Donald Trump and The Supreme Court | Uncommon Knowledge
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 08. 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...
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
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
Well this was a waste of time having two guys on that would circle jerk themselves with the same opinion on the case.
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.
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
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.
Isn't the torture memo a life-time disqualification?
So these three learned men are saying a dangerous man like this can walk on all counts and has nothing to answer for? this would seem to answer why democracy is in such a fragile state criminals can do as they wish and the citizen isn't protected.
You lost me when one of your guests called prosecutor Smith a “Hack”! His emotionality proves to me that his objectivity, judgement and conclusions can’t be trusted as far as the trump cases are concerned!
The 2 professors keep mentioning the acquittal of Trump in Congress. Is impeachment a political process, not a legal process under the court of law, right?
Oh, just wondering what they would say if Biden was doing Trump's deed, and stuck in Trump's shoes now.
C’mon, how on earth can it ever be ok to try to overthrow the government? This cannot stand no matter how you read the 14th Amendment.
Fyi: There cannot be obstruction if there is no underlying crime.
Role of punishment is to discourage and interdict future transgressions
So....
Who and how much should you dispense punishments ?
The Americans are odd. They rebelled against their monarch, and then follow a grifter as if he is a king...😂
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.
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.
Impeachment is a JOB ACTION, To invoke it as double jeopardy in an ensuing trial is REDICULOUS.
Trump was leaving office. There was not enough time to have a trial Mitch McConnell
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.
Frankly, the comments at the end about how there are no smart democrats completely negated the discussion. The clear Republican bias skews interpretation of the law.
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.
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
A crime is a crime. NY, it's illegal to cook the books, even if no one suffers a financial loss.
Convicted by a jury of a sex crime.
Taking and wilfully hiding classified documents. Crime
The man is guilty.
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?
Ricky from the proud boys wasn't in DC on Jan 6th... Godzilla is a joke. King Kong won this one.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Right, that's what I would have done, too: invite the guy who provided legal cover for torture and another reactionary weasel to have this discussion. Not Judge Luttig, for instance, making the obvious case that is no less obvious than the OJ Simpson trial was, but we know what happened there, don't we? But anyone reading this has a very high likelihood of voting for the criminal. Rest easy!
Jack Smith has seen the evidence, these men have not. Smith might be aggressive but he’s a smart attorney.
He did start an insurrection with his words
👏👏👏 - Thank you Peter, Richard and John. That was fun and educational, as always, gentlemen
The rule of law applies for everyone
So the congress will say what happened on January 6 2021 is the contrary of an insurrection
The show would be more interesting by adding a law expert from the other side of the political arena instead of just right wing inclined people.
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.
Reasonable Term Limits Please!
What's the point having two person with the same opinions?
I’m thrilled to still be watching Uncommon Knowledge with Mr. Peter Robinson himself. Always a pleasure and I always come away more educated.
Did he just say that it’s the Baby Boom Generation that has caused this entire fiasco?
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."
Are you kidding me? Now you are suggesting state cases should not be brought for crimes committed?!
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.
Impeachment is not a judicial trial. Colorado had a trial. Trump was found guilty of insurrection. These guys totally discount that.
Are they bought by the heritage center?
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.
The Hoover Institute is hardly apolitical. Federist/Constitutional Scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen
“It is unquestionable that Trump ‘engaged in’ the Jan. 6 insurrection through both his actions and his inaction and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct
I think these guys are just trying to protect Trump. Trump was disqualified in Colorado. It was argued. These guys are just arguing the loosing sides point.
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.
I'm totally baffled. I live just outside London, UK. Do you want Trump to be your president? Or do you not want him to be your president? Personally I think he's a meglamaniac but I don't vote on your politicians. Get yourselves together USA. Come on . Do the right thing
Please, dude, you are speaking from the biggest shithole in the Western hemisphere, maybe in competition with Australia. And no, I am not an American.
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....
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.
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.
The constitution is meant to be understood by The People and should not require legal gymnastics to be understood. What normal person thinks that a person who has been involved in an insurrection should be able to hold the highest office in the land. Yoo and Epstein omit mentioning all the places where the President is called an office, and common understanding is that a person holding an office is an officer. These two are engaging in legal gymnastics that many other constitutional scholars disagree with. I suggest the Lawfare channel here on YT as a good starting point for more reasonable analysis, and they agree that SCOTUS will try to find a way out, but not the reasons suggested here.
No matter how many times you say it doesn’t make it right. The constitution was written by folks who studied law. Not some Reddit debater who’s never put in the time.
So, it is yet so far from over.. wow.. we are not guided as wise as we think..
No matter what the. Court, the voter is now the court.
Trump shouldn't be disqualified unless he himself dispatches several members of Congress.
Trump's going to jail
"If Richard occupied all 9 seats of the Supreme Court, there would still be a lot of 5-4 decisions." Awesome
Thank you Peter
When Richard said “You keep writing it, and I’ll sign it.” 😂
Kinda like a cherry grove; Hoover, why so partisan? And 20% is just questions.
Extremely insightful. One thought comes to mind: if Trump "engaged in insurrection," a Republican secretary of state might argue that Biden's open-boarder policies "give[] aid or comfort to the enemies" of the USA.
Yet, Trump really engaged in insurrection. Yet, he also stole classified documents, etc. etc. etc.
Peter Robinson is the best interviewer I have ever heard.
Beg to disagree. I have listened to him for a long time. He spends too long setting up his questions.
While I wouldn't attempt to grant the title of best, I do agree that he is great. I enjoy how he sets up the questions while actually being interested in the answer. Too many interviewers ask questions with no intent to listen.
Any interviewer that tries to learn along with the audience is someone who I'll watch repeatedly.
@garyrussell5373 when you have very intelligent people. And complicated issues, it's VERY good to prevent the discussion from derailing
You guys have created alternate reality. Do you forget what actually happened both on January 6 and in the lead up to it? Ultimately, the US will get the leader it deserves.
Ehhh? No one was killed but a female by the capital police and we still dont know his name! Keep your ass down under
I found this video very interesting. It is despite the fact that I think the two scholars were not 100% impartial
Excellent & Timely Discussion. I learned a lot.
Boy, that older legal analyst spews some really high quality bovine waste.
What planet is Yoo living on.
Absolutely excellent session. Please have them back.
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.
Love this show. Always fun but informative.
Great conversation. It gave me HOPE!
I love listening to Yoo and Epstein. I've learned so much from them over the years. Again, they did not disappoint.
How on earth can congress make this ruling? Everyone is already aware that trump has been ruling Congress for the last 2 years through his maga’s. This ruling needs to follow a different path!
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).
Any suggestions on halting the onset of Fascism, other than the rickety process of voting?
There was no insurrection
High-level debate! Great!
God bless President TRUMP
TRUMP 2024
Our Government has turned into one big neighborhood HOA. The board members are the most power-hungry/hateful neighbors you will ever meet. And somehow we allow them to control how we live. It's sad, and there is no escaping it.
Was no insurrection,just because the media says something doesn't make it true, maybe someone needs to be found guilty first
Now is the time to REPAIR the broken system ‼️‼️‼️. This is a serious time for the government and the country. The type of corruption we experienced from the former President and others is unacceptable, it sends the wrong message to our children - how they should carry themselves as responsible children, young adults and Adults.
Actually, the southern states were not insurrectionists in that they did not seek to overthrow the gov in Wash DC. They were seceding just as the 13 colonies had seceded and as Nw England states had contemplated doing decades earlier
Bravo!
There was no insurrection ! Just look at the videos from Jan 6.
Yeah just look at the video no violence at all
I can't tell if this is satire or not. That's how absurd MAGA has become.
It is always good to see debate with humor and seriousness and no fighting.
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.
Apparently these gentlemen believe the good old days were in the 1970's. I guess in 30 years they enter the 21st century.
Jan 6th , lots of under cover instigators caused most of the problems.
One of the most important laws in USA. "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." Trump has never been tried on insurrection, so he is eligible and can run. The rest is moot.
14 sec 3 also says that the person in insurrection is......... INELIGIBLE TO HOLD OFFICE
A Arizona sheriff who participated in Jan 6, was disqualified, and, that was upheld. If individual states can determine things like abortiion, why not their own election laws. After all we have state laws that govern elections.
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?
We have states keeping people off of ballots all the time. For various constitution reasons. Age(too young) or not being born American, etc. If they have the right to do that , the States can make this judgement too. This whole "we can't leave this up to the States" is horse manure.
I love the depth of knowledge of the constitution by the panel members.
Depth of knowledge? That’s laughable.
Epstein doesn't make sense to me. Believes the 2024 election should decide the issue, and yet has no issue with Trump's attempt to alter the 2020 election. Doesn't appreciate either that Trump's crimes are self-evident to a majority of Americans and that they want him held accountable. Ivory tower banter.