Slate News

Law professor Richard Hasen from UCLA discusses the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, particularly focusing on the implications for Trump. The ruling distinguishes between absolute and presumptive immunity for official acts, raising concerns about accountability and the challenges of prosecuting a president. The podcast explores the complexity of differentiating between official and unofficial actions, highlighting the potential impact on future criminal cases involving Trump.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority rounded out the term by gifting massive unprecedented power to commit criminal wrongdoing to presidents. A court that already put a thumb on the scale for former President Donald J Trump by slow talking and slow walking the immunity case in exactly the way he hoped, has now thrown out the scale in favor of a brand new sweeping, monarchic immunity ruling in favor of the former president and any future insurrection-prone presidents. Trump v United States provides that US Presidents may enjoy wide-ranging immunity from criminal prosecution because coups are constitutional as long as you make them official. This episode delves into the decision’s implications for democracy, and for presidential power, while also providing historical context. We also look ahead to the legal battles looming in the various Trump trials at all their various stages. What does this do to the Georgia indictments? The classified documents case? And the felony counts for which Trump will be sentenced next week? Host Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer on the courts and the law, and Professor Corey Brettshnieder, who teaches constitutional law and political theory at Brown University and is the author of the new book The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

David Faris, a political science professor, discusses the possibility of replacing Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee due to concerns about his debate performance and cognitive abilities. The episode explores potential replacements and the impact on the Democratic Party. Additionally, it touches on AI in finance and pressure on Biden to step down.

Mia Armstrong-Lopez, managing editor at ASU Media Enterprise, discusses the evolution and controversies surrounding IUDs, including insertion experiences, effectiveness mysteries, history of the Dalken Shield IUD, regulatory transformations, and political symbolism. The conversation explores the advancements in IUD technology and the importance of accurate information and autonomy in contraceptive choices.

The podcast discusses recent Supreme Court rulings, including criminalizing homelessness, limiting agency power, and overturning Chevron deference. It highlights concerns over the court's increased influence in legislative matters and the impact on government agencies' ability to regulate. Special focus is placed on implications for homeless individuals, addiction laws, and Justice Sotomayor's dissent. The podcast also addresses the Court's stance on January 6th events and potential indictment of Donald Trump.

This podcast discusses big Supreme Court rulings affecting regulatory power and bankruptcy plans. They also ponder if megacap companies dominating the stock market is a positive trend. In the Plus segment, they explore the declining popularity of potatoes and advocate for a potential spud renaissance.

Legal analyst Emily Bazelon, political commentator John Dickerson, and journalist David Plotz discuss President Biden's disastrous debate performance. They analyze potential nomination changes, successor options, and Biden's role as a bridge-building president. The speakers also delve into the impact of fact-checking and debate format on candidate performances.

Climate scientist Daniel Swain discusses how extreme events are changing on a warming Earth, highlighting the impacts of climate change on extreme weather events. The podcast delves into the intensification and frequency of extreme weather events, the challenges in weather forecasting, and the importance of adaptation and preparedness for extreme weather events triggered by climate change.

The podcast discusses recent SCOTUS decisions impacting administrative agencies, focusing on cases like Ohio v EPA and SEC v Jarkesy. It highlights the conservative legal movement's push against regulatory agencies and the court's power expansion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent in SEC v Jarkesy is emphasized, revealing implications on Congress's authority delegation. The episode previews upcoming cases like Loper Bright v Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v Department of Commerce, suggesting a term favorable for billionaires and judicial power.

Yale Law School's Linda Greenhouse and Congressman Jamaal Bowman discuss recent Supreme Court rulings on emergency abortions and guns. Topics include the clash between state and federal laws, Second Amendment interpretation, implications of court decisions, and the loss of a Democratic primary. The podcast also covers progressive stances on Israel, voter perceptions, legal battles, indie films, and pet stories.