
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
376376 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.

3,541 Listeners

2,271 Listeners

1,104 Listeners

2,026 Listeners

6,294 Listeners

6,611 Listeners

7,230 Listeners

5,866 Listeners

622 Listeners

3,948 Listeners

3,355 Listeners

822 Listeners

15,950 Listeners

749 Listeners

8,439 Listeners