Season 2, Episode 52 (Show 104): More on Moore – The Oral Argument, Continued

December 21, 2022

We continue our analysis of the oral argument in the ISL case, Moore v. Harper, and address what we consider the heart of the case.

The oral argument in Moore v. Harper lasted approximately three hours. In our last podcast, we began an analysis by tracing some of the advocates’ arguments and justices’ responses. This time, we go to the key questions that lay at the basis of all the back and forth. We answer them, but more than that, we look at their underpinnings and construct a framework in which, we believe, all elements of the case fit together. For your trouble, audience, you will receive a master class in the law of “Fed Courts,” you will hear excerpts from a debate with Professor Amar, and even hear from the dictator of San Marcos.

Show Notes:

From Verdict by Justia: What Might the Court Do? - Vikram Amar

University of Illinois School of Law Dean, and co-author of the amicus brief Vik Amar weighs in with an analysis after the oral argument in an important op-ed column.

Read and/or Download

Excerpt from The Words That Made Us (on Fed Courts)

Professor Amar writes on the Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee case and questions of Federal appellate jurisdiction where state courts are involved – an issue directly relevant to questions asked by Justice Alito in the Moore v. Harper argument, and explained in this podcast.

Read and/or Download

Should We Trust Judges? - The Los Angeles Times

Professor Amar gives his take, writing in the Los Angeles Times in the immediate aftermath of the Bush v. Gore case.

Read and/or Download

Dunwody Distinguished Lecture in Law, 2009, by Akhil Reed Amar

Nine years after the Bush v. Gore opinions, Professor Amar delivers the Dunwoody Lecture, in Florida: “Bush, Gore, Florida, And The Constitution,” expanding on his thoughts from the prior LA Times article. The text is published in the Florida Law Review and is reproduced here for your reference.

Read and/or Download