POPULARITY
9 episodes with frank easterbrook
2 episodes with frank easterbrook
3 episodes with frank easterbrook
3 episodes with frank easterbrook
On September 9-10, 1988, The Federalist Society hosted its second annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on "The Constitution and Federal Criminal Law." The final panel of the convention explored "Equality vs. Discretion in Sentencing."The U.S. Sentencing Commission recently issued proposed guidelines for federal judges, aimed at producing more uniform criminal sentences in similar situations by the various federal courts. Will this approach lead to greater fairness and consistency for both society and those being sentenced, or will it lessen the capacity ofjudges to fine-tune the sentence to the unique facts of each individual case?Featuring:Hon. Stephen Breyer, U.S. Court of Appeals, First CircuitHon. Ilene Nagel, U.S. Sentencing CommissionTerence MacCarthy, American Bar Association, Criminal Justice SectionModerator: Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On September 9-10, 1988, The Federalist Society hosted its second annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on "The Constitution and Federal Criminal Law." The final panel of the convention explored "Equality vs. Discretion in Sentencing."The U.S. Sentencing Commission recently issued proposed guidelines for federal judges, aimed at producing more uniform criminal sentences in similar situations by the various federal courts. Will this approach lead to greater fairness and consistency for both society and those being sentenced, or will it lessen the capacity ofjudges to fine-tune the sentence to the unique facts of each individual case?Featuring:Hon. Stephen Breyer, U.S. Court of Appeals, First CircuitHon. Ilene Nagel, U.S. Sentencing CommissionTerence MacCarthy, American Bar Association, Criminal Justice SectionModerator: Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 4-5, 1988, The Federalist Society's University of Virginia student chapter hosted the National Student Symposium in Charlottesville, Virginia. The topic of the conference was "Are There Unenumerated Constitutional Rights? The final panel of the conference discussed "The Role and Relevance of the Amendment Process".Featuring:Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale University Law SchoolStephen Markman, U.S. Department of JusticeModerator: Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On March 4-5, 1988, The Federalist Society's University of Virginia student chapter hosted the National Student Symposium in Charlottesville, Virginia. The topic of the conference was "Are There Unenumerated Constitutional Rights? The final panel of the conference discussed "The Role and Relevance of the Amendment Process".Featuring:Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale University Law SchoolStephen Markman, U.S. Department of JusticeModerator: Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
A police officer’s suit against a Black Lives Matter protest leader, a qualified immunity cert petition, and Frank Easterbrook rips the DOJ. Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Use Android (RSS)? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:84493247/sounds.rss Newsletter: http://ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org Black Lives Matter (April 2019): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4613290/john-doe-v-deray-mckesson/ Black Lives Matter (August 2019): http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30864-CV0.pdf Black Lives Matter cert petition: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/mckesson_v_doe_cert_petn_and_appendix.pdf Black Lives Matter (December 2019): http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30864-CV1.pdf Kelsay v. Ernst panel decision: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/172181P.pdf Kelsay v. Ernst en banc decision: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/19/08/172181P.pdf Kelsay v. Ernst cert petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-682/123715/20191126132451862_19-__%20PetitionForAWritOfCertiorari.pdf Easterbrook is not pleased: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2020/D01-23/C:19-1642:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:2462983:S:0
Antitrust enforcers in the post-Microsoft era, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, have been under more or less continuous criticism as insufficiently active. Proponents of this view have offered a number of routes to more vigorous and creative enforcement, ranging from re-writing the core statutes to address high tech industries and following the lead of the European Commission to adopting a “Brandeisian” approach, which focuses on a variety of concerns beyond consumer welfare, including employment, privacy, and environmental sustainability.As an alternative to these “tear it all down” approaches, could greater transparency be a more effective response? Concerns regarding the level and type of enforcement activity are arguably rooted in widespread misunderstanding of the process, particularly with respect to merger review. Has the time come to update the DOJ/FTC guidelines on horizontal mergers, the licensing of intellectual property, the operation of information exchanges, and other issues? Are agency processes and decisional factors sufficiently well understood? Has the Supreme Court’s antitrust docket hampered or improved transparency? Such questions are particularly timely in light of the FTC’s ongoing hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century.Hon. Frank Easterbrook, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit Ms. Deb Garza, Partner, Covington & burlingMr. Eric Grannon, Partner, White & Case Prof. Douglas Melamed, Professor of Law, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Antitrust enforcers in the post-Microsoft era, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, have been under more or less continuous criticism as insufficiently active. Proponents of this view have offered a number of routes to more vigorous and creative enforcement, ranging from re-writing the core statutes to address high tech industries and following the lead of the European Commission to adopting a “Brandeisian” approach, which focuses on a variety of concerns beyond consumer welfare, including employment, privacy, and environmental sustainability.As an alternative to these “tear it all down” approaches, could greater transparency be a more effective response? Concerns regarding the level and type of enforcement activity are arguably rooted in widespread misunderstanding of the process, particularly with respect to merger review. Has the time come to update the DOJ/FTC guidelines on horizontal mergers, the licensing of intellectual property, the operation of information exchanges, and other issues? Are agency processes and decisional factors sufficiently well understood? Has the Supreme Court’s antitrust docket hampered or improved transparency? Such questions are particularly timely in light of the FTC’s ongoing hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century.Hon. Frank Easterbrook, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit Ms. Deb Garza, Partner, Covington & burlingMr. Eric Grannon, Partner, White & Case Prof. Douglas Melamed, Professor of Law, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
On January 30-31, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its first-ever national lawyers convention at the Mayflower Hotel. The conference featured a panel on the timeless topic, "Methods of Statutory Construction."Featuring: -Hon. Antonin Scalia, United States Supreme Court-Prof. Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School-Hon. Frank Easterbrook, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit-Hon. Laurence Silberman, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit-Moderator: Senator Orrin Hatch, Utah*****As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On January 30-31, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its first-ever national lawyers convention at the Mayflower Hotel. The conference featured a panel on the timeless topic, "Methods of Statutory Construction."Featuring: -Hon. Antonin Scalia, United States Supreme Court-Prof. Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School-Hon. Frank Easterbrook, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit-Hon. Laurence Silberman, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit-Moderator: Senator Orrin Hatch, Utah*****As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Justice Scalia believed that the rule of law required a law of rules rather than of balancing tests. He favored rules (like the requirement the President be at least 35 years old) over standards (a requirement that the president be “a mature individual") because they lend themselves more to principled judicial enforcement. As a result, Justice Scalia revolutionized the caselaw he inherited from the Burger Court by eliminating as many balancing tests as possible and replacing them with rules. An example is his favoring of a rule of viewpoint neutrality in freedom of expression cases over separate treatment of various categories of speech. He believed that rules over standards promote the rule of law because they guarantee that judges will decide like cases alike rather than deciding each case on its facts using a totality of the circumstances test. Justice Scalia was so committed to rules over standards that he refused to enforce the non-delegation doctrine because to do so he would have had to employ a balancing test standard, however, in his last year on the bench, there were signs that Justice Scalia was moving away from this position. Justice Scalia also favored rules over standards because they limit lower federal and state court discretion in applying Supreme Court precedents as compared to balancing tests. The reemergence of rules over standards in Supreme Court opinions is another of Justice Scalia's legacies. -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University; Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; and Prof. Victoria Nourse, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Hon. William Francis Kuntz II, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.
Robots. What are they? Just a new sort of tool, qualitatively different kinds of tools that do things we neither expect nor intend, new kinds of beings? With the incipient explosion of complex robots, we may need to re-examine the way law uses and understands intention, responsibility, causation, and other basic concepts. We’re joined by Ryan Calo, who has achieved the outrageously awesome feat of earning a living thinking about robots. (It’s pronounced Kay-low. So Joe got this one right.) We discuss flying drones, chess computers, driverless cars, antilock brakes, and computer-conceived barbecue sauce. This show’s links: Ryan Calo’s faculty profile and writing Follow-up from listener David on Episode 40: The Split Has Occurred, Shelley v. Kraemer, and Buchanan v. Warley Lego Mindstorms Ryan Calo, Robots and Privacy FIRST Lego League robotics competition for ages nine to fourteen DJI Phantom Vision 2+ flying drone camera thing capable of making like this one and this one Mark Berman, National Park Service Bans Drone Use in All National Parks and Chris Vanderveen, Man Banned from Yellowstone after Drone Crash FAA’s Key Initiatives page on drones Joan Lowy, Drone Sightings Up Dramatically Ryan Calo, Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw (including a discussion of the concepts of embodiment, emergence, and social meaning as the core of the legal challenge posed by robotics) Stephen Johnson, Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software Radiolab, Emergence Frank Easterbrook, Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse Cory Doctorow, Why It Is Not Possible to Regulate Robots Neil Richards and William Smart, How Should the Law Think About Robotics? Ryan Calo, A Horse of a Different Color: What Robotics Law Can Learn from Cyberlaw About IBM’s Watson and Deep Blue (the chess machine) Daniel Suarez, Daemon Richard Fisher, Is It OK to Torture or Murder a Robot? Radiolab, Furbidden Knowledge Nicholas Bakalar, Robotic Surgery Report Card Studdert, Mello, and Brennan, Medical Malpractice Ryan Calo, The Case for a Federal Robotics Commission Excerpt from In re Polemis, the case we forgot the name of About Amazon’s Kiva Systems, the subsidiary that supplies Amazon with robotic warehouse workers Rochelle Bilow, We Put a Computer in Charge of Our Test Kitchen for a Day, and Here’s What Happened, and Mark Wilson, I Tasted BBQ Sauce Made By IBM’s Watson, And Loved It E.M. Forster, The Machine Stops About the Future Tense event, Can We Imagine Our Way to a Better Future?, including descriptions and video, in which Ryan participated About cognitive radio Daria Roithmayr, Complexity Law and Economics We Robot 2015, meeting April 10-11, 2015 in Seattle Special Guest: Ryan Calo.
We talk technology and law with Kevin Collins and begin with the law of the horse. The Supreme Court has given us decisions about searching cell phones, tiny antennae and broadcast television, and patents on business methods implemented in software. Molecules, hair-drying calculating machines, DNA, and the meaning of knowledge. It’s an IP festival this week. This show’s links: Kevin Collins’ faculty profile and writing Edinburgh’s statue of Adam Smith, though not the photo taken by listener Barbara: Riley v. California, the cell phone search case, PDF and HTML Frank Easterbrook, Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse Lawrence Lessig, The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach Christian Turner, The Information Law Crisis Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., the VCR case American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, PDF and HTML Mike Masnick, Aereo Fallout Begins: Fox Uses Ruling To Attack Dish's Mobile Streaming Service Summary of the history of cable television in the U.S. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, PDF and HTML Episode 3: Cut It Off (guest Paul Heald) O’Reilly v. Morse, the telegraph case Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, PDF and HTML Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Kevin Collins, The Knowledge/Embodiment Dichotomy Kevin Collins, Bilski and the Ambiguity of 'An Unpatentable Abstract Idea’ Michele Boldrin and David Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly Michele Boldrin and David Levine, The Case Against Patents Special Guest: Kevin Collins.
We are excited to meet with the Juice It Up franchise opportunity. We will speak with Frank Easterbrook, CEO for Juice It Up! Juice It Up!: First launched in 1995, Juice It Up! is a franchised smoothie and juice bar chain with more than 90 locations. The company anticipates opening between six to 10 new locations by the end of 2012. Juice It Up! is a franchised smoothie and juice bar chain that specializes in blended-to-order fresh fruit smoothies, fresh-squeezed juices and other beverages served in a relaxed, family-friendly environment. Juice It Up! combines fruit, proprietary fruit juices, non-fat yogurt, sherbet and nutritional and vitamin supplements to create smoothies that are consistently voted “best tasting” in blind taste tests among the top smoothie and juice bar chains. Franchising World voted Juice It Up! as one of the top 25 Most Popular Franchises for Veterans.
If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. A celebration of the work of Frank Easterbrook, '73, Senior Lecturer in Law and Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. There were three days of the event with three different foci - (1) 1/11: Easterbrook on Contracts and Copyright (2) 1/12: Easterbrook on the Constitution (3) 1/13: Easterbrook on Statutes
If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. A celebration of the work of Frank Easterbrook, '73, Senior Lecturer in Law and Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. There were three days of the event with three different foci - (1) 1/11: Easterbrook on Contracts and Copyright (2) 1/12: Easterbrook on the Constitution (3) 1/13: Easterbrook on Statutes
If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. A celebration of the work of Frank Easterbrook, '73, Senior Lecturer in Law and Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. There were three days of the event with three different foci - (1) 1/11: Easterbrook on Contracts and Copyright (2) 1/12: Easterbrook on the Constitution (3) 1/13: Easterbrook on Statutes
If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. A celebration of the work of Frank Easterbrook, '73, Senior Lecturer in Law and Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. There were three days of the event with three different foci - (1) 1/11: Easterbrook on Contracts and Copyright (2) 1/12: Easterbrook on the Constitution (3) 1/13: Easterbrook on Statutes
If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. A celebration of the work of Frank Easterbrook, '73, Senior Lecturer in Law and Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. There were three days of the event with three different foci - (1) 1/11: Easterbrook on Contracts and Copyright (2) 1/12: Easterbrook on the Constitution (3) 1/13: Easterbrook on Statutes
If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. A celebration of the work of Frank Easterbrook, '73, Senior Lecturer in Law and Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. There were three days of the event with three different foci - (1) 1/11: Easterbrook on Contracts and Copyright (2) 1/12: Easterbrook on the Constitution (3) 1/13: Easterbrook on Statutes
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
