Professor Amar critiques the Supreme Court opinion in Trump v. US, highlighting its flaws and abandonment of originalism. The discussion explores the implications of presidential immunity, the role of motives in impeachment, and the dynamics of judicial power in controversial court opinions.
The Court's opinion on presidential immunity demonstrates a departure from originalism and constitutional terms.
The podcast explores the implications of impeaching a president for bribery linked to pardons.
The lack of consensus and transparency within court opinions raises concerns about the integrity of legal decisions.
Deep dives
In-depth Analysis of the Presidential Immunity Case
The opinion on Trump vs. United States, written by Chief Justice Roberts, triggered discussions on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. The constitutional framework presented by the court emphasized the unrivaled areas of presidential authority, such as the power to grant pardons. It delved into the separation of powers, highlighting that Congress cannot criminalize a president's actions within his constitutional authority. The summary also explored the considerations around impeaching a president for bribery in relation to the pardon power, referencing Constitutional provisions and historical contexts.
Arguments on the Impeachment and Prosecution of a President
The analysis further questioned the implications of impeaching and prosecuting a president for bribery linked to pardons. It addressed the clear constitutional provisions on impeachment for offenses like bribery and the subsequent criminal prosecution scenarios. The dissent critiqued the majority opinion for lacking historical and textual support, highlighting the absence of past instances where a president faced criminal charges after leaving office.
Historical Perspectives and Rejection of Special Presidential Privileges
The summary provided historical instances, including Ford's pardon of Nixon, to challenge the notion of inherent presidential immunity from prosecution. Efforts to justify absolute immunity were critiqued based on historical actions post-presidency, like Bill Clinton's disbarment. The discussion emphasized the absence of blanket presidential privileges and the need for accountability post-term.
Critique on Chief Justice Roberts' Interpretation of Executive Powers
The summary scrutinized Chief Justice Roberts' argument on implicit executive powers and general immunity from criminal prosecution. It compared state governors' accountability for actions in their executive capacities, contrasting the proposed Presidential immunity. Highlighting inconsistencies with foundational principles, the critique concluded that the argument lacked historical, textual, and practical support, deeming it un-American and contrary to established legal norms.
Lack of Clarification Within Court's Opinions
The podcast discusses the lack of clarity and coherence in the recent court opinions, particularly exemplified by the lack of clear agreements among justices on key aspects of the cases. This lack of consensus and transparency within the court's opinions raises concerns about the integrity and impact of legal decisions, highlighting the need for a more cohesive and rigorously structured judicial process that prioritizes clear and unified reasoning.
Partisanship and Strained Civil Discourse in the Court
The podcast delves into the concerning levels of partisanship and diminishing civil discourse within the court setting. By illustrating the challenges faced in presenting dissenting views and the potential dismissal of diverse perspectives, the episode underscores the importance of fostering constructive dialogue and respectful debate within the judicial system. The criticism centers around the court's failure to engage in meaningful discourse, potentially hindering the robust exchange of differing legal interpretations and viewpoints.
The Court’s opinion in the presidential immunity case Trump v. US, has sunk in. On reflection it is even worse that on first impression, and that is saying something. But just to condemn the opinion is not enough. Professor Amar distills the Court’s argument to its essence and explains why it completely collapses under any kind of rigorous scrutiny. Its abandonment of originalism and of the constitution’s own terms is laid bare. How could the Court go so astray? We also take a stab at this, and speculate on various forms of rot that it may reveal. CLE credit is available from visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode