Divided Argument Will Baude, Dan Epps
-
- Government
-
An unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast. Hosted by Will Baude and Dan Epps.
-
Dinkus
After grappling with listener feedback ranging from the acoustic to the typographical, we catch up on last month's decisions in Great Lakes v. Raiders Retreat Realty (admiralty) and McElrath v. Georgia (double jeopardy). We then turn to last week's decisions about public officials on social media, Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratliff v. Garnier, and then finally to the statutory interpretation decision in Pulsifer v. United States. It's a lot of cases in just over an hour!
-
Political Hacks Pretending to be Lawyers
We (of course) break down the Court's opinions in Trump v. Anderson, the Section Three case from Colorado. We also discuss the Court's cert. grant on Trump's immunity from criminal prosecution, and several other opinions on the orders list, dealing with rent control, magnet school admissions, and campus speech.
-
Votin' for Lincoln
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?
-
Into the Brick Wall
After catching up on a few odds and ends, we decide to give the people what they want and discuss Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and whether the Supreme Court could possibly declare Donald Trump ineligible for the Presidency. You won't want to miss it.
-
Muppetproof
We discuss the passing of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, then turn to two interesting opinions on the shadow docket (in Griffin v. HM Florida and DuPont v. Abbott), and finally break down the Court's first merits opinion of the term in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, at the intersection of standing and mootness. Will also expresses skepticism about Dan's latest AI habit.
-
Easy Win
We discuss the Court's new Code of Conduct, catch up on shadow docket happenings, and debate what historians can teach originalists. We then recap the argument United States v. Rahimi, (the Term's big Second Amendment case). Finally, we stay on brand by circling back to Pulsifer v. United States from the October sitting, where the Justices puzzled over deep questions about statutory interpretation.
Customer Reviews
$29.99 an episode doesn’t get you what it used to — 5 stars
I pay good money for this podcast, tuned in to hear your thoughts on the Section 3 argument, and I don’t even get to hear Will’s reaction to Justice Kagan’s sarcastic “Oh then I must be right” when J Mitch brought up the article? For shame.
The Best Supreme Court Podcast for You (Yes, You)
I can’t do this one justice. It’s a couple of constitutional law professors discussing the Supreme Court’s doings. Medium takes and very good short backgrounders on constitutional law. You can listen rapt for hours and have zero to show for it in dinner conversation. It sounds boring. It’s wonderful.
The supposed hook here is that one of the cohosts is supposed to be a liberal, and the other, I guess, some Harvard Law flavor of conservative. Fine. But the show is really about lighting up the Court’s non-blockbuster cases, the ones about California pork regulation and whether we do what the law says or what Congress intended. It’s about giving the boring stuff 45 minutes, because it turns out, when you do that, it’s not boring.
It’s true that the cohosts’ voices can sound similar at first. The key is to watch a few episodes of Over the Garden Wall first. Will Baude is the cheerful younger brother with the teapot hat and the frog named James Madison; Dan Epps is the doleful older brother with the triangle nose. I hope this helps.
Give us more
Probably the best legal podcast out there. The discussion is always interesting. Will and Dan are entertaining and always presenting arguments in the best light, regardless of the constitutional interpretation approach. Other podcasts do not treat fringe ideas (i.e., originalism) fairly, so the discussion here is very welcome.
Some suggestions:
I love the frivolity, but I would appreciate if the case preview were a bit more detailed.
Please find an excuse to do an episode entirely about general law. Dan was great on Short Circuit, and Will’s Privileges or Immunities Clause article was great.
Bring in more of Will’s originalist friends as guests (e.g, Stephen Sachs, Jud Campbell, Michael Stokes Paulsen.)