Donald Trump and The Supreme Court | Uncommon Knowledge

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:

Interested in exclusive Uncommon Knowledge content? Check out Uncommon Knowledge on social media!

[hiram.j]

"Insurrection", "genocide", "racism" - these words have lost their meaning.

[bill]

Men built America in blue jeans Men in suites tore it down..

[TheDane_BurnAllCopies]

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.

[ninadaly]

Why does it feel like we’re just being gaslit here?

[AmitRay]

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.

[PamelaJust]

We’re toast. Right vs wrong isn’t this complicated.

[stephensands]

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

[pdgg]

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.

[billandrews]

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.

[janedoe]

Trump was not tried at the Senate. Mitchell McConnell said let the courts do it

[DelSimmons]

👏👏👏 - Thank you Peter, Richard and John. That was fun and educational, as always, gentlemen

[Tempus]

Well this was a waste of time having two guys on that would circle jerk themselves with the same opinion on the case.

[andyedgar]

Absolutely excellent session. Please have them back.

[storyteller]

Isn't the torture memo a life-time disqualification?

[nickjablonski]

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.

[phillipalder]

Fyi: There cannot be obstruction if there is no underlying crime.

[adrianjcox]

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.

[kls]

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!

[MrPaloolee]

Ricky from the proud boys wasn't in DC on Jan 6th... Godzilla is a joke. King Kong won this one.

[RN-loxc]

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