Richard Epstein analyzes the major legal plot lines attending the presidential transition: The Trump campaign’s frantic efforts to keep the president’s prospects alive in court, the possibility of a raft of last-minute presidential pardons, and the decision by Attorney General William Barr to transform U.S. Attorney John Durham — currently investigating the origins of the Russia probe — into a special counsel.
It’s a Thanksgiving feast of legal analysis in the faculty lounge (don’t worry, the profs issue opinions on the best side dishes for your holiday meal), as Richard Epstein & John Yoo convene for their first post-election session. On the menu: Do any of President Trump’s legal challenges to the outcome of the election have a chance in court? Are attempts to get state legislatures to change their electoral votes constitutional? Would a president Joe Biden actually have the power to issue a national mask mandate? Will increasingly restrictive COVID rules at the state level withstand scrutiny by the courts? Was Justice Alito out of line to issue politically-charged remarks at the Federalist Society convention? And finally, the question of the hour: does President Trump have the power to pardon himself?
It’s out of the frying pan and into the fire, as professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo take us from the just-concluded drama of the Amy Coney Barrett hearings to the just-emerging drama over the Supreme Court’s role in the 2020 election. Along the way they consider how seriously we should take the court-packing threat; whether super-precedents are actually a thing; if Roe v. Wade and the ACA are actually in danger with a Justice Barrett on the court; and what the newest Supreme Court justice’s judicial blindspot is most likely to be. Then it’s on to the Supreme Court’s unpredictable role in the 2020 presidential election. Will Chief Justice Roberts surprise us all again? Do any of the lessons of Bush v. Gore apply this year? And does ACB have a duty to recuse herself? Come for the top-shelf legal analysis, stay for Professor Epstein posing a grammar brainteaser for the ages.
Richard Epstein looks at the Supreme Court’s pre-election decisions on state voting procedures, considers the likelihood that the ultimate outcome of the race will come down to a Supreme Court decision, and responds to the argument that Amy Coney Barrett should recuse herself from any such cases.
Does Zoom mean we all work from home? Will cities bounce back? Will San Francisco and New York fade and smaller cities grow? What problems are the policies causing and can cities reverse downward spirals? How to help unfortunate people who live in cities? Join us for a fast paced discussion with a leader in the field.
Richard Epstein examines the merits of the antitrust case against Google, as well as calls to regulate how social media companies regulate content; looks back to the Microsoft antitrust case to explain what lessons it may hold for the current lawsuit; and makes his predictions for the trajectory of tech regulation under Biden or Trump administrations.
Richard Epstein scrutinizes the Senate’s confirmation process for Amy Coney Barrett, considers how much deference legislators should give to presidents of the opposite party for their judicial picks, and describes which areas of law he thinks a more conservative court should focus on reforming.
Richard Epstein previews some of the most contentious cases on the docket in the new Supreme Court term. Will a change to the individual mandate spell the end of the Affordable Care Act? Can religious organizations be excluded from placing foster children if they refuse to work with same-sex couples? And what role will the Court play in the tumultuous 2020 election?
Victor Davis Hanson analyzes the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, explains why Biden’s positions have become hard to pin down for the first time in nearly 50 years, and looks at what the differences between the candidates might mean for the future of American foreign policy.
An emergency meeting has been called in the faculty lounge as professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo react to the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sharing their personal remembrances of the late justice and reflecting on her judicial legacy. Then, an analysis of what’s to come: Should the Senate steam ahead with confirmation (there’s a divide in the faculty lounge)? Which of the prospective nominees should President Trump choose? What are the odds that the GOP will once again find itself undermined by a justice who ‘evolves’ on the court? And how credible are Democratic threats of court-packing? All that and more in our comprehensive coverage of the biggest legal story of the year.
Earlier this year, Professor Epstein released his own book, The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law, making precisely the opposite case. Tune in as Professor Epstein explains the differences between the two sides and explains what an effective, constitutionally-constrained administrative state would look like.
