Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Does the Supreme Court Need to Rein in Presidential Power? w/ Peter Cohen | Politics with Paul #68
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Does the Supreme Court Need to Rein in Presidential Power? w/ Peter Cohen | Politics with Paul #68
The power of the US presidency has expanded considerably over 235 years. But has it gone too far and broken our system of separation of powers? If so, how do we (and especially the US Supreme Court) rein it back in? Retired attorney Peter Cohen looks at these questions in his new book, "In the Supreme Court's Own Words: First Principles for Checking Presidential Power and Preserving the Republic."
Our conversation includes discussion about how to make legal rulings more understandable, constitutional restraints that presidents of both parties have tested, whether the "activist judge" argument has caused problems in our political discourse, and how we change our opinion on expanded presidential power based on whether we support the president.
Peter's links:
My links:
(0:00) Intro: Peter Cohen, Presidential Power vs. Supreme Court
(2:09) Peter's Experience With Legal Cases About Presidential Power
(6:40) Why Peter Wrote "In the Supreme Court's Own Words"
(14:16) How to Make Legal Discussions Accessible, Understandable to the Public
(20:21) Constitutional Restraints that Presidents of Both Parties Have Overstepped?
(28:19) Have Congress, SCOTUS Willingly Ceded Too Much Power to the Presidency?
(35:25) Should Government Be More Efficient or More Deliberative?
(44:02) Has SCOTUS' "Political Questions" Doctrine Let Presidents Accumulate Power?
(50:08) On the "Activist Judge" Argument, Whether it Has Empowered Presidents
(58:54) Do We Support Expanded Presidential Power Simply if We Like the President?
(1:08:51) Practical Ways We Can Hold Presidents Accountable for Overstepping Boundaries
(1:14:06) Random Question: Ridiculous Legal Cases You Have Seen/Tried
(1:22:23) Closing, Peter's Links, My Links
View all episodes
By Paul RaderThe power of the US presidency has expanded considerably over 235 years. But has it gone too far and broken our system of separation of powers? If so, how do we (and especially the US Supreme Court) rein it back in? Retired attorney Peter Cohen looks at these questions in his new book, "In the Supreme Court's Own Words: First Principles for Checking Presidential Power and Preserving the Republic."
Our conversation includes discussion about how to make legal rulings more understandable, constitutional restraints that presidents of both parties have tested, whether the "activist judge" argument has caused problems in our political discourse, and how we change our opinion on expanded presidential power based on whether we support the president.
Peter's links:
My links:
(0:00) Intro: Peter Cohen, Presidential Power vs. Supreme Court
(2:09) Peter's Experience With Legal Cases About Presidential Power
(6:40) Why Peter Wrote "In the Supreme Court's Own Words"
(14:16) How to Make Legal Discussions Accessible, Understandable to the Public
(20:21) Constitutional Restraints that Presidents of Both Parties Have Overstepped?
(28:19) Have Congress, SCOTUS Willingly Ceded Too Much Power to the Presidency?
(35:25) Should Government Be More Efficient or More Deliberative?
(44:02) Has SCOTUS' "Political Questions" Doctrine Let Presidents Accumulate Power?
(50:08) On the "Activist Judge" Argument, Whether it Has Empowered Presidents
(58:54) Do We Support Expanded Presidential Power Simply if We Like the President?
(1:08:51) Practical Ways We Can Hold Presidents Accountable for Overstepping Boundaries
(1:14:06) Random Question: Ridiculous Legal Cases You Have Seen/Tried
(1:22:23) Closing, Peter's Links, My Links