Advisory Opinions

The hosts dive into the contentious indictment of James Comey, exploring the grand jury process and highlighting concerns about selective prosecution. They debate whether presidents can direct individual prosecutions, citing historical examples of executive influence. The conversation touches on the potential political fallout of acquittals and dismissals and why these could intensify public polarization. They also dissect notable Supreme Court dissents, emphasizing the powerful role personal experiences play in shaping judicial opinions.

The hosts dive into the Supreme Court's surprising decision to hear a case prematurely, raising questions about judicial processes. They discuss the contentious debate over the Federal Trade Commission’s power and whether courts can intervene when officials are removed by the president. The concept of originalism takes center stage, with its influence on contemporary rulings like Roe v. Wade. Tensions in healthcare coverage for gender-affirming surgeries also spark discussion, alongside an analysis of the Alien Enemies Act and its implications for presidential authority.

Join Sarah Isgur and David French as they chat with Justin Driver, a Yale Law professor and author of The Fall of Affirmative Action. They dive into the controversial Supreme Court case, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, unpacking the complex dynamics of racial equity versus colorblind principles. Driver argues that both conservative and progressive viewpoints oversimplify the issue. The discussion also touches on race-neutral alternatives in admissions, potential impacts on campus life, and the political pressures affecting higher education.

Richard Primus, a law professor and author of The Oldest Constitutional Question, challenges traditional views on congressional powers and their limits. He argues that limits on Congress don’t stem from enumeration but rather from broader constitutional principles. The conversation also dives into the implications of hate speech laws, the impact of emergency dockets on judicial decisions, and the nuances of the Tenth Amendment. Primus brings historical context to federal powers, making a compelling case for a reconsideration of how we view federalism.

The discussion dives into the chilling rise of violence in American discourse and its impact on free speech, especially on college campuses. It highlights the concept of stochastic terrorism and the significant effects that public figures can have on susceptible individuals. Concerns about online foreign influence and the role of social media in amplifying extreme views take center stage. The legal complexities surrounding Section 230 and the balance between security and free speech during campus events are also scrutinized.

Dive into the legal intricacies of military action as the hosts dissect the president's authority to order strikes without congressional approval. Explore the complexities of armed conflict laws and how they intersect with the Constitution. There's a critical look at ongoing Supreme Court cases, including Trump's tariffs and immigration enforcement. Additionally, the discussion touches on the Federal Reserve's unique structure and its implications for executive power. Tune in for a captivating analysis of law, politics, and the balance of power!

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, known for her writings on originalism and her time as a clerk for Justice Scalia, joins the conversation. She discusses her new book, emphasizing the role of context in legal interpretation and the influence of civic education. The lightning round uncovers her views on oral arguments and court terminology. Barrett also reflects on the challenges of the equity docket and the relation between judicial philosophies, including a deeper dive into originalism amidst the complexities of contemporary governance.

Nico Perrino, Executive Vice President of FIRE and host of the 'So to Speak' podcast, joins the discussion to dive deep into the origins of free speech debates. They explore why FIRE refrains from editorializing on speech content and reflect on the changing dynamics of presidential powers in relation to free speech. The conversation touches on historical patterns of censorship, the challenges posed by social media, and the evolving landscape of political discourse, including the implications for the conservative legal movement.

Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas and visiting Harvard professor, along with his wife Cynthia, delve deep into constitutional complexities. They discuss the implications of President Trump's executive order on flag burning as a free speech issue, referencing Texas v. Johnson. The Levinsons also explore controversial topics like the flaws of the pardon power and the Electoral College's impact on modern democracy, urging a reevaluation of constitutional interpretations in light of current challenges.

Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, a University of Virginia professor and author of "The Presidential Pardon: The Short Clause with a Long Troubled History," joins the discussion. He explores the legal ramifications of the FBI's raid on John Bolton, probing the tensions between political retribution and law enforcement. Prakash delves into the fragile nature of the American governance system, the complexities of presidential pardons, and their implications on justice. His insights highlight the precarious balance between mercy and the rule of law in contemporary politics.