Season 4, Episode 7 (Show 164): What the Oral Argument Should Have Said – EARLY RELEASE
February 11, 2024
Following the Trump v. Anderson argument at the Supreme Court, we review the clips, give you the facts, and sound the alarm with an early release of our podcast.
CLE Credit Available for this episode beginning Monday, February 12.
EARLY RELEASE – 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.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening, beginning Monday, February 12.)