Season 4, Episode 8 (Show 165): What the Oral Argument Should Have Said, Part 2

February 14, 2024

We complete our analysis of the Supreme Court oral argument in Trump v. Anderson. Once again we review clips and not only critique, but explain and offer an alternative. Released early in our role as friends of the Court prior to the release of its decision.

CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.

As promised, we return in very short order with the completion of our analysis and response to the oral argument in Trump v. Anderson – before the Court has ruled. Again, key clips from the argument are played and dissected. The previous Part I episode concentrated on arguments concerning self-execution of Section Three; this episode reviews many of the other issues raised, from questions of the nature of the Presidential Election and the closely related Electoral College, to the persistent irritant of “officer” and “office” questions.  As in the prior episode, Professor Amar “slows everything down” to allow you and hopefully the Court to avoid sweet-sounding but flawed paths.  This episode is posted 8 days early for this reason.

(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)

Show Notes: