Oral arguments are approaching in the Trump v. Anderson case, and the nation is talking about little else. At the Harvard Law School, Professor Amar is invited to debate a former US Attorney General and Federal Judge, Michael Mukasey, who also submitted an amicus brief in the case together with Bill Barr and Ed Meese, among others. We analyze the debate - and the brief. And in that brief, Akhil identifies what he considers to be an egregious error, which is telling not only in its fatal weakening of the particular argument, but in the way it calls into question the entirety of their brief, and how it points the way to needed reforms in the legal ecosystem as a whole. This is an indispensable episode. 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
Dissenting in Concurrence
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
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