Amarica's Constitution

On the eve of the oral argument in Trump v. Barbara, we offer you a listener’s guide to the spectacle. What is the essence of the argument? What are the hard questions for Solicitor General Sauer, representing Trump? What should Attorney Wang, ACLU attorney for petitioners, be prepared to answer? What should the audience be listening for - clues to how the argument is going? We provide all this and more, so you can put yourself in the seat of a Supreme Court law clerk, listening to the argument, preparing to offer your thoughts to your justice. Professor Amar, as an amicus who has submitted a brief to the Court, is your guide. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Akhil and Andy visit a high school in Garden City, NY, to speak with outstanding high school students about Born Equal. In the process, we trace one of America’s great credos - “All Men Are Created Equal” - from the Founding, all the way to Lincoln - and beyond, to the fourteenth amendment; and finally to birthright citizenship and next week’s momentous Supreme Court case, Trump v. Barbara. The students’ great questions help show the way. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

We’ve been mentioning the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, and Professor Amar’s amicus brief in the case. Now we begin to analyze it in depth. We begin with the structure of the brief; why is it so different from most such briefs? Why is it uniquely wide-ranging? How can it cover many aspects of the case with a strict word limit - what is it about the way it is done that allows this when other briefs - well-executed briefs - cannot cover as much ground? And then, what is the outline of the argument? We also show where you can go from here; where you can find expansion and discussion beyond the brief. Or you can come back here in subsequent weeks when we will expand on the outline of the argument presented here.

Amarica’s Constitution has joined with two other great podcasts! We’re still ourselves, but today we bring all three podcasts together to look at a recent case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, which brings substantive due process back to center stage. And because we are who we are, we take a look ourselves at some more aspects of - what else? - the birthright citizenship case. Learn what the future holds for our listeners, as we bring you what we always have, and more. Attorneys and judges can gain CLE credit from podcast.njsba.com.

In this shorter-than-usual episode, you are now a Supreme Court clerk getting ready for the Trump v. Barbara case. What do you do? What do you read? We guide you. And as we think about what will happen when the argument begins, we give you a taste in this unusual episode.

The Court has ruled Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs unconstitutional. Vik Amar, who offered important theories that appeared prominently in the opinion, joins us to explain the Major Questions Doctrine, why it applies to this case, and even more importantly, why it attempts to support significant structural features of the Constitution. We pay particular attention to the concurring opinion by Justice Gorsuch, which offers the most in-depth theoretical explanation for this Doctrine and attempts to lay a foundation for its future use. Meanwhile, the significance of the opinion as a rebuke to Trump, and as a reassertion of the Court’s credibility, is also discussed. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Jeff Bezos emasculated the Washington Post; now he has virtually killed it. Why? And what does this mean for the nation? What is the importance of major newspapers to the American constitutional system? We bring you the great Ruth Marcus, former deputy editorial page editor, long-time columnist, with over 40 years at the Post, to offer an in-depth, insider perspective on this shocking set of events. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

It’s becoming apparent that the theory that Professor Amar put forth 40 years ago in a now-famous law review article, Of Sovereignty And Federalism, is being taken seriously by more and more legislatures, newspapers, and the general public. Therefore, we bring the two leading experts on this – Professor Akhil Amar, and his brother Professor Vik Amar - together to go over the background, theory, and intricacies of this important development. It’s a master class that takes you back to an earlier master class we had, on the venerable and crucial case of McCulloch v. Maryland. What does this have to do with converse 1983? You’ll find out. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

In a wide-ranging episode, we finish looking back - and in doing so, we look into the near future as well. The birthright citizenship case will be heard in oral argument on April 1, and we go back to our reaction to the executive order. Unitary executive matters are awaiting court rulings; we look back at our back and forth with Steven Calabresi. Meanwhile, audience questions on court term limits and the virtues of virtue are addressed, and there are more tidbits to enjoy.

The look back over our five years of drama, humor, reason, and illogic continues, as perhaps the most notorious opinion of the five year period - the Trump immunity case - reappears in a clip, along with a revisit with Justice Breyer. Meanwhile, the oral argument in Wolford v. Lopez did, in fact, prompt the Professors Amar to write in SCOTUSblog.com, and we go even further here, with clips from that oral argument and answers to the justices that didn’t find their way into the record, but now, hopefully, enter the public discourse. CLE credit is available as usual for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

It’s five years of Akhil and Andy on Amarica’s Constitution, and our friends are lining up to talk about it. In typical fashion, it’s not just testimonials but reflections. And we do a clip episode, but this time it’s not the justices, or the oral advocates, or the pundits, on the hot seat: it’s us. We look back at two episodes per year, playing our sometimes correct, sometimes wildly wrong predictions, and our sometimes prescient, sometimes widely ignored so-called insights. It’s been quite a ride, and quite a recap - so much so that this part one of at least two. And still, after five years, CLE credit remains available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

A powerful and aggressive central government sends unwanted forces in huge numbers to a city where the residents oppose and resent this policy. The undertrained forces unleash violence against the population in the form of an obviously wrongful death. Minneapolis, yes - but also a seeming repeat of an important American historic event, that shaped a nation’s core beliefs, later reflected in the Declaration and the Constitution. We tell those stories, and look at the values and basic laws that emerged from them; bring to light important Supreme Court cases - and bring all this to Minneapolis for examination of how they apply, 250 years later. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The military capture of the Venezuelan leader, Maduro, is an event with giant international strategic, moral, economic, political, and other considerations. It also raises fascinating constitutional questions, and Professor Amar is ready to discuss some matters that probably did not come to your mind right away. Much of this stems from the fact that Maduro will be tried in a U.S. civilian, not a military court, so constitutional protections are implicated. Whatever your thoughts about the policy matters, it behooves you to join us in this exploration of how this escapade reveals a strain in constitutional doctrine that remains unresolved. Meanwhile, you will learn of cases with names like “Frisbie,” hence our title. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges at podcast.njsba.com.

Our listeners have a talent for inquiry; they follow Professor Amar’s arguments every week, and come up with their own. This week, we end the year by fielding a wide range of questions, including some related to presidential oath-taking; juries, asked by a Judge; pardons and their abuse; and many related topics. Akhil invokes Angela Bassett and Tina Turner, as we answer the questions first softly, and then not so softly. And we end the year with fond wishes sincerely offered. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Presidential power is abridged, for a change, by the Supreme Court in its shadow docket ruling in Trump v. Illinois. Rather than ruling in silence, however, this time the Court gives us 25 pages and 4 opinions to chew on. We examine the history behind issues of deployment of the Army as well as the Guard/Militia on domestic soil, which leads us to discussions of Militia Acts, the Military Amendments, and basic constitutional principles. Professor Amar discusses the implications for the coming big rulings on tariffs and birthright citizenship he sees in the alignment the Court assumes in this ruling. Just as this is not the Court’s last word in this case, we will have more to say in subsequent episodes, but this discussion will leave you armed, if you will, with the tools to see the issues clearly. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

One of the most promising new faces in the US Congress, Representative Maggie Goodlander, joins us for a wide-ranging discussion, including the recent video assuring our troops that they may not obey illegal orders, and the aftermath of that simple offer of support. You may not know that this first-term congresswoman has served in our military for 11 years; has clerked for a Supreme Court Justice; has served in the White House; has been senior advisor to both Republican and Democratic Senators; has studied under Professor Amar - and much more. Hear from her, and see that there are still talented American patriots that seek to defend the Constitution. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Oral arguments took place in the highly-anticipated unitary executive case, Trump v. Slaughter. The overruling of the case that seems to govern, Humphrey’s Executor, has been long expected, and indeed, the Chief Justice referred to the “dry husk” that was all that remained of that case after recent years of whittling by the current and recent Court. However, faced with the extremity of possible consequences, the Court veered this way and that, indicating that while the direction seems clear, the destination may not be. Fascinating intersections with other cases and theories that Professor Amar has studied and expounded over the years abound, and in our Cosell-like tour of the argument’s twists and turns, you will learn how it fits together. CLE is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Secretary of Defense Hegseth is making use of his sights. He is focusing at times on Senator Mark Kelly, seeking to wreak havoc upon him for his utterances which have angered Hegseth’s master. Meanwhile, purported drug smugglers have found Davy Jones’ locker at the order of Hegseth, it has been reported, including those left helpless after initial lethal strikes. Yale Professor and Bancroft Prize winner John Fabian Witt joins us to help us make sense of the international law and laws of war issues here. Meanwhile, your poor co-host, Andy, is subjected to a Socratic barrage at the hands of a Kingsfield-like Professor Amar, as the relentless logic - or is it illogic - of Hegseth’s actions run into a Constitutional wall. This is an entirely new, and entirely irresistible analysis; it’s Professor Amar at his best. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Events in the news once again intersect with Professor Amar’s past work, as a little-known aspect of a clause in the Constitution has surprising relevance to the President’s fire-breathing response to a video from Senators and Representatives reminding our military and other officers of their lawful obligations. We trace other constitutionally newsworthy developments, on the filibuster and on the unitary executive. And the Born Equal tour continues, with some interesting reflections on the genesis and rationale for some interesting aspects of the book. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

We return to the tariff case and continue to hear from the justices and the advocates in their own voices from the oral argument. This time, a 20 year old argument from Vik Amar takes center stage with apparent approval from several key justices, and several of the Court’s female justices join forces to make life difficult for the Solicitor General. We also review some of the emerging implications from the recent election, and a bill coming out of Illinois that takes its inspiration from a 40 year old argument made by Professor Amar. Part 2 of 2. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The economy, trillions of dollars, and consequences unknown are on the line in the tarrifs case, Learning Resources v. Trump. We present the justices and the advocates in their own voices from the oral argument, and Akhil reacts in real time as he hears the clips for the first time. It’s a three hour argument, so this is the first of a two-parter. The Court’s recent doctrines, including major questions and non-delegation are in play, perhaps, and therefore many are watching this case closely for consistency vs politics in the Court itself. And of course there’s history and constitutional issues at stake, so we are right at home. Join us! CLE is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

California. Meanwhile, the tariff case is about to come before the Supreme Court for oral argument. So it’s timely indeed that Vik Amar joins us with expertise on both topics. In fact, Vik has submitted an amicus brief in the tariff case. The “brothers in law” take us deep into the gerrymandering world, the major questions doctrine, and we also pause to reflect on the career of former Vice President Cheney who passed away this week. Insights galore await. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges at podcast.njsba.com.

Our 250th episode has us looking back 250 years, and looking ahead to the next year of commemoration of those 250 year anniversaries. Sure enough, there is much gold to mine in those momentous events; much to inform us on matters of current import. We recall and examine a Declaration that is 250 years old - no, not that one. To top it off, we have a special guest that joins us to tie it all together as only he can. Tune in and join the celebration! CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, Jeffrey Rosen, joins us for a timely discussion of his new book, The Pursuit of Liberty. The relevance to today’s dilemmas is matched only by the fascination of the deep historical analysis and amazing characters the book unearths. In the differences that separated Hamilton and Jefferson, Professor Rosen finds the genesis of a divide that he maintains has informed most if not all of American constitutional history. Centralized power versus states’ rights; industrial centers vs rural life; a robust protest culture vs governmental support, and more. We are honored to celebrate publication (today!) of this important book with its distinguished author. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

As we continue to wade into the Supreme Court term, developments are taking place in several cases we are following. Professor Amar’s students are making constitutional news all over the place, it seems; several of them have converged on the tariff case once again, as well as now the unitary executive issues. A new article made a splash, and it prompts us to harken back to an old one - a 1996 article by Professor Amar, in fact, which has new and possibly crucial relevance. We begin to address some of these matters as this broad landscape takes us on legal travels that we can only begin to traverse. CLE is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Tarrifs may be Trump’s favorite word, but it remains to be seen if he has the authority he claims to employ them. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in November, and ahead of this, Professor Amar takes you inside the argument. He offers the history and takes us through an originalist approach, a textual approach, a structural approach, a precedential approach, and presents the case as an advocate might. Listen to a possible amicus brief in the making; a potential opening argument in outline and in any case, arm yourself with an understanding of the issues in this conceivably momentous case. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Professor Amar visits cities that are in the constitutional news these days: Portland, where the military pays an uninvited visit; Salt Lake City, where gunfire continues this year’s alarming litany of political assassination also seen in Minnesota and elsewhere. Akhil’s epic trilogy, with Born Equal now taking its place as the second volume, speaks to how our history shows us the constitutional principles at work - or not at work - in these and other happenings in our nation. And he speaks of New Haven, where work has been and is still done that enables these lessons to be told. All this takes place during a live podcast taping at the Yale Club of New York City, with a live and lively audience that treats us, and you, to their questions and comments. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Born Equal is being read - by academics, pundits, historians, and citizens. Reaction has begun to pour in, and discussion has begun. In this episode, we bring you some of the very best flavor of such discussion - an academic symposium held at Penn Carey Law School on the book. Professors Kate Shaw and Kermit Roosevelt each read the work with great care and deliver extensive remarks on the book, pointing out themes and insights - and raising questions. Oh, so many questions. Professor Amar then responds in the moment, and students in the audience pose their own queries. The constitutional conversation continues, and is never complete. But this one in particular will go on, as there were so many important questions raised that they could never be answered in this short interval. But you will thrill to deep engagement and fascinating perspectives from this all-star panel of great thinkers. Meanwhile, we also have a bonus for you: the great historian Gordon Wood has weighed in having read the book, and his extended remarks can be found at akhilamar.com/podcast. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Happy Constitution Day! And Happy Born Equal Publishing Day! The book tour is underway, and we treat you to an event held live at Princeton University. Professor Amar speaks about the bridge from the last book to this one, and in doing so, the importance of the uniquely grand sweep of his project becomes apparent - as themes from The Words That Made Us merge crucially with the new revelations of Born Equal to shed light on some of the most important constitutional questions in American history. The audience gets involved, too, with questions that might well be your questions. And this is just the beginning, as some amazing events have already taken place that will fill our podcasts with debate and insight in the weeks and months to come. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

With the imminent publication of Born Equal, we explore Lincoln’s grand vision of equality as it played out during and after his life. The new book goes further still, offering an expansive though still relentlessly originalist view of this constitutional vision. And now Professor Amar sees this vision through with even greater implications for the 160 years since his death and into the future. The new book introduces, and this podcast and those to follow explore, a new unifying thread that gives even greater coherence to the Constitution, as amended and as understood through this momentous scholarly effort. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Trump is keeping the courts active; this week saw a ruling against many of the widespread tarrifs he has sought to impose, and the Fifth Circuit upheld his dismissal of an NLRB member. Meanwhile, a Fed governor was dismissed, supposedly for cause. And the social media announcements of supposedly impending executive orders imposing voting requirements such as voter ID kept coming. And there’s more. We try to keep it all straight for you, identify the constitutional issues, and look at what the Courts might do. Meanwhile, your fantastic response to the impending Born Equal release is noted, appreciated, and we respond to it. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Gerrymandering, borders, the use of the military on US soil, and even the status of the District of Columbia. All these relate to geography, and the "more perfect union" our founders sought. The Constitution therefore speaks to all these issues, and originalism must be considered. We look at what the Constitution has to say, why it says these things, and what the underlying principles tell us. This has obvious implications for today's questions, but without clarity on the historical background, confusion may reign, which aids those who might be in the wrong. It's timely in another way, because the forthcoming Born Equal addresses many of these geographic questions - because Americans in the 19th Century, including Lincoln most prominently, thought about them prominently. Professor Amar brings it together for you. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

President Trump has taken to social media, as usual. This time he asserts an authority to control elections through executive order. He claims that he is empowered to do this as the sole representative - nay, the sole decider - of the nation’s interest. We look to the constitution for a reply. He also echoes some election complaints, and election claims, from controversies past, and we have an answer there, as well. Meanwhile, the publication date of Born Equal, Professor Amar’s new book, draws near, and we have an enticing offer for our listeners. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges at podcast.njsba.com.

With all our recent discussion on Skrmetti, and questions of scrutiny as applied to gender dysphoric individuals, the question of where women’s rights stand in this morass deserves new attention. Professor Jill Hasday has written an important book, We the Men, which is deeply relevant to these discussions. To what extent does inequality persist in the law? When Courts seek to answer this question, they often cite the great progress that has been made. Professor Hasday hypothesizes that this very celebration of progress tends to obscure the remaining issues, and may in a sense pre-empt the scrutiny required. The echoes of Skrmetti are profound, and Professor Hasday joins us for a lively discussion of these issues and many others - including that recent bugaboo, the Geduldig case, which rears its ugly head once again. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

We continue our discussion of the deep issues raised in the case of US v. Skrmetti. Last time we observed the Court wrestling with questions of whether the Tennessee law banning gender dysphoria treatments in minors was a form of sex discrimination. Later in the argument the Court addressed the question of whether transgender individuals, or some related group, constituted a so-called “suspect classification” and therefore laws purporting to affect that group would be subject to close examination (“Scrutiny”) by the Court. In this episode we listen, and react to, those arguments as the Court itself did. Professor Vik Amar returns to join Akhil in this task, and rightly so, since the “brothers in law” have written several recent posts on the deep questions raised by this and other recent cases. This has resulted in a new unifying theory which they begin to articulate in this episode. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The Supreme Court’s term is long since complete, but we turn back the clock and take a deep dive into one of the major cases of the term, United States v. Skrmetti. This case addressed questions of gender dysphoria treatment and transgender rights, but fundamentally, it was a case about the law of equality, say the brothers Amar. Yes, Vik Amar is back as a guest, and our two experts go back and listen to the oral argument and react to the Justices and the advocates as they present. It turns out that this is an excellent case for learning about how the law attempts to implement the equality promises of the Constitution, and you will hear the Justices engage in this action, or inaction. Our experts add more than their take on the arguments - they have theories that go beyond anything said in Court that day or written in the opinions that followed. This is part one of a multi-part summer treat from Amarica’s Constitution. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

We pay tribute this week to a titan in the field whom you may not have heard of. Professor Richard Fallon, the Joseph Story Professor of Law at Harvard, passed away last week. As you will hear from his collaborator and friend, our guest Professor Michael Dorf, Dick Fallon had a deep impact in the law and the academy, and did so with grace, class, and integrity. The parallels between his career and Professor Amar’s are striking, but so is the divergence in their constitutional approaches. And this makes for a fascinating and instructive episode as we probe, rather deeply, the nature of these divergences and how they appear in various places in the law. Meanwhile this also brings us back to a fundamental matter for this podcast, namely, the nature of and validity of originalism as opposed to or in concert with other methods of interpreting and understanding the constitution and applying it in today’s, and tomorrow’s, America. That America must now, sadly, go on without Dick Fallon, but it will do so informed by his career and his greatness. We are fortunate to have Michael Dorf to show us why this is so. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD 8) was the House manager of the second Trump impeachment in the Senate; is an outstanding constitutional scholar; a long-time law professor; a renowned author; a driving force behind the January 6th committee; and the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. For the great privilege of interviewing him, we need all the tools a great interviewer would have. It is therefore appropriate that we also interview Sam Tanenhaus, the biographer, in a new and magisterial work, of William F. Buckley, perhaps the best known and most fearlessly non-partisan in his selection of interview subjects. Sam Tanenhaus has written the definitive work on Buckley, whose Firing Line project was in some ways an inspiration for our own podcast. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The Birthright Citizenship case reached the Supreme Court - sort of. The Court ruled on the executive branch’s request for a stay in response to nationwide injunctions issued by three different circuit courts, where the executive order purporting to alter more than a century’s practice regarding the Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship was blocked by these courts. In doing so the Court declined - that is, the majority declined - to address the merits. Still, the nationwide injunction issue was addressed - at least for now.. Akhil takes the Court to task for avoiding the merits, and he offers numerous ways by which this could have been - should have been - done. He also presents a new approach that litigants in these cases might consider as they deal with various tactics the government may employ in the service of an executive order they may not expect to be upheld. Along the way Akhil offers some suggestions for consequences that might be faced by the executive officials, maybe not in our government as currently functioning, but at least in theory. There’s a lot here even if what is most notable for many of us is what the Court has left hanging. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The end of the term arrives, and the Court is busy. We begin our dive into the cases with Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case involving inclusive books in a school, parental guidance of religious education, opt-outs, advance notification, and issues of gender and sexual education. Professor Amar goes beyond the case with an overall theory of religious accommodation; indeed, he goes beyond this into questions of parental rights and how it may interact with first amendment law. We also have some announcements of future events. And as always, CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The US enters a violent part of the world once again, as Iran’s nuclear facilities are bombed. The President orders this without consulting Congress; indeed without asking for, much less receiving a declaration of war. Does the Constitution require this? What has past practice been? What was true at the founding? Has it changed over the centuries? Many twists and turns to the reasoning emerge as we explore this largely indefinite area of Constitutional Law. Meanwhile, Akhil gives a speech on the Revolution and the Constitution which sounds surprisingly relevant at this time. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from

Former Justice Breyer returns to Amarica’s Constitution with reflections on his long-time colleague and, yes, his friend, in a rare opportunity to hear about relationships on the Court. Meanwhile, former Souter clerk and current Professor at Penn Carey Law School, Kermit Roosevelt, looks back on the clerkship as well as at the threads that have emerged in the law and in his career from Justice Souter’s insights and methodology. And Nadine Strossen, long-time president of the ACLU as well as dear friend to Justice Souter explores many of the first amendment and other cases that Justice Souter had profound things to say, often in dissent. This is a powerhouse episode, but a tender one. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The Supreme Court left lower courts somewhat in the lurch in its recent Bruen decision; last year, in Rahimi, it attempted to clarify matters. Now an assault weapons case reaches the Court, Snope v. Brown, but the Court declines to hear it. Nevertheless, Justice Kavanaugh, though agreeing with the denial of cert, writes a commentary which calls for another, unspecified case to be heard in the near future, and he gives an indication of how he might approach it. We see this as in line with earlier writing he did in Bruen, but there are many unanswered questions in what seems like an intention to utilize a straightforward reasoning. We raise many of these questions, and in doing so, offer our readers a look back at the path gun cases have taken to get to this point, and a look ahead in the hope that some of these heretofore unresolved issues are given their due; that the Justices "count to ten," before the Court takes what might be too headstrong a path forward. Lawyers and judges can obtain CLE credit by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.

Trump says he will no longer take advice from the Federalist Society, and Leonard Leo in particular, for judicial nominations. The criteria he will use instead appear to be cause for great concern, and we discuss this. Meanwhile, the Senate is poised to bypass the filibuster for more than judicial nominations, which calls for an analysis that we provide. And the publication this week of Charles Sumner: Conscience of a Nation brings its author, Zaakir Tameez, onto our podcast to speak to Sumner’s enduring relevance. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.