The months of discussion of Section Three on Amarica's Constitution now make their way to Washington, as cert has been granted in Trump v. Anderson. Amicus briefs will pour in - including the brothers Amar's brief. We present some of the approach the brief will take, and we look at the nine Justices, taking account of their jurisprudential history and styles, and discuss how an intellectually honest brief-writer can make their best arguments even better by considering how their readers will read them, and what might be most useful to provide to those readers. It's not quite "handicapping" but it is insightful, as all America is wondering if this case might actually result in the removal of Donald Trump from Colorado's primary ballot, and eventually possibly more states' ballots as well. It has come to this.
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
A Self-Educating Gaffe
The Amicus Brief - Part Two
Friends of the Court - The Brief
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