Discover this podcast and so much more

Podcasts are free to enjoy without a subscription. We also offer ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more for just $11.99/month.

What the Oral Argument Should Have Said

What the Oral Argument Should Have Said

FromAmarica's Constitution


What the Oral Argument Should Have Said

FromAmarica's Constitution

ratings:
Length:
92 minutes
Released:
Feb 11, 2024
Format:
Podcast episode

Description

EARLY UPLOAD - 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.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com beginning Monday, February 12.
Released:
Feb 11, 2024
Format:
Podcast episode

Titles in the series (100)

Professor Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University and one of the nation's leading authorities on the Constitution, offers weekly in-depth discussions on the most urgent and fascinating constitutional issues of our day. He is joined by co-host Andy Lipka and guests drawn from other top experts including Bob Woodward, Nina Totenberg, Neal Katyal, Lawrence Lessig, Michael Gerhardt, and many more.