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:
Season 4, Episode 5 (Show 162): A Self-Executing Gaffe
January 31, 2024
Professor Amar debates former Attorney General Michael Mukasey at the Harvard Law School, and takes issue with a major point from Mukasey’s amicus brief in the Trump v. Anderson case.
CLE Credit Available for this episode.
Oral arguments are approaching in the Trump v. Anderson case, and the nation is talking about little else. At the Harvard Law School, Professor Amar is invited to debate a former US Attorney General and Federal Judge, Michael Mukasey, who also submitted an amicus brief in the case together with Bill Barr and Ed Meese, among others. We analyze the debate – and the brief. And in that brief, Akhil identifies what he considers to be an egregious error, which is telling not only in its fatal weakening of the particular argument, but in the way it calls into question the entirety of their brief, and how it points the way to needed reforms in the legal ecosystem as a whole. This is an indispensable episode.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Subscribe to “Amarica’s Constitution” by clicking “Subscribe” or “Follow” after selecting your preferred podcast app below.
Season 4, Episode 4 (Show 161): The Amicus Brief – Part Two
January 24, 2024
We continue to walk through the amicus brief by Vik and Akhil Amar in the Colorado/Section Three case.
CLE Credit Available for this episode.
The legal world is abuzz with the impending oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson in a couple of weeks. In the forefront are the powerful arguments and compelling history that are introduced in the amicus brief from the Professors Amar. We continue to delve into the principal lines of reasoning in the brief, and how they take the starch out for some of the tropes that were found in the media. When you take the history one step at a time it is hard to escape the obvious parallels with the actions and inactions of ex-President Trump, and how they precisely align with the concerns the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had that prompted them to advocate for and ultimately author, pass, and successfully ratify Section Three. Will the Court see it this way? Time will tell, but follow the discussion as we take you through it.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 4, Episode 3 (Show 160): Friends of the Court – The Brief
January 20, 2024
Our brief in Trump v. Anderson et al is up on the Supreme Court site; we dissect and elaborate.
CLE Credit Available for this episode.
The “brothers-in-law” Vik and Akhil Amar have filed an amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson et al. The brief contains a dramatic historic episode that you almost certainly knew nothing about, and which is highly relevant – perhaps decisive – to the case. Prepare to be amazed by this story of the “First Insurrection,” which preceded and was distinguishable from the Civil War itself, and which makes clear the certain intent of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment – and the course the Supreme Court should take in this case. This, and the episodes to follow, may be the most important episodes we have offered in the more than three years of this podcast.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 4, Episode 2 (Show 159): Section Three Goes to Washington
January 10, 2024
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Trump v. Anderson. Akhil is writing an amicus brief. We preview the brief briefly, and take the Justices one by one and discuss how the brief’s arguments may interact with their own judicial styles and temperaments.
CLE Credit Available for this episode.
The months of discussion of Section Three on Amarica’s Constitution now make their way to Washington, as cert has been granted in Trump v. Anderson. Amicus briefs will pour in – including the brothers Amar’s brief. We present some of the approach the brief will take, and we look at the nine Justices, taking account of their jurisprudential history and styles, and discuss how an intellectually honest brief-writer can make their best arguments even better by considering how their readers will read them, and what might be most useful to provide to those readers. It’s not quite “handicapping” but it is insightful, as all America is wondering if this case might actually result in the removal of Donald Trump from Colorado’s primary ballot, and eventually possibly more states’ ballots as well. It has come to this.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)