The nation’s highest court has changed, potentially in a big way. But just what does that mean for you? And for the future of American Law?
In this episode of Agree to Disagree, John Donvan moderates an incredibly timely debate between two of the nation’s most esteemed constitutional law scholars. It’s a competition of ideas on Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, her judicial philosophies, and whether Democratic proposals to reform the court — things like adding more justices and instating term limits — have any merit. Listen now.
Meet the debaters:
Saikrishna Prakash supports Judge Barrett’s nomination. He is a distinguished professor of law at the University of Virginia, where his scholarship focuses on the separation of government powers. Prakash clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and is the author of “The Living Presidency: An Originalist Argument Against Its Ever-Expanding Powers.”
Erwin Chemerinsky objects to Judge Barrett’s nomination. He is dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, a constitutional law scholar, and a prolific appellate litigator. He has been named as the most influential person in legal education by National Jurist magazine, and is the author of many books, including his most recent, “We the People: A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century.”