
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


The oral argument in Moore v. Harper lasted approximately three hours. In our last podcast, we began an analysis by tracing some of the advocates’ arguments and justices’ responses. This time, we go to the key questions that lay at the basis of all the back and forth. We answer them, but more than that, we look at their underpinnings and construct a framework in which, we believe, all elements of the case fit together. For your trouble, audience, you will receive a master class in the law of “Fed Courts,” you will hear excerpts from a debate with Professor Amar, and even hear from the dictator of San Marcos.
By Akhil Reed Amar4.5
375375 ratings
The oral argument in Moore v. Harper lasted approximately three hours. In our last podcast, we began an analysis by tracing some of the advocates’ arguments and justices’ responses. This time, we go to the key questions that lay at the basis of all the back and forth. We answer them, but more than that, we look at their underpinnings and construct a framework in which, we believe, all elements of the case fit together. For your trouble, audience, you will receive a master class in the law of “Fed Courts,” you will hear excerpts from a debate with Professor Amar, and even hear from the dictator of San Marcos.

3,549 Listeners

669 Listeners

1,102 Listeners

2,010 Listeners

6,310 Listeners

32,338 Listeners

6,608 Listeners

7,216 Listeners

4,660 Listeners

5,819 Listeners

3,915 Listeners

3,344 Listeners

16,132 Listeners

744 Listeners

8,778 Listeners