
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.

3,546 Listeners

2,272 Listeners

1,116 Listeners

2,024 Listeners

6,310 Listeners

6,616 Listeners

7,242 Listeners

5,867 Listeners

575 Listeners

3,953 Listeners

3,364 Listeners

817 Listeners

16,587 Listeners

745 Listeners

8,462 Listeners