Podcast appearances and mentions of Ganesh Sitaraman

Today, another in our "Some Sunday Context" series, where we bring you new conversations and episodes from the archives that try to help us make sense of life here in 2025. Nathan Fielder's "The Rehearsal" -- unexpectedly -- has many of us thinking about airline safety and aviation policy. His show is concerned with the interpersonal dynamics inside a cockpit, but the larger context is of an industry that has been deregulated, degraded, and ignored to the point where, well... flying really sucks. So, today we bring you an episode we did in December 2023 about the roots of airline deregulation.-------It's December 17th. This day in 1978, holiday travelers are flying around the country under a regulatory system that was about to come to an end. The next year, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 would kick in.Jody, NIki, and Kellie are joined by Ganesh Sitaraman of Vanderbilt to discuss how the act changed the competitive structure for airlines — and in turn led to a degradation of service, reliability, and the glamour of flying.Ganesh's new book is “Why Flying is Miserable… And How To Fix It.”Here's our holiday book gift guide! https://thisdaypod.substack.com/p/a-this-day-books-and-merch-gift-guideSign up for our newsletter! Get your hands on This Day merch!Find out more at thisdaypod.comThis Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX.Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories.If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.comGet in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Our website is thisdaypod.com Follow us on social @thisdaypodOur team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Ganesh Sitaraman explains why flying is so miserable from the era of regulation of the industry to Congress's bailout of the airlines during the COVID pandemic. The post The Boom and Bust of Air Travel appeared first on WORT-FM 89.9.

Today, an episode from the archives that may provide some context for the news playing out today. We'll be doing more Sunday episodes -- from the archives and fresh conversations -- throghout the first year of the second Trump administration.///It's December 17th. This day in 1978, holiday travelers are flying around the country under a regulatory system that was about to come to an end. The next year, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 would kick in.Jody, NIki, and Kellie are joined by Ganesh Sitaraman of Vanderbilt to discuss how the act changed the competitive structure for airlines — and in turn led to a degradation of service, reliability, and the glamour of flying.Ganesh's new book is “Why Flying is Miserable… And How To Fix It.”Here's our holiday book gift guide! https://thisdaypod.substack.com/p/a-this-day-books-and-merch-gift-guideSign up for our newsletter! Get your hands on This Day merch!Find out more at thisdaypod.comThis Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX.Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories.If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.comGet in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Our website is thisdaypod.com Follow us on social @thisdaypodOur team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Can Congress require China-based ByteDance to divest itself of TikTok as a condition for TikTok continuing to be easily accessible in the US? Alan Rozenshtein, Jane Bambauer, and Eugene Volokh discuss whether the law is consistent with the First Amendment – and with the much more rarely talked about Bill of Attainder Clause. To view the full transcript of this episode, read below: Free Speech Unmuted Eugene Volokh: Hello, welcome to Free Speech Unmuted from the Hoover Institution. I'm your co host Eugene Volokh, now basically emeritus from UCLA Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Jane Bambauer: I'm Jane Bamberger, the Breckner Eminent Scholar and Professor of Law at University of Florida. And today we have with us Alan Rosenstein. So Alan, tell us, tell us about yourself and correct my pronunciation of your name if I just butchered it. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. it's Rosenstein, but I, don't, I don't, wait, Eugene Volokh: wait, a minute. You, spell it Alan Rozenshtein: Rosenstein. I can't, I, I cannot, I am not responsible for my parents immigration choices. Eugene Volokh: Exactly. So Alan and I. are both of Russian Jewish extraction. I was actually born in Kiev and it came here when I was, seven. Alan's parents are from, from Russia. I don't know the former Soviet union, but he was born very [00:01:00] shortly after they came. So there is always this question of how you, how you transliterate the relic names into something that Americans can pronounce. And I, I'm not sure either of our parents did a great job with that. mu much as we love them on this particular point, they may have aired. Alan Rozenshtein: it's funny because both of our names have these silent Hs and I like to joke that there's a STL somewhere that's missing an H. There you go. Found its way into my name. It's s. Eugene Volokh: But I'm sorry to have interrupted, Alan, tell us about yourself. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. I'm an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota where I've taught now for seven years. And I am also a senior editor at Lawfare where I do a lot of my writing on the sorts of topics that we're going to talk about today. and before that, I was a, attorney at the Department of Justice in the law and policy section of the National Security Division. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, so we're here today to talk about the tick tock ban or so called tick tock [00:02:00] ban it will see what, whether it actually, you know what its future actually has in store. But can you tell us a little bit about the law that was passed by Congress and signed by President Biden and then. We'll figure out what the free speech issues are. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. So the law and, this is actually one of these, cases where Congress did not use a backer name for some reason, it's the protect Americans from foreign adversary controlled applications act. So it's perfect. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Which is, Alan Rozenshtein: which is not great. which is not great. So we're just going to tell, I'm going to call it the tick talk law. so this was a law that was introduced in the house as part of the, bipartisan select committee on China, sailed through the house, a few months ago, surprising a lot of people how quickly it went through. It seemed to stall in the Senate for a while, but then for a number of reasons, including some changes made to the [00:03:00] law and then the broader, foreign aid package that went through. To assistance to Ukraine, Israel in particular, this was, signed or enacted by Congress and signed the law by the president. I think late last month, and the law, is sometimes called a, it's called by its supporters as a divestment law, it's called by its opponents as a ban law. Basically what it does is it requires bite dance. The Chinese company that owns approximately 20 percent of TikTok to, divest itself of TikTok. And if it doesn't do so within a little less than a year. TikTok is banned now. What band means is a little complicated. really what it is that, the law actually applies to, app stores and in particular, internet providers. They're not allowed to, Host tiktok services, so it doesn't actually make for consumers using tiktok illegal or anything. But given that the vast, majority of people just want to use a, [00:04:00] social media platform without too much, fuss, once the app stores stop carrying updated versions of tiktok. And once it gets, hard to use tiktok through the website, through your internet service provider, the assumption is that tiktok will be for the vast majority of people effectively banned. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. so you've written on Lawfare about the First Amendment implications and I understand you're going to have another post coming out soon. We'll link to both of those. But what do you make of this? how would you apply First Amendment jurisprudence to this particular law? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, no, it's an interesting question. And to be honest, I, it's funny. I, I, have never thought of myself as a first amendment scholar, though, in the last year or two, just given how much time I spend thinking about all things internet related, I feel like I've become one. But really, I think of you two as far more expert in this than I am. So I have my own ideas, but I'm actually very curious This is what you two with kind of a much longer history of thinking about the First Amendment think, so [00:05:00] I think of myself as in the minority of scholars, not a tiny minority, but I think a minority of scholars who think that although the First Amendment arguments that TikTok and TikTok users will be making, against this law, although the arguments are strong, that ultimately the government actually has a pretty good Case and I think more likely than not that the first amendment that the government will ultimately prevail You know at the end of the day and here I'll cheat a little bit in answering your question Jane because When one traditionally starts a first minute analysis the most important thing to do once one has decided that The first time it actually applies so that this is First Amendment protected activity. And I think here there's general agreement that the first time it definitely is implicated is one has to figure out what the appropriate quote unquote tier of scrutiny is. is this a prior restraint, which is the highest level of review? Is it [00:06:00] a viewpoint based? Law. Is it a content based law? Is it a content neutral law? In which case, it's not strict scrutiny, but intermediate scrutiny. And then all these gradations in between, and again, it's something that you two who are real first known scholars know one can spend infinite brain cycles thinking about this. And I think one thing that's interesting about this law is that I think they're actually plausible arguments for all of those positions. I think you can argue that it's a prior restraint, that it's viewpoint based, that it's content based, that it's content neutral. I think part of that is because this is a, I think a pretty novel fact pattern, at least in First Amendment jurisprudence. I think it's also the fact that the tiers of scrutiny analysis has never been, I think, particularly clear. And when I said I'm gonna cheat in your answer a little bit, what I meant is that I think at the end of the day it doesn't matter all that much. Which is to say, at the end of the day, the vast majority of First Amendment cases come down to some sort of balancing of the various interests at stake. And this is particularly true at the Supreme [00:07:00] Court, where, you really, I'll be a little bit of a legal realist here. It's really all about can you count to five justices that will agree that your side's values are more important than the other side's values. and that although the tiers of scrutiny do real work in that they, function as kind of presumptions, if the court concludes that such and such is a prior restraint, then presumptively the government's going to have a big problem, though sometimes prior restraints are fine. Similarly, if the court concludes that this is merely a neutral time, place, and manner restriction, presumptively the government's probably going to be okay, though those are also struck down all the time. At the end of the day, a lot relies again, especially in really high profile, sui generous cases like this on the specific facts. in my writing on this, I have tried not to, and again, I'm happy to get pushback, from, you too. I have tried not to spend too many cycles worrying about exactly what level of scrutiny should apply here. And instead, just [00:08:00] try to outline what are the values on each side? What are the values The First Amendment interests of TikTok, and I think more importantly, the 150 million American users of TikTok on the one hand. Versus on the other hand, what are the government's interests here in potentially banning TikTok, or at least really risking a ban of TikTok? and there are two in particular. One is a data privacy concern, because in the course of personalizing the TikTok algorithm for users, TikTok collects an enormous amount of information on what it is that you are watching and clicking and liking and disliking. and TikTok and therefore ByteDance and therefore the Chinese Communist Party could potentially use that information to America's detriment. So that's the data privacy concern. And the other concern is a foreign manipulation concern. That, because TikTok is You know, entirely run by the algorithm is totally inscrutable. if [00:09:00] a foreign entity can influence that algorithm, they can influence the information ecosystem of 150 million Americans and not just 150 million Americans, but because of TikTok, because TikTok is so popular among young people. And for those young people, TikTok is not just a source of fun cat videos, but it's actually the main source of news that they get. one can imagine, just generally, or especially in a conflict, let's say over Taiwan, that TikTok could suddenly become a, profound, Vector of foreign influence and foreign manipulation. And so I think ultimately comes down to balancing those two. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. So before we go into the values and the sort of government interest, I do want to pause and Talk through the coverage or maybe levels of scrutiny issue because I'm actually not sure and I really regret to say this because as a policy matter. I have some major issues with the tick tock [00:10:00] band, but I'm not sure that actually the First Amendment would even apply. I'm curious to hear Eugene's thoughts as well. But here's, my thinking. I guess there are two reasons to doubt that we have to do a First Amendment analysis. One is that maybe you could conceive of this as really a trade restriction, that has obvious, free, speech, results, and, maybe even speech related, content based related, even viewpoint based related maybe motivations, but that ultimately still it's a Restriction on managing, trade and so the way, much, much the way that we, don't allow certain other types of, products or services, to, pass through the borders. Another reason though that I have some skepticism is because the Supreme Court in cases that are somewhat old, but, they've suggested that [00:11:00] even when the government's goal basically is to restrict information that comes from outside the borders in. They have wide latitude and, these cases don't seem to really apply a constitutional analysis. So the two cases I have in mind, first, the earliest was Zemel versus Rusk, which is a little different because this is the case that involves, a set of plaintiffs who wanted to travel to, to, Cuba in the sixties. And they alleged, and no one disagreed, that they wanted to go there in order to gather information and an understanding of what's happening in Cuba. And, the Supreme Court went out of its way, not only to say that the government has full authority to decide who can leave the country, but, but also the Supreme Court said that the right to speak and publish does not carry with it unrestrained right to gather information. A lot has happened since that case. And I think the Supreme Court has over time [00:12:00] recognized the right to gather information. but. the board, if you combine that logic with the logic of the whole state control of the borders. you can see where I'm going here. And then the second case, was, Kleindienst versus Mandel. Yeah. yeah. So this one I think is even closer analogy. that one, I know. Yeah. Yeah. And so this one involved, this is a little later in the seventies. It's still a long, long ago though. And it involved, an invitation offered by Stanford University to a Belgian revolutionary Marxist as he himself portrayed. Yeah. Yeah. his own work, who, applied for a visa to come to campus and give a speech and the, customs office said no. And although there were a couple of dissenting, justices, the Supreme Court decided there is, basically that the government has full control over, over these decisions, irrespective of the reasons, the [00:13:00] speech related reasons that they may be made. Eugene, do you, what, do you make of. Just this application question, the coverage question. Eugene Volokh: so I'd love to hear what Alan has to say about those cases. But I'd also add a third one, which is Lamont v. Postmaster General, which specifically involved the travel not of people, but of information. And that was actually, it was 1965, the first Federal statute ever struck down by the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. Of course, the Supreme Court has the power to strike down Lamont. It's true. It has the power to strike down federal statutes and often exercises it. In fact, The whole point of the First Amendment originally was to constrain Congress, that's it starts with Congress shall make no law, but it took a long time before the court actually said this federal statute, not a state statute, not a federal executive action, but this federal statute is unconstitutional, happened in 1965. The statute, [00:14:00] basically required Americans who wanted to receive foreign communist propaganda to go to the post office. maybe not the post office, but in any case, go to the government and say, I am willing to receive it by the mail. And it made it illegal to send and deliver it to them, unless they have actually specifically, specifically requested. and the Supreme Court did not decide the question whether foreign. Foreigners, and especially foreign governments, have any First Amendment rights. It didn't focus on the rights of the senders, but it did talk about the rights of the recipients and, concluded that this law was unconstitutional because it interfered with the rights of Americans to receive this information. And so it did not view, federal governments had undoubted power to control what comes into the country, [00:15:00] as A total as being unlimited or put, more positively concluded that even Congress's broad power to, control what goes into the country is limited by the first two. So those are the three cases that strike me as most, most relevant. Although Alan, I totally agree with you that in many ways, this is sui generis and part of the problem is the Supreme Court has never really confronted a question quite like this one. even Lamont, which I do think is. Some respects close. This is a mailings of foreign propaganda to Americans. How many Americans would likely, even if they didn't have to put their name down on a list, would have been particularly interested in reading that? Very few. Tick tock very many. so, it's an interesting, I'm not saying any of these cases are strictly binding here, but I'd love to hear what you think about how these cases play out. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. so a lot there. So let me say a couple of things. So first, and [00:16:00] this is not dispositive, but it's something all the, all of the courts to have all of the courts who have heard cases like the one that is about to be heard in the DC circuit, because this is not the first attempt to ban tick tock. There was, I think Montana. some Midwestern state. I think it was Montana tried to remove Wyoming, tried to ban it. And then, of course, in the Trump administration, Trump through executive order, tried to ban it in litigation there. everyone seemed to concede. And certainly the courts assumed that there was a first amendment issue here again. That doesn't mean that there necessarily is. But I think that's one data point. The second point I would say is, just to get back to Lamont, because I think Lamont is a very important issue. Case I reread it this morning because I needed to for this law for peace that I'm writing and what you described Eugene as the holding of Lamont, which is that Americans have a right to receive foreign propaganda, which is how Lamont is generally understood. I'm actually not sure. That's what Lamont says. That's what Justice Brennan's concurrent says in Lamont. But Justice Douglas is very short and in [00:17:00] true Justice Douglas fashion, extremely under argued and under theorized opinion really actually focuses on, the, the chilling effect of having to go to the government and say, Yes, I would like to receive the peaking review. And that was coincidentally, the, propaganda at issue. So it's another Chinese propaganda case. but we should get back to Lamont. I think Lamont is an interesting case. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that, and that, yeah, that, that makes sense. And Brennan is consistent because he also dissented in that client and in the, case involving the Belgian. Yeah. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think, Kleindienst is very interesting, and again, it's, hard to know what exactly to make of that, what I, whatever Kleindienst stands for, the reason I don't think that it would really apply here is, it'd be one thing if the government From a blank slate said, or, let me give you a more specific example. It's one thing if a [00:18:00] Chinese company wanted to buy a us platform and the government, and here would be SIFI as the committee on foreign investment in the United States said, no, you can't do this. And in fact, CFIUS has done this, when a Chinese company tried to buy Grindr, which is a dating service, very popular with gay and lesbian Americans. CFIUS said, no, you can't do this because we don't want the Chinese government to have access to the HIV status of Americans. Cause that's something that Grindr allowed people to put in. that I think is different than you have an existing platform where 150 million users are every day doing things that have profound first amendment implications. And we are now going to ban this platform. I think that's quite different then. There's something outside the United States. And then the question is, can it come into the United States? Something you already have in the United States. Now, to, to your point, Jane, I think the fact that the government generally has broad national security, foreign relations, economic trade, however you want to think of it, powers, is a really important part of the First [00:19:00] Amendment analysis. But I think that, the kind of brute fact that you have 150 million Americans using TikTok every day is going to make it very difficult, I think, for any court, even if they ultimately uphold the law, which I think they will, to say there's no First Amendment issue here. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I hope you're right, but it is one of those things that where, there's probably all sorts of ways in which our national security or customs and border enforcement, keep us from knowing what we'd actually like to know and we're just And so the being, joining you on the realist side a little bit I, you're probably right but if we knew more about what we're missing from certain policies, maybe that same logic should apply to cases that the Supreme Court, The thought where you're, unrelated to the first moment. So Eugene Volokh: I do want to, I do want to also stand by a little bit my characterization of a Lamonti Postmaster General. I think even in Justice, Douglas's [00:20:00] majority opinion for the court, he talks about how the requirement that the addressee must request in writing that it be delivered Is, quote, an unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee's First Amendment rights. Close quote. Sounds like in context, what he's saying is That the addressee has a First Amendment right to receive information and, that, by saying in order to get the information, you've got to do something that will put you on a list of people who are interested in foreign communists, but again, that which is a list most people might not have wanted to be on. the, the concern there is that, it burdens your ability to receive that information. It imposes a barrier to your First Amendment rights as a listener. But in any case, whether it's Justice Douglas or Justice Brennan's quite influential concurrence that you're [00:21:00] quite right, has gotten a lot of traction since then. I do think in many ways, Structurally it is quite similar because here the concern is also that TikTok users have an interest in using this app and receiving the information on it, although many of them are also TikTok content creators, so they have an interest in being able to use it to distribute their speech. So I'm totally with you that there's a Pretty substantial burden on people's ability to speak and to listen for sure. But also again just returning to your sui generis point You might say that what was true of this relatively minor form a potential form of foreign influence in the form of mailings of the peking review or similar publications from overseas may not be really relevant to a situation where we've got something that's being used by so many, Americans and so many young Americans. Alan Rozenshtein: [00:22:00] Yeah. And I, think it's part, partially what you just said, right? It's a scale issue, but I think it's partially also a transparency issue. So I think one thing that's important about this, ban is that it does not prevent Chinese propaganda. I can go today and I link from this from lawfare. So I the peaking review is interesting. It is, China's only English language state on newspaper. and it you can click on. It's called the Beijing review today. It still operates. it says exactly what you would think it would say. and you can access it and you can access it today. You can access it after the law goes into effect. Similarly, if you want to go and, you want to hear what, The China Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants to say you can go and hop on Twitter and read their Twitter account and you'll be able to do after this bill goes into effect as well. So it's not a ban on Chinese propaganda per se, or I think even at all. It's a ban on Chinese control over an information environment. Now why is that different? [00:23:00] if you dig into the justifications, so let's, say that we interpret Lamont Through the Brennan concurrence, right? and, we just say, okay, Lamont stands for some general proposition that Americans have a right to foreign propaganda. Why? I think the, best argument is there's like a marketplace of ideas. argument that foreign propaganda is information like anything else and it should be part of the flow and One person's propaganda is another person's truth And even if it's bad it helps sharpen our understanding all the standard marketplace of ideas arguments that i'm totally happy with but one difference I think between foreign propaganda and foreign control over a platform is foreign propaganda is usually at least Pretty clearly foreign propaganda when you're reading, or at least it's foreign when you're reading the Beijing review, you're reading the Beijing review. You know what you're reading. and I think that helps contextualize what you're reading. You can agree with it, disagree with it when you're on tick tock. The whole point is that this algorithm is totally unscrutable. You have [00:24:00] no idea why you are seeing what you are seeing and the potential for subconscious manipulation, that I don't think, furthers the marketplace of ideas. in the same way that being able to read the Peking Review does. I think that's another really big difference. Now, we could spend all day talking about it, but maybe even, subconscious propaganda still has information and stuff like that. But I think at the very least from a doctrinal matter, it's pretty clear that this distinguishes Lamont and, I emphasize this because I've heard a lot of critics of this law cite Lamont as if it straightforwardly disposes of this case because Lamont stands for some super broad proposition about foreign propaganda. And, what I would say is I don't think the case does. And I also don't think that. The historical context does either. Matt Iglesias, the, well known blogger, had a nice piece a couple months ago, why he is, was for the ban. And he's not a lawyer, so his is more of a policy analysis, but he made a very nice analogy. And he said, look, imagine during the height of the Cold [00:25:00] War, the Soviet Union wanted to go and buy CBS. Would we have allowed that? And the answer is no, we would not have allowed that. And it is, I think, inconceivable that the Supreme Court would have had problems with that. it, it strikes me as very unlikely. Again, this is not a legal point. This is a historical sociological point that even the court that I think unanimously, struck down that law in Lamont in 1965 would have, three years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, been okay with the Soviet Union buying CBS. Because I think there is really a distinction and it's not just one of degree. it's one of kind. Eugene Volokh: so first of all, I'm sorry, you're quite right that, the, court, the court, was unanimous in the case. I was mistaken, talking about dissent. I'm sorry. I should have said that the government's position, in Lamont postmaster general, but the second thing I wanted to say, is that, you, raise this question of buying, broadcasters and indeed, [00:26:00] there are to this day. Limits, substantial limits on foreign ownership of, of, broadcasters, presumptive limits. they could be, as I understand it, waived by the FCC, but there are such limits. what do you think of that as a precedent, do you think? the Supreme Court, to my knowledge, has never really squarely confronted them. But the broad assumption is that they are, they're valid. Is it something that's just a broadcasting only rule? Because there are a lot of. Supreme Court cases that say, broadcasting is special, or is it something that you think stands for a broader proposition and the other thing? actually, I have a follow up question for you, but I wanted to see what you thought about that. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's both. So, I do think the broadcast precedents are really important, in terms of, this long history of, foreign ownership rules. And, here I, I will. Suggest, the folks are interested. Ganesh Sitaraman, [00:27:00] who's a law professor at Vanderbilt, wrote a wonderful article in the Stanford Law Review last year, two years ago, I think called Foreign Ownership of Platforms. We can put it in the show notes. That really goes through this history, not just communications platforms, but generally of foreign ownership, restrictions. I think that precedent is, important. I think you're also right, Eugene, to be fair, that, A response could be, yeah, but those were in the broadcast context, and the court has often distinguished restrictions that are okay under the First Amendment for broadcast, or what are something called limited spectrum situations, and that would not be in the context of an unlimited spectrum. But I have a response to that, which is that, it is true that the internet is not limited in the way that broadcast is, right? If I want to broadcast on a radio frequency, no one else can broadcast on that radio frequency, and therefore you need to have government intervention. Otherwise, none of it works. That's not true for the internet. But the internet is limited in a different way, and that is with attention. [00:28:00] it used to be that the bottleneck for communications was the internet. Broadcast or spectrum now it's the attention of the audience and because you still have a bottleneck, right? You can still get monopolistic effects where it used to be that there were a few small a few very large Broadcasters and they carved the broadcast Spectrum that was the bottleneck now. There are a few large platforms. They're not carving up spectrum. They're carving up attention and I think that actually, if you think deeply about, what justified intervention in the broadcast industry, it was general scarcity, but it doesn't just be scarcity Of, of, spectrum. It can be whatever scarcity of the bottleneck there is. And so Jane Bambauer: I think I just go ahead, finish it. Yeah, it will. Alan Rozenshtein: So and, and and I think this is, this is, a different project and maybe this is a project I should write. [00:29:00] And then you Jane can tell me why, I'm wrong. I actually think that, where you have, limited attention, that is just as good of a reason as limited broadcast for the government to, regulate, if it regulates well. Now, ISIL has to regulate well. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that's not my objection, though. I think the problem is the scarcity that the spectrum scarcity has to do with the means of production. The attention scarcity is more like saying there are only there's at any given point a set number of dollars in the world and consumers don't have unlimited dollars to spend on different types of content. It doesn't actually prevent a competitor from coming in and creating content or curating content, which I think. I think the limited set of platforms that are doing well, because they're actually in fierce competition with each other in a curation market, not in, a traditional content market. But, [00:30:00] nevertheless, there are lots of ways to get copious amounts of information. The trouble is figuring out how to pitch the right information to the right person so that it's worth their time. And there, I just don't see I don't see a monopoly style problem there. And I guess that leads me to the skepticism about, about the, policy behind the tick tock ban that, I, get that there's a lot of really bad content on tick tock and that the Chinese government may have a motivation that's different from the capitalistic one, and that is, that, that, does. seek to cause, disarray and, and, polarization among Americans. But I don't see a big difference between the effects of TikTok and the effects of every other social media company because, first of all, I think there's reason to think that even if you have completely malignant intent. There's [00:31:00] only so much that you can do to manipulate a person into thinking or pursuing some information that they don't already want to pursue. and then also that even through just the normal capitalistic, motivations, most of these platforms are incentivized to find information and curate information. that leads to polarization, that leads to anger and to resentment and to, all, of the things that the Chinese government may benefit from, but doesn't really cause in a, fundamental sense. Alan Rozenshtein: So I, I, so there are a couple, of points there, right? So, one, And let's just say generally, the field of, I don't even know what you'd call it, social media communication psychology, is still quite young. it is advancing very quickly or changing very quickly because The actual infrastructure is changing very [00:32:00] quickly. and if you're looking for a clear social science answer, like you can find, there are lots of papers that will say all sorts of things, right? So policymakers and judges are definitely going to be, legislating and deciding under real uncertainty, which raises interesting meta questions about, okay, then, should we err on this side or that side? then there's a more specific question about, what do we know about specifically China and specifically ByteDance and specifically TikTok? And we can get into the evidence that we have and how speculative or not speculative it is. and then third, we can get into this question of what is the specific threat here? Because I agree with you if the concern is it's in China's interest to addict all our kids to stupid cat videos, or it's in China's interest to feed, TikTok users inflammatory polarizing content because, that's what gets the most clicks. Then I agree with you that would not be a great argument because it's not clear that Twitter or Instagram or Meta operate any differently than, [00:33:00] than, than that, right? I think the unique danger is that, The Chinese government has shown, a couple of things. One, a willingness to, in a very heavy handed way, try to alter how it is perceived around the world with respect to any number of issues. the Hong Kong democracy protests, the issues with the Uyghurs, certainly relations with Taiwan. and in addition, And in a way that just goes beyond your general polarization or feeding people, content that gets them angry. and in addition that, the Chinese government, is also willing to use its, private companies, in a way that very much goes against those private companies own market and capitalist interests. If the Chinese government perceived that it is in their interest, right? And I, think the government's real concern is. In a [00:34:00] shooting war with Taiwan, right? what will the Chinese government, force TikTok to show to 150 million users, right? Now you may say, at the end of the day, people make up their own minds and so forth, right? And, it's a risk. But the question is, is are the courts going to require? And here we have to we have to separate the legal question from the policy questions, because courts have a very specific role. and although we all understand that they make policy, they don't really want to be in a position of second guessing the national security and foreign policy judgments of the political branches. do courts want to tell the government? No, Go get into a war with China. China over Taiwan. Let's see what's on TikTok. And if TikTok spends six months feeding the young people of America, pro China content and gets them all to protest and stuff like that, then we can talk again. That's a bit of a caricature of the view. But I think that's the thing that keeps the government [00:35:00] up at night. and speaking only for myself, right? That's good enough for me. this is a your mileage may vary situation. I totally accept that. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. I see the same logic in the communist era. but Eugene, what do you think? Eugene Volokh: so I want to ask a couple of follow up questions or maybe three questions. one first amendment question and two turns out they're more than first amendment issues in the case. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. Yeah. Eugene Volokh: So the first is we haven't focused on the fact that this law doesn't ban TikTok as such, but requires. It essentially to be divested from Chinese influenced ownership. So I'm inclined to think that doesn't eliminate the First Amendment issue. But at the same time, it sounds like maybe it Would affect it? maybe not. I'd love to hear your thinking. And then I wanted to follow up, with a couple of more questions. One about the [00:36:00] bill of attainder question, and the other about this weird procedural posture of the case. But first, tell me what you think about this, how this, divestiture option affects the first amendment analysis. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. again, I take a middle position between some of the defenders of the bill who just say this is just divestiture and some of the critics who say this is an outright ban. It's not. It's you have to divest or you get a ban. I do think, I don't think that eliminates the First Amendment issue because there's a real risk of a ban that has to be taken into account. and the government can't just say, it's China's fault if it's banned and therefore we don't have to defend this law in First Amendment grounds. That's not how this works. On the same, on the other hand, I do think that the divestiture option helps in, two ways. One is that a lot of First Amendment analysis is about overbreath, right? a lot of constitutional analysis is about, did the government's action go further than necessary? And by definition, a law that allows for divestment instead of a ban. is more narrowly tailored, again by [00:37:00] definition, than a law that just does a ban. So it's almost like a good faith showing on the part of the government that we're actually trying to solve a problem here. We're really trying to solve, have different options here. The second reason, and this is maybe a little cute, but I do think it's plays importantly, at least politically, maybe also legally. If the investment fails, it's probably be going to be because China refuses to allow ByteDance to sell the algorithm to TikTok. And in fact, in the complaint that TikTok filed with the D. C. Circuit, they have essentially said that. They said divestment is not an option because China will not allow it. But if China won't allow it, shows a little bit, exactly what the government is worried about. That China cares a lot about this, and it's going to use its weight to, It's going to use its weight around here, which is exactly the point. I want to be fair. Anupam Chander, who's a sparring partner of mine on this and is great. and is at Georgetown, has argued that actually there are plenty of good reasons for countries not to want to allow the [00:38:00] export of sensitive technologies that have nothing to do with manipulation. and that's a fair point, but I think it it's almost like performatively shows. It's very clever. It shows to the courts in part, the very problem that the government is citing, which is China's influence and ability to throw its weight around. so that's the divestment thing. Should we talk about bill of attainder? Eugene Volokh: before we get to bill of attainder, I wanted to ask you about the, procedural issues. So a lot of what we're talking about here turns on facts. just how much influence does the Chinese government have? over bike debts. just, just how much of a burden will this impose on American creators and others? just how much, just what evidence is there of real national security threat? and in a typical situation, what would happen there would be is that there would be a challenge brought in federal district court, which is a trial court, the [00:39:00] judge might have a hearing where the judge would consider both written submissions, written, declarations of experts and others and, and other witnesses, and, at the same time, would also potentially have, have an oral hearing. and then it would go up on appeal where the appellate courts and perhaps eventually the Supreme Court would consider, how the legal rules apply to that. here, Congress provided that the challenge would be brought in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is an appellate court, which does not regularly, and I'm not sure, If it ever, maybe it does have some mechanisms for this, but at least does not regularly hear evidence. The job of an appellate court is not to hear evidence. It's to review an evidentiary record built either by the, trial courts or by, administrative agencies. So tell us how any of these factual questions are going to be resolved, [00:40:00] in, a case like this. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I will say this is a among the nerderati. This is a real topic of excitement. and we'll have to see. So so a couple of points. so first is, unfortunately, the bill does not have legislative findings attached to it, which is usually actually really important part of these kinds of bills. And it's surprising that it doesn't given that there's been reporting that Congress collaborated very closely with DOJ to really bulletproof this bill. It's not clear why they didn't On the other hand, the co sponsors of the bill, Representatives Gallagher and Krishnamurti, introduced a resolution, which is basically a very long list of legislative findings, and a lot of that resolution ended up in the House Committee Report. that accompanied the bill, and that has a lot of information about classified briefings that Congress received about the threat. Why alternatives that tick tock offered were not sufficient. I think that, though that resolution, this committee reports will play a really important role, [00:41:00] and may go some way to establishing the factual and evidentiary record. But Eugene, you're totally right. It doesn't go all the way, and it's certainly much less than what happened in district court. So what's going to happen? Appellate, you're right, appellate courts, they're appellate courts. They don't usually hear trials or take evidence, but they can, and not just the D. C. Circuit, but the Supreme Court can. So the Constitution provides original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court and all sorts of things. And I, there is at least one time that I know of that the Supreme Court tried to hold a trial and it went extremely poorly. I, have to, I, Once I read a very funny Law Review article about this. I got to dig it out. It's, it was a real comedy of errors, and so from then on, they decided, that what they would do is, in case of original jurisdiction, where like states sue each other, which happens from time to time, they would get a, I think it's called special master, basically an outside lawyer who would go do the fact finding for them. I'm sure the DC circuit could do the same thing. I haven't read the, I'm not a litigator. I haven't read the federal rules of civil procedure in a long time, repellent procedure. [00:42:00] I'm sure there's some mechanism for that. I think what's more interesting is the role of potentially classified information, because a lot of this is classified. the appellate courts can hear classified information. the DC circuit certainly can. It did so routinely in the 2010s during, the many Guantanamo habeas cases, that it heard. and actually just last year, the ninth circuit in another national security case, Twitter versus Garland, had to hear a lot of national classified information to decide whether or not Twitter's challenge against certain gag orders was constitutional and literally in the opinion, the Ninth Circuit says we are not at liberty to discuss the classified information that we have reviewed, but we reviewed it as part of our analysis and trust us. It's fine. I made up that last part. so it may very well be, that there is some classified information that is submitted to the court in camera. Maybe there's a protective order. I have no idea how it's going to work, but it may very well be that the D, the D. C. Circuit says, we look at the classified information, trust us.[00:43:00] Eugene Volokh: Got it. so that's very helpful to know. So let's just close by, stealing something from, we have a sister podcast, the Bill of attainder, unmuted podcast, we probably should have had this other, no, there is no real, for the real Alan Rozenshtein: Nerderati, Eugene Volokh: because it's a pretty rare issue to arise, but there is this issue of whether this law violates the bill of attainder clause and to quote the Supreme Court in actually a case involving President Nixon, is that, Bill of Attainder is a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial tribe. The classic example historically was Parliament backed law. Back in jolly old England would say we think this person is, is a traitor often or has done something [00:44:00] very bad. but maybe he's allied with the king, so we can't trust that he will be normally prosecuted. We're just going to say he is a traitor and needs to be beheaded. And that's that. so I think historically bills of attainder have been mostly for capital, punishment. There also used to be bills of pains and penalties, vague recollection, but the U. S. Constitution Were you Alan Rozenshtein: old enough to remember when Parliament used to do bills of attainder? Yeah, there you go. All that Eugene Volokh: gray hair. so the, so the U. S. Constitution has long forbidden bills of attainder. But the question is, what is a bill of attainder? Whenever we see a law that mentions someone by name, and maybe, interesting question, what about mentioning a business by name, then, people start talking about, maybe that's a bill of attainder, but not all such laws are indeed [00:45:00] unconstitutional. So, again, This is, on the one hand, not a free speech issue, on the other hand, very much an issue in this case, and I suspect many people who may have heard about the case, even if they're not lawyers, would say, wait a minute, this law, it's just the government, the Congress trying to ban a particular business, is that what they're supposed to do? Aren't they supposed to pass general laws that say, here are the criteria that, if met, cause you to be restricted in various ways. So what do you think about this bill of attainder, question, even if just tentative? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's interesting. so a couple of thoughts on the bill of attainder question. So first, there is an open question whether or not the bill of attainder applies to corporations. The Supreme Court has never, Definitively answer that question. I think one lower one appellate court, I forget which one has held that it does apply to corporations. I don't know if there's a circuit split on that or just other circuits haven't gotten to it. But that's [00:46:00] one interesting question. and, especially with the originalist turn that the Supreme Court's had, I think there's going to be a lot of, Justice Alito or, pouring over, 18th century parliamentary records to know was this ever applied to corporations. the second question is, the Bill of Attainder, it's not just about specifically singling someone out. It's specifically singling someone out for punishment and punishment is a technical term of art here. Unfortunately, again, the Supreme Court has never said exactly what a punishment is. There's a historical test and a functional test. so one might argue that this isn't a punishment. Nothing is being stolen. nothing is being taken away from tick tock. No one's being put in jail. This is a proscriptive regulation that tick tock can no longer afford itself of certain, corporate benefits. now, as with many things, There's a certain angels on the head of a pin kind of quality to, is that [00:47:00] a punishment or a regulation? But honestly, this stuff comes up all the time. there are similar logical puzzles in Fifth Amendment takings cases. Is it taking or regulation or whatnot? so that's another question that the courts will have to, decide whether this is a punishment or just a forward looking, prospective. regulation. And the third question is, and this is a part of the law we haven't actually talked about, but it's actually very important. The TikTok ban or divestment and ban is only one part of the law. The law also sets up a broader scheme by which the president can identify other TikTok like companies, which is to say social media platforms that are controlled by Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. and, and trigger a similar divestment type process. And so this raises the question of whether or not the government will be able to use that part of the law to soften the fact that the law also targets tick [00:48:00] tock. that may not be relevant to the bill of attainder issue, but tick tock has also made, other arguments that sound similar swiftly run equal protection that they're getting being singled out. and so the government may point to say, no, this is a general law. We're just starting with tick tock. I don't know if that gets there. I suspect that, and again, I'm not an expert in this, but I have done some preliminary research that the courts will ultimately move. This is just not a punishment. It's not a punishment in the way that the bill of attainder, contemplates that this is a, forward looking, regulation. Eugene Volokh: Got it. Thanks very much. very interesting. Jane, any closing questions or remarks? Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I think one thing that all three of us. expressed at one point is that one thing that makes this topic hard is that it's a, there are national security questions and facts that none of us have access to. And so it's hard to know as [00:49:00] a matter of policy, especially what should happen here. And, Alan Rozenshtein: and we haven't even talked about the international dimensions, potential repercussions. This is a big deal. Eugene Volokh: Big deal, indeed. Alan, thank you so much for joining us. It has been tremendously enlightening for me and I, sure for, our viewers and listeners as well. Jane, always a great pleasure to be on with you. And folks, we'll see you in a couple of weeks with our next episode.

March break, one of the busiest travel times of the year, just started in Ontario. It'll kick off across much of the country in the next few weeks. Chances are, if you're flying out, you're probably worried about something going wrong. It seems like everyone has a horror story about delays and cancellations, extra fees or tiny seats.Today on Front Burner, author and law professor Ganesh Sitaraman on how air travel became such a frustrating and unpleasant experience for so many, and whether there's a solution in sight. Sitaraman is the author of Sitaraman is the author of Why Flying Is Miserable and How to Fix It.

Happy Monday! Sam is BACK from vacation! He and Emma speak with Ganesh Sitaraman, law professor at Vanderbilt University, to discuss his recent book Why Flying Is Miserable: And How To Fix It. First, Sam and Emma touch on how former President Trump's 2024 campaign is going after handily defeating Nikki Haley in South Carolina on Saturday, and what he is choosing to focus on in order to win back skeptical independent women voters in the suburbs: by, as he does to Fox's Bret Baier, re-litigating the 2020 election of course! They then reflect upon how Trump won't actually need that support because, as he said at a gathering of black conservatives in South Carolina this weekend, black people will vote for him because they know what it's like to be indicted and charged with crimes. After that, Sam and Emma talk to Ganesh and discuss how the system for airlines that began in the 1930's in the U.S. came about, and how it differed and was similar to other public entities like the U.S. Post Office. Ganesh expands upon how Congress struggled with implementation of the airline industry and whether over or under-regulating the industry would lead to too much or not enough competition. Sam asks Ganesh if, as per the Constitution in how it enumerates capabilities for the Post Office, whether lawmakers could have invoked that authority in the Constitution to reflect on air travel, a "Post Office of the skies" if you will. Later, Ganesh gets into how airports and ticket pricing factored into the development of U.S. air travel, and how quality of travel precipitously declined after deregulation took effect on the industry in the late 1970's. This then led to, in the 1980's, many mergers and bankruptcies in the sector, and a return to how the industry was constructed in the 1930's, only without any robust regulations to guardrail anything. Ganesh makes the case for a "public option" for airlines to reinstate some competition as well as to discourage any future bailouts of the industry, as well as why he believes in that option more than re-regulating the industry entirely. And in the Fun Half, Sam and Emma discuss congressional Republicans and presidential campaigners running away from Alabama's IVF decision, with Florida Rep. Byron Donalds ensuring that he supports IVF for the purpose of "breeding great families," as well as Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt refusing to answer whether Trump actually cares about IVF or not (she doesn't know). James Comer tells NewsMax's Rob Schmitt about the "micro piece" (pause) that is now-disgraced FBI informant Alexander Smirnov's testimony about the Biden's dealings in Ukraine, Joe Rogan and Dr. Phil freak out about the NYPD city dancers, and the MR Crew turns to where Joe Rogan, really, goes for his research: Bret Weinstein & Tucker Carlson, solemnly talking about the dissolution of "the West." Plus, your calls & IM's! Check out Ganesh's book here: https://globalreports.columbia.edu/books/why-flying-is-miserable/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Check out this GoFundMe in support of Mohammad Aldaghma's niece in Gaza, who has Down Syndrome: http://tinyurl.com/7zb4hujt Check out the "Repair Gaza" campaign courtesy of the Glia Project here: https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/rebuild_gaza_help_repair_and_rebuild_the_lives_and_work_of_our_glia_team#!/ Get emails on the IRS pilot program for tax filing here!: https://service.govdelivery.com/accounts/USIRS/subscriber/new Check out filmmaker and friend of the show Janek Ambros's new documentary "Ukrainians in Exile" here: https://www.thenation.com/article/world/ukrainians-in-exile-doc/ Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Nutrafol: Take the first step to visibly thicker, healthier hair. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners ten dollars off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to https://Nutrafol.com/men and enter the promo code TMR.  Find out why over 4,000 healthcare professionals recommend Nutrafol for healthier hair. That's https://Nutrafol.com/men, promo code TMR. Calm: For listeners of the show, Calm is offering an exclusive offer of 40% off a Calm Premium Subscription at https://calm.com/majority. Go to https://calm.com/majority for 40% off unlimited access to Calm's entire library.  Zippix Toothpicks: Make your lungs happy and try Zippix Nicotine Toothpicks. Ditch the cigarettes, ditch the vape and get some nicotine infused toothpicks at https://ZippixToothpicks.com today. Get 10% off your first order by using the code MAJORITY10 at checkout. Your lungs will be glad you did. MUST be 21 or older to order. Warning, nicotine is an addictive chemical. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Ganesh Sitaraman joins us today to discuss his new book, Why Flying Is Miserable And How to Fix It. Air travel has become an increasingly frustrating experience, with countless horror stories of cancellations, delays, lost baggage, cramped seats, and poor service. For most of the 20th century flying was luxurious and fun, so it's especially baffling that air travel is plagued by these problems in the 21st century. Sitaraman delves into the reasons behind this dismal state of affairs, tracing it back to a deliberate choice made by elected leaders in the 1970s to roll back regulations, supposedly in order to increase competition and improve the experience of flying for everyone. After enduring half a century of turbulence caused by deregulation, people are fed up with the state of air travel, and Sitaraman gives us some insight into how we can begin to fix it. Ganesh Sitaraman is a law professor and the director of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation. He was previously a senior advisor to Senator Elizabeth Warren on her presidential campaign and is a member of the Administrative Conference of the United States and the FAA's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee. Sitaraman is the author of several influential books, including "The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution," "The Public Option: How to Expand Freedom, Increase Opportunity, and Promote Equality," and his most recent book, “Why Flying Is Miserable And How to Fix It.” Twitter: @GaneshSitaraman Why Flying Is Miserable And How to Fix It https://bookshop.org/a/101360/9798987053584  Book Website https://globalreports.columbia.edu/books/why-flying-is-miserable/ More from Ganesh Sitaraman:  The Atlantic - Airlines Are Just Banks Now https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/airlines-banks-mileage-programs/675374/ The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution https://bookshop.org/a/101360/9781101973455 Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer

As the second anniversary of the Russian invasion looms, continuing successes in the Black Sea are one surprising bright spot for Ukraine. The nation's Defense Intelligence has announced it attacked and destroyed a large landing ship of Russia's Black Sea fleet, the Caesar Kunikov, with maritime drones off the coast of Crimea. Correspondent Melissa Bell reports on what this achievement means for Ukraine's future in the war.    Alson on today's show: Michael Mann, Director, Center for Science, Sustainability & the Media, Univ. of Pennsylvania / Author, "Our Fragile Moment"; Kim Daniels, Member, Vatican Communications Department / Director, Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life, Georgetown University; Ganesh Sitaraman, Law Professor, Vanderbilt University / Author, “Why Flying Is Miserable and How to Fix It”  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I moved to Beacon in 2010, and because my job involves travel, one of the considerations in the city's favor was the proximity to a regional airport. New York Stewart International, located across the river in New Windsor, seemed to offer convenient access to the U.S. air traffic system. Sure enough, I found that I could connect on American Airlines - through a daily flight to Philadelphia - to many of my most common destinations, such as San Francisco, Toronto and Florida. I accepted the fact that I had only limited options of airlines and flight times and that I had to travel to the Port Authority's other three airports (LaGuardia, JFK and Newark) for direct flights to most cities such as Austin, Texas, and for international flights to China, France and Ireland. But then we had the pandemic, and the large carriers, Delta and American, dropped their flights to and from Stewart. Today there are only a handful of airlines operating, and the destinations are limited to a few locations in the U.S. (mostly Florida) and cheap flights to Reykjavik and the Faroe Islands. And, of course, we are hearing the stories of near misses at airports, vacation snafus as airlines cancel thousands of flights because of too few staff and, most recently, a door "plug" blowing out in midflight. There's more at stake than the hours wasted driving to JFK to catch a flight to San Francisco. The situation at Stewart is not unique. The deregulation of the U.S. air travel industry in 1978 has not led to any of the claims its advocates provided in support of dismantling the regulated competition model that had served the country for 40 years, since the 1930s, in which a federal Civil Aeronautics Board allocated routes to airlines, including those to regional airports, and the prices of flights. Ganesh Sitaraman, a law professor at Vanderbilt University and the author of Why Flying is Miserable and How to Fix It, has said that "all the things that are a problem with flying are a function of public policy choices. We decide as a country that we want children's toys to be safe, that we want rural places to have electricity service, that we think banks should be able to function reliably. These are public policy choices to regulate or set up systems that advance goals we have as a country. When we have failures in these systems, it's a function of getting the policies wrong. That decision led to the situation we are in now. "The 1980s were defined by cutthroat competition between the airlines," Sitaraman has said. "A lot of new entrants offered no-frills service, had no unions and took on the high-volume traffic and high-traffic routes, for example. This initially meant more competition and lower prices on those routes. But the big airlines fought back and pushed out a lot of these new competitors, raised prices afterward, and consolidated into large fortress hubs like Atlanta, Dallas or Charlotte. "By the end of the decade, after dozens of bankruptcies and mergers, labor-management strife, declining service quality, congestion and lost baggage, there was a shakeout in the airlines that led to reconsolidation. The same big airlines that existed under regulation were still dominant, just without the checks of the regulated period. So, we moved from regulated oligopoly to unregulated oligopoly. Despite the airlines getting bailed out by the federal government during the pandemic to the tune of $50 billion, the Highlands and even many mid-sized cities such as Dubuque, Iowa, and Toledo, Ohio, have few options for air travel. The answer is obvious: reregulate the airlines. Sitaraman told The New York Times last month how this could be done: "In big cities, limit any single carrier to 30 percent of the flights. Require the big airlines to serve smaller markets. Require 'interlining,' in which airlines honor one another's tickets if one has a problem. Ban or regulate the offshoring of heavy aircraft maintenance, which is done in countries including China and El S...

Bill McGee, senior fellow-airlines and travel for the American Economic Liberties Project, talks with James Shillinglaw of Insider Travel Report about his new report “How to Fix Flying: A New Approach to Regulating the Airline Industry,' co-authored by Ganesh Sitaraman of Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator. McGee details the major recommendations of this groundbreaking report focused on four areas: 1) resilience, competition and Geographic access; 2) fair and transparent pricing; 3) protecting passengers and ensuring safety; and 4) oversight and enforcement To read the full report, click on How to Fix Flying. For more information, visit www.economicliberties.us. If interested, the original video of this podcast can be found on the Insider Travel Report Youtube channel or by searching for the podcast's title on Youtube.

It is among the most classically joked about modern grievances, air travel. Between flight cancellations, delays, lost baggage, increased prices, crammed planes, and the general downtrodden gloom that accompanies flying, there is plenty left to be desired when it comes to the quality of airline service. The truth is that bankruptcies and mergers have meant that competition has come to a critical ebb. In his new book, Why Flying is Miserable, policy entrepreneur and law professor, Ganesh Sitaraman, identifies the core issues in aviation as he sees them. He points out that the lone four, too-big-to-fail airlines, still are failing to offer reliable services even after receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts during the pandemic. Sitaraman explains how the 1978 experiment in deregulating airlines ultimately turned out to be the cause of our current discontent. What resulted from deregulation was consolidation, higher prices, loss of service to smaller communities, fewer direct flights, and a more miserable experience overall. But perhaps it's not all cloudy skies ahead. Sitaraman expresses hope in abandoning the old systems of regulation, instead choosing to learn from the American tradition of regulated capitalism. The entrepreneur champions new solutions with the aim of increasing the reliability and resiliency of commercial air travel. Come to Town Hall where we can all complain about air travel together! But stick around for expert Ganesh Sitaraman to offer some words of consolation, and deliver actionable plans to better the experience of air travel in the future. Ganesh Sitaraman is a law professor at Vanderbilt Law School and the director of the Vanderbilt Institute for Political Economy and Regulation. He is the author of several books, including The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution and The Great Democracy. Sitaraman serves on the board of The American Prospect, and is a member of the FAA's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee. He was previously a senior advisor to Senator Elizabeth Warren on her presidential campaign. He lives in Nashville. Paul Constant has written about books, economics, and politics for The Seattle Times, Business Insider, the New York Observer, the LA Times, and many other publications. He is a fellow at Civic Ventures, a public policy incubator in Seattle, and contributes to the Pitchfork Economics podcast. Why Flying Is Miserable: And How to Fix It Phinney Books

From economic turbulence and overworked employees to the issues that affect everyday travelers, like delays, cancellations, lost luggage, and reduced routes – it's safe to say the airport experience has gotten pretty rough! Ganesh Sitaraman is on a mission to improve the airline industry for travelers, and his new book Why Flying Is Miserable: And How to Fix It lays out a plan for how leaders could fix flying to serve more people more efficiently and with fewer federal bailouts and headaches. Ganesh is a Doctor of Law from Harvard and is currently a Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School. He's a policy expert who teaches and writes about constitutional law, the regulatory state, economic policy, democracy, and foreign affairs.  In this episode, Ganesh and I unpack some of these problems with the US airline industry and take a look at the potential solutions through the eyes of a policy expert. While policy reform might not be something you thought you'd ever get excited about, you're going to be after listening to this episode! How can airline reform create a better travel experience for you? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic and hope you'll share by sending me an audio message. Tune In To Learn: How we got to where we are and the issue with unregulated air travel The biggest lesson for the industry to take away from the pandemic Why the current system's overall higher prices with fewer routes due to less competition is no longer working The surprising role that airports play in the airline system, who it hurts, and why Why the industry in its present state is bad for geographic equality and economic growth  His three-point plan for fixing flying and how the solution plays into climate change How he envisions AI playing out in the industry and the potential downsides for travelers  What it was like behind the scenes of a presidential campaign and how it's inspired his work His advice on opening someone up to an idea and what you can do to make a difference in policy reform And so much more Resources: Subscribe to our FREE newsletter Today's Sponsors - Wise, US Bank, Land Rover Visit Ganesh's website Grab his book, Why Flying Is Miserable: And How to Fix It Want More? When Is the Best Time to Book a Flight (In 2024) With Christie Hudson How To Take More Vacations by Booking Better, Cheaper Flights With Scott Keyes Flight Attendants Secrets Revealed: What NOT To Do On A Plane, Staying Healthy, Wild Passenger Stories and Amazing Travel Experiences w/ “Skybabes” Tee and Nena Thanks To Our Sponsors Wise can help you send, spend, and receive internationally without the hidden fees or exchange rate markups. Learn how Wise can work for you by downloading the app or visiting www.wise.com/travel. US Bank Altitude Go Visa Signature Card get 4 X the points on eating out and 2 X the points on groceries, entertainment services, and gas or EV charge stations. Apply today at usbank.com/altitudego to get 20,000 points by spending $1,000 in your first 90 days.  You're up for any challenge that comes your way, and the Land Rover Defender 110 is too. Learn more at landroverusa.com/defender.

Long gone are the days of steak dinners, piano bars, and free alcohol on flights—not to mention widely expanding markets and strong competition. Vanderbilt Law professor Ganesh Sitaraman looks to the deregulation of the airline industry in the 1970s to explain the relatively dismal state of flying today. In his new book, Why Flying Is Miserable: And How to Fix It (https://globalreports.columbia.edu/books/why-flying-is-miserable/), he points to a host of policy options left on the table that could help. Sitaraman joins host Richard Aldous to discuss how Congress should get creative in its aviation policy, and why it should do so well in advance of the inevitable next crisis to hit the industry.

Complaints against U.S. airlines hit a record high in 2022. And it's not getting any better. Consumer complaints nearly doubled in the first three months of this year, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.With only four major airlines in the U.S., there's little choice for consumers in the market. And with air travel expected to reach a record high this holiday season, many will be subjected to the worst of travel: long lines, high prices, and of course, awful airplane food.But why does our time in flight have to be riddled with anguish? And what can be done to make the skies friendly again?For that, we're turning to Ganesh Sitaraman, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and director of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator. He's also out with the new book, "Why Flying is Miserable: And How to Fix It."Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Find out how to connect with us by visiting our website.

Ganesh Sitaraman, professor at Vanderbilt University, and author of “Why Flying is Miserable: and How to Fix It”, joins us to talk about the history of the airlines and how to make them better. We discuss: The inception and growth of America's airlines Regulation and deregulation Ideas on how to bring back service to smaller cities, improve the flying experience, and keep it accessible Join the conversation! https://www.nexttripnetwork.com/

** It's the Radiotopia fundraiser! Support the show using this link and you'll get a 20% discount to our new merch store! https://on.prx.org/46XCf1R ** It's December 17th. This day in 1978, holiday travelers are flying around the country under a regulatory system that was about to come to an end. The next year, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 would kick in. Jody, NIki, and Kellie are joined by Ganesh Sitaraman of Vanderbilt to discuss how the act changed the competitive structure for airlines — and in turn led to a degradation of service, reliability, and the glamour of flying. Ganesh's new book is “Why Flying is Miserable… And How To Fix It.” Here's our holiday book gift guide! https://thisdaypod.substack.com/p/a-this-day-books-and-merch-gift-guide Sign up for our newsletter! Get your hands on This Day merch! Find out more at thisdaypod.com This Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX. Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories. If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.com Get in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Our website is thisdaypod.com Follow us on social @thisdaypod Our team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia

Flying Smarter is celebrating 50 episodes! This episode contains some special announcements as well as the first part of our 2023 year-in-review. What training do flight attendants get for dealing with panicked passengers? Former flight attendant and Episode 45 guest Carrie Bradley answers this question in this episode. Air traffic controller Andy Watson shares a story about Air Force Two. In this episode, you will find unaired clips from some of our amazing 2023 guests. In celebration of Episode 50 of the podcast and the holiday season, we are holding a giveaway for a Flying Smarter luggage tag and a $100 gift card for the airline of the winner's choice! Enter on our Instagram page throughout the month of December. Plus, check out the Insights section of the Flying Smarter for stories from Andrew's travels, articles about air travel, and more.  Thank you to all our listeners and friends for your ongoing support. Flying Smarter has grown tremendously over the past 50 episodes and it's all thanks to our wonderful listeners.  Our 2023 guests featured in this episode:Andy Watson – air traffic controller and author of The Pilot's Guide to Air Traffic Control (Episode 39): www.atcandy.com  Joey Gerardi – aviation writer, photographer, video producer (Episode 42): AirlineGeeks | X (Twitter) | Instagram | YouTubeCarrie Bradley – family travel expert, founder/editor of Flying with a Baby, former flight attendant (Episode 45): www.flyingwithababy.com | Facebook | Instagram | X (Twitter). Ganesh Sitaraman – law professor and author of Why Flying is Miserable and How to Fix It (Episode 49): www.ganeshsitaraman.com | X (Twitter) The next episode of Flying Smarter will be the second part of our 2023 year-in-review. It will feature travel tips from the rest of our guests from this year, so stay tuned! Connect with Flying Smarter: Facebook: Flying Smarter Podcast Instagram: @flyingsmarter Twitter: @flying_smarterLinkedIn: Flying SmarterWebsite: www.flyingsmarter.com

An Assessment of the Chillingly Precise Intelligence Report on the Planned Hamas Attack That Was ignored | The Price We Paid For the Capture of US Foreign Policy by Kissinger's Realpolitik | How Deregulation Made Airline Travel Miserable as Underinvestment is Making it Dangerous backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

It's one of the biggest travel weeks of the year in the United States, so we're sharing a conversation with Ganesh Sitaraman, Professor of Law and Director of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator and author of the new book, Why Flying is Miserable: And How to Fix It. He shares how flying got to be such a slog and some ideas about how we can change it.Ganesh Sitaraman WebsiteWhy Flying Is Miserable: And How to Fix It by Ganesh Sitaraman (Bookshop)Visit our website for complete show notes and episode resources. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Want to know why your flight was delayed and your baggage lost? Blame capitalism. Ganesh Sitaraman is a law professor and director of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation. He joins host Krys Boyd to discuss why he feels unregulated capitalism created a handful of airline competitors – all too-big-to-fail and receiving government funding – and why he feels improvements are possible. His book is “Why Flying is Miserable: And How to Fix It.”

Subscribe to The Realignment to access our exclusive Q&A episodes and support the show: https://realignment.supercast.com/REALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: https://therealignment.substack.com/PURCHASE BOOKS AT OUR BOOKSHOP: https://bookshop.org/shop/therealignmentEmail Us: realignmentpod@gmail.comFoundation for American Innovation: https://www.thefai.org/posts/lincoln-becomes-faiGanesh Sitaraman, author of Why Flying Is Miserable: And How to Fix It, law professor, and the director of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation, joins The Realignment. Marshall and Ganesh discuss why the airline industry is always in crisis, why the worst aspects of air travel, the cancellations, delays, lost baggage, tiny seats, and poor service, stem from policy choices, whether airline deregulation in the 1970s succeeded in its goals, and what a sustainable path forward for the industry looks like. 

Ganesh Sitaraman, law professor and the director of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation, member of the FAA's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee and the author of Why Flying Is Miserable: And How to Fix It (Columbia Global Reports, 2023), argues the deregulation of the airline industry in the 1970s went too far and better public policy can fix the problems with this industry, and others.  

Complaints against U.S. airlines hit a record high in 2022. And it's not getting any better. Consumer complaints nearly doubled in the first three months of this year, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.With only four major airlines in the U.S., there's little choice for consumers in the market. And with air travel expected to reach a record high this holiday season, many will be subjected to the worst of travel: long lines, high prices, and of course, awful airplane food.But why does our time in flight have to be riddled with anguish? And what can be done to make the skies friendly again?For that, we're turning to Ganesh Sitaraman, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and director of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator. He's also out with the new book, "Why Flying is Miserable: And How to Fix It."Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Find out how to connect with us by visiting our website.

Andrew starts this episode by talking about why we board and deplane from the left side of the aircraft. Afterwards, main segment of this episode features law professor Ganesh Sitaraman, who joins Andrew to talk about why flying is miserable and what we can do about it from a regulatory perspective.  In the last episode, we talked a lot about boarding. One question that came up is why we always board and disembark on the left side. Learn more in this episode. Did you know that there are some airlines that don't fly on Christmas Day? The holiday season is one of the busiest times of the year for the air travel industry, but some airlines don't fly on December 25th itself. In the main segment of this episode, law professor Ganesh Sitaraman shares his insights about airline regulation and deregulation in the United States. From delays and cancellations to poor service, there's no shortage of reasons why flying isn't always fun. Ganesh brings a regulatory perspective to the podcast, looking at the impacts of deregulation on the travel experience today, what potential changes in the regulatory regime could look like, and much more. Ganesh Sitaraman is a law professor at Vanderbilt University and the director of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation. He teaches and writes about constitutional law, the regulatory state, economic policy, democracy, and foreign affairs and is the author of numerous books. In addition, he is a member of the Federal Aviation Administration's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee. His latest book, Why Flying is Miserable and How to Fix It, offers insight into the state of air travel in the United States from a regulatory perspective. You can learn more about Ganesh and his work and books on his website and find him on X (Twitter) .The next episode of Flying Smarter is Episode 50 and we have some things announcements planned, including a giveaway. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast and follow Flying Smarter on social media so that you don't miss anything! Connect with Flying Smarter: Facebook: Flying Smarter Podcast Instagram: @flyingsmarter Twitter: @flying_smarterLinkedIn: Flying SmarterWebsite: www.flyingsmarter.com

Why flying is miserable and how to fix it, NTSB on increase in near-misses, ARC will examine pilot mental health, preliminary Hawker/Cessna accident report, cargo pilots offered $250,000 to go regional, UA frequent flyer program.

Every week, it seems, brings a new report of an airport mishap or a near collision between airplanes. Why are so many of these happening now, and what does it tell us about the state of commercial air travel? On episode 74 of The Politics of Everything, co-hosts Laura Marsh and Alex Pareene talk with journalist and private pilot James Fallows about the particular circumstances of some of the more alarming recent incidents, and with author Ganesh Sitaraman about whether the current systems governing air travel are robust enough to support this ever-growing industry. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This summer, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation that would attempt to set ethics rules for the U.S. Supreme Court and a process to enforce them, including rules for transparency around recusals, gifts, and conflicts of interest. The bill, which still requires full Senate approval, is the latest in a series of proposals and attempts to reform or improve the Supreme Court in recent years. In this episode of We the People, we discuss various proposals to reform ethics rules surrounding the Supreme Court; how and whether these proposals could go into effect; and what the enforcement mechanisms could be. Law professors Daniel Hemel of NYU Law and Daniel Epps of Washington University School of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen.     Resources:  S.359 - Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023 (Sen. Whitehouse)  S.325 - Supreme Court Ethics Act (Sen. Murphy)  Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman, “The Future of Supreme Court Reform” (2021)  Daniel Hemel, “Can Structural Changes Fix the Supreme Court?” (2021)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Vanderbilt law professor Ganesh Sitaraman and University of Pennsylvania law professor Shelley Welton. Both guests are experts in regulatory policy and are co-authors of a new case book Networks, Platforms, and Utilities. Case books serve as the academic bedrock of law school classes. They are collections of seminal cases that facilitate the understanding of a specific field of law. Networks, Platforms, and Utilities collects primary source material that cover infrastructure areas such as transportation, communications, energy, finance, and technology. The subject of regulated industries has fallen away as a law school class in recent decades, but the industries did not disappear, nor did an important role for law and regulation. Networks, Platforms, and Utilities is intended to revitalize this area of teaching and scholarship (0:45-23:36). One key distinction that helps structure the conversation on regulation is the difference between economic and social regulation. Economic regulation essentially overseas an industrial area, generally with the purpose of managing a natural monopoly. Social regulation addresses a wider range of political purposes, including addressing externalities such as pollution. In both types of regulation, questions of governance, democratic accountability, and social justice are present. And, of course, these two categories sometimes overlap (23:37-31:51). Net metering is an examples of a case of economic regulation that is also intertwined with broader social issues, particularly climate change, given the effects of that policy on renewable energy adoption (31:52-39:17). Many of the cases covered in the book interact with antitrust law. In utilities-related cases, introducing competition as a remedy is not an appropriate solution for the marketplace. In situations creating competitive markets is not feasible, there is a second set of tools that can help achieve social goals in regulated, non-competitive markets. In these cases, the democratic process helps determine what goals the regulator should try to achieve (39:18-54:48). Livermore, Sitaraman, and Welton discuss how to deliberate over these issues. One key question is whether it is possible to have robust participation when many of the questions regulators face are highly technical. Welton ends by discussion a hopeful example of powerful public participation is a series of conversations held by the New York Public Service Commission with low income ratepayers across New York. In her view, these individuals, who engaged in a particular governance process, were able to tell their stories and eventually push New York to adopt a different method of pricing electricity (54:49-1:04:11). Overall, Sitaraman and Welton are optimistic that the current political movement is shifting in favor of greater economic regulation, so that the law examined in Networks, Platforms and Utilities will only grow in coming years.

Today, we're re-airing one of our most timely debates from earlier this year: Reforming the Supreme Court. This episode originally aired before the Dobbs decision was released this summer.2022 is a big year for supporters of Supreme Court reform. Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that gave women nationwide the right to have abortions, has been overturned, and the debate around changing the way we structure the bench — in particular, packing the court — is getting only more heated.The past decade has brought a shift in the makeup of the court — from Brett Kavanaugh, appointed despite sexual assault allegations, to Merrick Garland, blocked from confirmation, and Amy Coney Barrett, rushed to confirmation.It's the culmination of decades of effort by Republicans to make the courts more conservative. And now Democrats want to push back by introducing some radical changes.Today, Jane Coaston brings together two guests who disagree on whether altering Supreme Court practices is the right call and, if yes, what kind of changes would make sense for the highest judicial body in the nation.Russ Feingold is the president of the American Constitution Society and was a Democratic senator from Wisconsin from 1993 to 2011. Russ Miller is an attorney and law professor at Washington and Lee and the head of the Max Planck Law Network in Germany.Mentioned in this episode:“Americans No Longer Have Faith in the U.S. Supreme Court. That Has Justices Worried,” by Russ Feingold in The Guardian, published in October 2021.“We Don't Need to Reform the Supreme Court,” by Russ Miller in Just Security, published in February 2021.“The Future of Supreme Court Reform,” by Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman in Harvard Law Review, published in May 2021.

2022 is a big year for supporters of Supreme Court reform. Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that gave women nationwide the right to have abortions, might be overturned, and the debate around changing the way we structure the bench — in particular, packing the court — is getting only more heated.The past decade has brought a shift in the makeup of the court — from Brett Kavanaugh, appointed despite sexual assault allegations, to Merrick Garland, blocked from confirmation, and Amy Coney Barrett, rushed to confirmation.It's the culmination of decades of effort by Republicans to make the courts more conservative. And now Democrats want to push back by introducing some radical changes.Today, Jane Coaston brings together two guests who disagree on whether altering Supreme Court practices is the right call and, if yes, what kind of changes would make sense for the highest judicial body in the nation.Russ Feingold is the president of the American Constitution Society and was a Democratic senator from Wisconsin from 1993 to 2011. And Russ Miller is an attorney and law professor at Washington and Lee and the head of the Max Planck Law Network in Germany.Mentioned in this episode:“Americans No Longer Have Faith in the U.S. Supreme Court. That Has Justices Worried,” by Russ Feingold in The Guardian, published in October 2021.“We Don't Need to Reform The Supreme Court,” by Russ Miller in Just Security, published in February 2021.“The Future of Supreme Court Reform,” by Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman in Harvard Law Review, published in May 2021.

Co-hosts Larry Bernstein and Rick Banks. Guests include Eric Kaufmann, Doug Massey, Andrew Gelman, W. Joseph Campbell, Larry Kramer, Mark Tushnet and Ganesh Sitaraman.

A COVID update including the Gov of California violating his own guidelines in opulent style, New York's most hilarious rivalry continuing to affect the state and a study of all 50 states and how they've governed the crisis. Mailbag! Including a bizarre scenario where Trump becomes Secretary of State. Also, it weirdly makes sense. Interview with Ganesh Sitaraman and Daniel Epps about ways to reform the Supreme Court that you've never heard of. -- Oxford Covid Study: https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/coronavirus-government-response-tracker DMX: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQcTmBevae2jDeFEZ6VEQPw

If Democrats win back power this November, they will be faced with a choice: Leave the existing Supreme Court intact, and watch their legislative agenda — and perhaps democracy itself — be gradually gutted by 5-4 and 6-3 judicial rulings; or use their power to reform the nation’s highest court over fierce opposition by the Republican party. Ganesh Sitaraman is a former senior advisor to Elizabeth Warren and a law professor at Vanderbilt. He’s also the author of one of the most hotly debated proposals for Supreme Court reform, as well as the fairest and clearest analyst I’ve read regarding the benefits and drawbacks of every other plausible proposal for Supreme Court reform. So in this conversation, we discuss the range of options, from well-known ideas like court packing and term limits to more obscure proposals like the 5-5-5 balanced bench and a judicial lottery system. But there’s another reason I wanted Sitaraman on the show right now. Supreme Court reform matters — for good or for ill — because democracy matters. In his recent book, The Great Democracy, Sitaraman makes an argument that's come to sit at the core of my thinking, too: The fundamental fight in American politics right now is about whether we will become a true democracy. And not just a democracy in the thin, political definition we normally use — holding elections, and ensuring access to the franchise. The fight is for a thicker form of a democracy, one that takes economic power seriously, that makes the construction of a certain kind of civic and political culture central to its aims.  So this is a conversation about what that kind of democracy would look like, and what it would take to get there – up to and including Supreme Court reform. References: Jump-Starting America by Jonathan Gruber and Simon Johnson  "How to save the Supreme Court" by Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman Sitaraman's tweet threads about expanding the court , term limits , the 5-5-5 Balanced bench, lottery approach, supermajority voting requirements, jurisdiction stripping, legislative overrides, and what the best approach is. Book recommendations: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn The Public and Its Problems by John Dewey The Anarchy by William Dalrymple  Credits: Producer/Audio wizard - Jeff Geld Researcher - Roge Karma Please consider making a contribution to Vox to support this show: bit.ly/givepodcasts Your support will help us keep having ambitious conversations about big ideas. New to the show? Want to check out Ezra’s favorite episodes? Check out the Ezra Klein Show beginner’s guide (http://bit.ly/EKSbeginhere) Want to contact the show? Reach out at ezrakleinshow@vox.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Professors Ganesh Sitaraman, Morgan Ricks, and Chris Serkin are Professors of Law at Vanderbilt Law School. Professor Michelle Layser, an Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, joins as guest co-host for this discussion. Appendices: Ganesh Sitaraman: Jump Starting America: How Breakthrough Science Can Revive Economic Growth and the American Dream by Jonathan Gruber and Simon Johnson. Chris Serkin: Neighborhood Defenders: Participatory Politics and America’s Housing Crisis by Katherine Levine Einstein, David Glick, and Maxwell Palmer. Michelle Layser: How Place-Based Tax Incentives Can Reduce Geographic Inequality by Michelle Layser. Greg Shill: Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Divide by Jonathan Rodden. Jeff Lin: Local Ties in Spatial Equilibrium by Mike Zabek. Follow us on the web or on Twitter: @denselyspeaking, @jeffrlin, @greg_shill. Ganesh is @GaneshSitaraman, Morgan is @MorganRicks1, and Chris avoids twitter but can occasionally be found @serkinc. Michelle is @LayserTax. Producer: Schuyler Pals. The views expressed on the show are those of the participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the Federal Reserve System, or any of the other institutions with which the hosts or guests are affiliated. This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

Welcome to the first episode of our 2020 presidential election series. To prepare for the upcoming election, POFA will discuss the recent emergence of a progressive approach to foreign policy as well as what foreign policy would look like under either a Biden administration or a second Trump term. Then, we will be examine the … Continue reading 2020 Elections: Progressive Foreign Policy with Ganesh Sitaraman

In this episode, host Sarah Ladislaw talks with Ganesh Sitaraman about building a grand strategy of resilience and how climate change is one of the factors driving the need for a strategy. Sarah and Ganesh discuss why there is an opportunity now in the United States to develop and implement such a strategy. They highlight the importance of finding new approaches to organizing government and the economy and reflect on the broad implications for how we think about democracy.  Professor Sitaraman is currently Professor of Law and Director, Program in Law and Government at Vanderbilt University, where he teaches and writes about constitutional law, the regulatory state, economic policy, democracy, and foreign affairs. He has been a longtime advisor to Elizabeth Warren, including serving as a senior advisor on her 2020 presidential campaign, her senior counsel in the Senate, and her policy director during her 2012 Senate campaign. He is also a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and the co-founder of the Great Democratic Initiative, which develops bold, innovative and detailed policy plans.  Recommendations for further reading:  A Grand Strategy of Resilience: American Power in the Age of Fragility  The Great Democracy: How to Fix Our Politics, Unrig the Economy, and Unite America Planning War, Pursuing Peace: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1920-1939  Arsenal of World War II: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1940-1945 

Today's episode takes a deep dive into Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax. Is it constitutional? How will the arguments shape up? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with an interesting proposal for a "Congressional Review Act" for the Supreme Court by law professor -- and professional Supreme-Court-fixer -- Ganesh Sitaraman. Will this proposal meet with more approval than Sitaraman's previous "lottery" idea? Then we do a deep dive into the history of taxes in this country, looking at two very old cases -- one from 1895 (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429), and one from way back in 1796 (Hylton v. U.S.). We also cover the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, as well as check in on the most recent Supreme Court tax ruling from Chief Justice John Roberts, the NFIB v. Sebelius 2012 Obamacare decision. What do we learn from all that? Well, you'll just have to give it a listen! After all that, it's time for the answer to what some are calling the easiest #T3BE question ever about falling off a ladder. Are they right? Was Thomas? There's only one way to know for sure! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to vulgarityforcharity@gmail.com along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. You can read Prof. Sitaraman's latest article in The Atlantic suggesting a "Congressional Review Act for the Supreme Court." (We previously broke down the Congressional Review Act way back in Episode 61.) We last touched on Prof. Sitaraman's "How to Save the Supreme Court" lottery proposal somewhat less favorably in Episode 294. Head on over to Elizabeth Warren's campaign site to read her "Ultra-Millionaire Tax" proposal. Resources for tax law: Hylton v. U.S. (1796); Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), and NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). Finally, you can check out the scholars letters submitted in support of Warren's tax plan as well as the Johnson & Dellinger law review article, "The Constitutionality of a National Wealth Tax." -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

A More Equal Union.  The political crisis of extreme inequality.  How the electoral college undermines democracy.  Plus Jerry Brown and Pete Buttigieg together on the Bill Press pod.   Adam Eichen on the fight to end winner take all elections.  Ganesh Sitaraman on reviving the reforms of the progressive era.  Plus Bill Press with Jerry Brown and Pete Buttigieg on why US foreign policy needs a major fix.   Adam Eichen Adam Eichen is an author and activist focused on highlighting the emerging Democracy Movement in the United States. He says that the path to citizen equality demands fundamental reforms to the way we vote.   Ganesh Sitaraman Legal scholar Ganesh Sitaraman writes about the core connection between democracy and economic equality. He says that as concentrated wealth and power distort our democracy, it’s time to recall the progressives who fought back over a hundred years ago.   Pete Buttigieg The role of America in the world today with presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg and former California governor Jerry Brown  If you'd like to hear the entire interview, visit BillPressPods.com.   Jim Hightower Why would we trust plutocrats to save us from plutocracy

Whenever you go to your local public library, send mail via the post office, or visit Yosemite, you are taking advantage of a longstanding American tradition: the public option. Some of the most useful and beloved institutions in American life are public options, yet they are seldom celebrated as such. Author Ganesh Sitaraman joined us with perspective from his co-written book The Public Option: How to Expand Freedom, Increase Opportunity, and Promote Equality to challenge decades of received wisdom about the proper role of government and consider the vast improvements that could come from the expansion of public options. He explored the ways that public options hold the potential to transform American civic life, offering a wealth of solutions to seemingly intractable problems, from housing shortages to the escalating cost of healthcare. Join Sitaraman as he revealed smart new ways to meet pressing public needs—and highlights how public options could offer us all fairer choices and greater security. Ganesh Sitaraman is Professor of Law and Director at the Program on Law and Government at Vanderbilt Law School. He served as Policy Director for Elizabeth Warren during her successful Senate campaign and as her Senior Counsel in the Senate. Presented by Town Hall Seattle. Recorded live in The Reading Room by Town Hall Seattle on September 6, 2019. 

TODAY ON XRAY: (1) News With Friends with Emily Gilliland and Andy Lindberg (2) Talk Media News (3) XRAY on Space with Daniel Trainer (4) A rebroadcast interview with Portia Sabin (5) An interview with author and law professor Ganesh Sitaraman (6) Bridgeliner with Ben DeJarnette

Ganesh Sitaraman is a long time policy adviser to Senator Elizabeth Warren and professor of law at Vanderbilt University. He is arguing for the creation of more public options even beyond healthcare in order to fill the gaps left by market base solutions.  He is the co-author, with Harvard Professor Anne Alstott, of the book The Public Option: How to Expand Freedom, Increase Opportunity, and Promote Equality. Guest: Ganesh Sitaraman is Chancellor Faculty Fellow, Professor of Law, and Director of the Program in Law and Government at Vanderbilt Law School. The post The Case for Public Options appeared first on KPFA.

Does the Supreme Court need saving? Ganesh Sitaraman thinks so. He teaches constitutional law at Vanderbilt University, and, like many of us, he is troubled by current political challenges to the Supreme Court’s legitimacy. Unlike most of us, however, he has some concrete proposals to save it. He and co-author Daniel Epps have put their ideas into writing in an article that will soon appear in the Yale Law Journal. As Stewart points out, some of the proposals in the article are pretty radical, but Ganesh has thoughtful and interesting arguments in favor of them. Join us for a deep dive into the highest court in the land.

In an article in The Atlantic, law professors Ganesh Sitaraman and Anne Alstott propose an intriguing fix to America’s retirement crisis, which sort of nudges workers into saving more without imposing costs on business or government, hence lowering political resistance.This podcast (5:28) suggests that the two law professors’ idea makes for an excellent start toward solving a retirement problem that is only growing. Once in place, it would be desirable for the government to take steps that would incentivize further saving.

In 2014, venture capitalist Nick Hanauer warned his fellow plutocrats that our growing crisis of economic inequality would lead to an uprising or a dictatorship. Two years later, angry voters elected Donald Trump. In this inaugural episode of Pitchfork Economics, we explore why the pitchforks are coming, who they’re coming for, and how the stories we tell about the economy can change the economy itself. ShownotesThe Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014 Twitter: @nickhanauer  Facebook: @CivicSkunkWorks @NickHanauer Medium: https://civicskunk.works/ Ganesh Sitaraman: Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School and Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. Co-founder and Director of Policy for the Great Democracy Initiative. Policy Director to Elizabeth Warren, 2011-2013. Author of The Crisis of the Middle Class Constitution: Law in the Age of Small Wars, named one of the New York Times’ 100 notable books of 2017. Twitter: @ganeshsitaraman  Walter Scheidel: Historian at Stanford. The most frequently cited active-duty Roman historian adjusted for age in the Western Hemisphere, Scheidel is the author or (co-)editor of 20 books, including The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality. Twitter: @walterscheidel Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Brexit, China, international trade, security, distribution, resentment, madness, and coffee with Tim Meyer. Tim Meyer's faculty profile (http://law.vanderbilt.edu/bio/timothy-meyer) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=440142) Oral Argument 105: Bismarck’s Raw Material (https://oralargument.org/105) (guest Tim Meyer) Oral Argument 2: Bust a Deal, Face the Wheel (https://oralargument.org/2) (guest Tim Meyer) Timothy Meyer and Ganesh Sitaraman, Trade and the Separation of Powers (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3136086) Nicolas Lamp, How Should We Think about the Winners and Losers from Globalization? Three Narratives and Their Implications for the Redesign of International Economic Agreements (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3290590) Special Guest: Tim Meyer.

During the Cold War the United States fought to defend its political system against the threat of Communism. But times have changed. Does the US now have to defend its republic and its democracy against the threat of a new Gilded Age, of oligarchs — and the dangerous consequences of deep income inequality?   Vanderbilt law professor and former Senate staffer Ganesh Sitaraman argues that, in a political system like that of the US, which was designed to be class-blind, widening the economic divide can actually bring down the system. He tells WhoWhatWhy's Jeff Schechtman in this week's podcast that political democracy cannot survive amid economic inequality. Sitaraman explains how the founding generation thought about the role of the middle class in keeping democracy healthy. He says the constitutional system devised by the founders, while devoid of overt checks and balances on class, had enough flexibility to help counter inequality — until the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. The excesses of the Gilded Age gave rise to the Progressive Era as a corrective. He further argues that the period after the Great Depression of the 1930s led to additional government actions and programs that helped to temper further economic disparity, and as a result reflected the true benefits of workers, government, and business acting collectively. He contrasts all of this to what's going on today, and argues that economics, more than anything else, explains the US's current political dysfunction. Ganesh Sitaraman is the author of The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens Our Republic (Knopf, March 14, 2017).

Ganesh Sitaraman is a professor of law at Vanderbilt University. He published The Crisis of the Middle-class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens Our Republic in 2017. Bryan and Hunter learn a lot about the history of the United States Constitution and the economic history of the United States. Don’t forget to go to https://mixedmentalarts.online for all the updates of what we’re doing! Social media, too! Give us money on Patreon so Bryan Callen can become a British Lord, and use our Amazon affiliate links!

What is the nexus between our political system and our economic system? Certainly during the Cold War we fought to defend our political system against the economic threat of communism. So, does it work the other way around? Do we now have to defined our republic and our democracy against the threat of a new gilded age, of oligarchs and of deep income inequality? Is the fight for civility and justice, also a fight for economic justice. In a system designed to be class blind, can the widening economic divide actually bring down the system? The way in which these political and economic ideas are related, is the basis of Ganesh Sitaraman's new book The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens Our Republic. My conversation with Ganesh Sitaraman:

Dive in to this lively dialogue about economics, history, philosophy, law, and politics with Ganesh Sitaraman, author of The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution. He makes a compelling case that inequality is more than just a moral or economic problem; it threatens the very core of our American constitutional system.

Ana Kasparian hosts an interview with Ganesh Sitaraman to discuss his new book on income inequality in the context of the Constitution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

BYU's Corry Copper and Yvon Le Bras on the French election. Jeffery Zax, University of Colorado, on how student names affect teachers' opinions. Cristian Tomasetti, Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, explains why cancer is mostly just bad luck. Ganesh Sitaraman, Vanderbilt University, shares why the Constitution needs the middle class. Assemblymember Cristina Garcia on the fight against the tampon tax. "Play Me, I'm Yours" project's Sally Reay shares the people's piano.

Sarah discusses the Pantsuit Politics Book Club March pick - J.D. Vance's memoir Hillbilly Elegy with Jean, a stay-at-home mom from Central New York who was unimpressed with the best seller. Leave us a review on iTunes by clicking here! Subscribe to Episodes: iTunes | Android Subscribe to our weekly email and get a free Pantsuit Primer audiobook! Follow Us: Instagram | Twitter | FacebookShow Notes Jean's beginning thoughts on J.D. Vance and Hillbilly Elegy"He is a bad source for what he is trying to get you to understand about these people. He is intrinsically different and always was because while the people he was talking about had the fuck it mentality, he didn't. he wanted out and knew it. he used the military as many often do to pull himself out. something that any of the others could do but dont because theyve already given up. like the bird that doesnt leave the cage when the doors open. He cant understand his own people and maybe thats why he comes off as judgy, because hes trying to tell a story from a mold he doesnt fit. My degree is in Psych, I have a deep rooted desire to understand why people think the way they do. I expected him to be a first hand source to aid in that understanding, but hes not. He is the outsider looking in at his own people because of that intrinsic difference between his drive and their lack of it, which means even he doesnt understand why they do and think the way they do. We also discussed:Arlie Russell Hochschild Strangers in their own LandS*town podcastMorgan Spurlock's 30 DaysJames Frey's A Million Little Pieces The Pantsuit Politics Book Club will be reading The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens Our Republic by Ganesh Sitaraman. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

So, that happened. This week, President Donald Trump moved forward on a number of policy fronts. He also moved backward on a number of policy fronts. Very typical week, to be honest. But we now have the first Trump budget, and as you might expect, it really does a number on several high profile domestic policy projects. We'll lay out where negotiations with Congress are likely to begin. We'll also bring you up to speed with the Congressional Budget Office's evaluation of Trumpcare (it wasn't good) and the how the president's second attempt at a Muslim travel ban became another hilarious self-own. Meanwhile, our guest today is Ganesh Sitaraman, an associate professor of law at Vanderbilt University, who's written a new book titled "The Crisis Of The Middle-Class Constitution." In it, he goes back to our nation's founding, uncovers our founders' belief in the necessity of a strong middle class. That's a belief that persisted for much of our history. But in recent decades, the vitality of the middle-class... See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

As part of our continuing look at counter-insurgency and nation building, we speak with Ganesh Sitaraman, Assistant Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University, and author of The Counterinsurgent‘s Constitution: Law in the Age of Small Wars. In the wake of 9/11, the argument was often made that because terrorists did not adhere to the rules of war that meant that we did not need to either. (Here I’m assuming that terrorists don’t listen to The Bryan Callen Show.) While there are many moral arguments for adhering to the rules of law, Sitaraman makes the point that holding to law even when your enemies don’t is excellent strategy. In an insurgency, the competition is for legitimacy in the eyes of the population and the side that adheres to the rules and abide by the highest principles will win the hearts and minds of the population. The Counterinsurgent‘s Constitution: Law in the Age of Small Wars is available on Amazon. You can follow him on twitter at @GaneshSitaraman.

Mike talks with Ganesh Sitaraman, a professor of law at Vanderbilt Law School and a senior fellow at the [Center for American Progress](https://www.americanprogress.org/). He's a longtime advisor to Senator Elizabeth Warren, serving as her policy director and senior counsel. Professor Sitaraman has commented on foreign and domestic policy in The New York Times, The New Republic, The Boston Globe, and The Christian Science Monitor and is the author of [The Counterinsurgent's Constitution: Law in the Age of Small Wars](http://amzn.to/2BrU8da), which won the 2013 Palmer Civil Liberties Prize and, most recently, [The Crisis of the Middle Class Constitution: Why Income Inequality Threatens Our Republic.](http://amzn.to/2Br0QA9) In this episode, Mike and Professor Sitaraman discuss 'class warfare' vs 'middle class' constitutions, the radicalism of the Founders, why income inequality wasn't a big problem in 18th century America, the reasons for increased economic inequality over the past 40 years, and lots more! [Ganesh Sitaraman on Twitter](https://twitter.com/GaneshSitaraman) Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you're interested in supporting the show, go to [politicsguys.com](http://www.politicsguys.com) and click on the Patreon or PayPal link. Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-politics-guys/donations Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy