Podcast appearances and mentions of dirk warren

Postscript invites scholars to react to contemporary political events and today's podcast welcomes an expert on domestic violence and firearms law to analyze a controversial Second Amendment case that the United States Supreme Court will hear this Fall, United States v. Rahimi. Kelly Roskam, JD is the Director of Law and Policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy. She studies the constitutional implications of, advocates for, and works to improve the implementation of firearms laws. She has been writing about the practical implications of the Rahimi case since it came up through the 5th circuit (for example, “The Fifth Circuit's Rahimi decision protects abusers' access to guns. The Supreme Court must act to protect survivors of domestic violence” and “A Texas Judge Is Using Originalism to Justify Arming Domestic Abusers” (co-authored with Spencer Cantrell and Natalie Nanasi). In the podcast, we discuss the specifics of this strange case (a man who assaulted a woman, shot in the air, and later threatened to kill her claims that his constitutional rights have been violated – and the 5th circuit agrees that Congress is the threat to liberty). Ms. Roskam explains how the legal regime Congress created in 1994 to protect survivors of intimate violence also protects the safety of the public at large. She presents some of the data (e.g., that the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that domestic violence will escalate into a homicide). She explains what is at stake, the possible ways the Supreme Court might approach the case, and ways to combat firearm violence beyond the courts. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Postscript invites scholars to react to contemporary political events and today's podcast welcomes an expert on domestic violence and firearms law to analyze a controversial Second Amendment case that the United States Supreme Court will hear this Fall, United States v. Rahimi. Kelly Roskam, JD is the Director of Law and Policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy. She studies the constitutional implications of, advocates for, and works to improve the implementation of firearms laws. She has been writing about the practical implications of the Rahimi case since it came up through the 5th circuit (for example, “The Fifth Circuit's Rahimi decision protects abusers' access to guns. The Supreme Court must act to protect survivors of domestic violence” and “A Texas Judge Is Using Originalism to Justify Arming Domestic Abusers” (co-authored with Spencer Cantrell and Natalie Nanasi). In the podcast, we discuss the specifics of this strange case (a man who assaulted a woman, shot in the air, and later threatened to kill her claims that his constitutional rights have been violated – and the 5th circuit agrees that Congress is the threat to liberty). Ms. Roskam explains how the legal regime Congress created in 1994 to protect survivors of intimate violence also protects the safety of the public at large. She presents some of the data (e.g., that the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that domestic violence will escalate into a homicide). She explains what is at stake, the possible ways the Supreme Court might approach the case, and ways to combat firearm violence beyond the courts. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Postscript invites scholars to react to contemporary political events and today's podcast welcomes an expert on domestic violence and firearms law to analyze a controversial Second Amendment case that the United States Supreme Court will hear this Fall, United States v. Rahimi. Kelly Roskam, JD is the Director of Law and Policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy. She studies the constitutional implications of, advocates for, and works to improve the implementation of firearms laws. She has been writing about the practical implications of the Rahimi case since it came up through the 5th circuit (for example, “The Fifth Circuit's Rahimi decision protects abusers' access to guns. The Supreme Court must act to protect survivors of domestic violence” and “A Texas Judge Is Using Originalism to Justify Arming Domestic Abusers” (co-authored with Spencer Cantrell and Natalie Nanasi). In the podcast, we discuss the specifics of this strange case (a man who assaulted a woman, shot in the air, and later threatened to kill her claims that his constitutional rights have been violated – and the 5th circuit agrees that Congress is the threat to liberty). Ms. Roskam explains how the legal regime Congress created in 1994 to protect survivors of intimate violence also protects the safety of the public at large. She presents some of the data (e.g., that the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that domestic violence will escalate into a homicide). She explains what is at stake, the possible ways the Supreme Court might approach the case, and ways to combat firearm violence beyond the courts. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Postscript invites scholars to react to contemporary political events and today's podcast welcomes an expert on domestic violence and firearms law to analyze a controversial Second Amendment case that the United States Supreme Court will hear this Fall, United States v. Rahimi. Kelly Roskam, JD is the Director of Law and Policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy. She studies the constitutional implications of, advocates for, and works to improve the implementation of firearms laws. She has been writing about the practical implications of the Rahimi case since it came up through the 5th circuit (for example, “The Fifth Circuit's Rahimi decision protects abusers' access to guns. The Supreme Court must act to protect survivors of domestic violence” and “A Texas Judge Is Using Originalism to Justify Arming Domestic Abusers” (co-authored with Spencer Cantrell and Natalie Nanasi). In the podcast, we discuss the specifics of this strange case (a man who assaulted a woman, shot in the air, and later threatened to kill her claims that his constitutional rights have been violated – and the 5th circuit agrees that Congress is the threat to liberty). Ms. Roskam explains how the legal regime Congress created in 1994 to protect survivors of intimate violence also protects the safety of the public at large. She presents some of the data (e.g., that the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that domestic violence will escalate into a homicide). She explains what is at stake, the possible ways the Supreme Court might approach the case, and ways to combat firearm violence beyond the courts. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Postscript invites scholars to react to contemporary political events and today's podcast welcomes an expert on domestic violence and firearms law to analyze a controversial Second Amendment case that the United States Supreme Court will hear this Fall, United States v. Rahimi. Kelly Roskam, JD is the Director of Law and Policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy. She studies the constitutional implications of, advocates for, and works to improve the implementation of firearms laws. She has been writing about the practical implications of the Rahimi case since it came up through the 5th circuit (for example, “The Fifth Circuit's Rahimi decision protects abusers' access to guns. The Supreme Court must act to protect survivors of domestic violence” and “A Texas Judge Is Using Originalism to Justify Arming Domestic Abusers” (co-authored with Spencer Cantrell and Natalie Nanasi). In the podcast, we discuss the specifics of this strange case (a man who assaulted a woman, shot in the air, and later threatened to kill her claims that his constitutional rights have been violated – and the 5th circuit agrees that Congress is the threat to liberty). Ms. Roskam explains how the legal regime Congress created in 1994 to protect survivors of intimate violence also protects the safety of the public at large. She presents some of the data (e.g., that the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that domestic violence will escalate into a homicide). She explains what is at stake, the possible ways the Supreme Court might approach the case, and ways to combat firearm violence beyond the courts. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Postscript invites scholars to react to contemporary political events and today's podcast welcomes an expert on domestic violence and firearms law to analyze a controversial Second Amendment case that the United States Supreme Court will hear this Fall, United States v. Rahimi. Kelly Roskam, JD is the Director of Law and Policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy. She studies the constitutional implications of, advocates for, and works to improve the implementation of firearms laws. She has been writing about the practical implications of the Rahimi case since it came up through the 5th circuit (for example, “The Fifth Circuit's Rahimi decision protects abusers' access to guns. The Supreme Court must act to protect survivors of domestic violence” and “A Texas Judge Is Using Originalism to Justify Arming Domestic Abusers” (co-authored with Spencer Cantrell and Natalie Nanasi). In the podcast, we discuss the specifics of this strange case (a man who assaulted a woman, shot in the air, and later threatened to kill her claims that his constitutional rights have been violated – and the 5th circuit agrees that Congress is the threat to liberty). Ms. Roskam explains how the legal regime Congress created in 1994 to protect survivors of intimate violence also protects the safety of the public at large. She presents some of the data (e.g., that the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that domestic violence will escalate into a homicide). She explains what is at stake, the possible ways the Supreme Court might approach the case, and ways to combat firearm violence beyond the courts. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

Postscript invites scholars to react to contemporary political events and today's podcast welcomes an expert on domestic violence and firearms law to analyze a controversial Second Amendment case that the United States Supreme Court will hear this Fall, United States v. Rahimi. Kelly Roskam, JD is the Director of Law and Policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy. She studies the constitutional implications of, advocates for, and works to improve the implementation of firearms laws. She has been writing about the practical implications of the Rahimi case since it came up through the 5th circuit (for example, “The Fifth Circuit's Rahimi decision protects abusers' access to guns. The Supreme Court must act to protect survivors of domestic violence” and “A Texas Judge Is Using Originalism to Justify Arming Domestic Abusers” (co-authored with Spencer Cantrell and Natalie Nanasi). In the podcast, we discuss the specifics of this strange case (a man who assaulted a woman, shot in the air, and later threatened to kill her claims that his constitutional rights have been violated – and the 5th circuit agrees that Congress is the threat to liberty). Ms. Roskam explains how the legal regime Congress created in 1994 to protect survivors of intimate violence also protects the safety of the public at large. She presents some of the data (e.g., that the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that domestic violence will escalate into a homicide). She explains what is at stake, the possible ways the Supreme Court might approach the case, and ways to combat firearm violence beyond the courts. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Postscript invites scholars to react to contemporary political events and today's podcast welcomes an expert on domestic violence and firearms law to analyze a controversial Second Amendment case that the United States Supreme Court will hear this Fall, United States v. Rahimi. Kelly Roskam, JD is the Director of Law and Policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy. She studies the constitutional implications of, advocates for, and works to improve the implementation of firearms laws. She has been writing about the practical implications of the Rahimi case since it came up through the 5th circuit (for example, “The Fifth Circuit's Rahimi decision protects abusers' access to guns. The Supreme Court must act to protect survivors of domestic violence” and “A Texas Judge Is Using Originalism to Justify Arming Domestic Abusers” (co-authored with Spencer Cantrell and Natalie Nanasi). In the podcast, we discuss the specifics of this strange case (a man who assaulted a woman, shot in the air, and later threatened to kill her claims that his constitutional rights have been violated – and the 5th circuit agrees that Congress is the threat to liberty). Ms. Roskam explains how the legal regime Congress created in 1994 to protect survivors of intimate violence also protects the safety of the public at large. She presents some of the data (e.g., that the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that domestic violence will escalate into a homicide). She explains what is at stake, the possible ways the Supreme Court might approach the case, and ways to combat firearm violence beyond the courts. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The Supreme Court recently wrapped up their term – and announced that they will hear a very controversial case about domestic abuse, the power of Congress, and the right to keep and bear arms called United States v. Rahimi. The Court will decide whether a Texas man who assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone has been deprived of his Second Amendment rights. When the assaulted woman later obtained a restraining order against Mr. Zackey Rahimi, federal law made illegal for him to possess a firearm or ammunition while under that order. In 2019, Mr. Zackey Rahimi had an argument with his girlfriend in a parking lot. Mr. Rahimi knocked the woman to the ground. As he dragged her back to his car, she hit her head on the car's dashboard. Later, in a telephone call. Mr. Rahimi threatened the woman that he would shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. Later, a Texas state court entered a domestic violence restraining order against Rahimi. The order also barred Rahimi from possessing a gun based on a part of a federal statute: the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Mr. Rahimi claims that the statute violates his Second Amendment rights. Postscript invites authors to react to contemporary events that engage their scholarship and we have two experts on the Second Amendment to unpack the case. Joseph Blocher, Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller and has a forthcoming article in the Yale Law Review (co-authored with Eric Ruben) entitled Originalism-by-Analogy and Second Amendment Adjudication. In addition to his numerous influential law review articles and nuanced public facing scholarship in print, radio, and tv, he was one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for the District of C in Heller and he contributed an important brief to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

The Supreme Court recently wrapped up their term – and announced that they will hear a very controversial case about domestic abuse, the power of Congress, and the right to keep and bear arms called United States v. Rahimi. The Court will decide whether a Texas man who assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone has been deprived of his Second Amendment rights. When the assaulted woman later obtained a restraining order against Mr. Zackey Rahimi, federal law made illegal for him to possess a firearm or ammunition while under that order. In 2019, Mr. Zackey Rahimi had an argument with his girlfriend in a parking lot. Mr. Rahimi knocked the woman to the ground. As he dragged her back to his car, she hit her head on the car's dashboard. Later, in a telephone call. Mr. Rahimi threatened the woman that he would shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. Later, a Texas state court entered a domestic violence restraining order against Rahimi. The order also barred Rahimi from possessing a gun based on a part of a federal statute: the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Mr. Rahimi claims that the statute violates his Second Amendment rights. Postscript invites authors to react to contemporary events that engage their scholarship and we have two experts on the Second Amendment to unpack the case. Joseph Blocher, Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller and has a forthcoming article in the Yale Law Review (co-authored with Eric Ruben) entitled Originalism-by-Analogy and Second Amendment Adjudication. In addition to his numerous influential law review articles and nuanced public facing scholarship in print, radio, and tv, he was one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for the District of C in Heller and he contributed an important brief to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

The Supreme Court recently wrapped up their term – and announced that they will hear a very controversial case about domestic abuse, the power of Congress, and the right to keep and bear arms called United States v. Rahimi. The Court will decide whether a Texas man who assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone has been deprived of his Second Amendment rights. When the assaulted woman later obtained a restraining order against Mr. Zackey Rahimi, federal law made illegal for him to possess a firearm or ammunition while under that order. In 2019, Mr. Zackey Rahimi had an argument with his girlfriend in a parking lot. Mr. Rahimi knocked the woman to the ground. As he dragged her back to his car, she hit her head on the car's dashboard. Later, in a telephone call. Mr. Rahimi threatened the woman that he would shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. Later, a Texas state court entered a domestic violence restraining order against Rahimi. The order also barred Rahimi from possessing a gun based on a part of a federal statute: the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Mr. Rahimi claims that the statute violates his Second Amendment rights. Postscript invites authors to react to contemporary events that engage their scholarship and we have two experts on the Second Amendment to unpack the case. Joseph Blocher, Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller and has a forthcoming article in the Yale Law Review (co-authored with Eric Ruben) entitled Originalism-by-Analogy and Second Amendment Adjudication. In addition to his numerous influential law review articles and nuanced public facing scholarship in print, radio, and tv, he was one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for the District of C in Heller and he contributed an important brief to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The Supreme Court recently wrapped up their term – and announced that they will hear a very controversial case about domestic abuse, the power of Congress, and the right to keep and bear arms called United States v. Rahimi. The Court will decide whether a Texas man who assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone has been deprived of his Second Amendment rights. When the assaulted woman later obtained a restraining order against Mr. Zackey Rahimi, federal law made illegal for him to possess a firearm or ammunition while under that order. In 2019, Mr. Zackey Rahimi had an argument with his girlfriend in a parking lot. Mr. Rahimi knocked the woman to the ground. As he dragged her back to his car, she hit her head on the car's dashboard. Later, in a telephone call. Mr. Rahimi threatened the woman that he would shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. Later, a Texas state court entered a domestic violence restraining order against Rahimi. The order also barred Rahimi from possessing a gun based on a part of a federal statute: the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Mr. Rahimi claims that the statute violates his Second Amendment rights. Postscript invites authors to react to contemporary events that engage their scholarship and we have two experts on the Second Amendment to unpack the case. Joseph Blocher, Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller and has a forthcoming article in the Yale Law Review (co-authored with Eric Ruben) entitled Originalism-by-Analogy and Second Amendment Adjudication. In addition to his numerous influential law review articles and nuanced public facing scholarship in print, radio, and tv, he was one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for the District of C in Heller and he contributed an important brief to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The Supreme Court recently wrapped up their term – and announced that they will hear a very controversial case about domestic abuse, the power of Congress, and the right to keep and bear arms called United States v. Rahimi. The Court will decide whether a Texas man who assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone has been deprived of his Second Amendment rights. When the assaulted woman later obtained a restraining order against Mr. Zackey Rahimi, federal law made illegal for him to possess a firearm or ammunition while under that order. In 2019, Mr. Zackey Rahimi had an argument with his girlfriend in a parking lot. Mr. Rahimi knocked the woman to the ground. As he dragged her back to his car, she hit her head on the car's dashboard. Later, in a telephone call. Mr. Rahimi threatened the woman that he would shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. Later, a Texas state court entered a domestic violence restraining order against Rahimi. The order also barred Rahimi from possessing a gun based on a part of a federal statute: the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Mr. Rahimi claims that the statute violates his Second Amendment rights. Postscript invites authors to react to contemporary events that engage their scholarship and we have two experts on the Second Amendment to unpack the case. Joseph Blocher, Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller and has a forthcoming article in the Yale Law Review (co-authored with Eric Ruben) entitled Originalism-by-Analogy and Second Amendment Adjudication. In addition to his numerous influential law review articles and nuanced public facing scholarship in print, radio, and tv, he was one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for the District of C in Heller and he contributed an important brief to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

The Supreme Court recently wrapped up their term – and announced that they will hear a very controversial case about domestic abuse, the power of Congress, and the right to keep and bear arms called United States v. Rahimi. The Court will decide whether a Texas man who assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone has been deprived of his Second Amendment rights. When the assaulted woman later obtained a restraining order against Mr. Zackey Rahimi, federal law made illegal for him to possess a firearm or ammunition while under that order. In 2019, Mr. Zackey Rahimi had an argument with his girlfriend in a parking lot. Mr. Rahimi knocked the woman to the ground. As he dragged her back to his car, she hit her head on the car's dashboard. Later, in a telephone call. Mr. Rahimi threatened the woman that he would shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. Later, a Texas state court entered a domestic violence restraining order against Rahimi. The order also barred Rahimi from possessing a gun based on a part of a federal statute: the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Mr. Rahimi claims that the statute violates his Second Amendment rights. Postscript invites authors to react to contemporary events that engage their scholarship and we have two experts on the Second Amendment to unpack the case. Joseph Blocher, Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller and has a forthcoming article in the Yale Law Review (co-authored with Eric Ruben) entitled Originalism-by-Analogy and Second Amendment Adjudication. In addition to his numerous influential law review articles and nuanced public facing scholarship in print, radio, and tv, he was one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for the District of C in Heller and he contributed an important brief to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The Supreme Court recently wrapped up their term – and announced that they will hear a very controversial case about domestic abuse, the power of Congress, and the right to keep and bear arms called United States v. Rahimi. The Court will decide whether a Texas man who assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone has been deprived of his Second Amendment rights. When the assaulted woman later obtained a restraining order against Mr. Zackey Rahimi, federal law made illegal for him to possess a firearm or ammunition while under that order. In 2019, Mr. Zackey Rahimi had an argument with his girlfriend in a parking lot. Mr. Rahimi knocked the woman to the ground. As he dragged her back to his car, she hit her head on the car's dashboard. Later, in a telephone call. Mr. Rahimi threatened the woman that he would shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. Later, a Texas state court entered a domestic violence restraining order against Rahimi. The order also barred Rahimi from possessing a gun based on a part of a federal statute: the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Mr. Rahimi claims that the statute violates his Second Amendment rights. Postscript invites authors to react to contemporary events that engage their scholarship and we have two experts on the Second Amendment to unpack the case. Joseph Blocher, Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller and has a forthcoming article in the Yale Law Review (co-authored with Eric Ruben) entitled Originalism-by-Analogy and Second Amendment Adjudication. In addition to his numerous influential law review articles and nuanced public facing scholarship in print, radio, and tv, he was one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for the District of C in Heller and he contributed an important brief to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court recently wrapped up their term – and announced that they will hear a very controversial case about domestic abuse, the power of Congress, and the right to keep and bear arms called United States v. Rahimi. The Court will decide whether a Texas man who assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone has been deprived of his Second Amendment rights. When the assaulted woman later obtained a restraining order against Mr. Zackey Rahimi, federal law made illegal for him to possess a firearm or ammunition while under that order. In 2019, Mr. Zackey Rahimi had an argument with his girlfriend in a parking lot. Mr. Rahimi knocked the woman to the ground. As he dragged her back to his car, she hit her head on the car's dashboard. Later, in a telephone call. Mr. Rahimi threatened the woman that he would shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. Later, a Texas state court entered a domestic violence restraining order against Rahimi. The order also barred Rahimi from possessing a gun based on a part of a federal statute: the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Mr. Rahimi claims that the statute violates his Second Amendment rights. Postscript invites authors to react to contemporary events that engage their scholarship and we have two experts on the Second Amendment to unpack the case. Joseph Blocher, Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller and has a forthcoming article in the Yale Law Review (co-authored with Eric Ruben) entitled Originalism-by-Analogy and Second Amendment Adjudication. In addition to his numerous influential law review articles and nuanced public facing scholarship in print, radio, and tv, he was one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for the District of C in Heller and he contributed an important brief to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Each June in the United States, scholars, journalists, law makers, law enforcers, lawyers, and members of the public wait for the announcement of major decisions from the Supreme Court. Justices often read a summary of their decision from the bench dressed in their robes. Paper copies are available in a special office – and more recently on the Supreme Court website. This year, the Supreme Court opinions have shaped policy on affirmative action, public accommodation for LGBTQ+ people, voting rights, student loans, and the power of states to control election procedure. Before these cases are decided, the parties, outside individuals, and interest groups invest an estimated $25 to $50 million dollars a year to produce roughly one thousand amicus briefs. These briefs strategically provide information to the justices to convince them to vote in a particular way. How are these briefs produced? Who pays for their research and writing? What impact do they have on the ultimate decisions of the Supreme Court? In Persuading the Supreme Court: The Significance of Briefs in Judicial Decision-Making (UP of Kansas, 2022), Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle draw on political science research on the effects of information on policy making, their original dataset of more than 25,000 party and amicus briefs filed between 1984 and 2015, their interviews with former Supreme Court clerks and attorneys, and the text of the related court opinions to argue that the briefs matter – and they matter more when parties hire experienced attorneys known to the justices to craft excellent information-rich briefs. Hazelton and Hinkle interrogate both the causes and the consequences of providing that information to the justices. They demonstrate how that information operates differently in terms of influencing who wins and what policy is announced. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. In the podcast, Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle mention their piece in their Monkey Cage on predicting the outcome in the 2023 Voting Rights Case and their new collaboration with Dr. Michael J. Nelson, The Elevator Effect. Their data set is available to the public and can be found on either of their websites (linked above). Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Each June in the United States, scholars, journalists, law makers, law enforcers, lawyers, and members of the public wait for the announcement of major decisions from the Supreme Court. Justices often read a summary of their decision from the bench dressed in their robes. Paper copies are available in a special office – and more recently on the Supreme Court website. This year, the Supreme Court opinions have shaped policy on affirmative action, public accommodation for LGBTQ+ people, voting rights, student loans, and the power of states to control election procedure. Before these cases are decided, the parties, outside individuals, and interest groups invest an estimated $25 to $50 million dollars a year to produce roughly one thousand amicus briefs. These briefs strategically provide information to the justices to convince them to vote in a particular way. How are these briefs produced? Who pays for their research and writing? What impact do they have on the ultimate decisions of the Supreme Court? In Persuading the Supreme Court: The Significance of Briefs in Judicial Decision-Making (UP of Kansas, 2022), Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle draw on political science research on the effects of information on policy making, their original dataset of more than 25,000 party and amicus briefs filed between 1984 and 2015, their interviews with former Supreme Court clerks and attorneys, and the text of the related court opinions to argue that the briefs matter – and they matter more when parties hire experienced attorneys known to the justices to craft excellent information-rich briefs. Hazelton and Hinkle interrogate both the causes and the consequences of providing that information to the justices. They demonstrate how that information operates differently in terms of influencing who wins and what policy is announced. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. In the podcast, Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle mention their piece in their Monkey Cage on predicting the outcome in the 2023 Voting Rights Case and their new collaboration with Dr. Michael J. Nelson, The Elevator Effect. Their data set is available to the public and can be found on either of their websites (linked above). Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Each June in the United States, scholars, journalists, law makers, law enforcers, lawyers, and members of the public wait for the announcement of major decisions from the Supreme Court. Justices often read a summary of their decision from the bench dressed in their robes. Paper copies are available in a special office – and more recently on the Supreme Court website. This year, the Supreme Court opinions have shaped policy on affirmative action, public accommodation for LGBTQ+ people, voting rights, student loans, and the power of states to control election procedure. Before these cases are decided, the parties, outside individuals, and interest groups invest an estimated $25 to $50 million dollars a year to produce roughly one thousand amicus briefs. These briefs strategically provide information to the justices to convince them to vote in a particular way. How are these briefs produced? Who pays for their research and writing? What impact do they have on the ultimate decisions of the Supreme Court? In Persuading the Supreme Court: The Significance of Briefs in Judicial Decision-Making (UP of Kansas, 2022), Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle draw on political science research on the effects of information on policy making, their original dataset of more than 25,000 party and amicus briefs filed between 1984 and 2015, their interviews with former Supreme Court clerks and attorneys, and the text of the related court opinions to argue that the briefs matter – and they matter more when parties hire experienced attorneys known to the justices to craft excellent information-rich briefs. Hazelton and Hinkle interrogate both the causes and the consequences of providing that information to the justices. They demonstrate how that information operates differently in terms of influencing who wins and what policy is announced. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. In the podcast, Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle mention their piece in their Monkey Cage on predicting the outcome in the 2023 Voting Rights Case and their new collaboration with Dr. Michael J. Nelson, The Elevator Effect. Their data set is available to the public and can be found on either of their websites (linked above). Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Each June in the United States, scholars, journalists, law makers, law enforcers, lawyers, and members of the public wait for the announcement of major decisions from the Supreme Court. Justices often read a summary of their decision from the bench dressed in their robes. Paper copies are available in a special office – and more recently on the Supreme Court website. This year, the Supreme Court opinions have shaped policy on affirmative action, public accommodation for LGBTQ+ people, voting rights, student loans, and the power of states to control election procedure. Before these cases are decided, the parties, outside individuals, and interest groups invest an estimated $25 to $50 million dollars a year to produce roughly one thousand amicus briefs. These briefs strategically provide information to the justices to convince them to vote in a particular way. How are these briefs produced? Who pays for their research and writing? What impact do they have on the ultimate decisions of the Supreme Court? In Persuading the Supreme Court: The Significance of Briefs in Judicial Decision-Making (UP of Kansas, 2022), Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle draw on political science research on the effects of information on policy making, their original dataset of more than 25,000 party and amicus briefs filed between 1984 and 2015, their interviews with former Supreme Court clerks and attorneys, and the text of the related court opinions to argue that the briefs matter – and they matter more when parties hire experienced attorneys known to the justices to craft excellent information-rich briefs. Hazelton and Hinkle interrogate both the causes and the consequences of providing that information to the justices. They demonstrate how that information operates differently in terms of influencing who wins and what policy is announced. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. In the podcast, Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle mention their piece in their Monkey Cage on predicting the outcome in the 2023 Voting Rights Case and their new collaboration with Dr. Michael J. Nelson, The Elevator Effect. Their data set is available to the public and can be found on either of their websites (linked above). Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Each June in the United States, scholars, journalists, law makers, law enforcers, lawyers, and members of the public wait for the announcement of major decisions from the Supreme Court. Justices often read a summary of their decision from the bench dressed in their robes. Paper copies are available in a special office – and more recently on the Supreme Court website. This year, the Supreme Court opinions have shaped policy on affirmative action, public accommodation for LGBTQ+ people, voting rights, student loans, and the power of states to control election procedure. Before these cases are decided, the parties, outside individuals, and interest groups invest an estimated $25 to $50 million dollars a year to produce roughly one thousand amicus briefs. These briefs strategically provide information to the justices to convince them to vote in a particular way. How are these briefs produced? Who pays for their research and writing? What impact do they have on the ultimate decisions of the Supreme Court? In Persuading the Supreme Court: The Significance of Briefs in Judicial Decision-Making (UP of Kansas, 2022), Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle draw on political science research on the effects of information on policy making, their original dataset of more than 25,000 party and amicus briefs filed between 1984 and 2015, their interviews with former Supreme Court clerks and attorneys, and the text of the related court opinions to argue that the briefs matter – and they matter more when parties hire experienced attorneys known to the justices to craft excellent information-rich briefs. Hazelton and Hinkle interrogate both the causes and the consequences of providing that information to the justices. They demonstrate how that information operates differently in terms of influencing who wins and what policy is announced. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. In the podcast, Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle mention their piece in their Monkey Cage on predicting the outcome in the 2023 Voting Rights Case and their new collaboration with Dr. Michael J. Nelson, The Elevator Effect. Their data set is available to the public and can be found on either of their websites (linked above). Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively.  But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively.  But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively.  But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively.  But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Postscript invites authors to react to contemporary political events that engage their scholarship. Since the Supreme Court is wrapping up their term, three political scientists and one law professor joined Susan to talk about the power of the Federalist Society in shaping the courts (and how lawyers might strategically use political science research to get more progressive outcomes), how race, ethnicity, and gender issues have affected the construction of the U.S. Supreme Court over time, and a very lively discussion of this term's Supreme Court decisions – and also actions outside the Court like Chief Justice Roberts refusing to appear before Congress. Dr. Christine C. Bird, JD, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Oklahoma State University and the Director of the Bird Law and Public Policy Lab (LAPP). Her research examines elite interests' influence on public policymaking in the judicial system.  Dr. Zachary McGee, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Kenyon College focusing on American political institutions with an emphasis on Congress, political parties, interest groups, and the policy process. Christine and Zach recently co-wrote “Looking Forward: Interest Group Legal Strategy and Federalist Society Affiliation in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal,” for Polity's symposium on the Supreme Court as well as “Going Nuclear: Federalist Society Affiliated Judicial Nominees' Prospects and a New Era of Confirmation Politics” for American Politics Research (2023).  Dr. Paul Collins, PhD is Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. His research focuses on understanding bias and inequality in the legal system, the selection and work of judges, and social movement litigation.  Dr. Lori A. Ringhand is the J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law at the University of Georgia College of Law. Her work on the confirmation process has been cited in major national and international media outlets. Paul and Lori previously published Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change (Cambridge University Press) and they also contributed an article to the Polity Symposium entitled “Constructing the Supreme Court: How Race, Ethnicity, and Gender Have Affected Presidential Selection and Senate Confirmation Hearings.” Their co-authors Christina L. Boyd and Karson A. Pennington were unable to join us. Zac mentions Susan's article in the Polity symposium, The Politics of Law: Capricious Originalism and the Future of the Supreme Court. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Postscript invites authors to react to contemporary political events that engage their scholarship. Since the Supreme Court is wrapping up their term, three political scientists and one law professor joined Susan to talk about the power of the Federalist Society in shaping the courts (and how lawyers might strategically use political science research to get more progressive outcomes), how race, ethnicity, and gender issues have affected the construction of the U.S. Supreme Court over time, and a very lively discussion of this term's Supreme Court decisions – and also actions outside the Court like Chief Justice Roberts refusing to appear before Congress. Dr. Christine C. Bird, JD, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Oklahoma State University and the Director of the Bird Law and Public Policy Lab (LAPP). Her research examines elite interests' influence on public policymaking in the judicial system.  Dr. Zachary McGee, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Kenyon College focusing on American political institutions with an emphasis on Congress, political parties, interest groups, and the policy process. Christine and Zach recently co-wrote “Looking Forward: Interest Group Legal Strategy and Federalist Society Affiliation in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal,” for Polity's symposium on the Supreme Court as well as “Going Nuclear: Federalist Society Affiliated Judicial Nominees' Prospects and a New Era of Confirmation Politics” for American Politics Research (2023).  Dr. Paul Collins, PhD is Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. His research focuses on understanding bias and inequality in the legal system, the selection and work of judges, and social movement litigation.  Dr. Lori A. Ringhand is the J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law at the University of Georgia College of Law. Her work on the confirmation process has been cited in major national and international media outlets. Paul and Lori previously published Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change (Cambridge University Press) and they also contributed an article to the Polity Symposium entitled “Constructing the Supreme Court: How Race, Ethnicity, and Gender Have Affected Presidential Selection and Senate Confirmation Hearings.” Their co-authors Christina L. Boyd and Karson A. Pennington were unable to join us. Zac mentions Susan's article in the Polity symposium, The Politics of Law: Capricious Originalism and the Future of the Supreme Court. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Postscript invites authors to react to contemporary political events that engage their scholarship. Since the Supreme Court is wrapping up their term, three political scientists and one law professor joined Susan to talk about the power of the Federalist Society in shaping the courts (and how lawyers might strategically use political science research to get more progressive outcomes), how race, ethnicity, and gender issues have affected the construction of the U.S. Supreme Court over time, and a very lively discussion of this term's Supreme Court decisions – and also actions outside the Court like Chief Justice Roberts refusing to appear before Congress. Dr. Christine C. Bird, JD, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Oklahoma State University and the Director of the Bird Law and Public Policy Lab (LAPP). Her research examines elite interests' influence on public policymaking in the judicial system.  Dr. Zachary McGee, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Kenyon College focusing on American political institutions with an emphasis on Congress, political parties, interest groups, and the policy process. Christine and Zach recently co-wrote “Looking Forward: Interest Group Legal Strategy and Federalist Society Affiliation in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal,” for Polity's symposium on the Supreme Court as well as “Going Nuclear: Federalist Society Affiliated Judicial Nominees' Prospects and a New Era of Confirmation Politics” for American Politics Research (2023).  Dr. Paul Collins, PhD is Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. His research focuses on understanding bias and inequality in the legal system, the selection and work of judges, and social movement litigation.  Dr. Lori A. Ringhand is the J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law at the University of Georgia College of Law. Her work on the confirmation process has been cited in major national and international media outlets. Paul and Lori previously published Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change (Cambridge University Press) and they also contributed an article to the Polity Symposium entitled “Constructing the Supreme Court: How Race, Ethnicity, and Gender Have Affected Presidential Selection and Senate Confirmation Hearings.” Their co-authors Christina L. Boyd and Karson A. Pennington were unable to join us. Zac mentions Susan's article in the Polity symposium, The Politics of Law: Capricious Originalism and the Future of the Supreme Court. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Postscript invites authors to react to contemporary political events that engage their scholarship. Since the Supreme Court is wrapping up their term, three political scientists and one law professor joined Susan to talk about the power of the Federalist Society in shaping the courts (and how lawyers might strategically use political science research to get more progressive outcomes), how race, ethnicity, and gender issues have affected the construction of the U.S. Supreme Court over time, and a very lively discussion of this term's Supreme Court decisions – and also actions outside the Court like Chief Justice Roberts refusing to appear before Congress. Dr. Christine C. Bird, JD, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Oklahoma State University and the Director of the Bird Law and Public Policy Lab (LAPP). Her research examines elite interests' influence on public policymaking in the judicial system.  Dr. Zachary McGee, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Kenyon College focusing on American political institutions with an emphasis on Congress, political parties, interest groups, and the policy process. Christine and Zach recently co-wrote “Looking Forward: Interest Group Legal Strategy and Federalist Society Affiliation in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal,” for Polity's symposium on the Supreme Court as well as “Going Nuclear: Federalist Society Affiliated Judicial Nominees' Prospects and a New Era of Confirmation Politics” for American Politics Research (2023).  Dr. Paul Collins, PhD is Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. His research focuses on understanding bias and inequality in the legal system, the selection and work of judges, and social movement litigation.  Dr. Lori A. Ringhand is the J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law at the University of Georgia College of Law. Her work on the confirmation process has been cited in major national and international media outlets. Paul and Lori previously published Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change (Cambridge University Press) and they also contributed an article to the Polity Symposium entitled “Constructing the Supreme Court: How Race, Ethnicity, and Gender Have Affected Presidential Selection and Senate Confirmation Hearings.” Their co-authors Christina L. Boyd and Karson A. Pennington were unable to join us. Zac mentions Susan's article in the Polity symposium, The Politics of Law: Capricious Originalism and the Future of the Supreme Court. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Between the 1770s and 1860s, people across the globe relied on physiognomy and phrenology to evaluate human worth. Physiognomy refers to using facial features as an indication of an individual's character, while phrenology is a term for the study of the shape and size of the cranium as a measure of intelligence.  Today, many dismiss these ideas as pseudoscience but Dr. Rachel E. Walker argues these scientific approaches significantly shaped American society as “pervasive social practices and intellectual philosophies that people used to better understand their own brains, bodies, and behaviors.” Beauty and the Brain: The Science of Human Nature in Early America (U Chicago Press, 2022) explores how these areas of study were once embraced by people of different backgrounds and political leanings. On the one hand, they were deployed to preserve social and political hierarchies – science functioned as a tool of oppression. But physiognomy and phrenology were also creatively deployed by activists (e.g., Frederick Douglas, Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Margaret Fuller) to fight for racial justice and gender equality. In her in depth study of a largely ignored part of American history, Dr. Walker demonstrates how physiognomy and phrenology have shaped both science and our political landscape. Dr. Rachel E. Walker is an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Hartford. She teaches courses on race, gender, science, and sexuality. Beauty and the Brain is her first book and was a finalist for the Organization of American Historians' Frederick Jackson Turner Prize. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Between the 1770s and 1860s, people across the globe relied on physiognomy and phrenology to evaluate human worth. Physiognomy refers to using facial features as an indication of an individual's character, while phrenology is a term for the study of the shape and size of the cranium as a measure of intelligence.  Today, many dismiss these ideas as pseudoscience but Dr. Rachel E. Walker argues these scientific approaches significantly shaped American society as “pervasive social practices and intellectual philosophies that people used to better understand their own brains, bodies, and behaviors.” Beauty and the Brain: The Science of Human Nature in Early America (U Chicago Press, 2022) explores how these areas of study were once embraced by people of different backgrounds and political leanings. On the one hand, they were deployed to preserve social and political hierarchies – science functioned as a tool of oppression. But physiognomy and phrenology were also creatively deployed by activists (e.g., Frederick Douglas, Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Margaret Fuller) to fight for racial justice and gender equality. In her in depth study of a largely ignored part of American history, Dr. Walker demonstrates how physiognomy and phrenology have shaped both science and our political landscape. Dr. Rachel E. Walker is an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Hartford. She teaches courses on race, gender, science, and sexuality. Beauty and the Brain is her first book and was a finalist for the Organization of American Historians' Frederick Jackson Turner Prize. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Between the 1770s and 1860s, people across the globe relied on physiognomy and phrenology to evaluate human worth. Physiognomy refers to using facial features as an indication of an individual's character, while phrenology is a term for the study of the shape and size of the cranium as a measure of intelligence.  Today, many dismiss these ideas as pseudoscience but Dr. Rachel E. Walker argues these scientific approaches significantly shaped American society as “pervasive social practices and intellectual philosophies that people used to better understand their own brains, bodies, and behaviors.” Beauty and the Brain: The Science of Human Nature in Early America (U Chicago Press, 2022) explores how these areas of study were once embraced by people of different backgrounds and political leanings. On the one hand, they were deployed to preserve social and political hierarchies – science functioned as a tool of oppression. But physiognomy and phrenology were also creatively deployed by activists (e.g., Frederick Douglas, Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Margaret Fuller) to fight for racial justice and gender equality. In her in depth study of a largely ignored part of American history, Dr. Walker demonstrates how physiognomy and phrenology have shaped both science and our political landscape. Dr. Rachel E. Walker is an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Hartford. She teaches courses on race, gender, science, and sexuality. Beauty and the Brain is her first book and was a finalist for the Organization of American Historians' Frederick Jackson Turner Prize. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Between the 1770s and 1860s, people across the globe relied on physiognomy and phrenology to evaluate human worth. Physiognomy refers to using facial features as an indication of an individual's character, while phrenology is a term for the study of the shape and size of the cranium as a measure of intelligence.  Today, many dismiss these ideas as pseudoscience but Dr. Rachel E. Walker argues these scientific approaches significantly shaped American society as “pervasive social practices and intellectual philosophies that people used to better understand their own brains, bodies, and behaviors.” Beauty and the Brain: The Science of Human Nature in Early America (U Chicago Press, 2022) explores how these areas of study were once embraced by people of different backgrounds and political leanings. On the one hand, they were deployed to preserve social and political hierarchies – science functioned as a tool of oppression. But physiognomy and phrenology were also creatively deployed by activists (e.g., Frederick Douglas, Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Margaret Fuller) to fight for racial justice and gender equality. In her in depth study of a largely ignored part of American history, Dr. Walker demonstrates how physiognomy and phrenology have shaped both science and our political landscape. Dr. Rachel E. Walker is an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Hartford. She teaches courses on race, gender, science, and sexuality. Beauty and the Brain is her first book and was a finalist for the Organization of American Historians' Frederick Jackson Turner Prize. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Between the 1770s and 1860s, people across the globe relied on physiognomy and phrenology to evaluate human worth. Physiognomy refers to using facial features as an indication of an individual's character, while phrenology is a term for the study of the shape and size of the cranium as a measure of intelligence.  Today, many dismiss these ideas as pseudoscience but Dr. Rachel E. Walker argues these scientific approaches significantly shaped American society as “pervasive social practices and intellectual philosophies that people used to better understand their own brains, bodies, and behaviors.” Beauty and the Brain: The Science of Human Nature in Early America (U Chicago Press, 2022) explores how these areas of study were once embraced by people of different backgrounds and political leanings. On the one hand, they were deployed to preserve social and political hierarchies – science functioned as a tool of oppression. But physiognomy and phrenology were also creatively deployed by activists (e.g., Frederick Douglas, Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Margaret Fuller) to fight for racial justice and gender equality. In her in depth study of a largely ignored part of American history, Dr. Walker demonstrates how physiognomy and phrenology have shaped both science and our political landscape. Dr. Rachel E. Walker is an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Hartford. She teaches courses on race, gender, science, and sexuality. Beauty and the Brain is her first book and was a finalist for the Organization of American Historians' Frederick Jackson Turner Prize. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Between the 1770s and 1860s, people across the globe relied on physiognomy and phrenology to evaluate human worth. Physiognomy refers to using facial features as an indication of an individual's character, while phrenology is a term for the study of the shape and size of the cranium as a measure of intelligence.  Today, many dismiss these ideas as pseudoscience but Dr. Rachel E. Walker argues these scientific approaches significantly shaped American society as “pervasive social practices and intellectual philosophies that people used to better understand their own brains, bodies, and behaviors.” Beauty and the Brain: The Science of Human Nature in Early America (U Chicago Press, 2022) explores how these areas of study were once embraced by people of different backgrounds and political leanings. On the one hand, they were deployed to preserve social and political hierarchies – science functioned as a tool of oppression. But physiognomy and phrenology were also creatively deployed by activists (e.g., Frederick Douglas, Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Margaret Fuller) to fight for racial justice and gender equality. In her in depth study of a largely ignored part of American history, Dr. Walker demonstrates how physiognomy and phrenology have shaped both science and our political landscape. Dr. Rachel E. Walker is an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Hartford. She teaches courses on race, gender, science, and sexuality. Beauty and the Brain is her first book and was a finalist for the Organization of American Historians' Frederick Jackson Turner Prize. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Massive Resistance and Southern Womanhood: White Women, Class, and Segregation (U Georgia Press, 2021) offers a comparative sociocultural and spatial history of white supremacist women involved in massive resistance. The book focuses on segregationist grassroots activism in Little Rock, Arkansas, New Orleans, Louisiana, and Charleston, South Carolina from the late 1940s to the late 1960s. Dr. Rebecca Brückmann combines theory and detailed case studies to interrogate the “roles, actions, self-understandings, and media representations” of these segregationist women. Dr. Brückmann argues that these women – motivated by an everyday culture of white supremacy – created performative spaces for their segregationist agitation in the public sphere to legitimize their actions. Unlike other studies of mass resistance that have focused on maternalism, Dr. Brückmann argues that women's invocation of motherhood was varied and primarily served as a tactical tool to continuously expand these women's spaces. Her book carefully differentiates the circumstances, tactics, and representations used in the creation of performative spaces by working-class, middle-class, and elite women engaged in massive resistance. Brückmann contrasts the transgressive “street politics” of working-class female activists in Little Rock and New Orleans with the more traditional political actions of segregationist, middle-class, and elite women in Charleston. While these women aligned white supremacist agitation with long-standing experience in conservative women's clubs (e.g., United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Daughters of the American Revolution), working-class women's groups (who lacked the economic, cultural, and social capital) chose consciously transgressive strategies, including violence, to elicit shock value and create states of emergency to further legitimize their actions and push for white supremacy. Dr. Brückmann's nuanced work of history uses scholarship from sociology, political science, law, and other relevant disciplines to demonstrate how “interactions between class and status concerns, race, space, and gender shaped these women's views and actions.” Dr. Rebecca Brückmann is an Associate Professor of History at Carleton College. Her research and teachings interrogate African American history, the transnational history of the Black Diaspora, Southern US history, White Supremacy, and gender. Daniela Lavergne assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Massive Resistance and Southern Womanhood: White Women, Class, and Segregation (U Georgia Press, 2021) offers a comparative sociocultural and spatial history of white supremacist women involved in massive resistance. The book focuses on segregationist grassroots activism in Little Rock, Arkansas, New Orleans, Louisiana, and Charleston, South Carolina from the late 1940s to the late 1960s. Dr. Rebecca Brückmann combines theory and detailed case studies to interrogate the “roles, actions, self-understandings, and media representations” of these segregationist women. Dr. Brückmann argues that these women – motivated by an everyday culture of white supremacy – created performative spaces for their segregationist agitation in the public sphere to legitimize their actions. Unlike other studies of mass resistance that have focused on maternalism, Dr. Brückmann argues that women's invocation of motherhood was varied and primarily served as a tactical tool to continuously expand these women's spaces. Her book carefully differentiates the circumstances, tactics, and representations used in the creation of performative spaces by working-class, middle-class, and elite women engaged in massive resistance. Brückmann contrasts the transgressive “street politics” of working-class female activists in Little Rock and New Orleans with the more traditional political actions of segregationist, middle-class, and elite women in Charleston. While these women aligned white supremacist agitation with long-standing experience in conservative women's clubs (e.g., United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Daughters of the American Revolution), working-class women's groups (who lacked the economic, cultural, and social capital) chose consciously transgressive strategies, including violence, to elicit shock value and create states of emergency to further legitimize their actions and push for white supremacy. Dr. Brückmann's nuanced work of history uses scholarship from sociology, political science, law, and other relevant disciplines to demonstrate how “interactions between class and status concerns, race, space, and gender shaped these women's views and actions.” Dr. Rebecca Brückmann is an Associate Professor of History at Carleton College. Her research and teachings interrogate African American history, the transnational history of the Black Diaspora, Southern US history, White Supremacy, and gender. Daniela Lavergne assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Massive Resistance and Southern Womanhood: White Women, Class, and Segregation (U Georgia Press, 2021) offers a comparative sociocultural and spatial history of white supremacist women involved in massive resistance. The book focuses on segregationist grassroots activism in Little Rock, Arkansas, New Orleans, Louisiana, and Charleston, South Carolina from the late 1940s to the late 1960s. Dr. Rebecca Brückmann combines theory and detailed case studies to interrogate the “roles, actions, self-understandings, and media representations” of these segregationist women. Dr. Brückmann argues that these women – motivated by an everyday culture of white supremacy – created performative spaces for their segregationist agitation in the public sphere to legitimize their actions. Unlike other studies of mass resistance that have focused on maternalism, Dr. Brückmann argues that women's invocation of motherhood was varied and primarily served as a tactical tool to continuously expand these women's spaces. Her book carefully differentiates the circumstances, tactics, and representations used in the creation of performative spaces by working-class, middle-class, and elite women engaged in massive resistance. Brückmann contrasts the transgressive “street politics” of working-class female activists in Little Rock and New Orleans with the more traditional political actions of segregationist, middle-class, and elite women in Charleston. While these women aligned white supremacist agitation with long-standing experience in conservative women's clubs (e.g., United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Daughters of the American Revolution), working-class women's groups (who lacked the economic, cultural, and social capital) chose consciously transgressive strategies, including violence, to elicit shock value and create states of emergency to further legitimize their actions and push for white supremacy. Dr. Brückmann's nuanced work of history uses scholarship from sociology, political science, law, and other relevant disciplines to demonstrate how “interactions between class and status concerns, race, space, and gender shaped these women's views and actions.” Dr. Rebecca Brückmann is an Associate Professor of History at Carleton College. Her research and teachings interrogate African American history, the transnational history of the Black Diaspora, Southern US history, White Supremacy, and gender. Daniela Lavergne assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

Massive Resistance and Southern Womanhood: White Women, Class, and Segregation (U Georgia Press, 2021) offers a comparative sociocultural and spatial history of white supremacist women involved in massive resistance. The book focuses on segregationist grassroots activism in Little Rock, Arkansas, New Orleans, Louisiana, and Charleston, South Carolina from the late 1940s to the late 1960s. Dr. Rebecca Brückmann combines theory and detailed case studies to interrogate the “roles, actions, self-understandings, and media representations” of these segregationist women. Dr. Brückmann argues that these women – motivated by an everyday culture of white supremacy – created performative spaces for their segregationist agitation in the public sphere to legitimize their actions. Unlike other studies of mass resistance that have focused on maternalism, Dr. Brückmann argues that women's invocation of motherhood was varied and primarily served as a tactical tool to continuously expand these women's spaces. Her book carefully differentiates the circumstances, tactics, and representations used in the creation of performative spaces by working-class, middle-class, and elite women engaged in massive resistance. Brückmann contrasts the transgressive “street politics” of working-class female activists in Little Rock and New Orleans with the more traditional political actions of segregationist, middle-class, and elite women in Charleston. While these women aligned white supremacist agitation with long-standing experience in conservative women's clubs (e.g., United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Daughters of the American Revolution), working-class women's groups (who lacked the economic, cultural, and social capital) chose consciously transgressive strategies, including violence, to elicit shock value and create states of emergency to further legitimize their actions and push for white supremacy. Dr. Brückmann's nuanced work of history uses scholarship from sociology, political science, law, and other relevant disciplines to demonstrate how “interactions between class and status concerns, race, space, and gender shaped these women's views and actions.” Dr. Rebecca Brückmann is an Associate Professor of History at Carleton College. Her research and teachings interrogate African American history, the transnational history of the Black Diaspora, Southern US history, White Supremacy, and gender. Daniela Lavergne assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Massive Resistance and Southern Womanhood: White Women, Class, and Segregation (U Georgia Press, 2021) offers a comparative sociocultural and spatial history of white supremacist women involved in massive resistance. The book focuses on segregationist grassroots activism in Little Rock, Arkansas, New Orleans, Louisiana, and Charleston, South Carolina from the late 1940s to the late 1960s. Dr. Rebecca Brückmann combines theory and detailed case studies to interrogate the “roles, actions, self-understandings, and media representations” of these segregationist women. Dr. Brückmann argues that these women – motivated by an everyday culture of white supremacy – created performative spaces for their segregationist agitation in the public sphere to legitimize their actions. Unlike other studies of mass resistance that have focused on maternalism, Dr. Brückmann argues that women's invocation of motherhood was varied and primarily served as a tactical tool to continuously expand these women's spaces. Her book carefully differentiates the circumstances, tactics, and representations used in the creation of performative spaces by working-class, middle-class, and elite women engaged in massive resistance. Brückmann contrasts the transgressive “street politics” of working-class female activists in Little Rock and New Orleans with the more traditional political actions of segregationist, middle-class, and elite women in Charleston. While these women aligned white supremacist agitation with long-standing experience in conservative women's clubs (e.g., United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Daughters of the American Revolution), working-class women's groups (who lacked the economic, cultural, and social capital) chose consciously transgressive strategies, including violence, to elicit shock value and create states of emergency to further legitimize their actions and push for white supremacy. Dr. Brückmann's nuanced work of history uses scholarship from sociology, political science, law, and other relevant disciplines to demonstrate how “interactions between class and status concerns, race, space, and gender shaped these women's views and actions.” Dr. Rebecca Brückmann is an Associate Professor of History at Carleton College. Her research and teachings interrogate African American history, the transnational history of the Black Diaspora, Southern US history, White Supremacy, and gender. Daniela Lavergne assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

How do we explain the rise of populism, extremism, and conspiracy theory in the Americas and Europe? Why do members of a society come to feel this strong sense of discontent with their political system – so deep and broad that they believe the system to be irreparably broken? Scholars have explained these phenomena using two main models. The first focuses on economics and imagines the source of discontent is long-term economic change that creates winners and losers. An alternative model posits that cultural factors such as hostility to ethnic, racial, and gender minorities is more significant than economic attitudes. In The Age of Discontent, Drs. Rhodes-Purdy, Navarre, and Utych build on these models by combining the insights of political science with a tool from political psychology: affective intelligence theory. If emotions shape cognition and behavior, economic and cultural backlash might be better understood as sequential. The book argues that economic discontent is often the root cause but this begins a chain. Economic discontent leads to negative emotions that trigger cultural attitudes such as out-group hostility or in-group solidarity. The book presents a compelling theoretical framework the authors call “affective political economy.” Economic troubles can prime citizens to embrace culturally discontented narratives, leading to various forms of discontent based on local conditions. The Age of Discontent: Populism, Extremism, and Conspiracy Theories in Contemporary Democracies (Cambridge UP, 2023) uses qualitative and quantitative methods to examine American sentiments of discontent expressed primarily during the Trump administration, Euroscepticism, and Brexit in the UK, and Spain to examine the interactions of economic and cultural issues across the globe. By examining case studies of democratic discontent in different regions and contrasting them with case studies in which discontent was avoided, the book demonstrates how economic crises trigger cultural responses, intensifying discontent with the political status quo. Two books mentioned during the podcast are David Goodhart, The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics (Oxford UP, 2017) and Elizabeth Anderson, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and why we Don't Talk about It)(Princeton UP, 2017) previously covered by the New Books Network. Dr. Matthew Rhodes-Purdy is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Clemson University. He is the author of Regime Support Beyond the Balance Sheet (2017). Dr. Rachel Navarre is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bridgewater State University. She co-authored Immigration in the 21st Century: The Comparative Politics of Immigration Policy (2020) with Dr. Terri Givens and Pete Mohanty – and Lilly Goren interviewed them previously on New Books in Political Science. Dr. Stephen Utych is a market researcher with an area focus on political psychology, political behavior, and experimental methods. Dr. Uthych has published over thirty peer-reviewed articles.  Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

How do we explain the rise of populism, extremism, and conspiracy theory in the Americas and Europe? Why do members of a society come to feel this strong sense of discontent with their political system – so deep and broad that they believe the system to be irreparably broken? Scholars have explained these phenomena using two main models. The first focuses on economics and imagines the source of discontent is long-term economic change that creates winners and losers. An alternative model posits that cultural factors such as hostility to ethnic, racial, and gender minorities is more significant than economic attitudes. In The Age of Discontent, Drs. Rhodes-Purdy, Navarre, and Utych build on these models by combining the insights of political science with a tool from political psychology: affective intelligence theory. If emotions shape cognition and behavior, economic and cultural backlash might be better understood as sequential. The book argues that economic discontent is often the root cause but this begins a chain. Economic discontent leads to negative emotions that trigger cultural attitudes such as out-group hostility or in-group solidarity. The book presents a compelling theoretical framework the authors call “affective political economy.” Economic troubles can prime citizens to embrace culturally discontented narratives, leading to various forms of discontent based on local conditions. The Age of Discontent: Populism, Extremism, and Conspiracy Theories in Contemporary Democracies (Cambridge UP, 2023) uses qualitative and quantitative methods to examine American sentiments of discontent expressed primarily during the Trump administration, Euroscepticism, and Brexit in the UK, and Spain to examine the interactions of economic and cultural issues across the globe. By examining case studies of democratic discontent in different regions and contrasting them with case studies in which discontent was avoided, the book demonstrates how economic crises trigger cultural responses, intensifying discontent with the political status quo. Two books mentioned during the podcast are David Goodhart, The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics (Oxford UP, 2017) and Elizabeth Anderson, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and why we Don't Talk about It)(Princeton UP, 2017) previously covered by the New Books Network. Dr. Matthew Rhodes-Purdy is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Clemson University. He is the author of Regime Support Beyond the Balance Sheet (2017). Dr. Rachel Navarre is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bridgewater State University. She co-authored Immigration in the 21st Century: The Comparative Politics of Immigration Policy (2020) with Dr. Terri Givens and Pete Mohanty – and Lilly Goren interviewed them previously on New Books in Political Science. Dr. Stephen Utych is a market researcher with an area focus on political psychology, political behavior, and experimental methods. Dr. Uthych has published over thirty peer-reviewed articles.  Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In 1995, the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing launched the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda. Successive UN Security Council resolutions highlighted the need to include more women in peace processes, the perpetration of gender-based violence during war, the underrepresentation of women as peacekeepers, and the need for greater diversity at all levels of governance to respond to international security challenges. These norms seemed clear, feminist, and ambitious.  Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky's new book, Deploying Feminism: The Role of Gender in NATO Military Operation (Oxford UP, 2022), argues that these WPS norms were distorted during the implementation process. NATO, a predominantly male organizations experimented with gender mainstreaming but instead of serving general equality goals, the Women, Peace, and Security norms served operational effectiveness. Women on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq were seen as a military asset – because they were able to interact with local women and children or more effectively get information from male inhabitants. The ambitious Women, Peace, and Security global norms ultimately left military culture untouched. Deploying Feminism provides a detailed account of the changes made within the NATO military due to WPS norms. Using comparative case studies, interviews, and feminist I.R. scholarship, Dr. von Hlatky examines why norm distortion occurs and how the military carries it out. She recommends ways that the military might implement gender norms without distortion. distorting it. Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky is an Associate professor of political studies and Canada Research Chair on Gender, Security, and the Armed Forces at Queen's University. She is also fellow at the Centre for International and Defence Policy (CIDP). She is the author of American Allies in Times of War: The Great Asymmetry (Oxford University Press, 2013) and co-editor of Going to War?: Trends in Military Interventions (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2016). Daniella Campos served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

In 1995, the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing launched the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda. Successive UN Security Council resolutions highlighted the need to include more women in peace processes, the perpetration of gender-based violence during war, the underrepresentation of women as peacekeepers, and the need for greater diversity at all levels of governance to respond to international security challenges. These norms seemed clear, feminist, and ambitious.  Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky's new book, Deploying Feminism: The Role of Gender in NATO Military Operation (Oxford UP, 2022), argues that these WPS norms were distorted during the implementation process. NATO, a predominantly male organizations experimented with gender mainstreaming but instead of serving general equality goals, the Women, Peace, and Security norms served operational effectiveness. Women on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq were seen as a military asset – because they were able to interact with local women and children or more effectively get information from male inhabitants. The ambitious Women, Peace, and Security global norms ultimately left military culture untouched. Deploying Feminism provides a detailed account of the changes made within the NATO military due to WPS norms. Using comparative case studies, interviews, and feminist I.R. scholarship, Dr. von Hlatky examines why norm distortion occurs and how the military carries it out. She recommends ways that the military might implement gender norms without distortion. distorting it. Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky is an Associate professor of political studies and Canada Research Chair on Gender, Security, and the Armed Forces at Queen's University. She is also fellow at the Centre for International and Defence Policy (CIDP). She is the author of American Allies in Times of War: The Great Asymmetry (Oxford University Press, 2013) and co-editor of Going to War?: Trends in Military Interventions (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2016). Daniella Campos served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In 1995, the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing launched the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda. Successive UN Security Council resolutions highlighted the need to include more women in peace processes, the perpetration of gender-based violence during war, the underrepresentation of women as peacekeepers, and the need for greater diversity at all levels of governance to respond to international security challenges. These norms seemed clear, feminist, and ambitious.  Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky's new book, Deploying Feminism: The Role of Gender in NATO Military Operation (Oxford UP, 2022), argues that these WPS norms were distorted during the implementation process. NATO, a predominantly male organizations experimented with gender mainstreaming but instead of serving general equality goals, the Women, Peace, and Security norms served operational effectiveness. Women on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq were seen as a military asset – because they were able to interact with local women and children or more effectively get information from male inhabitants. The ambitious Women, Peace, and Security global norms ultimately left military culture untouched. Deploying Feminism provides a detailed account of the changes made within the NATO military due to WPS norms. Using comparative case studies, interviews, and feminist I.R. scholarship, Dr. von Hlatky examines why norm distortion occurs and how the military carries it out. She recommends ways that the military might implement gender norms without distortion. distorting it. Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky is an Associate professor of political studies and Canada Research Chair on Gender, Security, and the Armed Forces at Queen's University. She is also fellow at the Centre for International and Defence Policy (CIDP). She is the author of American Allies in Times of War: The Great Asymmetry (Oxford University Press, 2013) and co-editor of Going to War?: Trends in Military Interventions (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2016). Daniella Campos served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

In 1995, the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing launched the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda. Successive UN Security Council resolutions highlighted the need to include more women in peace processes, the perpetration of gender-based violence during war, the underrepresentation of women as peacekeepers, and the need for greater diversity at all levels of governance to respond to international security challenges. These norms seemed clear, feminist, and ambitious.  Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky's new book, Deploying Feminism: The Role of Gender in NATO Military Operation (Oxford UP, 2022), argues that these WPS norms were distorted during the implementation process. NATO, a predominantly male organizations experimented with gender mainstreaming but instead of serving general equality goals, the Women, Peace, and Security norms served operational effectiveness. Women on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq were seen as a military asset – because they were able to interact with local women and children or more effectively get information from male inhabitants. The ambitious Women, Peace, and Security global norms ultimately left military culture untouched. Deploying Feminism provides a detailed account of the changes made within the NATO military due to WPS norms. Using comparative case studies, interviews, and feminist I.R. scholarship, Dr. von Hlatky examines why norm distortion occurs and how the military carries it out. She recommends ways that the military might implement gender norms without distortion. distorting it. Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky is an Associate professor of political studies and Canada Research Chair on Gender, Security, and the Armed Forces at Queen's University. She is also fellow at the Centre for International and Defence Policy (CIDP). She is the author of American Allies in Times of War: The Great Asymmetry (Oxford University Press, 2013) and co-editor of Going to War?: Trends in Military Interventions (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2016). Daniella Campos served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

“Three generations of imbeciles are enough” were the infamous words U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote in 1927. In Buck v. Bell, an almost unanimous Court upheld a Virginia law allowing the sterilization of people the state found to be “socially inadequate” and “feebleminded.” This landmark decision allowed the eugenics movement to take full effect, with multiple states passing similar laws.  In Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell (Johns Hopkins UP, 2022), Dr. Paul Lombardo unpacks the case of an individual – Carrie Buck – to argue that the case not only represents the collective power of the eugenics movement in the early 20th century but an individual miscarriage of justice. Using extensive archival sources, Dr. Lombardo demonstrates that Carrie Buck was neither a “moral degenerate” or “feeble-minded.” She was a rape victim of sound mind. Her sterilization was based on fraudulent evidence. The powerful eugenics lobby manufactured a case – and a sympathetic court gave them a precedent that justified Carrie Buck's sterilization – and over 60,000 sterilizations in the following decades. Three Generations, No Imbeciles frames the history of sterilization as essential to understanding contemporary legal fights over birth control and abortion. Does the constitution's promise of “liberty” include the right to become pregnant or end a pregnancy? Dr. Lombardo's epilogue and afterward outlines the connections between Buck and modern cases involving abortion, disability rights, and reparations for those sterilized. Originally published in 2008, the book has been updated in 2022 with a terrific epilogue and afterward with an eye towards contemporary events in reproductive politics. Dr. Paul A. Lombardo is Regents' Professor and Bobby Lee Cook Professor of Law at the Center for Law, Health & Society at Georgia State University. He has published extensively on topics in health law, medico-legal history, and bioethics and is best known for his work on the legal history of the American eugenics movement. His website houses the images and all documents discussed in the podcast including the petition for rehearing created by the National Council of Catholic Men. Daniela Campos served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

“Three generations of imbeciles are enough” were the infamous words U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote in 1927. In Buck v. Bell, an almost unanimous Court upheld a Virginia law allowing the sterilization of people the state found to be “socially inadequate” and “feebleminded.” This landmark decision allowed the eugenics movement to take full effect, with multiple states passing similar laws.  In Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell (Johns Hopkins UP, 2022), Dr. Paul Lombardo unpacks the case of an individual – Carrie Buck – to argue that the case not only represents the collective power of the eugenics movement in the early 20th century but an individual miscarriage of justice. Using extensive archival sources, Dr. Lombardo demonstrates that Carrie Buck was neither a “moral degenerate” or “feeble-minded.” She was a rape victim of sound mind. Her sterilization was based on fraudulent evidence. The powerful eugenics lobby manufactured a case – and a sympathetic court gave them a precedent that justified Carrie Buck's sterilization – and over 60,000 sterilizations in the following decades. Three Generations, No Imbeciles frames the history of sterilization as essential to understanding contemporary legal fights over birth control and abortion. Does the constitution's promise of “liberty” include the right to become pregnant or end a pregnancy? Dr. Lombardo's epilogue and afterward outlines the connections between Buck and modern cases involving abortion, disability rights, and reparations for those sterilized. Originally published in 2008, the book has been updated in 2022 with a terrific epilogue and afterward with an eye towards contemporary events in reproductive politics. Dr. Paul A. Lombardo is Regents' Professor and Bobby Lee Cook Professor of Law at the Center for Law, Health & Society at Georgia State University. He has published extensively on topics in health law, medico-legal history, and bioethics and is best known for his work on the legal history of the American eugenics movement. His website houses the images and all documents discussed in the podcast including the petition for rehearing created by the National Council of Catholic Men. Daniela Campos served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Today's Postscript focuses on abortion politics in the United States, with particular attention to the April 7, 2023 federal court decisions in Texas and Washington controlling access to mifepristone and the wider political forces at play. We have a slightly different format for today's emergency podcast – spanning four time zones. First, legal historian Mary Ziegler, Martin Luther King Professor of Law at UC Davis, shares insights on the two cases – and why the Texas opinion is such a radical departure with regards to standing and legal language. Then Political Scientist Rebecca Kreitzer, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, provides a deep dive on the role of the Comstock Act of 1873 and why this 19th century law helps us understand 21st century reproductive politics. The podcast concludes with two scholars of politics and law Dr. Renée Ann Cramer, Professor of Law, Politics, and Society at Drake University and Dr. Joshua C. Wilson, Professor of Political Science at the University of Denver). They pull back the curtain on the cases to expose the ways in which those who oppose abortion have created parallel organizations to provide the false expertise relied upon in the Texas decision. We also talk about the wider implications of banning approved medications for trans people. Links mentioned in the podcast: Mary Ziegler, The Texas Abortion-Pill Ruling Signals Pro-Lifers' Next Push New York Times graphic of the 100+ scholarly articles proving mifepristone safe The opposing court opinions from the Texas and Washington courts December 2022 Department of Justice Memo on Comstock, abortion, mifepristone, and misoprostol Rep. Pat Schroeder's 1996 speech calling for the part of Comstock regarding abortion to be overturned. Rebecca J. Kreitzer and Candis Watts Smith, Washington Post, on Alito's draft and research on women's political power. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The Nature of Slavery: Environment and Plantation Labor in the Anglo-Atlantic World (Oxford UP, 2022) interrogates how people with an interest in African slavery manufactured and publicly disseminated a baseless rhetoric about climate, race, and labor that they knew, privately, to contradict their lived experiences. In the late eighteenth century, plantation owners and slaveholders in the Caribbean and the American South publicly argued that physiological and biological differences made African people more capable of withstanding the heat and labor required to work on plantations. This climatic defense of slavery allowed planters to deny their own culpability in enslaving human beings while also framing the issue of racial slavery. The Nature of Slavery challenges this framing of labor, environment, and the development of racial ideologies. Using extensive personal and professional correspondence and colonial records, Dr. Katherine Johnston demonstrates that privately planters did not observe any health differences between Black and white bodies. White slaveholders publicly defended racial slavery constructed on a climatic rhetoric and biological theory of race they knew to be false. The ideology linking race and climate supported the economic motives of these enslavers and this defense of racial slavery in the late 18th century became a retroactive explanation for its establishment in the colonies. This climatic dichotomy to justify slavery and their economic livelihood contributed to historical myths about enslaved bodies and a groundless theory of race which was used to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Nature of Slavery powerfully argues that a “rhetoric of bodily difference gained strength and power as slaveholders and others imbued it with a language of nature.” Dr. Katherine Johnston is an Assistant Professor in the Department of History & Philosophy at Montana State University. Her work focuses on slavery, race, the body, and the environment in Atlantic plantation societies. Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies