrous. Abortion is in a safer legal position in the uk and Europe than in is in the US. Despite our lack of passion (on either side) for this issue the issue is safer here than in America where it’s a big controversial debate over it. Even Brit’s like me who are pro life, don’t get that exercised about it because I know the battle is lost. My country had a debate on this long ago and one side won and the other lost. Simple as that. Also owing to the restrictions we did put on abortion, it’s given the pro lifers much less to complain about. In the USA, the main criticism of abortion comes from how late term it can be performed even theoretically legally including 3rd trimester. That doesn’t happen in the UK without a good medical reason. In the USA abortion criticisms also come from the so called “dilation and extraction” method. Which isn’t done in the uk because cause abortions in the uk are done so early. Ironically a law putting a time limit on getting an abortion would dramatically reduce the types of abortions that upset people so.

D Gyre
>>151699563

I'm not sure you have that accurate of a view of both pro-choice positions in the U.S. or when most abortions are happening in the US. Joy is correct in that most states do have laws that either highly restrict or prevent late term abortions. The vast majority of abortions in the U.S., now and pre-Dobbs, were much earlier (16-18 weeks or earlier), not late term. Abortions are not happening at any significant scale post 24 weeks in the U.S. The idea that these are widespread or allowed by most liberal states is something of a right wing "strawman" argument itself. Most pro-choice activists and state laws are already not far from many European laws. They are already willing to compromise on laws, to a point. The issue in the U.S. isn't the actual policy, the letter of the law, as you said most Americans actually have pretty similar views on specific policy terms. Some on the left might not like it, but you could probably get compromise on a 20 week abortion ban in the United States as a federal law (if it had been done pre-Dobbs). Many pro-choice groups would accept that. The issue is the degree to which certain parts of the right and the Republican party have mischaracterized the state of abortion in the U.S. to mobilize a specific part of the voter base. Resolving the issue takes away one of their primary "get out the vote" wedge issues and would also hurt them with the "all or nothing" conservatives. I say this as a political conservative in the U.S. Basically, Policy Change won't fix the issue because the division isn't being driven by policy, and the policy is already largely what you are suggesting would help fix the issue. As has become the case with many things in the US, the disconnect between the reality of the policy/issue and how the public perceives it is large. That's what drives the US being at the extremes, as you correctly pointed out. That's going to take a much different, and bigger, fix, than policy change on a single issue.

Devon Cooper

Have been waiting for this one! Great reaction. It is just so well done. That’s why I stand by the last 3 seasons, they have some really good stuff in them. Oh and great guest stars🤩🤩

jimmy2k4o .
>>151699563

I agree with what you say about how the right use these issues, exaggerated them to whip out the vote. I also think the left does the exact same thing, it’s just electioneering and I don’t get worked up about it. I’m well aware that most states have imposed their own abortion restrictions depending on their states. I’m also away that majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. I did make a point of saying the thing that motivates the pro life people is that technically and legally in some us states, abortion is legal up 9 months is theoretical. In other words, it could legally happen because there no law to prevent it. Like there is in the majority of the states. Seems to be that if the democrats passed a bill banning abortion after 25-30 week unless there was a medical necessity……..they would checkmate the republicans. Also why would they repeal the born alive law just recently, you know if a baby accidentally survives an abortion that efforts should be made to save it…. I take your point man. I do about the right wing misrepresenting stuff to illicit an emotional response around election time (just like the left) But when you say stuff like: the majority of states have their own bans, or a very high % are done in the first trimester. It makes me think about “why did he say all states?” Or “why didn’t he say they’re all done in the first trimester” My main point was just if you guys didn’t make such a huge deal from it, the issue would probably be over a long time ago. I mean even our right wing politicians in the uk don’t wanna ban abortions.

D Gyre

Glad you guys enjoyed this one as much as we do. I agree it's a top episode for the season and I'd even put it top 10-12 of the entire series. This shows what's still possible for the show. Like you said at the beginning, yes this season isn't quite what past ones have been, but that's a high bar to start with and this is still such great television and great west wing still. This is also just the beginning of a few things coming for the show, and future seasons. Buckle up boys....

Youtalkingtome
>>151747873

I hope you get the opportunity! We need more healthy arguments and discussion to get to progress. Crazy times we live in.

D Gyre
>>151699563

To answer why I didn't say all, because its important in discussing political issues like this to be careful of making generalizations. In politics (and human behavior in general), its rarely "all" or "none," there are always exceptions. Saying all in either of those cases wouldn't be accurate. Additionally, good policy recognizes this and rarely does any law prohibit or require something without room for exceptions. To clarify about "why don't the dems just pass..." there are institutional constraints and division of powers, both in the federal government and between the federal government and the states, that make it very difficult for one party to pass something. The democrats, or the republicans, cannot just pass a bill. Not everyone in the party is going to be unified, especially on a topic like this. The other party almost always controls either the other chamber of congress, or the white house. Getting enough votes to actually get a bill passed in most cases requires members of both parties voting for it, and then either the president supports it or you need a veto proof super majority to override the president's veto. Even in the rare instance where you have a majority in both houses and have your president in the white house, you aren't going to have a filibuster proof majority in the senate, we simply don't see that kind of one party dominance in congress anymore. Consider examples like Trump trying to get rid of Medicare when republicans controlled all three chambers, or look at how Senators Manchin and Sinema prevented or altered some democratic policy goals under Biden. Democrats and Republicans are not true unified blocks. Prior to Dobbs, or really prior to the shift in the court with the 3 new justices, if a group of republicans had been willing to compromise to pass a federal law on abortion, it likely could have gotten done. But there was a lack of political will for Republicans, and yes possibly for some Democrats as well, to do so. We can think of the Toby and Josh episode about saving social security, but flip that to a Republican point of view. On this issue, there's a strong argument that the republicans were the bigger blocker to this kind of national policy. But even if they had, states would challenge it on constitutional grounds. This brings us to the division of powers between federal and state governments. Previous courts might have been willing to uphold a federal law, but the basis of the Dobbs ruling overturning Roe is that the federal government doesn't have this power, only the states. The Dobbs ruling basis prevents the federal government from making laws about abortion, something that the republican candidates have started mentioning as they try to distance themselves from a push for a national abortion ban. So for "the dems to pass a bill" that makes abortion illegal after say 20 weeks everywhere, that's not "the dems" but rather 50+ different state parties, and state constituencies, that all have to pass that law. Also, don't forget part of the reason that hasn't happened is that the people in those states haven't voted for it. The national level political party cannot over ride state voters about what they want their state laws to be. The institutional hoops a bill has to get through, the politics of how you get votes for a bill, and checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches, and the division of power between the federal and state governments (especially post Dobbs) all prevent having a uniform legal policy on abortion nationally. From states enacting 6 weeks (or lower) to states allowing for 24 (or higher). In short, when it was maybe possible to get a national policy, republicans were the least likely to compromise to make one where democrats might have been, and now it is no longer realistic that there can be a national policy without a new supreme court ruling. Now you mentioned repealing a born alive law. I'm assuming this is referring to the MN law since you said repeal? Not the proposed law that has never been passed in congress? I can't speak to any individual's personal views or motivations of course, but the general policy argument against Born Alive laws are their redundancy and how the might interfere in medical decisions. Homicide laws already provide a basis for prosecution and a case where it has actually occurred. Born Alive laws are argued to have an effect on doctors decisions, similar to how vague medical exception laws are already causing doctors to not perform abortions that would actually be legal in states such as Texas. Combine this with the rarity of these circumstances in the first place, the anti-Born Alive law viewpoint is that you will end up preventing Doctors from providing medically justified care to patients in order to criminalize something that is already criminalized under existing homicide laws. Certainly people agree/disagree with that reasoning, but that is the legal argument, and one that several states clearly feel is more compelling than reducing national division/debate over abortion. If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying "If people didn't care so much about abortion, it wouldn't be a big issue." I think you're right. But convincing millions of people to not care so much about something is not simple or easy task, especially to do so ethically. People care about what they care about. I'll take your word for it, I know far less about current issues in British politics.

Danielle

This episode is definitely a highlight of the series! Glad you guys enjoyed it. If only real life looked anything like this.

Balazs Foldes

Yay, thank you so much for the BaláZS! So perfect pronounciation! :D

Balazs Foldes
>>151695718

Actually, I just had the opposite reaction to this. To me, the Social Security episode was truly unbelievable fantasy. This one, it felt like idealistic version of something that could almost happen in real life. Two brilliant and passionate judges being chosen, on the opposing ends of the idealistic spectrum. Then again, probably based on more recent US political experience, it is becoming more of a fantasy episode.

Balazs Foldes

I think main reason I like this episode so far is that so many things work out here. The main plot of the episode is important and interesting. The plot twise is handled in an interestingly and in a fun way (Donna's Mom's Cats! - also, the paralel that the two parties are basically like an old quarrelling couple, brilliant). The wonderful guest stars. The political and argumentative brilliance of the judges. The theme that two persons of opposing beliefs may cooperate and lead to awesome results. The way how Ashland character was built up to this episode, and how it hits so strongly. The grumpy senator Pierce. All just so wonderful! Also, interesting thing. If you remember, Ryan was 'missing' last episode (or just before that)? And Donna was calling his roommate, to find out what happened, why he did not show up to work. And we never learnt why. This episode, we hear (I think from Lisa from the Judiciary Committee) about Ryan: 'was he the one who flipped the car in Nizza?', or something like that. I have a strong suspicion, this was actually a dropped story line from that latest episode, and we never found out that Ryan was in a car accident. Or, not.

Roland Cooke

This episode really makes me wish RBG had stepped down, or been involved in some kind of arrangement like this.

Youtalkingtome
>>151962389

Yeah I was wondering why they never addressed it. Must be a dropped story line. Really glad that nothing happened to him and he's still on the show. It's really smart when you boil it down to an old quarreling couple. I love that analogy.

Christopher Runyon

Love this episode but I do have a qualm with part of it. First I guess I should point out that I am pro choice. The scene in question is when President Bartley compares an abortion to a tonsillectomy. His point being that both are legal medical procedures and in that case he is correct. However I don’t think he would be so blasé about the subject. He clearly respects a woman’s right to choose but I think everyone can agree that these two medical procedures are juuuuuust a bit different from each other.

Zachary Loeser

A couple of things: 1) When listening to director Jessica Yu's commentary of the episode she revealed during the scene when Toby met Mulready that at first the scene fell flat - because Richard Schiff and William Fichtner respected the hell out of each other! Finally Yu had to pull Fichtner aside and tell him, "you are so much smarter than Toby Ziegler." 2) I still love the moment at the end when she adds the title to her name for the first time. I don't know how Glenn Close does it, but when she starts writing she's still a Federal circuit judge. When she finishes and hands back the copy of the Constitution, she's the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Astonishing work from her there (and in the whole episode, and her career as a whole, obviously).

Weird Magic

I've been waiting for this one to come since I posed the question after The Natural of which one of those actors shows up in the West Wing, and then I'm on vacation when it posts :). Thankfully you forgot that was coming and were as surprised as we were when she showed up! This is probably a top 3 for me series-wide - but as someone said earlier - #5 on IMDB. 106 down - 49 to go! Originally airing on March 24, 2004, 'The Supremes' is Episode 17 of Season 5 of The West Wing. It is the 106th episode overall and has an IMDB rating of 9.2, placing it as the #1 ranked episode of this season and #5 out of all the episodes shown so far.

Weird Magic
>>151695656

Just for information purposes only - the next episode is VERY polarizing - it's a real love it or hate it episode, so I'm not surprised that Cosmic Slice liked it, but it is does have the lowest IMDB rating of the entire series and is very.....unique. :)

Youtalkingtome
>>152107215

I love that they had a mutual respect for one another. Two powerhouse actors. Glenn Close is a treasure and the fact that she doesn't have an Oscar proves the Academy just gets it wrong sometimes