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.
Sense and Nonsense on Immunity
Don't Touch but Do Convict
Crime Means Punishment
Immunity Therapy
No Standing Any Time
History Will Judge
What the Concurrences Should Have Said
Happy Anniversary Mr. Lincoln from the Court
Staking our Claim
What the Oral Argument Should Have Said - Part 2
What the Oral Argument Should Have Said
20 Questions on Section 3 and Insurrection #1 - Special Guest Ted Widmer
A Self-Educating Gaffe
The Amicus Brief - Part Two
Friends of the Court - The Brief
Section Three Goes to Washington
Section Three Punditry: The Good, The Bad, and The Silly
The World Turns to Section Three
Juries, Jarkesy, and a Joke
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free