Season 4, Episode 21 (Show 178): Flags of Our Spouses
May 22, 2024
Justices Alito and Thomas have faced a series of ethical issues involving their wives; it’s Alito’s turn this week.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
More than three years after the January 6, 2021 disastrous events, we remarkably are just now first learning of a complex series of events with profound ethical implications for Justice Alito. Like his fellow justice, Clarence Thomas, Justice Alito’s wife’s actions, possibly political in nature, have placed the Justice in a position where his own actions are being widely questioned. We take it one step at a time and offer our analysis, even if we don’t entirely agree with each other on this one.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 4, Episode 20 (Show 177): Trials, Pardons, and Elephants
May 15, 2024
We bring you a report from an on-site observer of the Trump trial in NYC, discuss some of its constitutional issues, and answer user questions that turn out to be connected as well.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
Donald Trump’s New York trial – where a conviction would be federal pardon-proof – has proceeded apace. we are pleased to bring a report to you from the trial itself, introducing you to one of Professor Amar’s star students in the process. Are there constitutional issues stemming from the trial? You bet, and we address some of them. Meanwhile, a number of listeners have asked similar questions recently, so we take that family of questions on, and sure enough, there’s a lot to discuss there as well.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 4, Episode 19 (Show 176): Immunity versus The Rule of Law
May 8, 2024
We conclude our analysis of the oral argument in Trump v. US, the immunity case, with more clips from the Justices and commentary by Prof. Amar.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
This week we continue with clips from the oral argument in the immunity case (Trump v. United States). Most of this week’s clips come from attorney Dreeben (representing the Special Counsel, and therefore the people of the United States), and some of the Justices have at him, sometimes in way Professor Amar finds wrong-headed or worse. Our own argument is brought to bear upon these controversies, and a consistent way of addressing these questions emerges. Clarity on the argument emerges.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 4, Episode 18 (Show 175): Sense and Nonsense on Immunity
May 1, 2024
The oral argument in Trump v. United States, the ex-president’s quest for immunity from criminal prosecution, was held. Here, part 1 of our analysis.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
The nine Justices heard arguments on ex-president Trump’s attempt to claim a sweeping immunity from criminal liability and prosecution. We present clips from the argument and our commentary, including some historical analysis of claims that Benjamin Franklin spoke in favor of such a thing (spoiler: NO), and many other claims which we had predicted in recent weeks. There is clear acceptance of some of the arguments we have made by many of the Justices, but questions remain to be sure, and we begin to address them in this first part of a planned two-episode arc of clip and comment.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 4, Episode 17 (Show 174): Don’t Touch but Do Convict
April 24, 2024
The Court is primed for oral argument in the Trump immunity case. We therefore complete our framework which enables examination of such questions.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
As we close in on oral argument in the Trump v. United States case wherein Trump asserts some sort of permanent presidential immunity, we close out our preparatory analysis. Impeachment’s relationship to criminal prosecution is explored. Some founding-era conversations involving, for example, John Adams, inform our discussion. Does the concept of double jeopardy play a role? Our hope is that these episodes prepare you for the oral argument with a comprehensive theory of how no one is held above the law even as a powerful executive sits high in We the People’s government.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 4, Episode 16 (Show 173): Crime Means Punishment
April 17, 2024
More on presidential immunity, official acts, criminal vs. civil offenses, and fundamental principles that should guide the Court when oral argument begins soon in Trump’s attempt at a permanent get out of jail free card.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
As oral argument in the Trump immunity case draws closer, we continue our discussion of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Do so-called “official acts” during a president’s tenure in office raise special considerations? Constitutional text seems to offer an easy way out of the case – but does it, really – and historical precedents enter the conversation. Ultimately, some basic principles of immunity emerge, which leaves us with a much richer understanding of the many issues than a bland look the text alone would Meanwhile, a listener’s question takes us abroad for a change, and developments in Arizona remind us of several of our podcast’s recurring themes.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)