Torture, Time Travel, and Transformation

Congress is attempting to pass a bill that would implement a deal that President Biden reached with Speaker McCarthy and House Republicans.  The issues are many - what does the President due if the bill is not passed?  How imminent is the threat of default?  Would a default be constitutional?  Does the Constitution require any action by the President in such a situation?  What does the 14 Amendment, Section 4, say about this?  What does an originalist analysis of the global situation look like? We bring the best experts from both sides of the political aisle for a vigorous but intellectually honest debate on the subject, and in the process, hope to find some areas of agreement and wide areas to enrich our audience.

The Court treated us to an assortment of nude pictures this week.  The occasion was a copyright case featuring the works of Andy Warhol and the photography of Lynn Goldsmith, and the persona of the late artist Prince.  To enlighten us on the intricacies and melodies of copyright law and history, we bring the premier scholar in the field to our podcast - Professor James Boyle of Duke.  The result is a far-ranging discussion ranging from Plato to Creative Commons, the latter an achievement due in no small part to Professor Boyle’s efforts.  As for the case, it might be more important than the Court wants it to be, and we will tell you why.

Justice Thomas remains in the news, as items old and new - from his ward’s private school tuition to his wife’s employment - appear on almost a daily basis.  Friends of the Justice are quoted implying an effort to hide some of these transactions from public view.  An infamous Supreme Court case, Shelby County, creeps back in.  To help untie this web of questions, we are privileged to have Professor Kathleen Clark, a widely-recognized expert with an overwhelming resumé and Professor Amar’s seal of approval.  The discussion is predictably energized.

King Charles III has sat in St. Edwards' Chair, been anointed with oil, and enjoyed all manner of pomp.  Akhil finds important echoes of the elevation of another III - George - back at the time of the American founding.  In a busy week, we also note the release of Justice John Paul Stevens' private papers, with implications for important cases including - surprise! - Moore v. Harper.  Finally, the New York Times has a lengthy, lead article about a controversial law school, and we offer our take on that.

The North Carolina courts are having fun with Moore v. Harper, reversing their prior rulings as their new (Republican) judges took the bench.  We’ve previously considered what the Supreme Court might do with the NC Court reconsidering things - what about now that this decision has come down?  Would this be “judicial restraint,” and what exactly is that frequently heard meme all about, anyway?  We also take note of important dates on the academic calendar and that leads to all sorts of insights on college admissions, the meritocracy, and somehow that takes us back to the Supreme Court again.

The Supreme Court issued a stay in the Mifepristone case, so everyone goes back to their corner - for now, anyway.  They’ll be back.  And when they are, the issue of standing may well be front and center.  We grab this opportunity to give you a primer on standing, starting with the Constitution, tracking the Court’s recent strange path on this issue - and then we hear the Amar approach.   Our listeners should be in a position to see the Mifepristone case clearly, as well as have a firm basis to keep from falling down on standing.

The Judiciary continues to occupy the headlines, from the judge in Trump’s trial to judges and justices at the district and circuit level who somehow impact the lives of the whole nation.  And Justice Thomas keeps knocking at the ethics door.  We take it a step at a time, trying to be thorough.  Everyone, it seems, wants to be more than they seem.  So this time we look in some depth at judges being doctors, plaintiffs choosing judges, and regional judges offering national injunctions, while touching on some of these other areas as well.

Judges are in the news - all over it, in fact.  Donald Trump, arrested and charged, attacks the judge in his case, and the judge is under a microscope.  Deserved?  Meanwhile, a judge is elected in Wisconsin. Many say this is the result of actions other judges took in Washington last year, and judges in Wisconsin react - and find themselves under scrutiny, too.  Most prominently of all, a Supreme Court Justice’s lifestyle collides with disclosure requirements, drawing fire.  How can citizens view these controversies in a reasonably objective light, and what are the standards?  We take a shot at it.

The people of the State of New York have voted in Grand Jury to charge former President Trump with felony counts.  He stands arrested and arraigned.  If you were the District Attorney of New York City, and you had to make the decision whether to pursue this prosecution to this point, what factors should you have considered?  What obligations do you have to the citizens of New York in this matter?  What is your discretion?  Do you agree with DA Bragg’s decision?  Professor Amar will provide you with the background you need to approach these questions and make up your own mind.

The Grand Jury continues its work in New York, as a possible indictment of an ex-president and declared candidate for president awaits his fate.  Meanwhile, investigations and more grand jury proceedings continue in Georgia and Washington on other weighty matters. And the political establishment is worried, so the House Republicans have upped in with a subpoena of the New York City District Attorney, even as he conducts his grand jury investigation.  We don’t want to jump the gun on the virtues and facts surrounding any actual indictment, so instead we look at the many constitutional matters implicated here:  grand juries themselves, secrecy in general, congressional oversight and its limits, campaign finance, “hush money.”  Lots to talk about.