Amarica's Constitution

Ruth Marcus, a sharp Washington Post columnist, dives into the intriguing world of political legacies and constitutional themes. She analyzes RFK Jr.'s surprising endorsement of Trump and its familial fallout. The discussion also critiques Senate Majority Leader Schumer's proposed legislation responding to Trump's immunity opinion. With a nod to political dynasties, they explore the tension between familial legacies versus merit in elections, emphasizing the need for principles over opportunism in political endorsements.

Professor Amar, a prominent legal scholar, discusses the Supreme Court's surprising trend of overruling the Fifth Circuit, exposing its implications for judicial integrity. He explores the historical context of judicial structures and contrasts them with the ideological influences driving today’s rulings. Amar also critiques past behaviors of various circuits, including the liberal Ninth Circuit. The conversation exposes the tension between judicial independence and accountability, raising essential questions about potential reforms in a polarized legal landscape.

Professor Amar, a legal scholar renowned for his insights on constitutional law, presents an innovative proposal for 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices. He delves into the constitutional implications and the critique surrounding this plan, aiming to enhance governmental effectiveness without altering the Constitution. Amar also discusses how this reform could lead to improved collaboration among justices, the significance of clarifying legal terms, and the role of emeritus justices in court dynamics, inviting audience input for further refinement.

The 2021 Biden Commission on the Court has now led - with a big “assistance” from the Court itself - to President Biden’s own plan for Court reform. It is sketchy in many ways, but is entirely consistent with Professor Amar’s long-held views on 18 year active terms for Supreme Court justices, though the President’s proposal lacks the detail of that plan. This is unsurprising in a way since Prof. Amar testified before that Commission.  There are other related plans in proposed statutes that lie in committees of the House and Senate.  We consider the features of all, the flaws we have diagnosed, and we also have some commentary on some other aspects of the President’s proposals, including a possible constitutional amendment.  Lots to consider this week!  CLE credit is available for judges and lawyers from podcast.njsba.com.

Join Barack Obama, the former President known for his impactful policies, and Edmund Burke, the 18th-century statesman and philosopher, as they discuss President Biden's withdrawal from the race. They explore the implications of stepping aside, the complexities of the 25th Amendment, and challenges facing political succession. The conversation highlights essential leadership traits, critiques of originalism, and the potential for future judicial reforms. They also touch on the evolution of vice presidencies and the importance of bipartisan collaboration.

Legal expert Vikram Amar discusses Judge Cannon's dismissal of the Trump documents case, critiquing her arguments and highlighting key points ignored. The podcast also covers resignations, Biden's proposals for Supreme Court reform, and upcoming programs on China and South Asia. Plus, insights on dicta in legal decisions and strategies for presidential successions.

President Biden is hearing calls from many quarters to step down as a candidate.  Donald Trump is shot. Questions of presidential succession and/or resignation abound.  While it may seem these are unique and strange situations which the American republic has never faced, in fact, resignation has been a key American issue for centuries.  Episodes well-known, and others rarely taught, are reviewed on our podcast this week, providing context and counsel for our listeners, and hopefully for the candidates themselves.  The path to Mount Rushmore may take a turn away from the Oval Office, it turns out.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

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.

In an exhausting week, the Court released a number of long-awaited cases, and we had a consequential presidential debate. We look at several cases that many believe have profound implications for the administrative state; the opinions in SEC v. Jarkesy, and Loper Bright v. Raimondo clearly have the effect of increasing the role of courts and juries, among other things. We look at the opinions, the underlying themes, and the impact.  Meanwhile, following the debate, questions of presidential succession of several types, and of the vice president, are everywhere; these happen to be areas of Prof. Amar’s expertise, and so we address them. NOTE: The Presidential Immunity case, Trump v. US, came down after we taped this episode; we have some early but important resources for you on this as well.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

As the end of the term approaches the deluge of major cases has begun.  Two big cases - the eagerly awaited sequel to the Bruen case - Rahimi - features an orgy of originalist theorizing and opining.  Meanwhile, in Moore v. US - a case where Professor Amar and his team had an amicus brief - the tax power was upheld, but reading the opinion one might wonder if the same Court had sat for this case.  We take a look at the opinions and give our own take on these impactful cases, even as we brace ourselves for many more in the week or so to come.