Divided Argument Podcast Por Will Baude Dan Epps arte de portada

Divided Argument

Divided Argument

De: Will Baude Dan Epps
Escúchala gratis

An unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast. Hosted by Will Baude and Dan Epps.Will Baude & Dan Epps Ciencia Política Política y Gobierno
Episodios
  • Betty Boop or Shakespeare

    Betty Boop or Shakespeare
    Feb 21 2026

    With unpredictable timeliness, we have a quasi-emergency episode on the 170-page tariffs decision, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Come for the in-the-weeds legal analysis, stay for the deep dive into the origins of the phrase "no, no, a thousand times no."

    Más Menos
    1 h y 26 m
  • Ayn Rand Graffiti

    Ayn Rand Graffiti
    Feb 4 2026

    We're back for another live show at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, hosted by the Northwestern Federalist Society! We discuss the term's two Second Amendment arguments -- first recapping the oral argument in Wolford v. Lopez, featuring Hawaii's law about getting consent to bear arms on private property; and then previewing the oral argument in United States v. Hemani, about the ban on possession of guns by drug users.
    Más Menos
    57 m
  • Bok Choy

    Bok Choy
    Jan 22 2026

    With shocking and uncharacteristic efficiency, we manage to discuss three merits opinions and one orders list dissent in only 47 minutes. Specifically, we revisit Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton (time limits for moving to vacate void judgments) and break down Berk v. Choy (an Erie doctrine puzzle), and Ellingburg v. United States (criminal restitution and the Ex Post Facto Clause), while also managing to discuss Justice Jackson's broadside against the Court's practice of "martinization."

    Más Menos
    47 m
Todas las estrellas
Más relevante
If you don't know what "per curium" or "stare decisis" mean without looking them up, then know this podcast is going to use technical terms without defining them. It's likely designed for law students, and those who have a solid foundation in prominent and current cases before the Court; as there is often reference to such cases without further explanation.

For the crossover part of anyone reading this who plays video games, this podcast comes across like the "Soulsbourne" experience. The term refers to a series or video games that have such a steep initial learning curve (particularly in combat) that the full potential of your experience with the game can be ruined as you give up in frustration before you "get good." if you hang in there, you might learn something...even if you needed Google to figure it out.

I listened to "Double Negatives" and was delighted by the implied game of "Clue" that seems to be scattered among the episodes, as some opinions are not signed by their authors. ("It was Kavanaugh on the basketball court consulting the ghost of Scalia!") The episode itself refers to current President Trump's assurance to the American public that, for a set time, at least, the currently held ban on TikTok is "unenforceable." That is true only if you use leaps of logic that you almost have to be enrolled in Stanford Law School to understand. Curiously, the titular case is about 2 minutes of the hour plus podcast.

But the handling of this and other Trumpy matters is where this podcast *really* shines. We don't get the cases unfolding with a heavy helping of the smugness or feigned irony I hear in most other SCOTUS podcasts that lean left. And in place of that liberal bias that I really feel upsets a full appreciation of what is going on, there is something much more usefull: the acknowledgement that Trump is a politician, not a constitutional scholar, and that his brand of politics is coming at the court like a wrecking ball. And I don't mean this in the sense that Trump doesn't get the Court's role in our system of checks and balances...rather, that his first week in office has set his agenda on a collision course with the Highest Court in the Land. It's refreshing to hear "we are going to hear more about this..." instead of...hey, chose your favorite pejorative for our duly elected President and throw in some contempt for good measure. The hosts of this podcast certainly have their own political points of view, but do a fantastic job of maintaining focus on more relevant matters.

Tldr; steep learning curve, worth it if you put in some extra work, as unbiased as any SCOTUS podcast I've found so far.

Not for newbies, but the most a-political podcast on Scotus I've found so far

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.
I have been listening since the podcasts started now over a year ago. Most episodes focus on one or more recent Supreme Court decisions. The hosts (both former Supreme Court clerks and now law professors) do a good job explaining the legal background and the reasoning of the majority, concurrences and dissents in the cases. Especially host Will Baude is always on top of things and just a delight to listen to. Less positively received is the performance of the second host who is often unnecessarily mean to Mr. Baude. Mr. Epps makes fun of Mr. Baudes arguments (e.g. on the positive law of the 4th amendment) and belittles his ideas. This creates a very tense atmosphere and is definitely not conductive to the learning and listening experience.

Informative but one of the hosts is mean

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.