Podcasts about chicago law review

Jon Michaels is a UCLA professor of law specializing in constitutional and national security law. His award-winning scholarship has appeared in the Yale Law Journal, University of Chicago Law Review, and Harvard Law Review, and he has written popular essays for the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, and Guardian. A Yale Law graduate and Supreme Court clerk, Michaels is a member of the American Law Institute and serves on the advisory board of UCLA's Safeguarding Democracy Project. His latest book, co-written with David Noll, is VIGILANTE NATION: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens our Democracy Is what Donald Trump's doing in LA with the National Guard and the Marines legal? Constitutional? And what happens next? Who ultimately will win this consequential national showdown between Gov. Gavin Newsom and Trump. Jon answers these questions and more. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

In one of the most timely and urgent shows we have ever done, today I speak with law scholar Aziz Rana about his brilliant and bracing article recently published in New Left Review, “Constitutional Collapse.” We talk about how the Trump administration and its enablers are shredding a liberal “compact” which was established in in the 1930s through the Sixties and extending an imperial presidency abroad to an authoritarian one domestically. We talk about the current constitutional crisis, but also about the need for, and manifestations of, a politics which is at once a genuine membership organization and social community. As Aziz Rana powerfully argues, “its aim should be to transform the world people organically experience.” This is exactly the analysis and message so many of us need in these dark times.Aziz Rana is a professor of law at Boston College Law School, where his research and teaching center on American constitutional law and political development. In particular, his work focuses on how shifting notions of race, citizenship, and empire have shaped legal and political identity since the founding. Rana's first book, The Two Faces of American Freedom (Harvard University Press) situates the American experience within the global history of colonialism, examining the intertwined relationship in American constitutional practice between internal accounts of freedom and external projects of power and expansion.  His new book, The Constitutional Bind: How Americans Came to Idolize a Document that Fails Them (University of Chicago Press, 2024), explores the modern emergence of constitutional veneration in the twentieth century -- especially against the backdrop of growing American global authority -- and how veneration has influenced the boundaries of popular politics. Aziz Rana has written essays and op-eds for such venues as n+1, The Boston Review, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Dissent, New Labor Forum, Jacobin, The Guardian, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Nation, Jadaliyya, Salon, and The Law and Political Economy Project.  He has articles and chapter contributions published or forthcoming with Yale and Oxford University Presses, The University of Chicago Law Review, California Law Review, UCLA Law Review, Texas Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal Forum, among others. 

Jon Michaels is a UCLA professor of law specializing in constitutional and national security law. His award-winning scholarship has appeared in the Yale Law Journal, University of Chicago Law Review, and Harvard Law Review, and he has written popular essays for the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, and Guardian. A Yale Law graduate and Supreme Court clerk, Jon is a member of the American Law Institute and serves on the advisory board of UCLA's Safeguarding Democracy Project. His latest book, co-written with David Noll, is VIGILANTE NATION: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens our Democracy. Jon and I discuss his new book and the increasing use of vigilantism by the Republican Party and red states in targeting vulnerable groups in America to influence cultural, legal and political outcomes. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

On episode 222, we welcome Jon Michaels and David Noll to discuss the alliance between vigilante groups and governments in the US, the four types of vigilantism and how they affect our lives, how vigilante groups utilize state laws to limit freedom of movement, the roots of vigilantism in the slavery era, the argument of individual liberty as a veil for tyranny, and the societal effects of the merger between business interests and right-wing cultural warriors. Jon Michaels is a UCLA professor of law specializing in constitutional, administrative, and national-security law. His award-winning scholarship has been published in The Yale Law Journal, the University of Chicago Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, and the Harvard Law Review; his popular essays have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, The Guardian, and The Forward. A Yale Law graduate and former Supreme Court clerk, Michaels is a member of the American Law Institute, serves on the advisory board of UCLA's Safeguarding Democracy Project, and is a faculty affiliate of UCLA's Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy. His first book, Constitutional Coup, was published by Harvard University Press. David Noll is the associate dean for faculty research and development and a professor of law at Rutgers Law School. His scholarly writings on civil procedure, complex litigation, and administrative law have appeared in the California Law Review, the Cornell Law Review, the New York University Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and the Texas Law Review, among others, and his popular writing has appeared in venues including The New York Times, Politico, Slate, and the New York Law Journal. A graduate of Columbia University and New York University School of Law, Noll is an academic fellow of the National Institute for Civil Justice. He clerked on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. | Jon Michaels and David Noll | ► Website | http://www.jondmichaels.com/about ► Twitter 1| https://x.com/davidlnoll ► Twitter 2 | https://x.com/JonDMichaels ► Bluesky | https://bsky.app/profile/david.noll.org ► Vigilante Nation Book | https://amzn.to/3zEjQvM Where you can find us: | Seize The Moment Podcast | ► Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/SeizeTheMoment ► Twitter | https://twitter.com/seize_podcast  ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/seizethemoment ► TikTok | https://www.tiktok.com/@seizethemomentpodcast

We interview Leo Strine on the purpose of the corporation, differentiating between shareholder primacy and stakeholder theory. We discuss ESG and the power of stockholders and workers. Leo Strine applies his perspective on corporate purpose to corporate acquisitions and lays out his hopes for the future of corporations. Some critical articles to learn more about the shareholder primacy vs stakeholder theory debate:Origins of the argument: - Merrick Dodd, For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees?, 45 HARV. L. REV. 1145 (1932) - Adolph A. Berle, Jr., For Whom Corporate Managers Are Trustees: A Note, 45 HARV.. L. REV. 1365, 1372 (1932)Shareholder primacy ownership argument: - Milton Friedman, A Friedman doctrine– The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits, N.Y. Times, Sept. 13 1970.Critique on shareholder primacy: - Lynn A. Stout, Bad and Not-so-Bad Arguments for Shareholder Primacy, 75 S. CAL. L. REV. 1189 (2002).Example of Application: - Lucian Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita, The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance. 106 Corn. L. Rev. 91 (2020).Example of Court Case Application: - Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173, 177 (Del. 1986)A bit about Leo Strine:Leo E. Strine, Jr., is Of Counsel in the Corporate Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.  Prior to joining the firm, he was the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court from early 2014 through late 2019.  Before becoming the Chief Justice, he served on the Delaware Court of Chancery as Chancellor since June 22, 2011, and as a Vice Chancellor since November 9, 1998.In his judicial positions, Mr. Strine wrote hundreds of opinions in the areas of corporate law, contract law, trusts and estates, criminal law, administrative law, and constitutional law.  Notably, he authored the lead decision in the Delaware Supreme Court case holding that Delaware's death penalty statute was unconstitutional because it did not require the key findings necessary to impose a death sentence to be made by a unanimous jury.For a generation, Mr. Strine taught various corporate law courses at the Harvard and University of Pennsylvania law schools, and now serves as the Michael L. Wachter Distinguished Fellow in Law and Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and a Senior Fellow of the Harvard Program on Corporate Governance. From 2006 to 2019, Mr. Strine served as the special judicial consultant to the ABA's Committee on Corporate Laws. He also was the special judicial consultant to the ABA's Committee on Mergers & Acquisitions from 2014 to 2019. He is a member of the American Law Institute.Mr. Strine speaks and writes frequently on the subjects of corporate and public law, and particularly the impact of business on society, and his articles have been published in The University of Chicago Law Review, Columbia Law Review, Cornell Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Harvard Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and Stanford Law Review, among others.  On several occasions, his articles were selected as among the Best Corporate and Securities Articles of the year, based on the choices of law professors.Before becoming a judge in 1998,  Mr. Strine served as Counsel and Policy Director to Governor Thomas R. Carper, and had also worked as a corporate litigator at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom from 1990 to 1992.  He was law clerk to Judge Walter K. Stapleton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Chief Judge John F. Gerry of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  Mr. Strine graduated magna cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania Law Sc

Today we speak with legal scholar and historian Aziz Rana about his deep study into the ways the Constitution has been critiqued, reimagined, and adapted from liberal, conservative, radical, progressive, decolonial, and other groups since its inception. What emerges from his book is a demystification of a document that is both durable and malleable, conservative at its core but open to both radical challenges and appropriation—a true site of contestation.Aziz Rana is a professor of law at Boston College Law School, where his research and teaching center on American constitutional law and political development. In particular, his work focuses on how shifting notions of race, citizenship, and empire have shaped legal and political identity since the founding. Rana's first book, The Two Faces of American Freedom (Harvard University Press) situates the American experience within the global history of colonialism, examining the intertwined relationship in American constitutional practice between internal accounts of freedom and external projects of power and expansion.  His new book, The Constitutional Bind: How Americans Came to Idolize a Document that Fails Them (University of Chicago Press, 2024), explores the modern emergence of constitutional veneration in the twentieth century -- especially against the backdrop of growing American global authority -- and how veneration has influenced the boundaries of popular politics. Aziz Rana has written essays and op-eds for such venues as n+1, The Boston Review, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Dissent, New Labor Forum, Jacobin, The Guardian, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Nation, Jadaliyya, Salon, and The Law and Political Economy Project.  He has articles and chapter contributions published or forthcoming with Yale and Oxford University Presses, The University of Chicago Law Review, California Law Review, UCLA Law Review, Texas Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal Forum, among others.

About the Episode: Victor sheds light on trafficking around the world as a way of modern-day slavery and his passion to educate others on the reality of this but also the calling he felt placed on his life to use his law degree to fight trafficking. He shares how his small act of faith trusts the Lord to fight this injustice and change the landscape around the world through the Human Trafficking Institute. Hear how the Body of Christ is called to fight injustice and the passion behind Victor's heart as he follows the call of the Lord. This is a podcast that has so much joy in the midst of such a dark subject as you think about how much God is doing through tangible hope. If you are struggling with issues related to anything, please don't hesitate to reach out to deeplight@pcpc.org or 214-224-2500. About Our Guest: Victor Boutros is the CEO and co-founder of the Human Trafficking Institute and co-author with Gary Haugen of “The Locust Effect: Why the End of Poverty Requires the End of Violence,” a book published by Oxford University Press in 2014. Drawing on real-world cases and extensive scholarship, The Locust Effect paints a vivid portrait of the way fractured criminal justice systems in developing countries have spawned a hidden epidemic of human trafficking and everyday violence that is undermining vital investments in poverty alleviation, public health, and human rights. The Locust Effect is a Washington Post bestseller that has been featured by the New York Times, The Economist, NPR, the Today Show, Forbes, TED, and the BBC, among others. For their work on The Locust Effect, Boutros and Haugen received the 2016 Grawemeyer Prize for Ideas Improving World Order, a prize awarded annually to the authors of one book based on originality, feasibility, and potential for global impact. Boutros previously served as a federal prosecutor on human trafficking cases of national significance on behalf of the United States Department of Justice's Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit. He has taught human trafficking at the FBI Academy in Quantico, trained law enforcement professionals in the United States and other countries on how to investigate and prosecute human trafficking, and taught trial advocacy to lawyers from Latin America, South and Southeast Asia, and Africa. Boutros is a graduate of Baylor University, Harvard University, Oxford University, and the University of Chicago Law School, where he was an editor of the University of Chicago Law Review. He has written on foreign affairs and human rights, including a feature article in Foreign Affairs and a piece co-authored with former US Trafficking in Persons Ambassador John Richmond in the AntiTrafficking Review, and developed and taught a course on human rights, human trafficking, and the rule of law in the developing world at the University of Chicago Law School. Boutros speaks to corporate leaders, universities, and think tanks on human trafficking and has provided briefings to senior government leaders on human trafficking, including legislators, congressional committees, and the President of the United States. About Our Host: A graduate of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Mark Davis came to PCPC as our Youth Pastor in 2003 and became our Senior Pastor in 2009. He and his bride, Kristina, met at a Young Life Camp in 1988 and have five amazing kids: Kara (and husband, Drew and granddaughter Haddie), Madalyn (and husband, Jack), Cayden, Esther Kate, & Samuel. Resources: www.traffickinginstitute.org Email us at DeepLight@pcpc.org or call 214-224-2500, and we will connect you with others who can walk alongside you. (music license ASLC-14EAD3E0-84F34F4276)

According to the non-profit Mapping Police Violence, since 2013 when experts first starting tracking police shootings, last year was the deadliest year on record with 1,176 law enforcement gun deaths, or more than three people per day and nearly 100 per month.  In 2022 Blacks were three three times more likely to be killed by police than Whites.  However in, for example, MPLS and Chicago, Black shooting deaths were respectively 28 and 25 times more likely than White.   In her recently published book by Viking Press, Prof. Schwartz explains how the corruption of the 4th amendment and Civil Rights law, the creation of the legal fiction “qualified immunity” and other reasons make it nearly impossible to police the police.  During this 38-minute interview, Prof. Schwartz begins by discussing the case of Ornee Norris. She in turn explains the courts' undermining of 4th amendment's protection from unreasonable searches, civil rights protections, specifically section 1983 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act, and the Supreme Courts 1967 creation of, in Pierson v. Ray, of qualified immunity, discusses the case of systematic violence by Vellejo, CA, police, the failure by governments to learn from these cases, efforts by states to pass laws ending qualified immunity, notes the value of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and finally comments on the issue of the militarization of the police. Joanna Schwartz is Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law and the Faculty Director of the David J. Epstein Program in Public Interest Law and Policy.  She was a recipient of UCLA's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2015 and served as Vice Dean for Faculty Development from 2017-2019. Beyond Shielded, her recent scholarship has been published in the Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, University of Chicago Law Review, Columbia Law Review, New York University Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Northwestern Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, UCLA Law Review, and elsewhere. She has also written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The Atlantic, The Boston Review, and Politico, and has appeared on NPR's Fresh Air, CBS Sunday Morning, PBS NewsHour, ABC News, CNN, MSNBC, and elsewhere. Professor Schwartz is also co-author with Stephen Yeazell and Maureen Carroll of a leading casebook, Civil Procedure (11th Edition). Professor Schwartz was graduated from Brown University and Yale Law School. She clerked for Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York and Judge Harry Pregerson of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.   This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com

This episode is special and a bit different. Instead of interviewing a pioneer at the intersection of business and law more generally about their field of expertise, we have the opportunity to interview an incredible pioneer and professor about their recent article published with the Harvard Business Law Review. Specifically, I get to speak with Prof. Brian D. Feinstein about his article “Banking on a Curve: How to Restore the Community Reinvestment Act,” which he co-wrote with Prof. Peter Conti-Brown. The article is available online and went to print on Oct. 10th. Brian D. Feinstein is an Assistant Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics at Wharton. Brian D. Feinstein examines how the structure of financial regulators and other government agencies that regulate business affect outcomes. A political scientist and lawyer by training, Dr. Feinstein's research incorporates insights from administrative law and the social sciences. His scholarship has been published in the Columbia Law Review, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, University of Chicago Law Review, and University of Pennsylvania Law Review, among other journals, and has been featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other national publications. Brian D. Feinstein holds a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from Brown, a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard, and a J.D. from Harvard. 

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, we are honored to be joined by friend of the show, Congressman David Schweikert of Arizona's First Congressional District. Later in the show, we check in with Ilan Wurman, who is working on a critical lawsuit over “The Zone,” a homeless encampment in downtown Phoenix. -David Schweikert is serving his fifth term in the United States Congress.  He holds a seat on the Ways and Means Committee, and serves as the Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security. Prior to his service on the Ways and Means Committee, David served on the House Committee on Financial Services.David also sits on the bicameral Joint Economic Committee, Co-Chairs the Valley Fever Task force with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and is the Republican Co-Chair of both the Blockchain Caucus, the Tunisia Caucus and the Caucus on Access to Capital and Credit.Among his legislative accomplishments, David was instrumental in authoring and passing the JOBS ACT into law. The bill was signed by the President in April 2012. Having previously served as Chairman of the EPA Oversight Subcommittee on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee; David championed key reforms such as the Secret Science Reform Act, which has passed the House of Representatives.A national leader on tribal policy, David draws on a unique background working with Arizona's tribal communities on important priorities.   He is always eager to take on a technical challenge.As a strong advocate for efficiencies in the 21st Century economy, David collaborates with entrepreneurs and innovators in Arizona and around the world on ways to increase trade and drive economic growth.  David is the co-chair of the Blockchain Caucus, and has championed technological innovations as the solution to the problems of over-burdensome government regulations.-Ilan Wurman is an associate professor at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, where he teaches administrative law and constitutional law. He writes primarily on the Fourteenth Amendment, administrative law, separation of powers, and constitutionalism. His academic writing has appeared or is forthcoming in the Yale Law Journal, the Stanford Law Review, the University of Chicago Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, the Duke Law Journal, the Minnesota Law Review, and the Texas Law Review among other journals. He is also the author of A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism (Cambridge 2017), and The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment (Cambridge 2020).-Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com

Claudia and Bev discuss PDMP's (Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs) and NarxCare with Atty. Jennifer Oliva. "Professor Oliva's research and teaching interests include health law and policy, privacy law, evidence, torts, and complex litigation. She has served as an invited peer reviewer for the American Journal of Public Health, Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, American Journal of Law & Medicine, Journal of Law and the Biosciences, and Big Data & Society and her scholarship has been published by or is forthcoming in, among other publications, the California Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Northwestern University Law Review, UCLA Law Review, North Carolina Law Review, Ohio State Law Journal, George Mason Law Review, and online companions to the University of Chicago Law Review and New York University Law Review." Jenn is also on Jenn is on the Science and Policy Advisory Council for NPAC (National Pain Advocacy Center) Excerpts were played on this podcast that can be found in their entirety in the following links: NPR show 1A - "Against the Pain: The Opioid Crisis and Medication Access" "Patients, Privacy, and PDMP's" - Cato with Dr. Jeffrey Singer and Kate Nicholson Duke Margolis - "Strategies for Promoting the Safe Use of Prescription Opioids" NPR - "To End Addiction Epidemic" - Kolodny quote Cover 2 Resources - Gary Mendell Jennifer Oliva can be contacted on Twitter @jenndoliva Learn more about Jennifer on her website at uchastings Jennifer D. Oliva's paper: "Dosing Discrimination: Regulating PDMP Risk Scores" Disclaimer: The information provided to you in this podcast is not to be considered medical or legal advice --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/the-doctor-patient-forum/message

Legal scholar Micah Schwartzman uncovers and explains key issues of freedom of religion and speech in a post-Roe America. Micah Schwartzman is the director of the Karsh Center for Law and Democracy and the Hardy Cross Dillard Professor of Law. A scholar who focuses on law and religion, jurisprudence, political philosophy and constitutional law, Schwartzman joined the UVA Law faculty in 2007. Schwartzman received his B.A. from the University of Virginia and his doctorate in politics from the University of Oxford, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar. During law school, he served as articles development editor of the Virginia Law Review and received several awards, including the Margaret G. Hyde Award. After graduating, Schwartzman clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and was a postdoctoral research fellow at Columbia University's Society of Fellows in the Humanities. Schwartzman's work has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, University of Chicago Law Review, Virginia Law Review, Supreme Court Review, Law & Philosophy, and Political Theory, among others. He has published opinion pieces in The New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, Slate, The New Republic, and Vox. He co-edited The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty (Oxford University Press) and is co-authoring a forthcoming casebook on Constitutional Law and Religion.

In this vlog, Prof. Laura Pedraza-Fariña (Northwestern) discusses her paper "A Network Theory of Patentability" with PhD student Margaritha Windisch (ETH Zurich). Patent law is built upon a fundamental premise: only significant inventions receive patent protection while minor improvements remain in the public domain. Despite its importance, the doctrine that performs this gate keeping role — non-obviousness — has long remained indeterminate and vague. In their article, Laura Pedraza-Fariña and her co-author Prof. Ryan Whalen (University of Hongkong) draw on network theory, a novel approach answering the questions what non-obvious inventions are and how to determine non-obviousness in specific cases. Paper References: Laura Pedraza-Fariña - Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Ryan Whalen - University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Law A Network Theory of Patentability University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 87, No. 1, (2020) https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/network-theory-patentability Audio Credits: Trailer music: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

This Podcast is the closest the trials get to high comedy.  Dreamy, arrogant State Department economist, Henry Julian Wadleigh, worked in the same area as Hiss (several levels below Hiss).  Wadleigh testifies that he passed State Department documents to Chambers in 1937 and 1938 without authorization.  He thus corroborates Chambers' testimony that Chambers was the hub of a spy ring in State in those years.     But might he also help Hiss?  Could it have been Wadleigh who gave Chambers all those documents?  How might Hiss make a case that it was Wadleigh who passed the papers that Chambers said he got from Hiss?  Would Chambers have any reason to falsely accuse Hiss if he could truthfully accuse Wadleigh?     Lloyd Paul Stryker's cross-examination succeeded in making Wadliegh look like a ridiculous head-in-the-clouds dreamer.  (Just like Chambers, Stryker hints, all these commies are weirdoes unlike the solid, respectable Alger.). Wadleigh made such a fool of himself that, when once Murphy objected to Stryker's cross-examination, Judge Kaufman couldn't rule on the objection because he was laughing so hard that he had hidden his face in his papers.   FURTHER RESEARCH:  Back at the Grand Jury, there was a dramatic scene in the room where all the witnesses sat before being summoned to the presence of the Grand Jury.  When Wadleigh and Hiss saw each other, they exchanged pleasantries and then Wadliegh told Hiss “The F.B.I. came to see me and I got sort of panicky and told them that I had given some documents to Chambers.”  Hiss purported to be “astounded.”  (Hiss at 187.). I would love to have ten great actors perform Hiss being astounded — reactions all the way from “My God, there was a spy ring in State.  Horrors!”  to “You, too, Julian?!”  See also Grand Jury Transcript at 3949; Weinstein at 298.   Alistair Cooke wrote that Hiss might have been “a greater Wadleigh.”  Rebecca West, in her review of Cooke's book, says that this view “speaks of chaotic moral and intellectual values.”  She supports this opinion in her memorable prose.  1950 University of Chicago Law Review at 672-73, available at https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=uclrev    The Baltimore Sun newspaper interviewed Wadleigh shortly before he testified in the second trial.  By then he was disgraced and destitute.  The newspaper described Wadleigh as “[p]ossessed of a self-esteem amounting almost to self-deification” and “look[ing] pityingly on the remainder of humanity, . . . distressed when it so often fails to respond to his guidance from a self-erected mountain.”  Thomas O'Neill, “Wadleigh Set for New Role,” The Baltimore Sunday Sun, Nov., 27, 1949, page 5, col. 1.   Questions:  No one has ever suggested that Wadleigh was lying.  Can you think of any reason he would lie to corroborate Chambers?  After you've listened to this Podcast, do you agree with me that, after all was said and done, Wadleigh helped the Prosecution and damaged Hiss?  At the second trial, Wadleigh told the jury in detail how he, a mild Socialist and not a Communist, gave information to the Soviet Union because he wanted to help fight fascism, not to promote Communism.  He thought he was helping his country in the long run, not hurting it.  Do you have sympathy for Wadleigh's intentions and/or acts?      

Robert Stripling & Richard Nixon  Everyone always asks about the topic of this Podcast #21: “What was in the secret State Department documents?”  These are the 126 pages that Chambers introduced as the last documents that Hiss gave him.  State Department men authenticated them as copies (or summaries or excerpts) of actual State Department documents, many marked CONFIDENTIAL and all dated between December 31, 1937, and April 1, 1938.  The documents concern many subjects, but they generally share two characteristics.  First, they had little or nothing to do with Hiss's job, which was trade between the US and other countries.  Second, they had a lot to do with two subjects about which the US knew a lot and about which the Soviet Union knew little through its own efforts but was intensely interested in at that time.  Those subjects were what was going on in Germany and Japan, two aggressively expansionist countries bordering the Soviet Union and sworn to its destruction.  Get ready for a deep dive into what mattered to the Soviet Union in those years; and into The Robinson-Reubens Affair, an “international incident” between the US and the Soviets in early 1938 that provoked what may be the “smoking gun” document in this Case.   FURTHER RESEARCH    Episode 21:  Chambers says little about the content of the documents.  I doubt he had time to read them when he had them — they had to be photographed and returned promptly to their sources.  On his way to the photographer, on a street car in Washington or a train to Baltimore, Chambers wouldn't want to be seen perusing State Department papers marked CONFIDENTIAL.  He did read some, however.  Of them he wrote (in Witness at 426): “I concluded that political espionage was a magnificent waste of time and effort — not because the sources were holding back; they were pathetically eager to help — but because the secrets of foreign offices are notoriously overrated.  There was little about political espionage, it seemed to me, that an intelligent man, who knew the forces, factors, and general direction of history in our time, could not arrive at by using political imagination, backed by a careful study of the available legitimate facts.”   Hiss addresses the documents in his first book, In the Court of Public Opinion (at 251-86).  He notes (at 252) that one of The Pumpkin Papers — a document on a roll of film Chambers produced, all of whose pictures were taken on one day — was a ‘working' or (I think) carbon copy.  Hiss says that his office received the original, so he cannot have been the source of that paper or any other papers in that roll.  This misses the possibility that Hiss could have decided to pass the paper to Chambers after the original had passed from Hiss's control.  It would have been easy for Hiss to pilfer papers from other men's offices or from central files.  The State Department was, by our standards, incredibly lax in security up to our entry into World War II in 1941.  The British spy Kim Philby, after he skipped over the Iron Curtain in the 60s, wrote “it is nonsense to suppose that a resolute and experienced operator occupying a senior post in the Foreign Office can have access only to the papers that are placed on his desk in the ordinary course of duty.  . . .  I gained access to the files of British agents in the Soviet Union when I was supposed to be chivvying Germans in Spain.”  Kim Philby, My Silent War (Grove Press 1968) at 214.   Other analyses of the documents are in John Chabot Smith's “Alger Hiss:The True Story” at 331-54 and in the 1952 edition of Alistair Cooke's ‘Generation on Trial' book at 161-67.  Rebecca West, in her critical review of Cooke's book at pages 666-67 of the 1950 University of Chicago Law Review, makes some fun of Mr. Cooke's analysis.  The only lengthy analysis of all the documents Chambers produced (those introduced in the trial and those that were not) is in Professor Weinstein's book (2013 edition) at 255-81.   Lloyd Paul Stryker found the documents so boring that, as they were being read word by word to the jury, he was outside in the corridor smoking a cigar.  Cooke at 164.  I'm sure the jury envied him.     Questions:  If you were the Prosecution, could you have done more to make the presentation of the documents less narcolepsy-inducing?  If you were Mr. Stryker, might you have stayed in the courtroom, yawned and otherwise tried to make them seem trivial?  (Maybe that was his point in leaving the courtroom.) If you were on the jury, would you have, despite being bored, been impressed at the volume and seriousness of the documents?     If they were not passed to Chambers by Hiss, who else could have passed them to him?98% of them crossed Hiss's desk in the normal course of business.  If there was a conspiracy hatched to frame Hiss in 1948, how much work and talent would it have taken, in that year, to find the originals of all the decade-old documents?  And how about the effort of photographing the Pumpkin Papers with an old camera on old film and typing up copies on a 20 year old typewriter on 20 year old paper and with a 20 year old typewriter ribbon?  

Above, Elizabeth Bentley, who gave evidence at the first HUAC hearing. Pic: Library of Congress In 1948, Whittaker Chambers is Time Magazine's Senior Editor.  He is forced against his will to testify to the House Un-American Activities Committee about his past in the Communist underground.  He names seven names, but the Committee zeroes in on one of them — Alger Hiss.  With this begins the doom of both men, major climate change in American politics, and the career of a future President. Further Research: Episode 5:  The best book about the colorful House Un-American Activities Committee is Walter Goodman's “The Committee:  The extraordinary career of the House Committee on Un-American Activities” (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 1968).  Goodman was a liberal, mildly mocking of HUAC, but even he had to admit that 1948 was HUAC's “Vintage Year.”  Pages 247-67 concern the Hiss-Chambers hearings.   Chambers' account of his testimony is at pages 535-50 of the 1980 Regnery Gateway edition of “Witness.”  Other accounts are in Alistair Cooke (1952) at 55-59 and Weinstein (2013) at 13-18.    A lacerating review of Alistair Cooke's book (the 1950 edition) was written by the great British feminist and essayist Rebecca West, was published in the University of Chicago Law Review in 1952, and is available at https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=uclrev.  I commend Mr. Cooke's book especially for the narration of the trials, which I believe he covered for The Manchester Guardian.  His verbal sketches of the courtroom scenes — the judges, lawyers, and witnesses — are almost worthy of Henry James.  Unfortunately, however, Mr. Cooke retained so much of his English detachment that he fell for Hiss's pose as an honorable gentleman; and Cooke simply does not get the red-hot Chambers.  Cooke's courtroom descriptions are wonderful, but my opinion is that Ms. West's criticisms are correct.  By the 1952 edition of his book, which covers Hiss's claims of “forgery by typewriter” (Podcast #25), Cooke seems to have concluded that Hiss was guilty. Richard Nixon, though he was almost silent during Chambers' first testimony, recorded his impressions of Chambers in the first chapter of his 1962 book “Six Crises” (“Never . . . was a more sensational investigation started by a less impressive witness.”).  The transcript of most of HUAC's 1948 Communist hearings was published in 2020 by Alpha Editions.  “Hearings Regarding Communist Espionage in the United States Government, Hearings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, Second Session, Public Law 601 (Section 121, Subsection Q(2)).”  Chambers' first testimony is at 563-84.  I find these transcripts fascinating because you see HUAC's members first believe Chambers, then Hiss, and then slowly conclude that Hiss  is, as Representative Hebert said, the greatest actor that America has ever produced. Questions:  Imagine you are Whittaker Chambers.   You are forced in 1948 to testify about your underground  Communist past.  Do you talk about the chat group only, or the spy ring, too?  The first was silly, the second was a crime.  Do you name names, including the brilliant man who was your only friend in those years? About naming the names of your co-conspirators, you had less than 24 hours notice before your testimony.  There was no time to reach out and call them.  Maybe they reformed shortly after you did and are leading upstanding lives like you are. Before Congressional committees, there are no rules of evidence.  Any question may be asked and any answer may be given.  What questions can you anticipate?  If you testify only about the chat group and you are asked point blank about spying, what answer will you give?  Reveal the crime of spying, or commit perjury?  How do you say something, something to alert the government and the public to the truth, without ruining your life and your friends' lives? Based just on this first testimony, do you find Chambers generally believable?  Totally believable?  Do you fear that, while telling the truth most of the time, he may succumb to the temptation to brighten pastel shades into primary colors to make his story more dramatic?  What is his motive to tell the truth?  What is his motive to lie?  Does he seem a reluctant witness?  Do you have a feeling that, once he got the subpoena, he thought to himself, “OK, let ‘er rip.  There's gonna be a big scene and I want to be the star”?  Do the questions and comments of the HUAC members and staffers, especially Chief Investigator Stripling, give you confidence in HUAC as a finder of fact?  What is your impression of the Acting Chairman, Karl Mundt, and of Hiss's chief defender, the racist, anti-Semite, Democrat, and ardent New Dealer from Mississippi, “Lightnin' John” Rankin?   

Host Casandra Grundstrom is joined by special guest Professor Harald Øverby. Harald works as a Professor at NTNU. His interests are in the areas of: Digital Economics, Business Models, Internet Law, Regulations and Governance, and Internet Architecture. He has published over 80 papers in international and national journals and conferences, as well as participated in several research projects. In this episode, we discuss the regulation of big tech with antitrust laws for megacorporations. Drawing examples from the US, Canada, and Europe with well-known names such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and more. We explore the importance of regulation for its ability to promote competition rather than stifle innovation as well as implications for society. References:Economides, N. (2001). The Microsoft antitrust case. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 1(1), 7-39.Khan, L. M. (2016). Amazon's antitrust paradox. Yale lJ, 126, 710.Lanamäki, A., Väyrynen, K., Iivari, N., Kinnula, M., Ventä-Olkkonen, L., & Laari-Salmela, S. (2019). Is a Taximeter a Guarantee of Honesty or a Barrier to Entry? Exploring Technology Discourses as Consequences of Policy Ambiguity.Letwin, W. L. (1956). Congress and the Sherman Antitrust Law: 1887-1890. The University of Chicago Law Review, 23(2), 221-258.Øverby, H., & Audestad, J. A. (2020). Standards, Regulations, and Net Neutrality in the Digital Economy. Regulations, and Net Neutrality in the Digital Economy (May 15, 2020).

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 800 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls. Charlie Sykes is a founder and editor-at-large of The Bulwark, host of The Bulwark Podcast, and an NBC/ MSNBC contributor. He is also author of nine books, including A Nation of Victims, Dumbing Down Our Kids, Profscam, The Hollow Men, The End of Privacy, 50 Rules Kids Won't Learn in School,  A Nation of Moochers, and Fail U. The False Promise of Higher Education. He was co-editor of the National Review College Guide. His most recent book, How the Right Lost Its Mind, published by St. Martin's Press, was released in October 2017. An updated paperback edition was released in October, 2018. Sykes has written for The New York Times, The Atlantic,  The Weekly Standard, The Washington Post, Commentary, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Time.com, USA Today, National Review, The New York Review of Books, the New York Daily News,  and other national publications. He has appeared on Meet the Press, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, State of the Union with Jake Tapper, the Today Show, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, PBS, the BBC, and has been profiled on NPR. He has also spoken extensively on university campuses. He is a former contributing editor to the Weekly Standard; he also has served as editor of Milwaukee Magazine; editor of Wisconsin Interest Magazine; and founder and editor in chief of Right Wisconsin. Sykes serves as the president of Defending Democracy Together Institute, sits on the advisory board of the Democracy Fund, and is a member of the board of Stand Up Republic.   Until he stepped down in December 2016 after 23 years, Sykes was one of Wisconsin's top-rated and most influential conservative talk show hosts. In 2017, he was co-host of the national public radio show, “Indivisible,” which originated from WNYC. He lives in Mequon, Wisconsin with his wife and three dogs. He has three children, and two grandchildren. K-Sue Park's scholarship examines the development of American property law and the creation of the American real estate market through the histories of colonization and enslavement. She teaches first-year Property and a seminar entitled Land, Dispossession, and Displacement. Previously, she was the Critical Race Studies Fellow at UCLA School of Law and an Equal Justice Works Fellow and staff attorney in El Paso, where she investigated predatory mortgage lending schemes as part of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid's foreclosure defense team. Park earned her B.A. summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa honors from Cornell University, where she was a College Scholar, her M.Phil with Distinction in Social and Political Sciences from the University of Cambridge, her J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School, where she was a Presidential Scholar, and her Ph.D. in Rhetoric from UC Berkeley, where she was a Javits Fellow. She was also a Fulbright Scholar in South Korea in 2003. In 2015, her article, “Money, Mortgages, and the Conquest of America” won the American Bar Foundation's graduate student paper competition and the Association for Law, Culture and the Humanities' Austin Sarat Award, and was selected for the Law and Humanities Junior Scholar Workshop. Her publications have appeared in the Harvard Law Review, The University of Chicago Law Review, The History of the Present, Law & Social Inquiry, and the New York Times. Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page  

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Stanley Fish is Professor of Law at Florida International University and Visiting Professor of Law at Cardoso Law School. In addition to being one of the country's leading public intellectuals, Professor Fish is an extraordinarily prolific author. Professor Dr. Fish has written for many of the country's leading law journals. including Stanford Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Yale Law Journal, University of Chicago Law Review, Columbia Law Review, and Texas Law Review. His books include There's No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It's a Good Thing, Too (1994); and The First: How to Think About Hate Speech, Campus Speech, Religious Speech, Fake News, Post-Truth, and Donald Trump (2019). In this episode, we focus on free speech. Dr. Fish presents his thesis against the idea that free speech exists, and we discuss its details. We start with a bit of Dr. Fish's background and where his interest in free speech comes from, and also a definition of free speech. We talk about John Stuart Mill's position, and the history of the political struggle for free speech. We discuss freedom of speech in the context of academia and the media. We ask if it makes sense to distinguish speech from action, and also address the distinction between freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry. Toward the end, Dr. Fish explains why he thinks “philosophy does not matter”. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, BO WINEGARD, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, ANJAN KATTA, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, MAX BEILBY, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, OMARI HICKSON, PHYLICIA STEVENS, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JOÃO ALVES DA SILVA, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, TOM ROTH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, MIRAN B, NICOLE BARBARO, AND ADAM HUNT! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, SERGIU CODREANU, LUIS CAYETANO, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, AND NIRUBAN BALACHANDRAN! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, JAMES PRATT, AND MATTHEW LAVENDER!

In today's episode of The Marketplace of Ideas, Donald Kochan sits down with Chris Slobogin, the Milton R. Underwood Chair in Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Program at Vanderbilt Law School, and Affiliate Professor of Psychiatry at Vanderbilt School of Medicine, to discuss Professor Slobogin's recent monograph titled “A Primer on Risk Assessment: Instruments for Legal Decision-Makers.”   To read and download the primer, click here.  Chris Slobogin has authored more than 100 articles, books and chapters on topics relating to criminal law and procedure, mental health law and evidence. Named director of Vanderbilt Law School's Criminal Justice Program in 2009, Professor Slobogin is one of the five most cited criminal law and procedure law professors in the country over the past five years, according to the Leiter Report, and one of the top fifty most cited law professors overall from 2005-2015, according to Hein Online. Particularly influential has been his work on the Fourth Amendment and technology and his writing on mental disability and criminal law, appearing in books published by the University of Chicago, Harvard University and Oxford University presses and in journals such as the Chicago Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, Northwestern Law Review, Pennsylvania Law Review, Stanford Law Review and Virginia Law Review. Professor Slobogin has served as reporter for three American Bar Association task forces (on Law Enforcement and Technology; the Insanity Defense; and Mental Disability and the Death Penalty) and as chair of both the ABA's task force charged with revising the Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards and the ABA's Florida Assessment team for the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project. He is currently an Associate Reporter for the American Law Institute's Principles of Police Investigation Project.  In recognition for his work in mental health law, in 2016 Professor Slobogin received both the American Board of Forensic Psychology's Distinguished Contribution Award and the American Psychology-Law Society's Distinguished Contribution of Psychology and Law Award; only a total of five law professors have received either of these awards in their thirty-year history, and none has received both awards. Before joining Vanderbilt's law faculty, Professor Slobogin held the Stephen C. O'Connell chair at the University of Florida's Fredric G. Levin College of Law. Professor Slobogin holds a secondary appointment as a professor in the Vanderbilt School of Medicine's Department of Psychiatry. 

Zachary Liscow is an associate professor of law at Yale Law School. His main research interest is understanding the appropriate policy levers to address income inequality and, in particular, the role that tax policy versus other legal rules should play. He also works in a variety of other areas, including urban economics, environmental policy, and empirical legal studies. Liscow earned his PhD in economics from the University of California, Berkeley, and his JD from Yale Law School. He has been a staff economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers and worked for the World Bank's inspector general. Our student quote is by Rebecca Arnall from New York, NY.Resources:Professor Liscow’s bio.Daniel Shaviro’s blog post about Liscow’s visit to the NYU Tax Policy Colloquium.Is Efficiency Biased? 85 University of Chicago Law Review 1649 (2018)The pencil question: Thomas J. Brennan, Perils of Partial Mark-to-Market Taxation.  The student quote is: "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least hissing."—Jean Baptist Colbert

As the results of the 2020 US election are trickling in, we are taking a look at how laws - and notably electoral laws - can be used to undermine constitutional systems from within. Our guest Professor Kim Lane Scheppele (Princeton University) helps us understand how a new kind of elected leader is using their democratic mandates to take the whole system apart, how they are getting away with it and what we can do to stop it.Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:The Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna: IWMThe Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCDThe Excellence Chair and Soft Authoritarianism Research Group in Bremen: WOCThe Podcast Company Earshot StrategiesFollow us on Social Media!Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna: @IWM_ViennaAlbert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHDCentreSubscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks!BIBLIOGRAPHYKim Lane Scheppele. (2018). Autocratic Legalism. The University of Chicago Law Review, 85(2): 545-583.Kriszta Kovács and Kim Lane Scheppele. (2018). The Fragility of an Independent Judiciary:  Lessons from Hungary and Poland – and the European Union. Journal of Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 51: 189-200.Laurent Pech and Kim Lane Scheppele. (2017). Illiberalism Within:  Rule of Law Backsliding in the European Union. Cambridge Yearbook of European LawGLOSSARYWhat is autocratic legalism?(00:00:00 or p. 1 in the transcript)Kim Lane Scheppele describes autocratic legalism as a process where charismatic new leaders are elected by democratic publics and then use their electoral mandates to dismantle by law the constitutional systems they inherited. These leaders aim to consolidate power and to remain in office indefinitely, eventually eliminating the ability of democratic publics to exercise their basic democratic rights, to hold leaders accountable, and to change their leaders peacefully. Learn more. What is soft authoritarianism?(00:01:30 or p. 2 in the transcript)The term soft authoritarianism is used to describe countries which have multiple parties and elections, but where the regime keeps the media and influential institutions on a short leash, exercising its power behind the ostensive freedom of choice. Source.What is an autocracy?(00:02:30 or p. 2 in the transcript)Autocracy is a system of government in which supreme political power to direct all the activities of the state is concentrated in the hands of one person, the autocrat, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control.Who is Viktor Orbán?(00:02:30 or p. 2 in the transcript)Viktor Orbán has been Prime Minister of Hungary since 2010. He also is President of Fidesz, a national conservative political party. Learn more.

In this episode, Rory Van Loo, Associate Professor of Law at Boston University School of Law, discusses his article "Federal Rules of Platform Procedure," which will be published in the University of Chicago Law Review. Van Loo begins by describing how internet companies regulate the content produced by their users, reflecting on some examples of mishandled decisions. He explains the incentives for internet companies, in relation to the incentives for older industries. And he argues that there may be room for more robust regulatory interventions. Van Loo is on Twitter at @RoryVanLoo.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Last week seems at times to be ripped from a bad political thriller but the credits never roll. Sunday Edition always strives to bring ACB conversations that enrich our advocacy and education, and that cover all matters that affect our community. This week I have reached out to a very informed subject-matter expert, as well as two of our own esteemed members to discuss RBG and her accomplishments, the court past, present and future including court stacking and the possibility the court will have to determine another Presidential election. We will discuss the Nomination of the seat RBG left vacant. By the time Sunday Edition airs, President Trump will have announced his pick. Just four short (or agonizing) years ago Republicans deemed it unconscionable to allow sitting president to nominate during a election year and yet they seem determined to move forward no matter how hypocritical it looks. Possible ramifications to Roe/Wade, protections for aging and disabled persons, and LGBT rights that have been earned The Notorious (and I believe GLORIOUS) RBG, AKA Ruth Bater Ginsburg fought tirelessly for over 50 years for the equality of all citizens focusing on the rights of women and marginalized communities. Appointed by President Clinton her presence on the Court has left historic advances for All Genders Her strategic cases in the 1970s opened the door for not only women but for disabled and LGBTQ issues to advance to equality. thanks to the tireless work of RBG issues our community has advocated for were recognized and held to the standards of all being created (and acted in action) treated EQUAL. Steve Mendelsohn, President of AAVIA, scholar and author, and Chris Prentice will join me to discuss all this and answer questions from member call-in. Additionally I am so pleased to welcome Professor Kim Ford-Mazru director of the law program at UVA. Kim Forde-Mazrui joined the law faculty of the University of Virginia in 1996, and was promoted to full professor in 2001. He teaches Constitutional Law, Employment Discrimination, Criminal Law, and Race and Law. His scholarship focuses on equal protection, especially involving race and sexual orientation. His publications have considered what role race should play in placing children for adoption; whether and how to select racially and other demographically diverse juries; whether affirmative action policies that employ race-neutral means are constitutional; whether America is morally obligated to remedy past discrimination; and whether racial profiling and other discriminatory practices by law enforcement are adequately deterred by current constitutional doctrines. His scholarship has also examined the parallels between historical arguments against interracial relationships and contemporary arguments against same-sex relationships, as well as the role of tradition as a justification for banning same-sex marriage. His articles have been published in several prestigious law journals, including the University of Chicago Law Review, the California Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, Vanderbilt Law Review, and the Georgetown Law Journal. The hallmark of Forde-Mazrui's approach is to take seriously the conflicting perspectives on controversial issues, and to offer constructive proposals to move society beyond current, often intractable, debates. I would like to thank and acknowledge the support,, help and resources of : Mr. Scott Marshall, Jim Kracht, Peter Altchul and of course Steve and Chris. They all aided me in my in-depth research to bring ACB a conversation that will inform and help us all to understand beyond the sound-bytes and media/political static. Sunday Edition airs live on ACB Radio Mainstream at 1pm eastern with replays at 10pm Sunday night as well as 7am Monday morning. Sunday Edition can also be found on all your favorite podcast catchers by searching ACB Sunday Edition. Comments and Questions for the show can be sent to : celebrationac@aol.com

How to create wealthier cities by sharing more.ResourcesEdenicity Reference DesignRose, Carol M. (1986). "The Comedy of the Commons: Commerce, Custom, and Inherently Public Property". Faculty Scholarship Series, Yale Law School. Paper 1828. Originally published by Chicago Law Review, 53:3.Anu Partanen, What Americans Keep Ignoring About Finland's School SuccessThe Scandinavian country is an education superpower because it values equality more than excellence., The Atlantic, December 29, 2011.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_OstromSupport the show (https://teespring.com/stores/edenicity)

FEATURED GUESTSLeo E. Strine Jr.Leo E. Strine, Jr., is of Counsel in the Corporate Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Before joining the firm, he was the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court from early 2014 through late 2019. Before becoming the Chief Justice, he had served on the Delaware Court of Chancery as Chancellor since June 22, 2011, and as a Vice Chancellor since November 9, 1998. In his judicial positions, Mr. Strine wrote hundreds of opinions in the areas of corporate law, contract law, trusts and estates, criminal law, administrative law, and constitutional law. Notably, he authored the lead decision in the Delaware Supreme Court case holding that Delaware’s death penalty statute was unconstitutional because it did not require the key findings necessary to impose a death sentence to be made by a unanimous jury. Mr. Strine holds long-standing teaching positions at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, where he teaches diverse classes in corporate law addressing, among other topics, mergers and acquisitions, the role of independent directors, valuation, and corporate law theories. He is a member of the American Law Institute, and currently serves as an advisor on the project to create a restatement of corporate law. Mr. Strine also serves as a Senior Fellow of the Harvard Program on Corporate Governance and as an advisor to Penn’s Institute for Law & Economics. From 2006 to 2019, Mr. Strine served as the special judicial consultant to the ABA’s Committee on Corporate Laws. He also was the special judicial consultant to the ABA’s Committee on Mergers & Acquisitions from 2014 to 2019.Mr. Strine speaks and writes frequently on the subjects of corporate and public law, and particularly the impact of business on society, and his articles have been published in The University of Chicago Law Review, Columbia Law Review, Cornell Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Harvard Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and Stanford Law Review, among others. On several occasions, his articles were selected as among the Best Corporate and Securities Articles of the year, based on the choices of law professors.RELATED RESOURCESStrine Jr, Leo E. "Toward Fair and Sustainable Capitalism: A Comprehensive Proposal to Help American Workers, Restore Fair Gainsharing Between Employees and Shareholders, and Increase American Competitiveness by Reorienting Our Corporate Governance System Toward Sustainable Long-Term Growth and Encouraging Investments in America’s Future." (October 3, 2019).Strine, Leo. "Toward Fair and Sustainable Capitalism," Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. (October 1, 2019).“About the Division of Corporations.” Delaware Division of Corporations (accessed June 17, 2020), https://corp.delaware.gov/aboutagency/.Warner, Judy. "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood” (An interview with Delaware Supreme Court Justice Leo E. Strine Jr.) NACD Directorship magazine (May/June 2015).

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing suing state sponsors of terrorism with Stuart Newberger, a partner at Crowell Moring. This is the last episode of our third season, and we at the University of Chicago Law Review want to thank you all for tuning in, as we explored some fascinating legal questions this year. We look forward to meeting again for Season 4! Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing the SEC whistleblower program. Here to help us understand this topic is Jordan Thomas, who was one of the principal architects of that program when he served as an Assistant Director at the SEC. Mr Thomas is now a partner at Labaton Sucharow, where he established the nation's first whisteblower practice focused exclusively on federal securities law violations. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing Corpus Linguistics, which is a sub-field of linguistics that employs database searches to study language usage. Through this linguistic method, jurists, lawyers, and legal academics can add empirical rigor to textualist assumptions regarding the legal meaning of words, based on how they are used in practice. We're joined by Justice Thomas Lee, Associate Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, to help us understand this topic. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing Experimental Jurisprudence, which is an emerging field that uses empirical methods, particularly from the cognitive sciences, to clarify important concepts in the law. For example, scholars in this field conduct experiments to understand what ordinary people make of legal concepts, such as reasonableness. We're joined by Roseanna Sommers, who is a Bigelow Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School and a leading scholar in the field of Experimental Jurisprudence. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we are discussing social media influencers and their ability to manipulate markets. We also discuss the legal regime that governs influencers and the agencies, namely the SEC and FTC, that regulate them. We're joined by Anna Pinedo, a partner in Mayer Brown's Corporate & Securities practice and an adjunct professor at the George Washington University School of Law, and James Cox, the Brainerd Currie Professor of Law at Duke Law School. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we are discussing two cases pending before the Supreme Court, which will determine whether roughly half of the land in Oklahoma is actually an Indian Reservation . We're joined by Elizabeth Reese, a Bigelow Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, and Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Professor of Law and Director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center at Michigan State University College of Law. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing the Universal Basic Income, which is a wealth transfer policy endorsed by many politicians and academics. We're joined by Professors Daniel Hemel and Todd Henderson of the University of Chicago Law School, who help us analyze the legal, economic, and philosophical questions that the UBI raises. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing when courts should overturn precedent. We're joined by two legal scholars who have studied this question: Professor William Baude of the University of Chicago Law School and Professor Richard Re of UCLA School of Law. We discuss the value of stare decisis, competing theories of precedent, and the current Supreme Court justices' views on when precedent should be followed. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re covering Supreme Court advocacy and the separate sovereigns doctrine with Michael Scodro, partner at Mayer Brown. We discuss Mr. Scodro's experiences arguing before the Supreme Court and the Court's recent Gamble decision, which analyzed whether the Double Jeopardy Clause protects a defendant from prosecution by both the state and federal governments. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing who corporations serve. There has been a widespread belief for several decades that corporations exist to serve the interests of their shareholders. But that idea has come under increasing pressure by those who believe corporations should serve the interests of all of their stakeholders, including customers, employees, and the communities in which they operate . We spoke with Professor Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School and Professor Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business to hear two sides of the debate on this issue. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing an article by Samuel Moyn, Professor at Yale Law School, called "Law Schools Are Bad for Democracy" and a response to that article by Yuval Levin, editor of National Affairs. We spoke to Professor Moyn and Mr. Levin about their views on this issue. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing the Chicago School of Antitrust and whether it should be reassessed in the modern, digital economy. We spoke to Timothy Muris, Professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School and former Chairman of the FTC, Jonathan Nuechterlein, partner at Sidley Austin and former General Counsel of the FTC, and Maurice Stucke, Professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we're discussing law enforcement's use of genealogy databases to solve cold cases and related Fourth Amendment implications. We spoke to Natalie Ram, Assistant Professor at the University of Baltimore Law School, and Jason Kreag, Associate Professor at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, to help us make sense of this issue. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we're discussing the global trend of democratic backsliding with Professor Aziz Huq and Professor Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago Law School. Professors Ginsburg and Huq have recently written the book, "How to Save a Constitutional Democracy," on that subject. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today, we're discussing the Roberts Court with Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for the New York Times, and Lee Epstein, professor of political science and law at Washington University in St. Louis. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ Music from bensound.com.

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing some legal concerns related to the collection and use, or misuse, of personal data. Today’s podcast features interviews with Professor Lior Strahilevitz and Professor Omri Ben-Shahar, from the University of Chicago Law School. Check us out on Twitter at uchilrev, and our website at https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/ This episode was produced by Yosef Schaffel. Music from bensound.com

Victor Boutros is the CEO and Founding Director of the Human Trafficking Institute and co-author with Gary Haugen of The Locust Effect: Why the End of Poverty Requires the End of Violence, a book published by Oxford University Press in 2014. Drawing on real-world cases and extensive scholarship, The Locust Effect paints a vivid portrait of the way fractured criminal justice systems in developing countries have spawned a hidden epidemic of modern-day slavery and everyday violence that is undermining vital investments in poverty alleviation, public health, and human rights. A critically acclaimed work of thought-leadership, The Locust Effect is a Washington Post bestseller that has been featured by the New York Times, The Economist, NPR, the Today Show, Forbes, TED, and the BBC, among others. For their work on The Locust Effect, Boutros and Haugen received the 2016 Grawemeyer Prize for Ideas Improving World Order, a literary prize awarded annually to the authors of one book based on originality, feasibility, and potential for global impact. Boutros previously served as a federal prosecutor who investigated and tried international human trafficking cases of national significance around the country on behalf of the United States Department of Justice’s Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit. He has taught human trafficking at the FBI Academy in Quantico, trained law enforcement professionals in the United States and other countries on how to investigate and prosecute human trafficking, and taught trial advocacy to lawyers from Latin America, South and Southeast Asia, and Africa. Prior to his work with the Justice Department, Boutros spent time on similar issues in the developing world. He has worked on improving prison conditions in Ecuador, documented bonded slaves in India, and worked on human trafficking issues as a visiting lawyer with the National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa. Boutros is a graduate of Baylor University, Harvard University, Oxford University, and the University of Chicago Law School, where he was as an editor of the University of Chicago Law Review and received a grant to research human trafficking as a Human Rights Research Fellow. He has written on foreign affairs and human rights, including a feature article in Foreign Affairs and a piece co-authored with US Trafficking in Persons Ambassador John Richmond in the AntiTrafficking Review, and developed and taught a course on human rights, human trafficking, and rule of law in the developing world at the University of Chicago Law School. Boutros speaks to corporate leaders, universities, and think tanks on human trafficking, and has provided briefings to senior government leaders on human trafficking, including legislators, congressional committees, and the President of the United States. Learn more: https://www.traffickinginstitute.org

Today, we’ll discuss the corporate disclosures required by the SEC and an alternative method for handing these disclosures—the creation of a market to buy and sell corporate data. This episode features M. Todd Henderson, the Michael J. Marcus professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School and Donald Langevoort, the Thomas Aquinas Reynolds Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. Professor Henderson and his coauthor, Kevin S. Haeberl, associate professor of law at William and Mary Law School, explore this issue further in their paper Making a Market for Corporate Disclosure. The paper is available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814125. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Sef Schaffel, David Sandefer, Thomas Molloy, and Chris Walling. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to Tom Garvey and the V85 Online Group.

Today, Briefly dives into the late Justice Scalia's majority opinion in District of Columbia v Heller, a case in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear firearms unrelated to military service. The case has attracted attention from scholars and lawyers for the method of originalism Justice Scalia used in the decision. We’ve talked to Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato institute and lead lawyer for the plaintiff in Heller, Saul Cornell, Chair in American History at Fordham University, Nelson Lund, Professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, and Professors Alison LaCroix and Jason Merchant of the University of Chicago. Professors LaCroix and Merchant are working on a project called “Historical Semantics and Legal Interpretation,” which aims to give judges and legal scholars the tools to understand how language was used in the past. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Sef Schaffel, David Sandefer, Megan Coggeshall, Jeremy Rozansky, and Chris Walling. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to Noel Ottman, and the V85 Online Group.

For today’s episode, we interviewed Ms. Valerie Jarrett, a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. Most recently, Jarrett was a Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama. During her time at the White House, she oversaw the Offices of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs and chaired the White House Council on Women and Girls. Jarrett has a background in both the public and private sectors. She served as Chairman of the Chicago Transit Board, Commissioner of Planning and Development, and Deputy Chief of Staff for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. She is currently a board member of Ariel Capital Management Holdings, Inc., Lyft, and 2U, Inc. Jarrett spoke with us about her professional experience in law and public service, about her views on the #MeToo movement and gender equality in the workplace, and about the current projects she is working on at Chicago. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Kyle Jorstad, Tom Molloy, Kathryn Running, and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Tom Garvey, and Noel Ottman, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission is one of the most high-profile cases before the Supreme Court this term. We interviewed Colorado Solicitor General Fred Yarger, who represented Colorado during oral argument. The first part of the interview focuses on Masterpiece itself. In 2012, a gay couple asked a Colorado baker named Jack Phillips to make them a customized wedding cake. Phillips refused on the grounds that baking the cake would violate his religious objections to gay marriage, and the couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Commission determined that Phillips had violated a provision of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The main question presented in Masterpiece is whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake under Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Oral arguments were held before the Supreme Court on December 5, 2017 and Court observers expect a decision in June. The second part of the interview focuses on Mr. Yarger’s work in the Solicitor General’s office and his career after law school. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Kathryn Running, Eric Petry, Tom Molloy and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Tom Garvey, and Noel Ottman, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening!

This is Part Three of our three-part series on Title IX sexual misconduct proceedings. There is a debate across college campuses about how universities should handle sexual misconduct cases. In Part One, we looked at the proceedings generally, and in Part Two we specifically looked at the standard of evidence: what has to be proved before a person can be sanctioned. In Part Three, we’re looking at other policies utilized in Title IX proceedings: whether students should be entitled to a support person, what level of cross examination should be allowed, and what should be the definition of sexual misconduct? We discuss these questions with Professor Daniel Hemel, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, Professor Katherine K. Baker, Distinguished Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Professor Laura Kipnis of Northwestern University School of Communication, and Professor Brian Leiter, Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, and Director of the Center for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values at the University of Chicago. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Kathryn Running, Tom Molloy and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Tom Garvey, and Noel Ottman, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening, and be sure to check out Parts One and Two.

This is Part Two of our three-part series discussing Title IX, and sexual misconduct proceedings on university campuses. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos recently attracted controversy by rescinding the Obama administration’s guidance for how universities should handle sexual misconduct cases on their campuses. We interviewed four professors separately to consider the evidence standard in college proceedings. Many campus proceedings use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Is this the right standard? What are its benefits? What are its drawbacks? We discuss these questions with Professor Daniel Hemel, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, Professor Katherine K. Baker, Distinguished Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Professor Laura Kipnis of Northwestern University School of Communication, and Professor Brian Leiter, Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, and Director of the Center for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values at the University of Chicago. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Kathryn Running, Tom Molloy and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Tom Garvey, and Noel Ottman, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening, and be sure to check out Parts One and Three.

This is Part One of our three-part series discussing Title IX, and sexual misconduct proceedings on university campuses. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos recently attracted controversy by rescinding the Obama administration’s guidance for how universities should handle sexual misconduct cases on their campuses. How do these proceedings function? What did the Obama administration require? Does the system work or is there a superior alternative? We discuss these questions and more with Professor Daniel Hemel, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, Professor Saul Levmore, William B. Graham Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, Professor Laura Kipnis of Northwestern University School of Communication, and Professor Nancy Chi Cantalupo, Assistant Professor of Law at Barry University. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Kathryn Running, Tom Molloy and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Tom Garvey, and Noel Ottman, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening, and be sure to check out Parts Two and Three.

In the wake of hate group rallies and protests of controversial speakers on college campuses, how far does the right to free speech extend? What are its limits? Should the federal government and universities be empowered to place further restrictions on speech, or would further curtailments do more harm than good? Join us as we discuss with Professor Geoffrey Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and Professor Genevieve Lakier, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Tom Molloy and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Tom Garvey, Noel Ottman, and Kathryn Running, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening!

The City of Chicago, in addition to other state and local governments, sued the Federal Government after Attorney General Jeff Sessions attempted to withhold certain federal funds from "sanctuary cities." Sessions' move is intended to prevent these cities from stymieing federal immigration enforcement. Chicago and others claim withholding federal funds violates the Constitution and threatens police anti-crime efforts. Join us as we discuss the nature of these issues with Professor Aziz Huq, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, and Professor John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Tom Garvey, Tom Molloy, and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Noel Ottman, and Kathryn Running, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening!

On October 15th, 2017, Colin Kaepernick filed a non-injury grievance with the NFL, alleging that the NFL teams have colluded to blackball him from the League because of his recent political protests. What is the substance of Kaepernick's grievance claim, how likely is it to succeed, and what other legal avenues might be available to him? Join us as we examine these issues with Professor Randall Schmidt from the University of Chicago Law School, and Professor Michael Leroy from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. This is Briefly, a podcast produced by the University of Chicago Law Review. This episode has been produced by Grace Bridwell, Tom Molloy, and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Tom Garvey, Noel Ottman, and Kathryn Running, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. This is our very first episode, so we’d like to further thank last year’s Online Group and Managing Board for their support. Thanks for listening!

T.J. O’Hara interviews David Garrow on his new book "Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama," released this month. David discusses Barack before his political career takes off, and the choices he makes that lead to ex-president we see today. Regarding the book, host T.J. says, “It was almost like you couldn’t recognize the early Barack Obama when you compared and contrasted him to the Presidential Barack Obama.” Professor of Law & History and Distinguished Faculty Scholar at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Prior to moving to Pittsburgh, David was Senior Research Fellow at Homerton College, University of Cambridge. David is the author of a number of biographies and historical books, including the "Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference," for which he won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize in Biography. David regularly contributes to the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the American Prospect, and more. His academic writings have been published in the Supreme Court Review, the Yale Law Journal, the University of Chicago Law Review, Cornell Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, Vanderbilt Law Review, and Constitutional Commentary. He has taught at Duke University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the City University of New York, The Cooper Union, the College of William and Mary, American University, and Emory University. David was born in Massachusetts in 1953, graduated magna cum laude from Wesleyan University in 1975, and received his Ph.D. from Duke University in 1981. In 2003 he married Virginia Darleen Opfer, now Director of RAND Education and Distinguished Chair in Education Policy.

We know that criminal punishment has consequences, both good and bad, and that many people think that offenders deserve it. But what does punishment mean? What is society trying to express in the way it punishes criminals? And since people from all sides of the political spectrum agree that the prison population is way too big, is there a way to convey that meaning with alternative forms of sanctions? David and Tamler discuss Yale Law Professor Dan Kahan's classic paper "What do alternative sanctions mean?" that addresses these questions. But first, Tamler gets sanctimonious about other people being sanctimonious about guns on campus. At the risk of angering "that student," we "go there."  LinksUniversity of Houston Faculty Devises Pointers on How to Avoid Getting Shot by Armed Students by Elliott Hannon [slate.com]A PowerPoint Slide Advises Professors to Alter Teaching to Pacify Armed Students by Rio Fernandes [chronicle.com]Kahan, D. M. (1996). What do alternative sanctions mean? The University of Chicago Law Review, 63(2), 591-653. [law.yale.edu]Moskos, P. (2013). In defense of flogging. Basic Books. [amazon.com affiliate link]

In a world where a single power controlled the language of justice itself, one man (well, several people and a bunch of students, but anyway) rose up to … produce a free guide to the standardized practices of legal citation. Copyright scholar Chris Sprigman joins us to talk about two of his projects: Baby Blue, the open guide to legal citation, and the Restatement of Copyright. Our conversation: about Baby Blue (0:01:33), what in the Bluebook might be copyrightable (0:10:07), trademark and the two manuals’ names and colors (0:23:44), simplification of citation (0:39:43), and the Restatement of Copyright (0:56:52). This show’s links: Chris Sprigman’s faculty profile, twitter, and writing Baby Blue: web page and PDF Oral Argument 88: The Blue Line The Bluebook Links to correspondence between lawyers for The Bluebook and others and the Baby Blue team Zotero and Papers The University of Chicago’s Citation Management for Law Students; Georgetown’s Bluebook Citation Resources and Detailed Feature Comparison Cory Doctorow, Five Years of Being Intimidated by the Harvard Bluebook’s Copyright Policies; FGBR, The Bluebook: A Plot Summary The Baby Blue public request for comments Subject matter of copyright: In general (s.102(b)) Lotus v. Borland The University of Chicago Law Review, The Maroonbook McNeil Nutritionals v. Heartland Sweeteners (3d Cir. 2007) and later proceedings American Law Institute, Restatement of Copyright About secondary liability for copyright infringement Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings and Cablevision Systems (whether 1.2 seconds of buffering on a hard drive is a “fixation”) Special Guest: Christopher Sprigman.

Ed Walters started as a lawyer in a big law firm in Washington D.C. In the late 1990's, he was approached by a client asking him to research a relatively new legal issue without using LexisNexis or WestLaw, as they were trying to reduce online legal research costs. His inability to do this set off a chain of events leading him to create the company Fastcase. His story begs the question, are lawyers simply paying too much for online legal research sources? What are some ways particularly solo and small firm attorneys can reduce research overheads in their practice? And when is it necessary to pay for LexisNexis or WestLaw? In this episode of New Solo, Adriana Linares interviews Ed Walters about his experience starting Fastcase, how it interacts with the bigger legal research companies and smaller startups, and the right steps for solo practitioners to take in choosing an online research source. Linares and Walters begin by discussing the differences between a free resource like Google Scholar, a mid-range company like Fastcase, and a larger company like LexisNexis. If an attorney has a boutique practice and needs treatises or specialized databases, Walters says, they will need a big online research company. Otherwise, the lawyer might be paying too much. He urges practitioners to check their local bar, state bar, and other associations or organizations for member benefits that often include research and even practice management tools. There are three startup companies that Walters encourages lawyers to research: Casetext, which focuses on crowdsourcing, Ravel Law, which uses data visualization, and Judicata, which uses semantic analysis to find relationships based on meanings. He encourages all lawyers, but especially those in small firms, to research different options and find the one that fits their practice best. Ed Walters is the CEO and co-founder of Fastcase, an online legal research software company based in Washington D.C. Before founding Fastcase, Ed worked at Covington and Burling where his practice focused on corporate advisory work for software companies and sports leagues, and intellectual property litigation. He has written for The Washington Post, The New York Times, The University of Chicago Law Review, The Green Bag, and Legal Times, and has spoken extensively on legal publishing around the country. He is an adjunct professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches The Law of Robots. Special thanks to our sponsor, Solo Practice University.

The Social Network Show welcomes Professor Anupam Chander to the September 1, 2014 episode. Professor Anupam Chander, a law professor, Director of the California International Law Center and author of The Electronic Silk Road: How the Web Binds the World Together in Commerce talks about how the borderless internet has changed commerce around the world. The rise of the internet has connected people all over the world not just regarding communication, but trade of services. Professor Chander talks about how commerce has changed; the benefits of purchasing services outside of your country and how the differences in laws in each country affect this process. You can connect with Professor Chander on Twitter, learn more about him at U.C Davis faculty site, and check out his book  The Electronic Silk Road: How the Web Binds the World Together in Commerce Professor Anupam Chander Professor Anupam Chander is the Director of the California International Law Center and Martin Luther King, Jr. Hall Research Scholar. His research focuses on the regulation of globalization and digitization. His new book, The Electronic Silk Road: How the Web Binds the World Together in Commerce, was released in June 2013 by Yale University Press. He has been a visiting professor at Yale Law School, the University of Chicago Law School, Stanford Law School, and Cornell Law School. He has published widely in the nation's leading law journals, including the Yale Law Journal, the NYU Law Journal, the University of Chicago Law Review, Texas Law Review, and the California Law Review. A graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School, he clerked for Chief Judge Jon O. Newman of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge William A. Norris of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He practiced law in New York and Hong Kong with Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton. He serves as a judge and commentator at the Harvard-Stanford Junior International Law Faculty Forum. His writing has received honors from the American Association of Law Schools and been selected for presentation by the Stanford-Yale Junior Faculty Forum. Education A.B., magna cum laude Economics, Harvard University 1989 J.D., Yale Law School 1992      

Michael H. Shapiro (University of Southern California) is the Dorothy W. Nelson Professor of Law at University of Southern California Gould School of Law. Professor Shapiro earned his B.A. and M.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles and earned his J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School, where he was associate editor of the University of Chicago Law Review. He specializes in bioethics and in constitutional law, and in particular, medical and legal ethical issues surrounding research and experimentation; reproductive, genetic, and behavior control; and death and dying. He teaches Constitutional Law and Bioethics and Law. A prolific author on medical ethics and legal questions in the advent of new technologies, Professor Shapiro has written Cases, Materials, and Problems on Bioethics and Law, 2nd ed. (et. al., 2003), “Human Enhancement Uses of Biotechnology, Policy, Technological Enhancement and Human Equality” in Encyclopedia of Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues in Biotechnology (2000), and “The Identity of Identity: Moral and Legal Aspects of Technological Self-Transformation” (Journal of Social Philosophy and Policy, 2005).

Daniel J. Solove is a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School. He received his A.B. in English Literature from Washington University, where he was an early selection for Phi Beta Kappa, and his J.D. from Yale Law School. At Yale, Professor Solove won the university-wide scholarly writing Field Prize and served as symposium editor of the Yale Law Journal and as an editor of the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities. Following law school, Professor Solove clerked for The Honorable Stanley Sporkin, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. After practicing law as an associate at the firm of Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C., Professor Solove began a second clerkship with The Honorable Pamela Ann Rymer, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He began his law teaching career at Seton Hall Law School in 2000. He joined the George Washington University Law School faculty in 2004. Professor Solove writes in the areas of information privacy law, cyberspace law, law and literature, jurisprudence, legal pragmatism, and constitutional theory. He teaches information privacy law, criminal procedure, criminal law, and law and literature. An internationally known expert in privacy law, Solove has been interviewed and quoted by the media in several hundred articles and broadcasts, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and NPR. Professor Solove is the author of Understanding Privacy (Harvard University Press 2008), The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet (Yale University Press 2007), The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age (NYU Press 2004) and Information Privacy Law (Aspen Publishing, 3rd ed. 2009), among other titles. His book, The Future of Reputation, won the 2007 McGannon Award. He has written more than 25 articles, which have appeared in many of the leading law reviews, including the Stanford Law Review, Yale Law Journal, California Law Review, U. Pennsylvania Law Review, NYU Law Review, Michigan Law Review, and U. Chicago Law Review, among others. He has consulted in high-profile privacy law cases, contributed to amicus briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, and testified before Congress. He serves on the advisory board of the Electronic Privacy Information Center and is on the board of the Law and Humanities Institute. Professor Solove blogs at Concurring Opinions, a blog covering issues of law, culture, and current events. It was selected by the ABA Journal as among the 100 best law blogs.