In this new podcast, Professor Amar offers weekly in-depth discussions on the most urgent and fascinating constitutional issues of our day. He is joined by host Andy Lipka and frequent guests: other top experts, including Bob Woodward, Neal Katyal, Nina Totenberg, Lawrence Lessig, Michael Gerhardt, and many more.

Season 4, Episode 11 (Show 168): What the Concurrences Should Have Said

March 13, 2024

We analyze the concurrences in Trump v. Anderson, looking at those areas where there was ostensible agreement.  We find much to bemoan.

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

The concurrence by three Justices (as opposed to that of Justice Barrett) in Trump v. Anderson concurs only in the judgment.  We look at different types of concurrences and why a Justice might choose one type or the other; and as for this one, we find much to dissent with.  We dissect the arguments and now with the benefit of a week since the opinion, we “slow it down” and take you carefully through the logic and illogic we find.  Can we locate common ground among justices who claim to be unanimous but in fact significantly diverge?  And how do we address our own position, which seems to lie firmly opposed to the entire Court?

.

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

Show Notes:

Season 4, Episode 10 (Show 167): Happy Anniversary Mr. Lincoln from the Court

March 6, 2024

The opinion is in on Trump v. Anderson.  We explain why Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Amar are having a bad day.

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

The Court has ruled in Trump v. Anderson, and a strange day it was.  An announcement on a Sunday; no justices present; metadata strangeness, and worst of all, a unanimous opinion that is unanimously wrong.  Concurrences that are dissents.  A nearly 250 year old electoral college system that somehow escaped the Justices.  Notorious cases cited with approval.  The opinion is a veritable patchwork of error.  The autopsy begins.

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

Show Notes:

Season 4, Episode 9 (Show 166): Staking our Claim

February 28, 2024

As new evidence appears that seems crucial in Trump v. Anderson, the Court has remained silent. Will they see the evidence and possibly consider it? Also – Moore v. US oral argument clips and their relation to our brief in that case.

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

As we return, we’re still waiting for the opinion in Trump v. Anderson, and it gives us a chance to highlight important new evidence that has come to light – thanks in large part to Professor Amar’s great law student team.  It fatally undermines what seemed likely to be the reasoning the opinion was going to take.  Will it matter?  This is related to the role amici play in the Court ecosystem, and we look at how another case we had a brief in, Moore v. US, seemed to be possibly influenced by our brief by beginning our long-promised clip-based analysis of that oral argument. So a whole lot in a compact episode. 

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

Show Notes:

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:

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.)

Show Notes:

Season 4, Episode 6 (Show 163): 20 Questions on Section 3 and More on Insurrection #1 – Special Guest Ted Widmer

February 7, 2024

With oral arguments set for this Thursday, we review the 20 questions our brief set forth on the Trump disqualification case, and we bring on an expert of what we have termed the First Insurrection of 1860-61 to add to that crucial story.

CLE Credit Available for this episode.

Oral arguments are scheduled for this Thursday in the Trump v. Anderson case, concerning the possible disqualification of former President Trump from the ballot in Colorado, and with a myriad of questions surrounding Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment at stake.  We have something new to offer, as the distinguished historian, Professor Ted Widmer, joins us to add his considerable expertise to the oh-so-timely topics of John B. Floyd and the conspiracy to prevent the certification of Abraham Lincoln’s election with the aim to prevent his inauguration and otherwise cripple the Union during the Secession Winter. This was of course integral to our amicus brief in the case, and this podcast offers additional support for its theses.  We also review the promised “20 questions” that the brief explored – the perfect review or reference as the Court faces this vital case that has gripped the nation.

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

Show Notes: