Baude & Paulsen v. Blackman on Section 3

Video from the 2024 Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference

On February 8, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. Anderson. Two days later, I debated Will Baude and Mike Paulsen on Section 3 at the 2024 Originalism Works in Progress Conference. I blogged about the event at the time, and shared my slides.

I am happy to share the video, which was posted in April, but I only recently learned of. My opening remarks are from about the 10 minute mark till the 20 minute mark. Even if you are not persuaded, you will be entertained. You might even get Tillmanized.

Given how the actual arguments went, and how the case came out, my exchange with Baude and Paulsen was probably the most meaningful discourse on this topic we have seen, and will be for some time.

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That photograph is the academic equivalent of a dead deer, a dead raccoon, and a bigger dead deer near a highway median. Culture war roadkill that was no match for modernity.

[Commenter_XY]

You know Arthur, I looked far and wide for your name as an invited amici at this court. No dice.

You're just jealous because you don't have the chops to do what Professor Blackman does. He is in the arena, duking it out. You're bleating from the bleachers. Big difference.

A loser played the game. What do they call the schmoe who never got the call, and never had what it took? Are the initials ALK? 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Being invited by partisan lightweight Aileen Cannon to engage in an irregular procedure precipitated by politics or inadequacy seems a paltry honor.

Blackman plays stupid partisan games in stupid partisan venues and wins the occasional stupid prize. Chops? Even with stacks of sketchy right-wing cash accompanying his resume the best this guy could do was South Texas College of Law Houston.

Blackman is a laughingstock in modern, legitimate, mainstream legal academia. Big hit with superstitious bigots and Federalist Society misfits, though.

[Commenter_XY]

Everything you wrote, may in fact be true, Arthur. Cannot say.

Still though, Professor Blackman is in Court, arguing the case.

And you're not.

No chops. 🙂

[Magister]

Yeah, but they made a whole movie about Arthur Kirkland.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

What Blackman is participating in at Cannon's discretion is a farce that is considered highly inappropriate and unusual by legal experts and fellow judges across the board.

Your response: Yeah well, at least he's doing that improper thing!

A remarkably stupid response.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What exactly do you have against Prof. Baude?

[Vryedni]

Wrong tribe.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I heard you interviewed by Marc Levine and you did good.

Here is Ed Martin's daily briefing:
"Yesterday, Bannon was sentenced to 4 months in federal prison for refusing to cooperate with the corrupt and illegitimate Liz Cheney-Nancy Pelosi January 6 select committee. His sentence starts on July 1, meaning that he will get out only a few days before election day. Bannon is a devout Trump supporter and ally of the America First cause. Once again, this sentencing and its timing are not a mere result of the fair and just legal process, but instead another attempt to meddle in the Presidential election using lawfare."

As I understand it, Bannon was prohibited from telling the jury that his former lawyer had advised him to refuse on the grounds of executive privilege -- in other words, he can't say why he did it.

This is legal?!?

And at what point could SCOTUS, were it so inclined, step in and say that throwing the opposing political party in jail so as to win an election is not acceptable? And when is the last time that someone went to jail for "contempt of congress" -- Eric Holder didn't...

I liked Levine's idea of going to SCOTUS with a Writ of Habeas Corpus. And I like the idea of dissolving the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and RANDOMLY assigning its casework to the other circuits. These are all national question, some truly random assignment means that no one knows what it will be until it is filed.

But as to Bannon, tell me that this isn't timed to preclude his involvement in a Presidential election... Historically, this has been how revolutions have started in the past.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Marc Levine

Why are you like this?

[Darwinnie]

“As I understand it, Bannon was prohibited from telling the jury that his former lawyer had advised him to refuse on the grounds of executive privilege — in other words, he can’t say why he did it.

This is legal?!?“

Are you a lawyer?

[Vryedni]

Lol. No.

[Magister]

As I understand it, Bannon was prohibited from telling the jury that his former lawyer had advised him to refuse on the grounds of executive privilege — in other words, he can’t say why he did it.

This is legal?!?

As I understand it, Bannon did present defenses based on "advice of counsel" and (the expectation of) executive privilege, so he was allowed to say why he didn't do it. But the courts rejected his arguments; e.g., https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.39203/gov.uscourts.cadc.39203.1208621523.0.pdf

[David Nieporent]

As I understand it, Bannon was prohibited from telling the jury that his former lawyer had advised him to refuse on the grounds of executive privilege — in other words, he can’t say why he did it.

You do not, of course, understand it.

But as to Bannon, tell me that this isn’t timed to preclude his involvement in a Presidential election…

This isn't timed to preclude his involvement in a Presidential election.

Historically, this has been how revolutions have started in the past.

It is not.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshit

[Dr. Ed 2]

And then this:
https://americanmind.org/salvo/statement-on-trumps-conviction/?utm_campaign=American%20Mind%20Email%20Warm%20Up&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_Q21kPYKv5EvKONTvktFjFKkXM1lvdH3zvy5l8S8mhFGRABLrcy45stgpQTGViHUzASLgRTRRD7MMNDu28DFNP0zBcUw&_hsmi=310594149&utm_content=310594149&utm_source=hs_email