We’re 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 Amar’s 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.
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
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