//  12/6/18  //  Uncategorized

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, the gang is re-united, and they discuss the Supreme Court motion contending that Matthew Whitaker was not legally appointed as Acting Attorney General. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 

Jason, Easha, and Charlie finally get a chance to do a three-person pod, and they use it to discuss Michaels v. Whitaker (or Rosenstein?). In this case, a Supreme Court petitioner has filed a motion to substitute Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein as Acting Attorney General instead of Matthew Whitaker, whom Trump designated, on the ground that Whitaker's appointment is illegal. The gang discuss the statutory law governing appointments as well as the impact of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. They then wonder whether the Supreme Court may take up the issue directly or whether the question is more likely to first work its way through lower courts.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here

Notes

  • SCOTUSblog's case page is here. That page links to the motion to substitute, the response, the reply, and the amicus brief that Easha mentioned.

Republican Hoopla About Trump Judicial Confirmations Ignores the Important Facts

6/30/20  //  Commentary

I've found 79 cases where Trump-nominated appeals court judges have written or joined opinions that are so extreme that even other Republican-appointed judges have disagreed with them

Elliot Mincberg

People For the American Way

Religious Discrimination And Racial Discrimination

6/30/20  //  Quick Reactions

The Court’s decision in Espinoza is similar to the trajectory of the law of racial discrimination in some respects, it also offers a striking contrast in others

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

The DACA Decision is Trouble for Discrimination Law

6/24/20  //  Commentary

The Dreamers’ victory has been celebrated as a sign that the Court is above partisanship and willing to serve as a check on executive branch abuses. But the price of that victory was a defeat for the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

Jessica Clarke

Vanderbilt Law School