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 “slows everything down” 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 week’s will follow later this week as well. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com beginning Monday, February 12.
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
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