Listen to Episode 51 of Slate’s Amicus:
Subscribe in iTunes ∙ RSS feed ∙ Download ∙ Play in another tab
Slate Plus members: Get your ad-free podcast feed.
After President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in March, there was widespread speculation that opposing his confirmation hearings could have political costs for Republican senators. But seven months later, it’s not clear how much the GOP’s continued obstructionism will matter to voters next month. On this episode, we discuss Obama’s handling of the Supreme Court vacancy with White House Counsel Neil Eggleston and Brian Deese, senior adviser to the president.
We also take a closer look at Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado, an important case about jury bias that was argued at the Supreme Court this week. Jeffrey Fisher, who represented the petitioner, joins us to explain why blatantly racist comments uttered by a juror in a criminal trial should invalidate that trial’s verdict.*
Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here.
Amicus is brought to you by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service with a large library of lectures all taught by award-winning professors. Get a free month of unlimited access when you sign up at TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus.
And by Blue Apron. For less than $10 per meal, Blue Apron delivers meal kits right to your door to make cooking at home easy. Get your first three meals free by going to BlueApron.com/amicus.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here.
Podcast production by Tony Field.
*Correction, Oct. 18, 2016: Due to a production error, the show notes originally misstated that Jeffrey Fisher represented the plaintiff in Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado. Fisher’s client was the petitioner in the Supreme Court case and the defendant in the original criminal trial.
