//  12/21/17  //  Commentary

On this week’s Versus Trump holiday spectacular, it's all judges, all the time. Charlie, Jason, and Easha take a closer look at a number of the President's judicial nominees—confirmed, pending, and withdrawn—to examine what might happen to Versus Trump cases in years to come.

Charlie, Easha, and Jason begin the discussion with a quick overview of the structure of the federal court system and talk about the importance of Trump's nominations to the Court of Appeals and District Court. Charlie then starts off the discussion of individual judges by talking about confirmed appellate judges Joan Larsen and Stephanos Bibas, whom Charlie believes are fairly mainstream conservatives. Jason then brings up Matthew Peterson, a district court nominee who withdrew after being unable to answer basic questions about trial court procedure. Next, Easha offers up commentary on the confirmation process of former Notre Dame Law Professor Amy Barrett, before the group turns to the other two withdrawn nominees, Jeff Mateer and Brett Talley, and compares them to several other judges whose confirmations appear to be going smoothly. They end the episode with their big takeaways from the first year of nominations.

There's also a surprise holiday offer to our listeners at the end of the episode. You can direct message us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com if you'd like to respond.

As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

Links

  • Here is an article about the withdrawal of Talley and Mateer, and here is an article about the withdrawal of Peterson.
  • Jason mentioned the record of district court nominee Mark Norris. You can find out more here.
  • An article mentioning Jeff Mateer's anti-trans comments is here.
  • An interesting article speculating about why Senator Kennedy, a Republican from Loiusiana, has been asking tough questions of Trump nominees is here.
  • We mentioned the article "In Defense of American Criminal Justice," which can be found here.
  • The article by Calabresi and Hirji proposing an expansion of the federal courts is here.

Race, Class, and Challenges to Abortion Restrictions

5/17/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Race and class are intricately entwined with laws like the Hyde Amendment, and no advocacy on the issue can ignore this fact

David S. Cohen

Thomas R. Kline School of Law

The Constitutionality of the 5-5-5 Supreme Court Plan

5/17/19  //  Commentary

It would be constitutional to have a 15-person Supreme Court consisting of five Republican-affiliated justices, five Democratic-affiliated Justices, and five more justices unanimously selected by the first ten from judges of the federal court of appeals for a single-year term

Daniel Epps

Washington University Law School

Ganesh Sitaraman

Vanderbilt Law School

Key Context for Trump's Rhetoric About Immigrants

5/17/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

President Trump's rhetoric draw upon a familiar narrative that pathologizes immigration and immigrant reproduction as a threat while protecting and supporting the nation’s “good” mothers, families, and neighborhood

Yvonne Lindgren

UCSF Law School