Balancing Power: Federalist insights on immunity vs Justice Sotomayor with TDS

Ep.237 (7/2/24)

SHOW NOTES AND NEWS ARTICLES

In this episode, we delve into the wisdom of the Federalist Papers No. 69 and No. 70, exploring how executive accountability is built into our system through impeachment, contrasting it with Scotland’s recent ruling on executive immunity. We’ll dissect the ideological divide in the Supreme Court, examining how left-leaning justices tend towards activism while conservatives stick to constitutional interpretation, and what this means for our judiciary.

We’ll also tackle the hot topic of social media regulation, questioning whether legislative action is the best solution. How does Gen X manage social media challenges compared to Gen Z and millennials? Is legislation driven by emotion rather than reason a recipe for effective governance? Finally, we’ll share personal anecdotes about youthful indiscretions, including a memorable story of how I caught myself on fire.

Tune in for a comprehensive discussion on these pivotal issues shaping our society today.

A President inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office. And if a former President’s official acts are routinely subjected to scrutiny in criminal prosecutions, “the independence of the Executive Branch” may be significantly undermined. The Framers’ design of the Presidency did not envision such counterproductive burdens on the “vigor” and “energy” of the Executive. The Federalist No. 70."