Settling of Scores

Divided Argument

We reflect on the Supreme Court term as a whole, and the direction and politics of the Court. We focus on West Virginia v. EPA, which canonized the "major questions" doctrine, and the upcoming case of Moore v. Harper, which confronts the "independent state legislature doctrine."

2022-07-10 80 min Transcript

Available Results

Generated results are saved to the knowledge database for reuse and search.

No generated results are available for this episode yet.

Extract Knowledge

Pick what you want extracted first. Model, scope, and chapter options appear after a template is selected.

Generated results for public episodes are saved to the knowledge database so they can be reused and searched later.

Transcript

Will: On the Article 3 grounds the court correctly says the test for mootness is much more lenient than the test for standing, this is from the current doctrine. And so as long as this was like a live thing at the beginning, the fact that partway through the through the litigation, the government says, “Oh, well, we're not going to do this anymore,” very rarely moots the case. And that's just right. And even the dissent agrees with that. The dissent is like, “Well, [unintelligible standard is really hard to satisfy. So, yeah, I guess the majority might be right about that." But then, you could still ask, “Why is the court hearing this case, if in fact, doesn't matter?”
Will: Can I [unintelligible again quickly?
Will: My sense is that his view was an outlier, that [unintelligible practice did not conform to the full story view. And that because in practice, it's too hard to think about the state legislature completely divorced from its institutional context. It's like pretty much everybody agrees that governors can veto legislation relevant to redistricting. You don't have to maintain a separate set of books of legislation vetoed by the governor, but that therefore still qualifies under Article 1, Article 2.

Chapters

No chapters available.