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.)
Show Notes:
Subscribe to “Amarica’s Constitution” by clicking “Subscribe” or “Follow” after selecting your preferred podcast app below.
Season 4, Episode 15 (Show 172): Immunity Therapy
April 10, 2024
Is the president immune from crimes he commits as president? Trump says yes. We take a close look, both originalist and precedential.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
Former President Trump is making an extraordinary claim to the Supreme Court: that he is immune from criminal prosecution for crimes he may have committed while president. The Court has agreed to hear arguments on this proposition on April 25. We begin the preparation by posing the questions and taking them on. Professor Amar is an expert on Presidential immunities. Our analysis goes through originalism as well as precedent. This and subsequent episodes form an oral amicus brief of sorts – another “master class,” if you will. We also take a listener’s question seriously as we address the Comstock Act and related issues.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 4, Episode 14 (Show 171): No Standing Any Time
April 3, 2024
The Court’s oral arguments in the mifepristone case seemed to turn on standing issues. Learn all about standing from Professor Amar – and lots more.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
The Supreme Court heard the case on the legality of FDA regulation of Mifepristone. Issues of standing seemed to dominate, so Professor Amar treats us to a master class on standing – in this case, and its recent evolution. He also suggests that at least one Justice might benefit by attending. In a wide-ranging episode, we also share excitement and some new scholarly insights that emerged from the recent EverScholar program led by Akhil and others; and the Trump gag order gives rise to some musings as well. There’s a lot for everyone in this episode, including CLE.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 4, Episode 13 (Show 170): History Will Judge
March 27, 2024
Justice Barrett’s concurrence is analyzed, the audience’s many questions are addressed, and the news media is recapped in a wide-ranging potpurri podcast.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
We round up our analysis of the opinion in Trump v. Anderson with Justice Barrett’s concurrence. All of this has raised many questions, particularly in light of the Court’s errant reasoning and other shenanigans. And it turns out that many of the best questions come from you, our audience! So we turn to those as well, both about Section 3, and other matters as well. We also look at the news media’s latest interesting directions, including takes on Justice Breyer’s new book and seeds planted by Professor Amar bearing fruit.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 4, Episode 12 (Show 169): Dissenting in Concurrence
March 20, 2024
Analysis of the concurrences, this time concentrating on those areas where these Justices disagreed with the per curiam opinion.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
The Trump v. Anderson lead balloon continues to smolder. This episode looks at the areas wherein the concurring Justices took issue with the per curiam, and they are many. Indeed, the three Justices who concurred only in the judgment disagree with the scope of the per curiam as well as its particulars, and their concurrence reads more like a dissent. Can we find areas of agreement with ourselves and the concurrences? What can we learn from all this?
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
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.)