Podcasts about harmelin

Way back in Episode 49, Andrew argued that lawyers who claim to follow in the footsteps of Antonin Scalia-style originalism should be disqualified from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court, and that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee need to be challenging Scalia's acolytes (like Neil Gorsuch) on their underlying philosophy and not just their compassion (or lack thereof). In this episode, friend of the show David Michael challenges some of the points made by Andrew in the original episode , as well as raises new ones.  Along with Thomas, we have a great three-way discussion about U.S. history, the Federalist papers, key cases, the underlying work of Robert Bork, and more.  Does Andrew change his mind?   Does Thomas?  Listen and find out! After the lengthy interview, we end with the answer to an all-new TTTBE #67 about a gang party where the boss just wanted to "send a message."  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You can listen to our (ahem) original episode on originalism, Episode 49. Please also check out David Michael's new podcast, The Quorum! Here’s a link to the full text of the Federalist Papers. United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) is the infamous decision in which Scalia declared that the Eighth Amendment only bars punishments that are both “cruel” and “unusual in the Constitutional sense.” Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

In today's episode, we take a long look at the judicial philosophy of "originalism" made popular by former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and advocated by his would-be replacement. First, we begin with a question from Jodi, who asks Andrew for his opinion of LegalZoom and other law-in-a-box services.  Andrew gets a little emotional in his response.... Next, we break down originalism as a form of jurisprudence and examine why it is (1) internally incoherent and contradictory; (2) dangerous and unconstrained; and (3) contrary to the fundamental purpose of the judiciary.  Andrew's argument is that originalists do not belong on the Supreme Court.  Period. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #13 about hearsay.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was a panel guest on The Thinking Atheist episode "Donald Trump's America," which you can listen to by clicking right here. Show Notes & Links Here are Andrew's two blog posts -- one about Legal Zoom and one about downloading contracts off the internet.  His law firm site is here. This Huffington Post piece quotes Scalia's 2008 interview with Nina Totenberg about the Eighth Amendment not prohibiting 18th-century forms of torture. Here's a link to the full text of the Federalist Papers. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Scalia's dissent in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 347-48 (2002) and opinion in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) are where he makes fun of citations to international law. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) is the infamous decision in which Scalia declared that the Eighth Amendment only bars punishments that are both "cruel" and "unusual in the Constitutional sense." Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

It’s our second annual call-out show, and it’s a double-sized episode meant to last two weeks. We’re joined by listeners and previous guests who share with us the bits of culture — books, movies, and television — that have affected them and their experience of law and policy. Many things come up, but here’s the rundown: Listener Cameron, 0:00, Les Misérables Listener Michael, 26:11, JFK, the film Listener Bunny, 44:28, Star Trek: The Next Generation, The Measure of a Man Listener and co-host Sonja West, 1:11:26, The Feminine Mystique Listener and co-host Dave Fagundes, 1:41:25, A Wilderness of Error Mom, 2:10:14, Honor Council, The Insider, Serial This show’s links: Oral Argument 44: Serial (A Double-Sized Episode with Many Special Guests) About Les Misérables (and a list of its various incarnations on film and stage) About the “Ban the Box” movement Hicks v. District of Columbia (in which Justice Douglas cites Les Mis in dissent); Harmelin v. Michigan (approving Michigan’s “three strikes” law); and the dissent from the denial of cert in Riggs v. California (in which the defendant’s third strike under California’s law was for stealing a bottle of vitamins); People v. Taylor (a state court appellate case in which the dissent begins: “In a scenario somewhat reminiscent of a late 20th Century, real life Les Miserables, a hungry, homeless man is sent away for 25 years to life for trying to break into a church so he could eat some food he thought the church would be glad for him to have.”) JFK, the 1991 film About the assassination of JFK Philosophy Bites: Quasi Cassam on Conspiracy Theories Hold Up! About the legislative impact of JFK About Making a Murderer Oral Argument 37: Hammer Blow (guest Michael Dorf) The Measure of a Man, an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation; Picard’s argument for Data’s sentience (youtube) About positronic brains Richard Fisher, Is It OK to Torture or Murder a Robot Oral Argument 41: Sense-Think-Act (guest Ryan Calo) About the technological singularity Her Ray Kurzweil, The Age of Spiritual Machines Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique Rostker v. Goldberg (upholding the male-only military draft) Jerome Wakefield, The Concept of Mental Disorder The oral argument in Lawrence v. Texas Amy Argetsinger, Robert Spitzer, Psychiatrist of Transformative Influence, Dies at 83 Oral Argument 55: Cronut Lines (guest Dave Fagundes), discussing Waiting in Line: Norms, Markets, and the Law Lauren Davidson, Google’s New “Popular Times” Feature Could Kill the Queue Errol Morris, A Wilderness of Error (and more about Errol Morris) About Jeffrey MacDonald About the controversies over Fatal Vision The Thin Blue Line Serial, season one Janet Malcolm, The Journalist and the Murderer Daniel Medwed, The Innocent Prisoner’s Dilemma: Consequences of Failing to Admit Guilt at Parole Hearings (see also Rob Harris, The “Innocent Prisoner’s Dilemma”, an excellent NY Times video) Oral Argument 48: Legal Truth (guest Lisa Kern Griffin) The Insider Special Guests: Dave Fagundes and Sonja West.