Podcast appearances and mentions of camille mott

In the wake of the unceremonious termination of FBI director James Comey this week, one previously unfamiliar name has dominated the news cycle: Rod J. Rosenstein. The former federal prosecutor became the U.S. Deputy Attorney General just over two weeks ago, and since then, has found himself at the center of storm around President Trump’s most high-profile firing to date. Leon Neyfakh has been covering Rosenstein for the past few weeks, and joins us to talk about whether anyone at the Department of Justice can remain neutral in these polarized times.  We also speak with University of Virginia School of Law professor Micah Schwartzman about this week’s oral arguments in one of the lawsuits challenging President Trump’s revised travel ban. Schwartzman is among a group of constitutional law scholars who filed an amicus brief arguing that the executive order violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Tony Field. Our intern is Camille Mott. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the wake of the unceremonious termination of FBI director James Comey this week, one previously unfamiliar name has dominated the news cycle: Rod J. Rosenstein. The former federal prosecutor became the U.S. Deputy Attorney General just over two weeks ago, and since then, has found himself at the center of storm around President Trump’s most high-profile firing to date. Leon Neyfakh has been covering Rosenstein for the past few weeks, and joins us to talk about whether anyone at the Department of Justice can remain neutral in these polarized times.  We also speak with University of Virginia School of Law professor Micah Schwartzman about this week’s oral arguments in one of the lawsuits challenging President Trump’s revised travel ban. Schwartzman is among a group of constitutional law scholars who filed an amicus brief arguing that the executive order violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Tony Field. Our intern is Camille Mott. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court has slowed Arkansas’ unprecedented rush to execute eight men in 11 days, pending a decision in McWilliams v. Dunn. At issue in the case is whether James McWilliams, an indigent defendant whose mental health was a significant factor at his capital trial, was entitled to an independent psychological expert to testify on his behalf. We discuss the case with Stephen Bright, longtime president of the Southern Center for Human Rights, who represented McWilliams at this week’s oral arguments.  We also sit down with Norm Eisen, co-founder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), to discuss the ongoing anti-corruption litigation against President Trump. Last week, CREW added two new plaintiffs to its lawsuit, which alleges that Trump’s business interests put him in violation of the Constitution’s Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. Eisen reflects on the ethical issues of the Trump Administration’s first 100 days, why the president’s tax returns still matter, and what he believes is the single most concerning ethics violation of the new commander-in-chief. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.  Podcast production by Tony Field. Our intern is Camille Mott. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court has slowed Arkansas’ unprecedented rush to execute eight men in 11 days, pending a decision in McWilliams v. Dunn. At issue in the case is whether James McWilliams, an indigent defendant whose mental health was a significant factor at his capital trial, was entitled to an independent psychological expert to testify on his behalf. We discuss the case with Stephen Bright, longtime president of the Southern Center for Human Rights, who represented McWilliams at this week’s oral arguments.  We also sit down with Norm Eisen, co-founder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), to discuss the ongoing anti-corruption litigation against President Trump. Last week, CREW added two new plaintiffs to its lawsuit, which alleges that Trump’s business interests put him in violation of the Constitution’s Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. Eisen reflects on the ethical issues of the Trump Administration’s first 100 days, why the president’s tax returns still matter, and what he believes is the single most concerning ethics violation of the new commander-in-chief. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Tony Field. Our intern is Camille Mott. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Newly sworn-in Justice Neil Gorsuch gets his first chance to make his mark on the Court at this week’s oral arguments for Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. The important case asks whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause compels the state of Missouri to provide public grant money directly to a church. Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, joins us to discuss BJC’s amicus brief in the case, which argues that religious institutions are actually freer if they are barred from accepting government funds. We also sit down with Jeffrey Toobin, whose piece in this week’s The New Yorker examines the enormous influence that the Federalist Society – and especially its executive vice president Leonard Leo – have on the American judiciary. Toobin argues that with the ascension of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, Leo can now be credited with the selection of one-third of the nation’s most powerful judges.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.  Podcast production by Tony Field. Our intern is Camille Mott. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Newly sworn-in Justice Neil Gorsuch gets his first chance to make his mark on the Court at this week’s oral arguments for Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. The important case asks whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause compels the state of Missouri to provide public grant money directly to a church. Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, joins us to discuss BJC’s amicus brief in the case, which argues that religious institutions are actually freer if they are barred from accepting government funds. We also sit down with Jeffrey Toobin, whose piece in this week’s The New Yorker examines the enormous influence that the Federalist Society – and especially its executive vice president Leonard Leo – have on the American judiciary. Toobin argues that with the ascension of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, Leo can now be credited with the selection of one-third of the nation’s most powerful judges.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.  Podcast production by Tony Field. Our intern is Camille Mott. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 1985, eight men were convicted of the grisly murder of a Washington D.C. woman. After spending decades in prison, they learned from an article in the Washington Post that prosecutors had withheld evidence from trial that could have exculpated them. This week, the Supreme Court delved back into the details of the 30-plus year old murder case and considered whether the case should be reopened. Former defense lawyer Thomas Dybdahl is writing a book about the murder and its aftermath, and joins us to discuss Turner v. USand Overton v. US. We also speak with legal scholar Lori Ringhand, who literally wrote the book on Supreme Court confirmation hearings. She reflects on some of the ways the process has evolved over the years, whether the so-called “Ginsburg rule” is appropriately named, and what purpose these hearings actually serve.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.  Podcast production by Tony Field. Our intern is Camille Mott.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 1985, eight men were convicted of the grisly murder of a Washington D.C. woman. After spending decades in prison, they learned from an article in the Washington Post that prosecutors had withheld evidence from trial that could have exculpated them. This week, the Supreme Court delved back into the details of the 30-plus year old murder case and considered whether the case should be reopened. Former defense lawyer Thomas Dybdahl is writing a book about the murder and its aftermath, and joins us to discuss Turner v. USand Overton v. US. We also speak with legal scholar Lori Ringhand, who literally wrote the book on Supreme Court confirmation hearings. She reflects on some of the ways the process has evolved over the years, whether the so-called “Ginsburg rule” is appropriately named, and what purpose these hearings actually serve.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.  Podcast production by Tony Field. Our intern is Camille Mott.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices