Afleveringen
-
Akhil is in Boston this week and reminds us that the history of the American Revolution, where Boston is so pivotal, contains myriad lessons that provide insight into the student protests of today - so we look at this subject in some detail. Meanwhile, the Court issued opinions in two prominent cases, and Akhil seems to be reluctant to take âyesâ for an answer in one of them, so we take another look at issues of standing. Does Akhil convince you of the correctness of his approach? Finally, the bump stock gun case, a statutory interpretation case, is lamented by many; we take a quick look at why it doesnât have to be the last word on this matter. CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com.
-
The Court is taking its time on major opinion, which gives us a moment to turn to other matters. Ethics remain in the news; the Courtâs annual financial disclosures contain a number of surprises - maybe not so surprising. Thereâs a lot to say there, and we have some proposals to improve the situation. President Biden takes a position on a pardon, and we take a position on that. Our listeners continue to provide great input on an ongoing conversation, and we take it seriously. CLE is available after listening from podcast.njsba.com.
-
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
The verdict is in: guilty x 34. A jury of Trumpâs peers had its say, but the ex-president couldnât leave it at that, of course. On the legitimate side, the appeals are expected to begin soon. On the Trump bombastic side, he blasted every institution in the legal system for having the audacity to do their duty. Particularly in the case of the ordinary citizens of the jury, this bears examination, and so we do. We also preview some of the likely appellate issues, lay out the expected path through the courts, and take some interesting listenerâs questions. CLE is available after listening at podcast.njsba.com.
-
The nation has been riled by campus unrest surrounding events in the Middle East. Terms like âfreedom of speech,â âacademic freedom,â âright to protest,â âconduct vs. speech,â and issues of hate speech, offensive speech, safety, and more have arisen. We start our look at this situation where we always begin: with the Constitution. This episode aims to lay out the history, background, constitutional provisions, interpretations, cases, and overall approach to these matters, so we can then look at what is actually happening and be in a position to offer opinions and possible prescriptions. CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com.
-
More than three years after the January 6, 2021 disastrous events, we remarkably are just now first learning of a complex series of events with profound ethical implications for Justice Alito. Like his fellow justice, Clarence Thomas, Justice Alitoâs wifeâs actions, possibly political in nature, have placed the Justice in a position where his own actions are being widely questioned. We take it one step at a time and offer our analysis, even if we donât entirely agree with each other on this one.
-
Donald Trumpâs New York trial - where a conviction would be federal pardon-proof - has proceeded apace. we are pleased to bring a report to you from the trial itself, introducing you to one of Professor Amarâs star students in the process. Are there constitutional issues stemming from the trial? You bet, and we address some of them. Meanwhile, a number of listeners have asked similar questions recently, so we take that family of questions on, and sure enough, thereâs a lot to discuss there as well. CLE credit is available from pdcast.njsba.com after listening.
-
This week we continue with clips from the oral argument in the immunity case (Trump v. United States). Most of this weekâs clips come from attorney Dreeben (representing the Special Counsel, and therefore the people of the United States), and some of the Justices have at him, sometimes in way Professor Amar finds wrong-headed or worse. Our own argument is brought to bear upon these controversies, and a consistent way of addressing these questions emerges. Clarity on the argument emerges. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.
-
The nine Justices heard arguments on ex-president Trumpâs attempt to claim a sweeping immunity from criminal liability and prosecution. We present clips from the argument and our commentary, including some historical analysis of claims that Benjamin Franklin spoke in favor of such a thing (spoiler: NO), and many other claims which we had predicted in recent weeks. There is clear acceptance of some of the arguments we have made by many of the Justices, but questions remain to be sure, and we begin to address them in this first part of a planned two-episode arc of clip and comment. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.
-
As we close in on oral argument in the Trump v. United States case wherein Trump asserts some sort of permanent presidential immunity, we close out our preparatory analysis. Impeachmentâs relationship to criminal prosecution is explored. Some founding-era conversations involving, for example, John Adams, inform our discussion. Does the concept of double jeopardy play a role? Our hope is that these episodes prepare you for the oral argument with a comprehensive theory of how no one is held above the law even as a powerful executive sits high in We the Peopleâs government. CLE credit is available after listening from podcast.njsba.com.
-
As oral argument in the Trump immunity case draws closer, we continue our discussion of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Do so-called âofficial actsâ during a presidentâs tenure in office raise special considerations? Constitutional text seems to offer an easy way out of the case - but does it, really - and historical precedents enter the conversation. Ultimately, some basic principles of immunity emerge, which leaves us with a much richer understanding of the many issues than a bland look the text alone would Meanwhile, a listenerâs question takes us abroad for a change, and developments in Arizona remind us of several of our podcastâs recurring themes. CLE credit is available by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.
-
Former President Trump is making an extraordinary claim to the Supreme Court: that he is immune from criminal prosecution for crimes he may have committed while president. The Court has agreed to hear arguments on this proposition on April 25. We begin the preparation by posing the questions and taking them on. Professor Amar is an expert on Presidential immunities. Our analysis goes through originalism as well as precedent. This and subsequent episodes form an oral amicus brief of sorts - another âmaster class,â if you will. We also take a listenerâs question seriously as we address the Comstock Act and related issues. CLE credit is available at podcast.njsba.com.
-
The Supreme Court heard the case on the legality of FDA regulation of Mifepristone. Issues of standing seemed to dominate, so Professor Amar treats us to a master class on standing - in this case, and its recent evolution. He also suggests that at least one Justice might benefit by attending. In a wide-ranging episode, we also share excitement and some new scholarly insights that emerged from the recent EverScholar program led by Akhil and others; and the Trump gag order gives rise to some musings as well. Thereâs a lot for everyone in this episode, including CLE available from podcast.njsba.com.
-
We round up our analysis of the opinion in Trump v. Anderson with Justice Barrettâs concurrence. All of this has raised many questions, particularly in light of the Courtâs errant reasoning and other shenanigans. And it turns out that many of the best questions come from you, our audience! So we turn to those as well, both about Section 3, and other matters as well. We also look at the news mediaâs latest interesting directions, including takes on Justice Breyerâs new book and seeds planted by Professor Amar bearing fruit. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com
-
The Trump v. Anderson lead balloon continues to smolder. This episode looks at the areas wherein the concurring Justices took issue with the per curiam, and they are many. Indeed, the three Justices who concurred only in the judgment disagree with the scope of the per curiam as well as its particulars, and their concurrence reads more like a dissent. Can we find areas of agreement with ourselves and the concurrences? What can we learn from all this? CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.
-
The concurrence by three Justices (as opposed to that of Justice Barrett) in Trump v. Anderson concurs only in the judgment. We look at different types of concurrences and why a Justice might choose one type or the other; and as for this one, we find much to dissent with. We dissect the arguments and now with the benefit of a week since the opinion, we âslow it downâ and take you carefully through the logic and illogic we find. Can we locate common ground among justices who claim to be unanimous but in fact significantly diverge? And how do we address our own position, which seems to lie firmly opposed to the entire Court? CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.
-
The Court has ruled in Trump v. Anderson, and a strange day it was. An announcement on a Sunday of opinion on Monday; no justices present; metadata weirdness, and worst of all, a unanimous opinion that is unanimously wrong. Concurrences that are dissents. A nearly 250 year old electoral college system that somehow escaped the Justices. Notorious cases cited with approval. The opinion is a veritable patchwork of error. The autopsy begins.
-
Weâre back, and still waiting for the opinion in Trump v. Anderson, which gives us a chance to highlight important new evidence that has come to light - thanks in large part to Professor Amarâs great law student team. It fatally undermines what seemed likely to be the reasoning the opinion was going to take. Will it matter? This is related to the role amici play in the Court ecosystem, and we look at how another case we had a brief in, Moore v. US, seemed to be possibly influenced by our brief by beginning our long-promised clip-based analysis of that oral argument. So a whole lot in a compact episode. CLE is available from podcast.njsba.com.
-
As promised, we return in very short order with the completion of our analysis and response to the oral argument in Trump v. Anderson - before the Court has ruled. Again, key clips from the argument are played and dissected. The previous Part I episode concentrated on arguments concerning self-execution of Section Three; this episode reviews many of the other issues addressed by the Court, from questions of the nature of the Presidential Election and the closely related Electoral College, to the persistent irritant of "officer" and "office" questions. As in the prior episode, Professor Amar âslows everything downâ to allow you and hopefully the Court avoid sweet-sounding but flawed paths. This episode is posted 8 days early for this reason. Continuing legal education credit is available; visit podcast.njsba.com after listening.
-
EARLY UPLOAD - The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson on Thursday, and we were so alarmed by the errant direction they took that we decided to take to the air early. Here are key clips from the argument dissected - exposed, really - to reveal the mistaken representations of the meaning of certain cases; the ignoring of key facts which then distort others; the absence of key lines of argument; and the danger that the Court may be headed for another debacle on the scale of Bush v. Gore. Professor Amar âslows everything downâ so the sometimes subtle misdirection that a fast-paced oral argument can induce is neutralized, creating clarity that we can only hope some Justice or some clerk sees in time. This episode is posted 4 days early for this reason, and next weekâs will follow later this week as well. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com beginning Monday, February 12.
-
Oral arguments are scheduled for this Thursday in the Trump v. Anderson case, concerning the possible disqualification of former President Trump from the ballot in Colorado, and with a myriad of questions surrounding Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment at stake. We have something new to offer, as the distinguished historian, Professor Ted Widmer, joins us to add his considerable expertise to the oh-so-timely topics of John B. Floyd and the conspiracy to prevent the certification of Abraham Lincolnâs election with the aim to prevent his inauguration and otherwise cripple the Union during the Secession Winter. This was of course integral to our amicus brief in the case, and this podcast offers additional support for its theses. We also review the promised â20 questionsâ that the brief explored - the perfect review or reference as the Court faces this vital case that has gripped the nation. CLE Credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.
- Laat meer zien