Rational Security: The "Gluten-Free Clam Pizza is the Best Pizza" Edition
Jul 4, 2024
auto_awesome
Kevin Frazier and Hyemin Han discuss Biden's weak debate performance, Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity for Trump, and the challenges of internet-related laws. They also touch on New Jersey pizza quality and the geopolitics of shaming in the international system.
Joe Biden's debate performance raises doubts on his electability and intensifies concerns within his party.
Supreme Court grants varying degrees of immunity to presidents, sparking debates on executive power and accountability.
Discourse surrounding originalism in judicial decisions following the Supreme Court's immunity ruling fuels debates on constitutional interpretation.
Deep dives
Challenging Biden's Debate Performance and Potential Campaign Impact
After a lackluster inaugural debate outing by Joe Biden, critics and pundits express concern about his ability to secure the presidency. The scrutiny intensified post-debate, with calls for Biden to drop out and doubts raised on his electability against Trump. Polls reflecting a dip in Biden's support following the debate add to the campaign's turmoil.
Supreme Court's Presidential Immunity Ruling and Its Controversies
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court grants former President Donald Trump immunity from certain criminal prosecutions, generating polarized reactions. The ruling establishes varying levels of immunity based on the presidential actions in question, with critics condemning potential executive overreach and accusations of presidential impunity, sparking debates on the balance of power and legality of immunity.
Critical Analysis of Originalism in the Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling sparks discourse on the role of originalism in judicial decisions. Despite significant debates on presidential powers and immunities, the opinion's application of legal principles, precedents, and interpretation methods like originalism remains contentious, opening dialogues on constitutional interpretation and the evolving nature of executive authority.
Implications of a Presidential Exception in Criminal Law
The podcast episode delves into the complexities surrounding the extent of protection afforded to the president in criminal law cases. It highlights the challenges in prosecuting a president, emphasizing the broad shield created by limitations on evidence usage and numerous rounds of appeals, potentially hindering deterrence mechanisms. The discussion questions the practical efficacy of such safeguards, raising concerns about the vast scope of shielded conduct.
Debating State Interests in Internet Regulation
The podcast episode explores the recent Supreme Court decisions on internet regulations, particularly focusing on the Net Choice case. It discusses the Court's hesitation in addressing the nuances of facial challenges versus as-applied challenges in laws impacting online platforms. The conversation touches on the Court's caution towards regulating the internet, citing instances of notable abstentions and complexities in balancing free speech rights with potential state interests in regulating information ecosystems.
This week, a Scott-less Alan and Quinta sat down with Lawfare Tarbell Fellow Kevin Frazier and law school-bound Associate Editor Hyemin Han to talk over the week’s big national security news, including:
“I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience.” Unlike Ronald Reagan, Joe Biden’s underwhelming performance at the first (and perhaps only) presidential debate has put his party in a panic about his chances to win the presidential election. Was Biden’s performance as bad as the pundits and betting markets seem to think and, if so, what should he do about it, both with respect to his staying in the race and even his ability to finish out his presidential term?
“When you’re the president, they let you do it.” After promising an opinion “for the ages,” the Supreme Court, in a 6-3, party-line decision, held that presidents enjoy at least some degree of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. Did the opinion, as the dissenting Justices argued, make the president above the law? And what does the opinion mean for the ongoing criminal prosecutions seeking to hold Trump accountable for crimes he allegedly committed while in office?
"Tell it to my face…ial challenge." The Supreme Court continues its pattern of not squarely addressing difficult legal questions about the Internet. In Moody v. NetChoice, the Court sent back two challenges to state social-media moderation laws to the lower courts, instructing them to examine the laws on an as-applied, rather than facial, basis. What guidance did the Court give to the lower courts on remand, and what questions about the scope of the platforms’ First Amendment protections remain unanswered?
