Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

After quick review of an order about admissions at West Point and two new unanimous opinions, we spend almost all of the episode breaking down last week's oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson. What excuse will the Supreme Court use to keep Colorado from disqualifying Trump from the ballot?

This episode is brought to you by Trade Coffee! Visit drinktrade.com/oa

Episode 1004. "What's going wrong?" Neil Young once asked Alabama, and it's still a good question 52 years later in the wake of the unprecedented execution of Eugene Michael Smith on January 25, 2024 by nitrogen gas. Casey returns to share why learning about the death penalty made her want to be a lawyer before we review the recent history of capital punishment in the U.S. and the dangers of an originalist interpretation of a "cruel and unusual" execution. We then take a closer look at how a completely untested method of taking a human life came to be used in Alabama and find some hope for an end to state-sanctioned murder.   1. VIDEO: Spiritual advisor Jeff Hood describes the execution of Eugene Michael Smith 2. VIDEO: Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall describes Smith's execution as "textbook" 3. Bucklew v. Precythe :: 587 U.S. ___ (2019) 4. Sotomayor's dissent in Smith v. Hamm 5. Thomas and Alito's dissent in Hamm v. Smith 6. The Death Penalty in 2023: Year End Report | Death Penalty Information Center  

If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

Graphic generated by Dall-e and seemed fitting.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case about whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from appearing on the presidential ballot or holding the office of the presidency because of his role in January 6th. Melissa, Kate, and Leah break down the arguments and what it will mean if the Supreme Court reverses the Colorado Supreme Court's decision.

 

Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 

• 6/12 – NYC
• 10/4 – Chicago

Learn more: http://crooked.com/events

Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

EARLY UPLOAD - The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson on Thursday, and we were so alarmed by the errant direction they took that we decided to take to the air early. Here are key clips from the argument dissected - exposed, really - to reveal the mistaken representations of the meaning of certain cases; the ignoring of key facts which then distort others; the absence of key lines of argument; and the danger that the Court may be headed for another debacle on the scale of Bush v. Gore. Professor Amar “slows everything down” so the sometimes subtle misdirection that a fast-paced oral argument can induce is neutralized, creating  clarity that we can only hope some Justice or some clerk sees in time.  This episode is posted 4 days early for this reason, and next week’s will follow later this week as well.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com beginning Monday, February 12.

Republicans thought they were going to impeach DHS Secretary Mayorkas but they didn't count on... AL GREEN!   There has been so much in the news that Matt and I thought we'd do some bonus recording, both to give you fine folks more content and also to keep practicing and getting into the groove. Matt breaks down the absurd Articles of Impeachment that some Republican intern typed up. Then we talk about the border bill Republicans demanded but then... fought against after Trump said to.  

If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court Thursday in Trump v. Anderson revealed a lot about some of the justices’ commitment to the primacy of originalism. Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss why his organization took up and pursued the long shot case to try to keep former President Donald J Trump off the ballot in Colorado. While the Supreme Court appeared to have little appetite for taking the big swing to find that Trump had disqualified himself from office when he engaged in an insurrection, Noah insists the case is far from having been in vain - eloquently highlighting the dangerous potential consequences of inaction. It's a chilling reminder of what’s at stake.

Next, Dahlia is joined by slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern to discuss whether the liberal justices have some grand bargain in mind as they offered multiple off-ramps for Trump’s side, despite dozens of bipartisan briefs arguing for Trump to be kept off the ballot, the court’s originalist’s sudden concern for consequences in this case, when they have had no interest in weighing the life and death consequences for ordinary people in cases concerning guns and abortion. Finally, they tackle a worrying undercurrent to Thursday’s arguments: an apparent capitulation to threats of chaos and violence as a basis for deciding constitutional cases. 

In our Slate Plus segment, Mark sticks around to discuss a landmark gun decision out of the Hawaii Supreme Court, and why it’s a problem that DOJ’s special counsel, Robert Hur, issued a report declining to prosecute, but affirming that Joe Biden is old (hint: the problem isn’t that he’s old). 

Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll 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.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Trade Coffee! Visit drinktrade.com/oa!

In Episode 1003, Thomas and Matt are joined by Matt's partner, Casey, to discuss what's been going on with District Attorney Fani Willis down in Fulton County, Georgia. Perhaps you've heard about a scandal involving a relationship and a messy divorce... But how severe is it? How much of it is real, and how much is MAGA disinfo? What is likely to happen? Find out! 

Casey was a prosecutor at the state level for more than 15 years. She has extensive experience in both trial and appellate litigation, including a substantial caseload of major felony and homicide matters. So not only are they a prosecutor and a defense attorney, but Matt and Casey also bring some extra insight when it comes to relationships between lawyers, as they are a real-life married lawyer couple!

If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

This episode is brought to you by Trade Coffee! Visit drinktrade.com/oa

In episode 1002, we get to know Matt Cameron. He talks about his background, his legal practice and areas of expertise. I ask him about the case he is most proud of, and you will not believe what it took for him to win it! Then I ask him about the case he most regrets, and... wow. Let's just say Matt does incredibly difficult and important work. 

You do not want to miss this one, these stories are so compelling, and they make me so excited going forward with OA and Matt onboard!

If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

#T3PB babyyyyyy! 

Due to several good court thingies, this podcast is now hosted by Thomas Smith. Not too much can be said, but this episode contains a bit of how we got here, and the plan for the future. 

If you'd like to support the show, please pledge at patreon.com/law and get your hands on the first lawsode with Matt Cameron! Plus lots of bonus things coming.

For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

Oral arguments are scheduled for this Thursday in the Trump v. Anderson case, concerning the possible disqualification of former President Trump from the ballot in Colorado, and with a myriad of questions surrounding Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment at stake.  We have something new to offer, as the distinguished historian, Professor Ted Widmer, joins us to add his considerable expertise to the oh-so-timely topics of John B. Floyd and the conspiracy to prevent the certification of Abraham Lincoln’s election with the aim to prevent his inauguration and otherwise cripple the Union during the Secession Winter. This was of course integral to our amicus brief in the case, and this podcast offers additional support for its theses.  We also review the promised “20 questions” that the brief explored - the perfect review or reference as the Court faces this vital case that has gripped the nation.  CLE Credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.