Donald Trump and The Supreme Court | Uncommon Knowledge
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 янв 2024
- Recorded on January 12, 2024.
Between now and the spring, the Supreme Court will rule on at least three cases involving Donald Trump. Two questions: What should the Court’s rulings be? What will they be? To answer those questions and more, we turn to our in-house legal experts: NYU Law School’s Richard Epstein and Berkeley Law School’s John Yoo.
For further information:
www.hoover.org/publications/u...
Interested in exclusive Uncommon Knowledge content? Check out Uncommon Knowledge on social media!
Facebook: / uncknowledge
Twitter: / uncknowledge
Instagram: / uncommon_knowledge_show
MyHoover, a new way to stay up to date and follow your favorite Hoover content! Sign up here: hvr.co/3RnLBxp
Men built America in blue jeans Men in suites tore it down..
3:40 As a European I am in shock. How is it not wrong to start a storm on the parlament in your country? That is just crazy.
Why does it feel like we’re just being gaslit here?
Because these guys are only presenting enough argument to APPEAR unbiased. They imagine themselves to be, like the Supreme Court, with the ability to set aside the Constitution when it doesn't 100% agree with their personal beliefs.
"Insurrection", "genocide", "racism" - these words have lost their meaning.
All comments made by a lot of famous, infamous judges, professors of law, all legal minds seem to be very subjective. In the processes, the legal minds are insulting each other. The conclusion is that the laws and constitution have grey areas and that is why they can get away with their comments. They don't help the public.
Always love watching Yoo and Epstein. Two amazingly brilliant minds who are humble and lighthearted enough to be able to joke and disagree vehemently while still having fun
First time seeing them ... and I couldn't agree more! Depressing topics, but the video left me with a smile on my face.
Great talk here, and Yoo was right about the Boomer gerontocracy but wrong about what follows. How can he say the upcoming Democrats will be better than Biden? That almost made me sick.
Don't forget Peter Robinson, one of the finest interviewers alive today. I would love to see these three magnificent, thoroughly American minds engaged on this forum much more frequently. God speed, Gentlemen!
No bill is smart...read it..
"...lighthearted enough to be able to joke and disagree vehemently while still having fun"
Well said
but sadly in the leftist America poisoned by the Democrat voter base amiable disagreement is considered bad form and hate speech
Well this was a waste of time having two guys on that would circle jerk themselves with the same opinion on the case.
We’re toast. Right vs wrong isn’t this complicated.
As succinct as that statement is, it doesn't get at the heart of the question, who is right and who is wrong?
You are burnt toast. It’s not a question of right vs wrong. It’s a question of law, which will be decided in favor of free election.
Hahahahahahahahaaaaa
Wait you were joking right?
Said Moses to the Jews 😂😂
This is a problem with "State's Rights." What happens when some state decides the Constitution isn't applicable in their state ? What if it's a different amendment, like civil rights?
How about things decided like the rights of women and blacks, and nonlandowner's to cast a vote ? to cast a vote
@terrygain1343
It's really fascinating to me that the same arguments are not proffered when the person running was not born in the US or is 25. If that individual was popular among voters, then why not apply the same logic that section 3 of the 14th ammendment intonates. It's picking cherries.
Isn't the torture memo a life-time disqualification?
Role of punishment is to discourage and interdict future transgressions
So....
Who and how much should you dispense punishments ?
Fyi: There cannot be obstruction if there is no underlying crime.
Ricky from the proud boys wasn't in DC on Jan 6th... Godzilla is a joke. King Kong won this one.
I love how you disscuss law and the constitution as if all that mattered in the case of an individual who wants to tear it all down, when you start to choose if a law must be abided on political terms you already lost all respect for it, just keep that orchestra playing.
Fantastic discussion - as an avid con law enthusiast from across the pond, I wish we would hear more from leading American jurists on private and public law issues. Economic and social norms often have legal origins and it would be a valuable contribution by Hoover to engage in legal topics
Social Norms.... Architect of the treasonous "Patriot Act". Get real.
Indeed, well said. I just found myself reverted to this discussion. The legal issues discussed are very well elucidated.
When Richard said “You keep writing it, and I’ll sign it.” 😂
Reasonable Term Limits Please!
Really great and interesting conversation, thank you. I find it hard to agree with John Yoo's optimism about the resilience of American institutions and culture given the deep political corruption that now seems to pervade the whole system. I wish that he is right but I just can't see how you can dial the madness back.
I’m thrilled to still be watching Uncommon Knowledge with Mr. Peter Robinson himself. Always a pleasure and I always come away more educated.
👏👏👏 - Thank you Peter, Richard and John. That was fun and educational, as always, gentlemen
During the Cold War, competent, motivated people had a reason to enter public service--because the US government was actually engaged in something important on a global scale. It was a high stakes game and politicians had something to gain by way of legacy in taking part in it. The problem is the orientation/structure of our government hasn't changed since the Cold War ended, but the the quality of people willing to take part in it has drastically fallen. There is no unifying mission to direct American policy, the US government is this weird zombie regime that just keep going on, apparently, with no clear purpose. It's no wonder our politicians are so awful, what competent, ambitious person would want to have anything to do with government? There's literally nothing to do there but complain about how bad x minority is being treated or complain about the people complaining about those things.
How about if we take a look at the zombie state and artificial intelligence? There's a huge correlation and the public needs to know what's going on
It is always good to see debate with humor and seriousness and no fighting.
So the congress will say what happened on January 6 2021 is the contrary of an insurrection
So, it is yet so far from over.. wow.. we are not guided as wise as we think..
Really enjoyed this discussion. Jon gives me hope. He is a breath of fresh air. He is very articulate and an excellent attorney. I always listen when he speaks, even if I may disagree with his comments.
Great conversation. It gave me HOPE!
This was an intelectual discussion of important issues without the anger and malice that has permeated politics in the media and social media, where unfortunately the masses are getting their world views....
Absolutely excellent session. Please have them back.
High-level debate! Great!
I found this video very interesting. It is despite the fact that I think the two scholars were not 100% impartial
Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this informative review of the legal system
Thank you Peter
The Epstein, Yoo, and Robinson podcast is always a joy. Conviviality has become an endangered virtue, which makes this podcast even more important. The legal insights are equally dazzling.
Yoo did more to destroy your rights than arguably any American in History. Keep fawning over him.
I’m not from the USA but I really appreciated the concluding comments which leave me with greater confidence in the future of the US legal system.
Section 3 lists the person whom the bar applies to:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military..."
If they wanted the President and Vice President to be barred to insurrectionists, they could have easily said so. They didn't. It applies to the Congress and to electors of the President and Vice President, not to the President and Vice President nor to Justices on the Supreme Court.
Congress carefully and fully debated the specific language of the 14th Amendment. Then in the State Conventions did so. The State's leaders debated the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment. They all obviously saw that the President, Vice President, and Justices to the Supreme Court were not named along with the Senators, Congressmen, and electors of the President and Vice President. They didn't miss that. They all agreed that they should not be included in the ban, which is why they are not specifically named but Congressmen and Senators are.
Excellent & Timely Discussion. I learned a lot.
Any U.S. Citizen by birth, who has attained the age of 35 years, has the Constitutional Right to run for the Office of the President.
There is no specified method in the Constitution to examine IF a person running for the Presidency is Native-born and 35 or over.
So how does someone who wishes to challenge someone who runs for the Presidency on those grounds or on other disqualifying grounds do so if there is no specific method established to do so?
Since the person seeking disqualification wishes to take from someone the Right to Run for the Presidency, and there is no specific method of examining the question and possibly taking from a person the right to run for the Presidency, then the task falls to the Federal Courts to determine if federal laws disqualify that person, and so strip that person of the right to run for the Office of President. But it must be done in a Due Process Hearing wherein all Parties to the suit are given their legal rights and protections.
This is the guarantee of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Pres. Trump has not been given this or any due process hearing and so his rights are fully intact.
awesome talk!
Supreme Court case United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882): "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it."
What planet is Yoo living on.
These two are a hoot!
Wow, a great discussion on law and the constitution and matters that matter in this current national debate. May it clear up some difficult matters of law and order in America.
“Name one”! 😂 😂
Kinda like a cherry grove; Hoover, why so partisan? And 20% is just questions.
Thank You.
Now I get this ... These lawyers who are politically biased! These are 'right-wing' justices. At first, I thought this was going to be a legitimate conversation. How sad!
Trump was not tried at the Senate. Mitchell McConnell said let the courts do it
This program is absolutely stellar! Thank you to Peter Robinson for bringing such wonderful guests and airing this publicly. It is such a breath of fresh air!
On this topic, Peter should bring judge Luttig in the discussion. So for laymen like me, we can have a fair understanding from their legal arguments.
Thank you for this. It was highly entertaining and enlightening 😁
I thouroughly enjoyed this. Thank you to all involved! Im concerned about political division but I share John's optomistic perspective about our institutions and the potential for our future.
Brilliant!
I appreciate the humor that pervades this segment. How else to engage with this crazy place we find ourselves in the time-space continuum? It’s like pieces of history are leaking through. I can’t help but see the Gracchi, Cateline, and Marius looking at us through the windows. As an old guy with not much impact on events I am intensely interested in how this whole lawfare and election stuff turns out.
Great segment, Thank You.
Every time I watch one of these, I'm amazed by how good Peter's questions are. It doesn't matter if he's interviewing the Nobel prize winner in economics, a philosopher, a pair of law professors, or a scientist. The questioning always leads to brilliant exposition at a level that's easy to follow as a layperson.
Fair and balanced discussions from one viewpoint are not possible or informative. We have seen professors lawyers and former judges giving opposite views. It would not have been hard to get one to argue the opposing view, instead of a circle jerk.
Interesting. I wish Peter would do an interview with Luttig after this. Maybe it will happen.
Any suggestions on halting the onset of Fascism, other than the rickety process of voting?
I've always enjoyed watching and listening to these two bring clarity to the chaotic world that has become our legal system. Uncommon Knowledge episodes featuring this superstar legal team have always been a must watch. Thank you!
Excellent scenario! Love the back in forth of the law!
was the jack smith appointment illegal? is he a legitimately appointed special prosecutor?
Isn't it within the duties of the Attorney General and the Dept. Of Justice ?
If he was, then the Supreme Court would dismiss the case and Trump's lawyers wouldve raised this already.
it will come down to the letter r - love it
Always love when they are on. Thank you!!
We always have a choice between dumb and dumber, greedy and geedier,big and bigger,oh the infinite,irrelevant,decions!😊😮😢
13:33
Is this consistent with originalist theory that words mean what the authors of amendment intended?
Can you imagine going back in time and asking the writers of the amendment "so, let me give you a theoretical about a President who refuses to leave office". Pretty sure we know how they would respond. Also love the political gymnastics Yoo goes through at this point to explain how it wasn't an insurrection and congress acquitted Trump while failing to mention the house DID impeach/convict him of insurrection, and that the Senate still voted in majority to convict (just not two thirds).
No matter what the. Court, the voter is now the court.
Get some politicians who are not complete cads! Come on USA. Let's make world democracy about raising living standards throughout the world
Love this show. Always fun but informative.
I liked this discussion
What a lively and thought-provoking discussion!
I dont aprove the 'uncommon platitudes' show in general, but this very episode.
Apparently these gentlemen believe the good old days were in the 1970's. I guess in 30 years they enter the 21st century.
50 States doing Something Independent. Roe vs Wade was overturned and each State was told to do what they want and that was precedence (sp).
I love the depth of knowledge of the constitution by the panel members.
Depth of knowledge? That’s laughable.
As a long time viewer and chronic enjoyer of UK, I can say with some certainty that this particular configuration stands out as my favorite. While I could easily gobble up 9 hours of this discourse I'm nevertheless truly grateful to the three of you choosing to gift us this 1.
I also wasn't aware they had a podcast together so now I'm looking forward to learning whether they're able to make it work without Peter ;)
They don’t acknowledge that 14.3 does say “or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States”. No common understanding of that verbiage could suggest that it doesn’t apply to the presidency.
Also, it says an insurrection “against the constitution”, that is important to understand. At a minimum he gave “aid and comfort” to the insurrectionists.
Weak arguments from these gentlemen in my opinion.
They were referring to whom 14.3. applies to, as the Constitution lists those who have taken oaths as 1) members of Congress, 2) officer of the US, 3) member of state legislature, 4) executive or judicial officer of any state.
They think President is none of the four. Then, the question also is what it means to engage in insurrection or rebellion, do you need to be previously convicted of it (Epstein even thinks Trump was acquitted by the Senate). Tough questions, but I am not sure why there haven't been formal charges of insurrection immediately after Biden took office. If Trump was convicted, then all of this would be moot.
Your whole argument is based on the notion that there was an insurrection. And there wasn’t.
Very sad now knowing what Henry Kissinger said before his death.
As other comments have echoed, I absolutely love seeing Richard Epstein and John Yoo, and of course the chemistry of the segments would not be the same without the brilliant Peter Robinson
“Jacks a hack”, awesome!
I wondered why he was chosen above all others to perform this perfidious detail
Great discussion! Very enlightening.
Stellar conversation. Thank you. 💚
It doesn't matter to originalists how much chaos 50 states would bring separate rulings section 3 article 14. What's the counterargument? The Gee it's too hard defense? The states were SUPPOSED to have such power.
Very informative, with clear logic and explanation of all those cases.
Thank you for all of you.
There is almost no logic in their arguments.
Some good insights but too much talking over each other
Impeachment is a JOB ACTION, To invoke it as double jeopardy in an ensuing trial is REDICULOUS.
That they are able to discuss such serious topics with good humor is, I think, a very optimistic sign.
Thanks to all three of you.
Jolly Forge? Did I hear that right?
I wish the host wouldn’t interrupt his two guest so much!
I love listening to Yoo and Epstein. I've learned so much from them over the years. Again, they did not disappoint.
Excellent and enjoyable!
So glad to see these smart and reasonable people talking about all this. The main stream media has only done a good job of making up for the loss of Jerry Spinger…
Great discussion.
What a treat… to see learned, witty thinkers exchanging complex thoughts engagingly and without rancour… what Sunday morning used yo look like on cbs/nbc/abc ….many, many moons ago…
They made some plausible points, right up to the time when they tried to suggest that a House impeachment acquittal triggered double jeopardy. At that point I switched off. Double jeopardy relates to a defendant being retried after acquittal following due legal process - ie a case argued under the rule of law and tried by a jury of peers (or a Judge in some cases). There is no due legal process in an impeachment - the result is always vulnerable to partisan pressure.
What's the point having two person with the same opinions?
Double jeopardy for the political theater called impeachment? The legal gymnastics continue...
That’s law. You wouldn’t understand it unless you study it. It’s not something you get to just opine on Willy-nilly, sry.
What was your class rank in law school and what area of law are you practicing now?
Ed Meese amicus brief?
US Constitution Article 1 Section 3 para. 6 -
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
This means that no other court can overturn Trump’s acquittal and double jeopardy is not applicable.
Article II section 4 -
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The “shall” means presidents can only be charged via impeachment, conviction, etc…
So "The President, Vice President and all civil officers" - does that mean the President and Vice President are not Officers in the Government??
I agree that after acquittal of insurrection by the Senate, then President Trump can not be charged with insurrection again.
Yoo's Amicus Brief makes a compelling argument that a private litigant, like Norma Anderson, has no legal standing to use Section 3, and cites the Griffin decision "almost" precedent. John, loved reading about Chase and the Giffin case. I wonder if I could disqualify any judge using Section 3? Perhaps Trump should claim it against Jack Smith?
Absolutely amazing discussion. Ioved every bit of it!!👏🏼👏🏼
The question I would like to ask these gentlemen is: What recourse do Americans have in the event that a candidate for president, whom they do not support, openly states his or her intention to perform illegal acts if and when elected? Are there any extremes of behavior that rightly should be decided by the courts and not left to the opinions of low-information voters?
One of my favorite episodes from hoover - love the channel!