Podcasts about harvard journal

Bright on Buddhism - Episode 113 - How does Buddhism argue that one must respond when they have been wronged? Does it teach that you should just take it and not respond at all? How does this relate to Buddhist influenced martial arts?Resources: Canzonieri, Salvatore. "The Emergence of the Chinese Martial arts". Han Wei Wushu (23).; Henning, Stanley (1999b). "Martial arts Myths of Shaolin Monastery, Part I: The Giant with the Flaming Staff". Journal of the Chenstyle Taijiquan Research Association of Hawaii. 5 (1).; Henning, Stanley E. (Fall 1999). "Academia Encounters the Chinese Martial arts". China Review International. 6 (2): 319–332. doi:10.1353/cri.1999.0020. ISSN 1069-5834.; Zhāng Kǒngzhāo 張孔昭 (c. 1784). Boxing Classic: Essential Boxing Methods 拳經拳法備要 Quánjīng Quánfǎ Bèiyào (in Chinese).; Kit, Wong Kiew (2002). Art of Shaolin Kung Fu: The Secrets of Kung Fu for Self-Defense Health and Enlightenment.; Order of the Shaolin Ch'an (2004, 2006). The Shaolin Grandmaster's Text: History, Philosophy, and Gung Fu of Shaolin Ch'an. Oregon.; Shahar, Meir (2008). The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. ISBN 978-0824831103.; Liu, James J.Y. (1967). The Chinese Knight Errant. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. pp. 87–88. ISBN 0-2264-8688-5.; Henning, Stanley (1994). "The Chinese Martial Arts in Historical Perspective" (PDF). Journal of the Chenstyle Taijiquan Research Association of Hawaii. 2 (3): 1–7.; Henning, Stan; Green, Tom (2001). "Folklore in the Martial Arts". In Green, Thomas A. (ed.). Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.; Shahar, Meir (2000). "Epigraphy, Buddhist Historiography, and Fighting Monks: The Case of The Shaolin Monastery". Asia Major. Third Series. 13 (2): 15–36.; Shahar, Meir (December 2001). "Ming-Period Evidence of Shaolin Martial Practice". Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. 61 (2). Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 61, No. 2: 359–413. doi:10.2307/3558572. ISSN 0073-0548. JSTOR 3558572. S2CID 91180380.; Francis, B.K. (1998). Power of Internal Martial Arts: Combat Secrets of Ba Gua, Tai Chi, and Hsing-I. North Atlantic Books.; Ueshiba, Kisshōmaru (2004). The Art of Aikido: Principles and Essential Techniques. Kodansha International. p. 70. ISBN 4-7700-2945-4.; Saotome, Mitsugi (1989). The Principles of Aikido. Boston, Massachusetts: Shambhala. p. 222. ISBN 978-0-87773-409-3.; Westbrook, Adele; Ratti, Oscar (1970). Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere. Tokyo, Japan: Charles E. Tuttle Company. pp. 16–96. ISBN 978-0-8048-0004-4.; David Jones (2015). Martial Arts Training in Japan: A Guide for Westerners. Tuttle Publishing. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-4629-1828-7.; Michael A. Gordon (2019). Aikido as Transformative and Embodied Pedagogy: Teacher as Healer. Springer. p. 28. ISBN 978-3-030-23953-4.; Ueshiba, Morihei (2013). Budo: Teachings Of The Founder Of Aikido. New York: Kodansha America. pp. 33–35. ISBN 978-1-56836-487-2.; gar-Hutton, Robert (2018). The Metamorphosis of Tai Chi: Created to kill; evolved to heal; teaching peace. Ex-L-Ence Publishing. ISBN 978-1-9164944-1-1.; Bluestein, Jonathan (2014). Research of Martial Arts. CreateSpace. ISBN 978-1-4991-2251-0.; Bond, Joey (1999). See Man Jump See God Fall: Tai Chi Vs. Technology. International Promotions Promotion Pub. ISBN 978-1-57901-001-0.; Choy, Kam Man (1985). Tai Chi Chuan. San Francisco, California: Memorial Edition 1994.[ISBN missing]; Davis, Barbara (2004). Taijiquan Classics: An Annotated Translation. North Atlantic Books. ISBN 978-1-55643-431-0.Do you have a question about Buddhism that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by emailing us at Bright.On.Buddhism@gmail.com.Nick Bright: Script, Cover Art, Music, Voice of Hearer, Co-HostProven Paradox: Editing, mixing and mastering, social media, Voice of Hermit, Co-Host

Our guest today is Mark W. Smith. Mark is a constitutional lawyer, professor, and host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. A member of the Supreme Court Bar, his works have been cited by federal courts and the US Supreme Court. Has also authored 8 books, including “Israel Disarmed”. His scholarly articles are featured in top law journals like the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1) How do we find ourselves in a circumstance where the 2nd Amendment is being endlessly litigated? And how are we doing in the courts on the 2nd Amendment? 2) What are some common mistakes lawyers and judges make in 2A cases in the courts? 3) What is the purpose of your Four Boxes Diner 2A channel? 4) Do you think President Trump will help 2A rights? 5) How do people follow you? Originally Aired 3.5.25

Bright on Buddhism - Episode 104 - What is the relationship between Buddhism and martial arts? What are some Buddhist influenced martial arts and their histories? How does the practice of martial arts reconcile with the moral precept of not harming sentient beings? Resources: Canzonieri, Salvatore. "The Emergence of the Chinese Martial arts". Han Wei Wushu (23).; Henning, Stanley (1999b). "Martial arts Myths of Shaolin Monastery, Part I: The Giant with the Flaming Staff". Journal of the Chenstyle Taijiquan Research Association of Hawaii. 5 (1).; Henning, Stanley E. (Fall 1999). "Academia Encounters the Chinese Martial arts". China Review International. 6 (2): 319–332. doi:10.1353/cri.1999.0020. ISSN 1069-5834.; Zhāng Kǒngzhāo 張孔昭 (c. 1784). Boxing Classic: Essential Boxing Methods 拳經拳法備要 Quánjīng Quánfǎ Bèiyào (in Chinese).; Kit, Wong Kiew (2002). Art of Shaolin Kung Fu: The Secrets of Kung Fu for Self-Defense Health and Enlightenment.; Order of the Shaolin Ch'an (2004, 2006). The Shaolin Grandmaster's Text: History, Philosophy, and Gung Fu of Shaolin Ch'an. Oregon.; Shahar, Meir (2008). The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. ISBN 978-0824831103.; Liu, James J.Y. (1967). The Chinese Knight Errant. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. pp. 87–88. ISBN 0-2264-8688-5.; Henning, Stanley (1994). "The Chinese Martial Arts in Historical Perspective" (PDF). Journal of the Chenstyle Taijiquan Research Association of Hawaii. 2 (3): 1–7.; Henning, Stan; Green, Tom (2001). "Folklore in the Martial Arts". In Green, Thomas A. (ed.). Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.; Shahar, Meir (2000). "Epigraphy, Buddhist Historiography, and Fighting Monks: The Case of The Shaolin Monastery". Asia Major. Third Series. 13 (2): 15–36.; Shahar, Meir (December 2001). "Ming-Period Evidence of Shaolin Martial Practice". Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. 61 (2). Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 61, No. 2: 359–413. doi:10.2307/3558572. ISSN 0073-0548. JSTOR 3558572. S2CID 91180380.; Francis, B.K. (1998). Power of Internal Martial Arts: Combat Secrets of Ba Gua, Tai Chi, and Hsing-I. North Atlantic Books.;Ueshiba, Kisshōmaru (2004). The Art of Aikido: Principles and Essential Techniques. Kodansha International. p. 70. ISBN 4-7700-2945-4.; Saotome, Mitsugi (1989). The Principles of Aikido. Boston, Massachusetts: Shambhala. p. 222. ISBN 978-0-87773-409-3.; Westbrook, Adele; Ratti, Oscar (1970). Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere. Tokyo, Japan: Charles E. Tuttle Company. pp. 16–96. ISBN 978-0-8048-0004-4.; David Jones (2015). Martial Arts Training in Japan: A Guide for Westerners. Tuttle Publishing. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-4629-1828-7.;  Michael A. Gordon (2019). Aikido as Transformative and Embodied Pedagogy: Teacher as Healer. Springer. p. 28. ISBN 978-3-030-23953-4; Ueshiba, Morihei (2013). Budo: Teachings Of The Founder Of Aikido. New York: Kodansha America. pp. 33–35. ISBN 978-1-56836-487-2.; gar-Hutton, Robert (2018). The Metamorphosis of Tai Chi: Created to kill; evolved to heal; teaching peace. Ex-L-Ence Publishing. ISBN 978-1-9164944-1-1.; Choy, Kam Man (1985). Tai Chi Chuan. San Francisco, California: Memorial Edition 1994.[ISBN missing]; Davis, Barbara (2004). Taijiquan Classics: An Annotated Translation. North Atlantic Books. ISBN 978-1-55643-431-0.; Frantzis, Bruce (2007). The Power of Internal Martial Arts and Chi: Combat and Energy Secrets of Ba Gua, Tai Chi and Hsing-I. Blue Snake Books. ISBN 978-1-58394-190-4. Do you have a question about Buddhism that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by tweeting to us @BrightBuddhism, emailing us at Bright.On.Buddhism@gmail.com, or joining us on our discord server, Hidden Sangha ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/tEwcVpu⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! Credits: Nick Bright: Script, Cover Art, Music, Voice of Hearer, Co-Host Proven Paradox: Editing, mixing and mastering, social media, Voice of Hermit, Co-Host

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti joins Dr. Roberts for a powerful discussion on the landmark case U.S. v. Skrmetti and the critical battles against federal overreach. General Skrmetti shares insights into his leadership in defending state sovereignty, tackling ESG mandates, and shaping the future of cyber law. From safeguarding education and healthcare policy to advancing common-sense public policy, this episode dives into the legal fights that will define America's future. About General Skrmetti: Jonathan Skrmetti was sworn in to an eight-year term as Tennessee's Attorney General and Reporter on September 1, 2022. Prior to his current role, General Skrmetti served as Chief Counsel to Governor Bill Lee and as Chief Deputy Attorney General to his predecessor, Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery. Before working for the State of Tennessee, General Skrmetti was a partner at Butler Snow LLP in Memphis. His legal career began with nearly a decade as a federal prosecutor. He worked at the Civil Rights Division at Main Justice and then at the Memphis U.S. Attorney's Office and prosecuted sex traffickers, corrupt government officials, and violent white supremacists. In addition, General Skrmetti taught cyberlaw as an adjunct professor at the University of Memphis. General Skrmetti earned honors degrees from George Washington University, the University of Oxford, and Harvard Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Following law school, Jonathan clerked for Judge Steven Colloton on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He lives in Franklin, Tennessee, with his wife and four children.

Dave Grossman was born in Frankfurt Germany and is a retired Lt Colonel in the Army. He is a US Army Ranger, paratrooper, and former West Point Psychology Professor. He has a Black Belt in Hojutsu and has been inducted into the USA Martial Arts Hall of Fame. In 1995, he wrote On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society which has sold over half a million copies and is required reading both in the Marine Corps and FBI. Since his retirement in 1998, Colonel Grossman is now a NY Times best-selling author and has written a number of other books including On Combat, Warrior Mindset, Bulletproof Marriage, and On Spiritual Combat to name a few. He is one of our nation's leading trainers for military, law enforcement, mental health providers, and school safety organizations including working with mental health professionals after school shootings. He has been cited by the President, had articles published in the Harvard Journal of Law, and been an expert witness in state and federal courts and has testified before congressional committees. He has spoken out against video game violence, done deep research on PTSD, and coined and trademarked the term sheepdog.In this wide ranging interview, we talk at length about what it means to be a warrior for God, training in weapons and preparation, and the Sheepdog concept Dave famously trademarked in his book On Killing. We also talk about gun violence, school shootings, PTSD, and the psychology of killing. Dave talks at length about his love for the Lord and the role he sees for Biblically masculine males. This is a fascinating conversation with a man who is truly a psychological expert in combat, killing, and violence. He has some fascinating insights that there are few other people in the world qualified to bring. Check out all Dave's books and see what he is up to by clicking here.Follow Dave on Facebook.Follow Dave on LinkedIn.Follow Dave on Instagram.Click here to learn more about Mindset Mastery. Click here to learn more about Legacy Navigators 2025. Get your own Freedom Plunge by clicking here. Use code IMPOSSIBLE to save $500!!Check out the unique growth focused content on our blog at https://www.theimpossible.life/blog. Grow to the next level by joining us in Mindset Mastery. We will teach you how to apply so much of what you hear on the podcast so you can transform every area of your life. Click here to learn more.Sign up for our Mission Ready Mindset Once-A-Week Motivational EmailInstagram - @theimpossiblelifeYouTube - @TheImpossibleLifePodcastFacebook - @theimpossiblelifepodcastemail - info@theimpossible.life

Join The Heritage Foundation and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy for a symposium on election law and the conservative legal movement. This symposium will bring together leading practitioners, academics, and public officials to discuss lawfare, election integrity, and the future of the conservative legal movement in this area. Throughout a day of […]

Join The Heritage Foundation and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy for a symposium on election law and the conservative legal movement. This symposium will bring together leading practitioners, academics, and public officials to discuss lawfare, election integrity, and the future of the conservative legal movement in this area. Throughout a day of engaging panels, these experts will dissect the most consequential legal issues shaping this election and the conservative movement. Agenda Panel I: Election Lawfare in the 21st Century John C. Yoo, Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Civic Leadership, University of Texas at Austin and Emanuel S. Heller Chair in Law, University of California at Berkeley David Thompson, Managing Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC Taylor Meehan, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC Joe Nixon, Litigation Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation (Moderator) Panel II: Voting Rights Litigation John Gore, Partner, Jones Day The Hon. Edmund LaCour, Alabama Solicitor General Brad Schlozman, Member, Hinkle Law Firm The Hon. Eric Dreiband, Partner, Jones Day (Moderator) Keynote Addresses The Hon. Chad Readler, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Panel III: Legal Challenges Ahead for the Trump 47 Campaign Mike Davis, President & Founder, Article III Project Dan McLaughlin, Senior Writer, National Review Online and Fellow at National Review Institute Steve Roberts, Partner, Holtzman Vogel The Hon. Daniel Jorjani, Chief Operating Officer and Principal Deputy General Counsel, Citizens United (Moderator) Panel IV: The Frontier of Campaign Finance The Hon. Allen Dickerson, Commissioner, Federal Election Commission Jessica Furst Johnson, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Zachary Parks, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP Logan Knight, Articles Chair, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (Moderator) Closing Remarks Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow and Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative, The Heritage Foundation

Original airdate: June 1, 2021 Happiness is not easy to define, but we all know it when we feel it. While some factors that affect happiness are out of our control, there are always things that we can do to feel better. My guest, Dr. Robert Carpenter, has studied this subject extensively and developed a framework that offers insight and practices that we can use in our everyday lives.  Dr. Carpenter is an author, filmmaker, and Creator at DrRob.TV. He advises celebrities, pro athletes, and everyday people on how to live their best lives and has been published in The Oxford Business Review, The Harvard Journal for Public Health, and several others.  Rob and I discuss the laws of happiness described in his book, “The 48 Laws of Happiness.” We cover the different facets of happiness and how to apply the laws in our lives. We also talk about the common blocks that get in the way.

JWI Deputy Director, Garrett Snedeker, and 2023 James Wilson Fellow Jack Kieffaber discuss the impact of impending AI developments on the judiciary. Kieffaber's new article "Predictability, AI, and Judicial Futurism: Why Robots Will Run the Law and Textualists Will Like It," forthcoming in 2025 in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, is a stirring challenge to avowed textualists. In this podcast, Kieffaber shares his predictions about the development of "Judge.AI," discusses this system's implications on the popular understanding of textualism, and expounds on the role of normative judgments in textualist inquiry.

What does it mean if a SCOTUS justice is a self-proclaimed "originalist?" When was the word first used in that context? And what are we missing about the framers when we look only upon the recent interpretation of their words in the court?Today our guide is Mackenzie Joy Brennan;  lawyer, media commentator, and author of the upcoming book The Original ‘Original Intent,' Recovering the Lost Constitution of the Founders.Click here for more of Mackenzie's research on originalism, including Terry Brennan's essay in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.Click here for our episode on the Second Amendment.  CLICK HERE: Visit our website to donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more!

OA1062 We begin with a brief update on Disney's truly Mickey Mouse arguments in a Florida wrongful death lawsuit before discussing three other questionable legal claims from the week's news: As expected, Hunter Biden has tried to use findings from a Florida federal court that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed to have his own pending federal tax charges dismissed in California. Can this creation of Aileen Cannon's imagination survive in the wild? Speaking of the BIDEN CRIME FAMILY: we review the final report from the House Republicans in support of impeaching Joe Biden--for, well you know. Something. If anyone wants to get around to it. What are we even doing here? News this week that presidential candidate Donald Trump may have discussed delaying a Gaza ceasefire agreement with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu until after the election has set off yet another round of online demands for prosecution under the Logan Act of 1799. What's the deal with this 225-year-old law--and are we ever going to get around to actually using it? Order denying Hunter Biden's motion to reconsider his previous motion to dismiss (8/19/24) House Republicans' Report of the Impeachment Inquiry of Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (8/19/24) “Non-Enforcement by Accretion: The Logan Act and the Take Care Clause,” Daniel B. Rice, Harvard Journal on Legislation (2018) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.Here's a trivia question for devotees of Original Jurisdiction: excluding Supreme Court justices and Judge Aileen Cannon, who has been most frequently recognized in these pages as Judge of the Week? It's a tie between a pair of four-time honorees: Judge James Ho (5th Cir.), whom I've previously interviewed, and Judge Kevin Newsom (11th Cir.)—my latest guest on the Original Jurisdiction podcast.This month marks the seventh anniversary of Judge Newsom's appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. And although seven years is not a long time by the standards of judicial service, Judge Newsom has already developed a national reputation as one of the sharpest thinkers and writers on the federal bench.How has he put himself on the map? Many of history's most celebrated jurists have done so through dazzling dissents, such as Justice John Marshall Harlan, often called “The Great Dissenter,” and Justice Antonin Scalia.But Judge Newsom has done so through a more unusual vehicle: the concurrence (including the occasional self-concurrence, i.e., a concurrence to his own majority opinion). In a series of thoughtful and scholarly concurrences, he has tackled some of the messiest doctrinal areas and knottiest problems in American law, including standing, nondelegation, complex First and Second Amendment issues, the burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas v. Green, and jurisdiction under Bell v. Hood.Judge Newsom and I discuss why he writes these concurrences—plus Justice Elena Kagan's critique of superfluous concurrences, how to hire great law clerks (and feed them to the Supreme Court), and the potential utility of AI for originalism—in the latest episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast.Show Notes:* Judge Kevin C. Newsom bio, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit* Remarks of Judge Kevin C. Newsom, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy* Interview of Judge Kevin Newsom, by David Oscar Markus for For the DefensePrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

From the Archives is our Summer Break Series of Podcasts that highlight some of the most listened to content from previous shows. Today we have Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman on the show. The episode first aired LIVE on YouTube on December 1, 2021. About Lt. Col. Dave Grossman Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is an internationally recognized scholar, author, soldier, and speaker who is one of the world's foremost experts in the field of human aggression and the roots of violence and violent crime.   Col. Grossman is a former West Point psychology professor, Professor of Military Science, and an Army Ranger who has combined his experiences to become the founder of a new field of scientific endeavor, which has been termed “killology.”  In this new field Col. Grossman has made revolutionary new contributions to our understanding of killing in war, the psychological costs of war, the root causes of the current "virus" of violent crime that is raging around the world, and the process of healing the victims of violence, in war and peace.   Lt. Col. David Grossman is the author or co-author of five non-fiction and four fiction books.  He has co-authored a New York Times bestselling book with Glenn Beck.  His book On Killing has sold over a half million copies world-wide, has been translated into five languages, is on the US Marine Corps Commandant's Required Reading List, and is required reading at the FBI academy and numerous other academies and colleges.  Col. Grossman co-authored Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill:  A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence, which has been translated into Norwegian and German, and has received international acclaim.   Col. Grossman's next book was On Combat, which has also placed on the US Marine Corps Commandant's Required Reading List and is translated into Chinese, Japanese, and Korean.  His book Warrior Mindset, applies sport psychology and performance psychology to military and law enforcement, and his most recent book is Assassination Generation. Col. Grossman has written 23 book chapters, and 35 book forwards.  He has been called upon to write the entry on “Aggression and Violence” in the Oxford Companion to American Military History, three entries in the Academic Press Encyclopedia of Violence, and he has authored or co-authored 43 articles in journals and Periodicals, to include the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, and Pediatric Annals. He has presented papers before the national conventions of the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.   He has presented to over 100 different colleges and universities world wide, and he has trained educators and law enforcement professionals, at the federal, state and regional level, in all 50 states and over a dozen foreign nations. He helped train mental health professionals after the Jonesboro school massacre, and he was also involved in counseling or court cases in the aftermath of the Paducah, Springfield, Littleton, Virginia Tech, and Nickel Mines, PA Amish school massacre.  In February, 2018, after the Parkland, FL school massacre, Col. Grossman was called to the White House to serve on President Trump's Round Table on Violent Video Games. He has been an expert witness and consultant in state and Federal courts, to include serving on the prosecution team in UNITED STATES vs. TIMOTHY MCVEIGH.   He has testified before U.S. Senate and Congressional committees on three different occasions, he has testified before numerous state legislatures, and he and his research have been cited in a national address by the President of the United States.   Col. Grossman is an Airborne Ranger infantry officer, and a prior-service sergeant and paratrooper, with a total of over 23 years experience in leading U.S. soldiers worldwide.  He retired from the Army in February 1998 and has devoted himself full-time to teaching, writing, speaking, and research. Today Col. Grossman is the director of Grossman On Truth, LLC (www.GrossmanOnTruth.com).  In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he has written and spoken extensively on the terrorist threat, with articles published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Civil Policy and many leading law enforcement journals, and he has been inducted as a “Life Diplomate” by the American Board for Certification in Homeland Security, and a “Life Member” of the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute.   https://www.grossmanacademy.com/     +++++ FIRST RESPONDER WELLNESS PODCAST Web site:  https://ptsd911movie.com/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ptsd911movie/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ptsd911movie/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClQ8jxjxYqHgFQixBK4Bl0Q Purchase the PTSD911 film for your public safety agency or organization: https://ptsd911movie.com/toolkit/ The First Responder Wellness Podcast is a production of ConjoStudios, LLC Copyright ©2024 ConjoStudios, LLC All rights reserved.    

Dawn and Steve welcome Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, co-author of On Spiritual Warfare, to help us prepare for the spiritual battle ahead of us. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is an internationally recognized scholar, author, soldier, and speaker who is one of the world’s foremost experts in the field of human aggression and the roots of violence and violent crime. Col. Grossman is a former West Point psychology professor, Professor of Military Science, and an Army Ranger. Lt. Col. David Grossman is the author or co-author of five non-fiction and four fiction books. He has presented papers before the national conventions of the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. He helped train mental health professionals after the Jonesboro school massacre, and he was also involved in counseling or court cases in the aftermath of the Paducah, Springfield, Littleton, Virginia Tech, and Nickel Mines, PA Amish school massacres. In February 2018, after the Parkland, FL school massacre, Col. Grossman was called to the White House to serve on President Trump’s Round Table on Violent Video Games. He has testified before U.S. Senate and Congressional committees on three different occasions, he has testified before numerous state legislatures, and he and his research have been cited in a national address by the President of the United States. Today Col. Grossman is the director of Grossman On Truth, LLC (www.GrossmanOnTruth.com). In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he has written and spoken extensively on the terrorist threat, with articles published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Civil Policy and many leading law enforcement journals, and he has been inducted as a “Life Diplomate” by the American Board for Certification in Homeland Security, and a “Life Member” of the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dawn and Steve welcome Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, co-author of On Spiritual Warfare, to help us prepare for the spiritual battle ahead of us. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is an internationally recognized scholar, author, soldier, and speaker who is one of the world’s foremost experts in the field of human aggression and the roots of violence and violent crime. Col. Grossman is a former West Point psychology professor, Professor of Military Science, and an Army Ranger. Lt. Col. David Grossman is the author or co-author of five non-fiction and four fiction books. He has presented papers before the national conventions of the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. He helped train mental health professionals after the Jonesboro school massacre, and he was also involved in counseling or court cases in the aftermath of the Paducah, Springfield, Littleton, Virginia Tech, and Nickel Mines, PA Amish school massacre. In February 2018, after the Parkland, FL school massacre, Col. Grossman was called to the White House to serve on President Trump’s Round Table on Violent Video Games. He has testified before U.S. Senate and Congressional committees on three different occasions, he has testified before numerous state legislatures, and he and his research have been cited in a national address by the President of the United States. Today Col. Grossman is the director of Grossman On Truth, LLC (www.GrossmanOnTruth.com). In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he has written and spoken extensively on the terrorist threat, with articles published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Civil Policy and many leading law enforcement journals, and he has been inducted as a “Life Diplomate” by the American Board for Certification in Homeland Security, and a “Life Member” of the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's show,  Thomas Ranieri  discusses lawfare and cases against Donald Trump. GUEST OVERVIEW: Thomas F. Ranieri, Sr. earned a Bachelor of Arts in Politics from the University of Dallas where he contributed to the school newspaper as an op-ed writer and served in the student government.  Mr. Ranieri holds a Master of Arts degree in Statecraft and National Security Affairs, with a specialization in Intelligence from the Institute of World Politics in Washington, District of Columbia.  He had several articles academically published in this field around this time and worked as an intelligence analyst for some time.  Mr. Ranieri holds a law degree from George Mason University School of Law, in Arlington, Virginia where he served as a guest editor on the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.  He now works in litigation.

Popular columnist, radio host, lawyer, and legal commentator Josh Hammer returns to the Anchoring Truths Podcast to discuss his latest piece of legal scholarship in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Common Good Originalism and Common Good Constitutionalism: a Convergence? Host Garrett Snedeker, who has co-written several times with Hammer, draws Hammer out on debates animating legal conservatism such as originalism, legal positivism, and the moral ground of law. Hammer is the Senior Editor-at-Large of Newsweek, where he also hosts "The Josh Hammer Show" podcast, "America on Trial" podcast, a syndicated radio show, and writes a weekly newsletter, "The Josh Hammer Report." Hammer is also a syndicated columnist through Creators Syndicate, host of the "America on Trial" podcast for The First, a fellow at the Edmund Burke Foundation and the Palm Beach Freedom Institute, and a popular campus speaker. He was a John Marshall Fellow with the Claremont Institute. Prior to Newsweek, Hammer previously worked as an editor and writer at a different publication, and before that he practiced law as an attorney and clerked for Judge James Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He is a graduate of Duke University and the University of Chicago Law School. In addition to Newsweek, Josh has been published by dozens of other leading outlets, both lay and academic. Finally, Hammer was a 2021 James Wilson Fellow and currently the Contributing Editor of Anchoring Truths. READ: Common Good Constitutionalism and Common Good Originalism: a Convergence? LISTEN: Josh Hammer Show, America on Trial

Florida State has filed suit against the ACC, and the case against the ACC's Grant of Rights is stronger than anticipated. The 'Noles may need to send someone to the ACC HQ to cut out a piece of carpet before too long. Worth the Read: Mark T. Wilhelm, "Irrevocable but Unenforceable? Collegiate Athletic Conferences' Grant of Rights," Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law 8 no. 1 (2017): 63–124. Please rate and review this podcast! Every 5-star review helps! Support the podcast via the Unconquered Podcast Patreon page. Film breakdowns of various schemes and techniques will be continuing throughout the offseason. Check out our new items in the Unconquered Shop. Support the podcast by buying some swag! Please also support our podcast sponsors (and make sure to let them know you heard about them from the Unconquered Podcast): Justin Galloway at Benchmark Mortgage: With the way that interest rates have climbed lately, if you're looking to buy a house, you're going to want to have the right people on your side to make sure you get the best possible rate and have the best loan strategy for your plans. Justin Galloway is exactly who you want on your side. If you're buying a home in Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, or Alabama, make sure you give Justin a chance to earn your business—the more questions you have, the more valuable he's going to be for you, and he's going to make sure you get the most value from your mortgage from rates to fees to overall planning. Give him a call at 615-594-4260 or email him at justin.galloway@benchmark.us and let him know you heard about him from Unconquered with Doc Staples.  Jacksonville, FL realtor, Luis Marquez, who brings professional photography and videography skills to online real estate listings. A current listing, in case you wanted to see a sample: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/415-Captiva-Dr-Ponte-Vedra-FL-32081/123618490_zpid/. Check out other examples of Luis' work here: https://www.pixelperfectlisting.com/. Support the podcast and contact Luis for all your greater Jacksonville real estate needs at 850-443-5797 or via email at luismarquez@kw.com. Chapel Hill, NC realtor, Shenandoah Nieuwsma, who brings PhD-level research and a relentless work ethic to real estate. She sets the standard for how to use data to benefit her clients.. She also understands both people and strategy and is consequently an ace negotiator who knows how to get the best result.. Nobody knows the market better, and her enthusiasm and drive are unparalleled. I've worked with her, and if you're about to be in the Research Triangle real estate market, you'll want to work with Shen. Contact her at (919) 726-3955 or via email at shen@shenrealestate.com. Garage Makeovers: The top rated garage remodeling company in south Florida according to Homeadvisor and Angies List. They are licensed and insured and have been serving all of Palm Beach and Broward County since 2005. Their services include: Painting and drywall work, Overhead Storage, Polyaspartic Flooring, Cabinets, Shelving, Slotwall and accessories for anything you have. Call Nathan at Garage Makeovers for all your storage and organizational needs, 954.571.8774. EPR Creations, an online marketing and website design company that provides turnkey web design, search engine optimization, online marketing strategies, and website management. If you have a business that could benefit from a more robust online presence, EPR Creations can get you there. I've trusted them with multiple projects and have been happy with their work each time. Let EPR Creations empower you to do the things that inspire you (and make some money too). Buy my second book! Paul and the Resurrection of Israel is available through Amazon, Cambridge University Press, or wherever you buy your books. I've spent the last 20 years on this book, and it's going to be of interest to anyone who wants to understand the New Testament better. Buy extra copies for family and friends interested in the Bible! Buy my other book! The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism is available through Amazon, Cambridge University Press, BookShop.org, or wherever you buy your books. I would be very grateful if any listeners with any sort of interest in this area would order a copy—and those of you who aren't interested could always buy one for someone you know who might be. Thanks as always for your support!  

On today's episode, Bridget Crawford and Emily Waldman of Pace University School of Law join me and UVA Law 3Ls Kate Granruth and Jenna Smith. Bridget Crawford's scholarship focuses on taxation and gender and the law. She teaches courses on Federal Income Taxation; Estate and Gift Taxation; and Wills, Trusts and Estates. Emily Waldman teaches courses on Constitutional Law, Law & Education, Employment Law, and Civil Procedure. Today we're discussing their book, Menstruation Matters: Challenging the Law's Silence on Periods, published by NYU Press in 2022 and their 2022 article, Contextualizing Menopause in the Law, co-authored with my UVA colleague, Naomi Cahn, and published in the Harvard Journal of Gender and the Law.  Show Notes:"Menstruation in a Post-Dobbs World," 98 NYU L. Rev. Online 191 (2023) (Crawford and Waldman)"Pink Tax and Other Tropes," 33 Yale J.L. & Feminism 88 (2023) (Crawford)"Managing and Monitoring the Menopausal Body," 2022 U. Chi. Legal Forum (forthcoming 2022) (Cahn, Crawford, & Waldman)"Contextualizing Menopause in the Law," 43 Harv. J. Gender & Law 1 (2022) (Cahn, Crawford, and Waldman)"Working Through Menopause," 99 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1531 (2022) (Cahn, Crawford, and Waldman)Andrew Jennings and Kimberly D. Krawiec, Vice Capital (forthcoming 2024)

I want to express my sincere gratitude to Colonel Grossman for sharing his expertise and insights with us. To connect with and learn more from Colonel Grossman, be sure to visit his website at www.GrossmanOnTruth.com - trust me, it's worth it!  Thank you all for your continued support and for tuning in to De-Escalation Conversations.  Stay tuned for more exciting episodes and interviews coming your way soon!  #DeEscalationConversations #Leadership #Training Lt. Col. Grossmon's BIO:In their description of Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, Slate Magazine said, “Grossman cuts such a heroic, omnicompetent figure, he could have stepped out of a video game.”  He has five patents to his name, has published four novels, two children's' books, and six non-fiction books to include his “perennial bestseller” On Killing (with over half a million copies sold), and a New York Times best-selling book co-authored with Glenn Beck.He is a US Army Ranger, a paratrooper, and a former West Point Psychology Professor.  He has a Black Belt in Hojutsu, the martial art of the firearm, and has been inducted into the USA Martial Arts Hall of Fame.Col. Grossman's research was cited by the President of the United States in a national address, and he has testified before the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Congress, and numerous state legislatures.  He has served as an expert witness and consultant in state and Federal courts.  He helped train mental health professionals after the Jonesboro school massacre, and he was also involved in counseling or court cases in the aftermath of the Paducah, Springfield, Littleton and Nickel Mines Amish school massacres.Col. Grossman has been called upon to write the entry on “Aggression and Violence” in the Oxford Companion to American Military History, three entries in the Academic Press Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict and has presented papers before the national conventions of the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.Since his retirement from the U.S. Army in 1998, he has been traveling full time as one of our nation's leading trainers for military, law enforcement, mental health providers, and school safety organizations.Today Col. Grossman is the director of Grossman On Truth, LLC (www.GrossmanOnTruth.com).  In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he has written and spoken extensively on the terrorist threat, with articles published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Civil Policy and many leading law enforcement journals, and he has been inducted as a “Life Diplomate” by the American Board for Certification in Homeland Security, and a “Life Member” of the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute.https://www.theidea.worldIDEA - the International De-Escalation Association, is dedicated to Saving Lives, Reputations, & Relationships through Conflict De-Escalation & Communication Training for Teachers, Parents, and Public Safety Providers.Find more about How to Calm an Angry Person in 90 Seconds or Less Come visit us at the IDEA website (International De-Escalation Association): https://TheIdea.WorldSubscribe to our free weekly newsletter to stay up to date on the latest news and blogs about Schools, Police, Fire, Medical Services and Flight Attendants.Do you or your organization need Communication Skills and De-Escalation Training? You can reach us directly at: Team@TheIdea.World or by filling out a contact form at https://www.TheIdea.World/contact

In this week's episode Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, a retired US Army Ranger and psychology professor known for his expertise in violence and crime psychology joins me to discuss the current state of crime and violence, emphasizing the need for individuals to be prepared and armed, both physically and mentally. Listen in as we also touch on topics such as hunting, gun laws, media influence, and the impact of sleep deprivation on societal problems.   Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is an internationally recognized scholar, author, soldier, and speaker who is one of the world's foremost experts in the field of human aggression and the roots of violence and violent crime.     Col. Grossman is a former West Point psychology professor, Professor of Military Science, and an Army Ranger who has combined his experiences to become the founder of a new field of scientific endeavor, which has been termed “killology.”  In this new field Col. Grossman has made revolutionary new contributions to our understanding of killing in war, the psychological costs of war, the root causes of the current "virus" of violent crime that is raging around the world, and the process of healing the victims of violence, in war and peace.     Today Col. Grossman is the director of Grossman On Truth, LLC (www.GrossmanOnTruth.com).  In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he has written and spoken extensively on the terrorist threat, with articles published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Civil Policy and many leading law enforcement journals, and he has been inducted as a “Life Diplomate” by the American Board for Certification in Homeland Security, and a “Life Member” of the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute.   Learn more about the gift of Adversity and my mission to help my fellow humans create a better world by heading to www.marcusaureliusanderson.com. There you can take action by joining my ANV inner circle to get exclusive content and information.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ruth Yun-Ju Chen is a historian of mid-imperial China (600–1400). Her research interests lie in the histories of medicine, publishing, and material cultures during this period. Her first book, Good Formulas: Empirical Evidence in Mid-Imperial Chinese Medical Texts, will come out from the University of Washington Press in 2023. This book charts how early print culture reshaped strategies for presenting medical knowledge in Song China (960–1279). Her current project explores the transregional circulation of medical knowledge and aromatic drugs across East Asia and Southeast Asia in Song-Jin-Yuan China (960–1368). She has published articles in Chinese and English language journals and, most recently, “A New Study of Scholar-officials' Roles in the Printing of Medical Texts in Song China” in the Bulletin of IHP 92.3 (2021) and “The Quest for Efficiency: Knowledge Management in Medical Formularies” in the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 80.2 (2021). A bit about the book: Why and how did the strategy of documenting medical practices through personal experience rise to prominence in China? This question is at the heart of Good Formulas, the first book-length study of the use of empirical evidence in Chinese medicine between the ninth and thirteenth centuries. The rise of this new approach to substantiating knowledge, which had appeared only sporadically in earlier medical literature, provides a window into transformations in the construction of textual authority in mid-imperial China. Focusing on medical genres and working extensively with notebooks (biji), Ruth Yun-Ju Chen shows that employing empirical evidence became prominent in conjunction with a publishing boom that enabled wider availability of medical texts and treatises. To convince a more socioculturally diverse readership to believe their claims and to win intertextual debates with contemporaneous authors, many Song medical authors turned to empirical methodology. Revealing a correlation between publishing cultures and changes in persuasion strategies in medical genres, Good Formulas offers new insights into the histories of medicine, knowledge production, and publishing in China. It also provides rich examples for scholars interested in the development of empirical evidence in the premodern world. Victoria Oana Lupașcu is an Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature and Asian Studies at University of Montréal. Her areas of interest include medical humanities, visual art, 20th and 21st Chinese, Brazilian and Romanian literature and Global South studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Ruth Yun-Ju Chen is a historian of mid-imperial China (600–1400). Her research interests lie in the histories of medicine, publishing, and material cultures during this period. Her first book, Good Formulas: Empirical Evidence in Mid-Imperial Chinese Medical Texts, will come out from the University of Washington Press in 2023. This book charts how early print culture reshaped strategies for presenting medical knowledge in Song China (960–1279). Her current project explores the transregional circulation of medical knowledge and aromatic drugs across East Asia and Southeast Asia in Song-Jin-Yuan China (960–1368). She has published articles in Chinese and English language journals and, most recently, “A New Study of Scholar-officials' Roles in the Printing of Medical Texts in Song China” in the Bulletin of IHP 92.3 (2021) and “The Quest for Efficiency: Knowledge Management in Medical Formularies” in the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 80.2 (2021). A bit about the book: Why and how did the strategy of documenting medical practices through personal experience rise to prominence in China? This question is at the heart of Good Formulas, the first book-length study of the use of empirical evidence in Chinese medicine between the ninth and thirteenth centuries. The rise of this new approach to substantiating knowledge, which had appeared only sporadically in earlier medical literature, provides a window into transformations in the construction of textual authority in mid-imperial China. Focusing on medical genres and working extensively with notebooks (biji), Ruth Yun-Ju Chen shows that employing empirical evidence became prominent in conjunction with a publishing boom that enabled wider availability of medical texts and treatises. To convince a more socioculturally diverse readership to believe their claims and to win intertextual debates with contemporaneous authors, many Song medical authors turned to empirical methodology. Revealing a correlation between publishing cultures and changes in persuasion strategies in medical genres, Good Formulas offers new insights into the histories of medicine, knowledge production, and publishing in China. It also provides rich examples for scholars interested in the development of empirical evidence in the premodern world. Victoria Oana Lupașcu is an Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature and Asian Studies at University of Montréal. Her areas of interest include medical humanities, visual art, 20th and 21st Chinese, Brazilian and Romanian literature and Global South studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Ruth Yun-Ju Chen is a historian of mid-imperial China (600–1400). Her research interests lie in the histories of medicine, publishing, and material cultures during this period. Her first book, Good Formulas: Empirical Evidence in Mid-Imperial Chinese Medical Texts, will come out from the University of Washington Press in 2023. This book charts how early print culture reshaped strategies for presenting medical knowledge in Song China (960–1279). Her current project explores the transregional circulation of medical knowledge and aromatic drugs across East Asia and Southeast Asia in Song-Jin-Yuan China (960–1368). She has published articles in Chinese and English language journals and, most recently, “A New Study of Scholar-officials' Roles in the Printing of Medical Texts in Song China” in the Bulletin of IHP 92.3 (2021) and “The Quest for Efficiency: Knowledge Management in Medical Formularies” in the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 80.2 (2021). A bit about the book: Why and how did the strategy of documenting medical practices through personal experience rise to prominence in China? This question is at the heart of Good Formulas, the first book-length study of the use of empirical evidence in Chinese medicine between the ninth and thirteenth centuries. The rise of this new approach to substantiating knowledge, which had appeared only sporadically in earlier medical literature, provides a window into transformations in the construction of textual authority in mid-imperial China. Focusing on medical genres and working extensively with notebooks (biji), Ruth Yun-Ju Chen shows that employing empirical evidence became prominent in conjunction with a publishing boom that enabled wider availability of medical texts and treatises. To convince a more socioculturally diverse readership to believe their claims and to win intertextual debates with contemporaneous authors, many Song medical authors turned to empirical methodology. Revealing a correlation between publishing cultures and changes in persuasion strategies in medical genres, Good Formulas offers new insights into the histories of medicine, knowledge production, and publishing in China. It also provides rich examples for scholars interested in the development of empirical evidence in the premodern world. Victoria Oana Lupașcu is an Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature and Asian Studies at University of Montréal. Her areas of interest include medical humanities, visual art, 20th and 21st Chinese, Brazilian and Romanian literature and Global South studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

Ruth Yun-Ju Chen is a historian of mid-imperial China (600–1400). Her research interests lie in the histories of medicine, publishing, and material cultures during this period. Her first book, Good Formulas: Empirical Evidence in Mid-Imperial Chinese Medical Texts, will come out from the University of Washington Press in 2023. This book charts how early print culture reshaped strategies for presenting medical knowledge in Song China (960–1279). Her current project explores the transregional circulation of medical knowledge and aromatic drugs across East Asia and Southeast Asia in Song-Jin-Yuan China (960–1368). She has published articles in Chinese and English language journals and, most recently, “A New Study of Scholar-officials' Roles in the Printing of Medical Texts in Song China” in the Bulletin of IHP 92.3 (2021) and “The Quest for Efficiency: Knowledge Management in Medical Formularies” in the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 80.2 (2021). A bit about the book: Why and how did the strategy of documenting medical practices through personal experience rise to prominence in China? This question is at the heart of Good Formulas, the first book-length study of the use of empirical evidence in Chinese medicine between the ninth and thirteenth centuries. The rise of this new approach to substantiating knowledge, which had appeared only sporadically in earlier medical literature, provides a window into transformations in the construction of textual authority in mid-imperial China. Focusing on medical genres and working extensively with notebooks (biji), Ruth Yun-Ju Chen shows that employing empirical evidence became prominent in conjunction with a publishing boom that enabled wider availability of medical texts and treatises. To convince a more socioculturally diverse readership to believe their claims and to win intertextual debates with contemporaneous authors, many Song medical authors turned to empirical methodology. Revealing a correlation between publishing cultures and changes in persuasion strategies in medical genres, Good Formulas offers new insights into the histories of medicine, knowledge production, and publishing in China. It also provides rich examples for scholars interested in the development of empirical evidence in the premodern world. Victoria Oana Lupașcu is an Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature and Asian Studies at University of Montréal. Her areas of interest include medical humanities, visual art, 20th and 21st Chinese, Brazilian and Romanian literature and Global South studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

Ruth Yun-Ju Chen is a historian of mid-imperial China (600–1400). Her research interests lie in the histories of medicine, publishing, and material cultures during this period. Her first book, Good Formulas: Empirical Evidence in Mid-Imperial Chinese Medical Texts, will come out from the University of Washington Press in 2023. This book charts how early print culture reshaped strategies for presenting medical knowledge in Song China (960–1279). Her current project explores the transregional circulation of medical knowledge and aromatic drugs across East Asia and Southeast Asia in Song-Jin-Yuan China (960–1368). She has published articles in Chinese and English language journals and, most recently, “A New Study of Scholar-officials' Roles in the Printing of Medical Texts in Song China” in the Bulletin of IHP 92.3 (2021) and “The Quest for Efficiency: Knowledge Management in Medical Formularies” in the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 80.2 (2021). A bit about the book: Why and how did the strategy of documenting medical practices through personal experience rise to prominence in China? This question is at the heart of Good Formulas, the first book-length study of the use of empirical evidence in Chinese medicine between the ninth and thirteenth centuries. The rise of this new approach to substantiating knowledge, which had appeared only sporadically in earlier medical literature, provides a window into transformations in the construction of textual authority in mid-imperial China. Focusing on medical genres and working extensively with notebooks (biji), Ruth Yun-Ju Chen shows that employing empirical evidence became prominent in conjunction with a publishing boom that enabled wider availability of medical texts and treatises. To convince a more socioculturally diverse readership to believe their claims and to win intertextual debates with contemporaneous authors, many Song medical authors turned to empirical methodology. Revealing a correlation between publishing cultures and changes in persuasion strategies in medical genres, Good Formulas offers new insights into the histories of medicine, knowledge production, and publishing in China. It also provides rich examples for scholars interested in the development of empirical evidence in the premodern world. Victoria Oana Lupașcu is an Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature and Asian Studies at University of Montréal. Her areas of interest include medical humanities, visual art, 20th and 21st Chinese, Brazilian and Romanian literature and Global South studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Recently, the application of Textualism by the Supreme Court of the United States--the predominant method of statutory interpretation that favors the plain meaning of text over legislative intent, statutory purpose, or legislative history--has given rise to rich debate as to its legitimacy, vitality, and future application. This webinar will explore and advance that debate with some of the leading minds in the field. Featuring:Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolProf. William Baude, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Emily Bremer, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School[Moderator] Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Related Links: The 2023 Scalia Lecture: Beyond Textualism?, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 46, 2023, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4464561Interpreting the Administrative Procedure Act: A Literature Review, 98 Notre Dame L. Rev. (forthcoming 2023), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=4340363.

In this episode I talk to Aliza Shatzman, President and Founder of the Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit focused on ensuring that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences. Aliza got her JD from Washington University School of Law where she was an associate editor for the Journal of Law and Policy. After Law School. Aliza clerked in the DC Superior Court during the 2019-2020 term, an experience we discuss at length in the episode. Aliza writes and speaks regularly about judicial accountability and clerkships based on her personal experience with harassment and retaliation during and after her clerkship. She has been published in numerous forums, including the Administrative Law Review, Harvard Journal of Legislation, UCLA Journal of Gender and Law, Yale Law and Policy Review, NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, Above the Law, Law 360, Slate, and a number of other publications.  If you have input, criticism, or guest suggestions (including yourself) for the podcast, shoot me an email at Joseph@excellentatlife.com. Check out my unbelievably amazing personal growth newsletter at ExcellentatLife.com. The critics are going mad over it so I'm sure you will as well.In the meantime, may you walk your own winding path well.Joseph Gerstel

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. He is the author of multiple books and is a frequent contributor to numerous publications including the Wall Street Journal, the Harvard Journal of Law & many more. Richard Hanania is the author of Public Choice and the Illusion of Grand Strategy. and a forthcoming book on the connection between wokeness and civil rights law. run a think tank called the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology.    

Wow, what a blockbuster episode! Aliza Shatzman, President and Co-Founder of the Legal Accountability Project, shares her harrowing story of harassment and retaliation in her clerkship at the hands of a former judge. Fueled by lack of effective means of redress, and the cloak of secrecy around judicial misconduct, Aliza is now seeking to remedy that situation. She is attempting through her non-profit to bring transparency to the clerkship process and support for the law clerks. She details her disturbing story of mistreatment by a former DC judge, and the hurdles she faced in seeking relief from the retaliation. She lost her dream legal position as a result. But that did not stop her. Aliza's story is one of courage, resilience and passion. She is now attempting to bring dramatic changes to judicial accountability. Your eyes will be opened when you hear Aliza's journey and how she is creating a new clerkship world. Aliza Shatzman is the President and Founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit aimed at ensuring that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not. Aliza earned her BA from Williams College and her JD from Washington University School of Law. After law school, Aliza clerked in D.C. Superior Court during the 2019-2020 term. In March 2022, Aliza submitted written testimony for a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing about the lack of workplace protections in the federal judiciary, detailing her personal experience with gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by a former D.C. judge, in order to advocate for the Judiciary Accountability Act, legislation that would extend Title VII protections to judiciary employees, including law clerks. Aliza now writes and speaks regularly about judicial accountability. Want to help?? You can contact her directly at Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org, https://www.legalaccountabilityproject.org/ Connect with her on LinkedIn / Follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman Want to learn more? See her written testimony, submitted to the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet on March 17, 2022; her article with the Harvard Journal on Legislation, The Conservative Case for the Judiciary Accountability Act; her article with the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law, Untouchable Judges? What I've learned about harassment in the judiciary, and what we can do to stop it; her article with the Administrative Law Review, The D.C. Courts Are Article I Federal Courts, and They Should Be Regulated That Way; and The Legal Accountability Project's website: legalaccountabilityproject.org.

In this KEEN ON episode, Andrew talks to the founder of Instapundit.com, Glenn Reynolds, about the origins of the blogging revolution at the turn of the 21st century. Glenn Harlan Reynolds (born August 27, 1960) is Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law, and is known for his American politics blog, Instapundit. His special interests are law and technology and constitutional law issues and his work has appeared in a wide variety of publications including the Columbia Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, the Wisconsin Law Review, the William and Mary Law Review, the Southern California Law Review, the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, the Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Law and Policy in International Business, Jurimetrics, the Journal of Space Law, and the High Technology Law Journal. Reynolds has also written in the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Atlantic, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, Road & Track, Urb and the Wall Street Journal as well as other popular publications. He was for many years a contributing editor at Popular Mechanics magazine and is a member of the Board of Contributors of USA Today. He is the co-author of Outer Space: Problems of Law and Policy, and The Appearance of Impropriety: How the Ethics Wars Have Undermined American Government, Business, and Society. His most recent books are The Social Media Upheaval, The Judiciary's Class War and The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself. For more: http://instapundit.substack.com. Name as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On January 9, 2023, the C. Boyden Gray Center hosted a symposium, “Administrative Law in the States,” with the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy and the Harvard Federalist Society. It featured the following participants: -Justice Brian Hagedorn, Wisconsin Supreme Court -Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit […]

On January 9, 2023, the C. Boyden Gray Center hosted a symposium, “Administrative Law in the States,” with the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy and the Harvard Federalist Society. It featured the following participants: -Justice Brian Hagedorn, Wisconsin Supreme Court -Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit -Justice David N. Wecht... Source

On January 9, 2023, the C. Boyden Gray Center hosted a symposium, “Administrative Law in the States,” with the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy and the Harvard Federalist Society. It featured the following participants: -Justice Brian Hagedorn, Wisconsin Supreme Court -Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit -Justice David N. Wecht... Source

Today, I'm joined by two fabulous guests: Marielle Gross, Assistant Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, and renaissance man, Brian Frye, the Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky.  Marielle provides clinical care at UPMC Altoona and her research focuses on the application of technology and elimination of bias as a means of promoting evidence-basis, equity and efficiency in women's healthcare. Today, we're discussing heny, Inc., a start up that Marielle founded that utilizes NFTs to allow breast cancer patients to remain connected to their biopsy results. When patients participate in research studies, their names and identifying features are taken off of their samples – in other words, they are deidentified. What this means is that if researchers find medically relevant information, they can't pass that on to the patient. Nor can patients share in any of the profits that research on their tissue might generate. As we discuss in this episode, Marielle was inspired by the infamous Henrietta Lacks case to create a non-fungible NFT-like token that allows breast cancer patients to track and learn about research on their donated tumor and tissues.  That's where Brian Frye comes in: he teaches courses on patent and intellectural property law, and has published widely about NFTs. Many of his articles are linked in the show notes. Brian is also a filmmaker. He produced the documentary Our Nixon (2013), which was broadcast by CNN and opened theatrically nationwide. His short films and videos have shown in the 2002 Whitney Biennial, the New York Film Festival, and the San Francisco International Film Festival, among other venues, and are in the permanent collection of the Whitney Museum of American Art. If you don't get enough of Brian in this episode, then make sure to listen to my earlier bonus episode: The Plagiarism Taboo with Brian Frye.  Further reading and listening: Marielle S Gross, MD; Amelia J Hood, MA; Robert C Miller Jr, BA, Nonfungible Tokens as a Blockchain Solution to Ethical Challenges for the Secondary Use of Biospecimens: Viewpoint, JMIR Bioinform Biotech 2021;2(1):e29905) doi: 10.2196/29905; https://bioinform.jmir.org/2021/1/e29905 This Pitt professor's startup applies NFTs to bioethics, Technical.ly, Sept. 13, 2022; https://technical.ly/startups/heny-nfts-bioethics-marielle-gross/ The Plagiarism Taboo with Brian Frye, https://www.buzzsprout.com/1227113/episodes/11050801 Frye, Brian L., NFTs & the Death of Art (April 19, 2021). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3829399 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3829399 Frye, Brian L., How to Sell NFTs Without Really Trying (September 25, 2021). 13 Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law 113 (2022), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3930430 Frye, Brian L., After Copyright: Pwning NFTs in a Clout Economy (November 25, 2021). 45 Colum. J.L.& Arts 341 (2022), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3971240 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3971240 Frye, Brian L., The Art of the Token (March 16, 2022). Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4059574 

Aliza Shatzman is the President and Founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit that ensures that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not. Aliza earned her BA from Williams College and her JD from Washington University School of Law. After law school, Aliza clerked in D.C. Superior Court during the 2019-2020 term. In March 2022, Aliza submitted written testimony for a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing about the lack of workplace protections in the federal judiciary, detailing her personal experience with harassment and retaliation by a former D.C. judge. The intent of her written testimony was to advocate for the Judiciary Accountability Act, legislation that would extend Title VII protections to judiciary employees, including law clerks.Aliza now writes and speaks regularly about judicial accountability. She has been published in numerous forums, including the Harvard Journal on Legislation, UCLA Journal of Gender & Law, Yale Law & Policy Review, NYU Journal of Legislation & Public Policy, Administrative Law Review, Above the Law, Law360, Slate, Ms. Magazine, and Balls & Strikes.You can follow Aliza on Twitter @AlizaShatzman or email her at Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org to learn more and get involved.

This episode provides a first-person roadmap through the seat of Aliza to the creation of a new nonprofit mission, a go-to-market strategy for nonprofits, sustainable fundraising approaches, and the approaches to overcoming challenges as a leader who's “first to market” on an issue. Aliza Shatzman is the President and Co-Founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit aimed at ensuring that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not. Aliza earned her BA from Williams College and her JD from Washington University School of Law. After law school, Aliza clerked in D.C. Superior Court during the 2019-2020 term. In March 2022, Aliza submitted written testimony for a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing about the lack of workplace protections in the federal judiciary, detailing her personal experience with gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by a former D.C. judge, order to advocate for the Judiciary Accountability Act, legislation that would extend Title VII protections to judiciary employees. Aliza now writes and speaks regularly about judicial accountability. She has been published in numerous forums, including the Harvard Journal on Legislation, UCLA Journal of Gender & Law, Yale Law &; Policy Review, NYU Journal of Legislation &; Public Policy, Administrative; Law Review, Above the Law, Law360, Slate, Ms. Magazine, and more. Check out this link to Aliza's House Judiciary Committee written testimony.

I had the honor and privilege of sitting down with Lt. Col Dave Grossman this week. Blessed to be able to have a conversation with a man who has made it his life mission to be there for our first responder community. John 15:13, " Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends". The Lt. Col. said something that I will never forget. he said " The greatest act of love isn't to sacrifice your life for your friends, but to  live a life of sacrifice " . Thank you to all my brothers and sister across this great land that are living a life of sacrifice. LT. COL. DAVE GROSSMAN, U.S. Army (Ret.)In their description of Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, Slate Magazine said, “Grossman cuts such a heroic, omnicompetent figure, he could have stepped out of a video game.”  He has five patents to his name, has published four novels, two children's' books, and six non-fiction books to include his “perennial bestseller” On Killing (with over half a million copies sold), and a New York Times best-selling book co-authored with Glenn Beck. He is a US Army Ranger, a paratrooper, and a former West Point Psychology Professor.  He has a Black Belt in Hojutsu, the martial art of the firearm, and has been inducted into the USA Martial Arts Hall of Fame.   Col. Grossman's research was cited by the President of the United States in a national address, and he has testified before the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Congress, and numerous state legislatures.  He has served as an expert witness and consultant in state and Federal courts.  He helped train mental health professionals after the Jonesboro school massacre, and he was also involved in counseling or court cases in the aftermath of the Paducah, Springfield, Littleton and Nickel Mines Amish school massacres.   Col. Grossman has been called upon to write the entry on “Aggression and Violence” in the Oxford Companion to American Military History, three entries in the Academic Press Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict and has presented papers before the national conventions of the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.   Since his retirement from the U.S. Army in 1998, he has been traveling full time as one of our nation's leading trainers for military, law enforcement, mental health providers, and school safety organizations. Today Col. Grossman is the director of Grossman On Truth, LLC (www.GrossmanOnTruth.com). In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he has written and spoken extensively on the terrorist threat, with articles published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Civil Policy and many leading law enforcement journals, and he has been inducted as a "Life Diplomate" by the American Board for Certification in Homeland Security, and a "Life Member" of the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute.Thank you for taking the time to give this podcast a listen. If you would like more information on other Law enforcement Life Coach initiatives, our "Sometimes Heroes Need Help" wellness seminar or our One-On-One life coaching please visit :www.lawenforcementlifecoach.comJohn@lawenforcementlifecoach.comAnd if you would like to watch the interview you can view it in it's entirety on the Law Enforcement Life Coach YouTube Channel : https://studio.youtube.com/channel/UCib6HRqAFO08gAkZQ-B9Ajw/videos/upload?filter=%5B%5D&sort=%7B%22columnType%22%3A%22date%22%2C%22sortOrder%22%3A%22DESCENDING%22%7D

Ten years and 8 autoimmune/chronic conditions into remission ago (in my Gettysburg address voice) I can tell you there is SO MUCH misinformation when it comes to autoimmune disease. So much that sometimes it makes me so angry with the medical profession.    Even our medical professionals don't readily share the truth about your body's ability to heal because they simply have been taught a different rhetoric.    Let's reprogram your rhetoric right here, right now, with the fact- filled research.   FREE One Day Detox https://www.inspirehealthbyjen.com/onedaydetox  Bloghttps://www.inspirehealthbyjen.com/work-with-jen    Alvergne, A., & Lummaa, V. (2010). Does the contraceptive pill alter mate choice in humans? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(3), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.08.003    Ascherio, A., & Munger, K. L. (2015). EBV and Autoimmunity. Current topics in microbiology and immunology, 390(Pt 1), 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22822-8_15   Benagiano, G., Benagiano, M., Bianchi, P., D'Elios, M. M., & Brosens, I. (2019). Contraception in autoimmune diseases. Best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology, 60, 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2019.05.003   Bookwalter, D. B., Roenfeldt, K. A., LeardMann, C. A., Kong, S. Y., Riddle, M. S., & Rull, R. P. (2020). Posttraumatic stress disorder and risk of selected autoimmune diseases among US military personnel. BMC Psychiatry, 20(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-2432-9   Dube SR, Fairweather D, Pearson WS, Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Croft JB, Dube, S. R., Fairweather, D., Pearson, W. S., Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., & Croft, J. B. (2009). Cumulative childhood stress and autoimmune diseases in adults. Psychosomatic Medicine, 71(2), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181907888   FELDMAN, R. (2020). Perverse Incentives: Why Everyone Prefers High Drug Prices--Except for Those Who Pay the Bills. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 57(2), 303–376.   Houen, G., Trier, N. H., & Frederiksen, J. L. (2020). Epstein-Barr Virus and Multiple Sclerosis. Frontiers in immunology, 11, 587078. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.587078   Leverone, D., & Epstein, B. J. (2010). Nonpharmacological interventions for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a focus on mind-body medicine. Journal of pharmacy practice, 23(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0897190009360025   Macarenco, M.-M., Opariuc-Dan, C., & Nedelcea, C. (2021). Childhood trauma, dissociation, alexithymia, and anger in people with autoimmune diseases: A mediation model. Child Abuse & Neglect, 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105322   Mirashrafi, S., Hejazi Taghanaki, S. Z., Sarlak, F., Moravejolahkami, A. R., Hojjati Kermani, M. A., & Haratian, M. (2021). Effect of probiotics supplementation on disease progression, depression, general health, and anthropometric measurements in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 75(11), e14724. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.14724 Posnett D. N. (2008). Herpesviruses and autoimmunity. Current opinion in investigational drugs (London, England : 2000), 9(5), 505–514.   Rashidian, A., Omidvari, A. H., Vali, Y., Sturm, H., & Oxman, A. D. (2015). Pharmaceutical policies: effects of financial incentives for prescribers. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015(8), CD006731. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006731.pub2   Roberts, A. L., Malspeis, S., Kubzansky, L. D., Feldman, C. H., Chang, S. C., Koenen, K. C., & Costenbader, K. H. (2017). Association of Trauma and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder With Incident Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in a Longitudinal Cohort of Women. Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.), 69(11), 2162–2169. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.40222   Williams W. V. (2017). Hormonal contraception and the development of autoimmunity: A review of the literature. The Linacre quarterly, 84(3), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/00243639.2017.1360065 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/epstein-barr-virus-autoimmune-diseases

In this episode, Aliza Schatzman, President and Founder of The Legal Accountability Project, discusses her new article, "The Conservative Case for the Judiciary Accountability Act," which is published in the Harvard Journal on Legislation. Schatzman observes that the federal judiciary has a harassment problem and describes her own experience of harassment. She describes the Judicial Accountability Act, which would impose Title VII requirements on the federal judiciary, among other protections. And she explains why conservative lawmakers should support the legislation. This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. of Aquinas 101, Godsplaining, and Pints with Aquinas for an off-campus conversation with Prof. Phillip Muñoz about his new book, "Religious Liberty and the American Founding." Religious Liberty and the American Founding w/ Fr. Gregory Pine (Off-Campus Conversations) For more information on upcoming events, please visit our website at www.thomisticinstitute.org. About the Speaker: Vincent Phillip Muñoz is Tocqueville Associate Professor of Political Science and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame. He is the Founding Director of ND's Center for Citizenship & Constitutional Government. Under his leadership the programs have raised over $16,500,000 in grants, gifts, and pledges. Dr. Muñoz writes and teaches across the fields of constitutional law, American politics, and political philosophy with a focus on religious liberty and the American Founding. He won a National Endowment for the Humanities fellowship to support his forthcoming book, Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses, which will be published by the University of Chicago Press in the summer of 2022. Articles related the project have appeared in American Political Science Review, The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Notre Dame Law Review, American Political Thought, and the University of Pennsylvania's Journal of Constitutional Law. His first book, God and the Founders: Madison, Washington, and Jefferson (Cambridge University Press, 2009) won the Hubert Morken Award from the American Political Science Association for the best publication on religion and politics in 2009 and 2010. His First Amendment church-state case reader, Religious Liberty and the American Supreme Court: The Essential Cases and Documents (Rowman & Littlefield) was first published in 2013 (revised edition, 2015) and is being used at Notre Dame and other leading universities. In 2019, he joined the editorial team of American Constitutional Law (11th edition, Routledge, 2020), the leading constitutional law casebooks designed for undergraduate instruction. His scholarship has been cited numerous times in church-state Supreme Court opinions, most recently by Justice Alito in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) and by both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas in Espinoza v. Montana (2020). An award-winning teacher and a popular lecturer, Dr. Muñoz has spoken at nearly 75 colleges and universities in the past several years. He received his B.A. at Claremont McKenna College, his M.A. at Boston College, and his Ph.D. at Claremont Graduate School.

Improving the courts, one clerkship at a time...Do you feel empowered in your role within the law industry to speak up and report when something is wrong? Particularly if you are working as a law clerk, do you feel it easy to be able to complain and report a Judge and their wrongdoings?This week on the Legally Speaking Podcast, our host Robert Hanna is chatting to Aliza Shatzman, President and Co-Founder of the Legal Accountability Project!Aliza is a passionate advocate for bringing awareness about harassment in the judiciary and served as a law clerk herself in the Superior Court of District of Columbia. Aliza's experience in the legal industry stretches far and wide - as well as working as a law clerk, she has previously worked as a legal intern at the US Department of Justice, the US Attorney's Office and US Senate and US houses of Representatives. Aliza and the team at the Legal Accountability Project are on a mission to ensure that as many law clerks as possible have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not.

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, Chuck and Sam are joined by Samuel Gregg, author of the new book, The Next American Economy. Later in the show, political consultant Brian Seitchik stops by the studio.-Samuel Gregg is Distinguished Fellow in Political Economy and Senior Research Faculty at the American Institute for Economic Research. He has a D.Phil. in moral philosophy and political economy from Oxford University, and an M.A. in political philosophy from the University of Melbourne.He has written and spoken extensively on questions of political economy, economic history, monetary theory and policy, and natural law theory. He is the author of sixteen books, including On Ordered Liberty (2003), The Commercial Society (2007), Wilhelm Röpke's Political Economy (2010); Becoming Europe (2013); Reason, Faith, and the Struggle for Western Civilization (2019); The Essential Natural Law (2021); and The Next American Economy: Nation, State and Markets in an Uncertain World (2022). Two of his books have been short-listed for Conservative Book of the Year. Many of his books and over 400 articles and opinion pieces have been translated into a variety of languages. He is also a Contributor to Law and Liberty, a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, an Affiliate Scholar at the Acton Institute, a Fellow of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University. He also serves as a Visiting Scholar at the Heritage Foundation.He has published in journals such as the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy; Journal of Markets & Morality; Economic Affairs; Law and Investment Management; Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines; Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy; Oxford Analytica; Communio; Journal of Scottish Philosophy; University Bookman; Foreign Affairs; and Policy. He is a regular writer of opinion-pieces which appear in publications such as the Wall Street Journal Europe; First Things; Investors Business Daily; Law and Liberty; Washington Times; Revue Conflits; American Banker; National Review; Public Discourse; American Spectator; El Mercurio; Australian Financial Review; Jerusalem Post; La Nacion: and Business Review Weekly. He has served as an editorial consultant for the Italian journal, La Societa, and American correspondent for the German newspaper Die Tagespost. He has also been cited in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Time Magazine, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, the New Yorker, and the Holy See's L'Osservatore Romano.In 2001, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and a Member of the Mont Pèlerin Society in 2004. In 2008, he was elected a member of the Philadelphia Society, and a member of the Royal Economic Society. In 2017, he was made a Fellow of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University. He served as President of the Philadelphia Society from 2019-2021.He is the General Editor of Lexington Books' Studies in Ethics and Economics Series. He also sits on the Academic Advisory Boards of the Institute of Economic Affairs, London; Campion College, Sydney; the La Fundación Burke, Madrid; the Instituto Fe y Libertad, Guatemala; and as well as the editorial boards of the Journal of Markets and Morality and Revista Valores en la sociedad industrial.-Brian Seitchik is a national political strategist with a background in campaign management and strategy, paid media, earned media, social media development, qualitative and quantitative research, constructing campaign teams and fundraising. With practical experience across the country, Brian knows the true value of a political consultant is not just making a pretty commercial or telling a client what they want to hear; it is the ability to adjust the tone of the campaign at the right time in order to win.-Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com

In This Episode: What causes anxiety? Is Anxiety "normal"? Genetic and environmental It is NOT your fault. You didn't ask for this You are doing the best you can with what you have Does that mean there is nothing you can do? No. What causes anxiety disorders? NIH - "Mood and anxiety disorders are characterized by a variety of neuroendocrine, neurotransmitter, and neuroanatomical disruptions. Risk factors- These factors may increase your risk of developing an anxiety disorder: Personality. People with certain personality types are more prone to anxiety disorders than others are. Other mental health disorders. People with other mental health disorders, such as depression, often also have an anxiety disorder. Having blood relatives with an anxiety disorder. Anxiety disorders can run in families. Drugs or alcohol. Drug or alcohol use or misuse or withdrawal can cause or worsen anxiety. Stress due to an illness. Having a health condition or serious illness can cause significant worry about issues such as your treatment and your future. Stress buildup. A big event or a buildup of smaller stressful life situations may trigger excessive anxiety — for example, a death in the family, work stress or ongoing worry about finances. Trauma. Children who endured abuse or trauma or witnessed traumatic events are at higher risk of developing an anxiety disorder at some point in life. Adults who experience a traumatic event also can develop anxiety disorders. What causes anxiety in the brain? a primary alteration in brain structure or function or in neurotransmitter signaling may result from environmental experiences and underlying genetic predisposition; These alterations can increase the risk for developing anxiety disorders. Abnormalities in a brain neurotransmitter called gamma-aminobutyric acid — which are often inherited — may make a person susceptible to GAD, according to NIH Life events, both early life traumas, and current life experiences, are probably necessary to trigger episodes of anxiety. What causes anxiety and panic attacks? Same as above....but consider avoidance reassurance seeing Mental rumination other physical compulsions Self-punishment Links To Things I Talk About: Harvard research:https://www.health.harvard.edu/anxiety/generalized-anxiety-disorder#:~:text=Abnormalities%20in%20a%20brain%20neurotransmitter,trigger%20the%20episodes%20of%20anxiety. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684250/ ERP School: https://www.cbtschool.com/erp-school-lp Episode Sponsor: This episode of Your Anxiety Toolkit is brought to you by CBTschool.com.  CBTschool.com is a psychoeducation platform that provides courses and other online resources for people with anxiety, OCD, and Body-Focused Repetitive Behaviors.  Go to cbtschool.com to learn more.  Spread the love! Everyone needs tools for anxiety... If you like Your Anxiety Toolkit Podcast, visit YOUR ANXIETY TOOLKIT PODCAST to subscribe free and you'll never miss an episode. And if you really like Your Anxiety Toolkit, I'd appreciate you telling a friend (maybe even two). EPISODE TRANSCRIPTION This is Your Anxiety Toolkit - Episode 313.  Hello friends. We are talking about what causes anxiety and why it is not your fault. So important. Okay, let's say it again. Why it is not your fault. I know you're probably beating yourself up for something related to your anxiety, that you should be handling it better, that there's something wrong with your brain. I want to really knock this concern, this belief, this thought out if I can, and try to replace it with some information that you can use in the moment to reassure yourself, not in a compulsive way, but just to remind yourself it's not your fault. Let's stop beating you up for something that's not your fault. If you saw something happen on the street and had nothing to do with you, you wouldn't probably blame yourself or beat yourself up or shame yourself. And I would like you to do the same for your anxiety. Okay? So, before we do that, let's talk about the “I did a hard thing.” This is from anonymous. It's pretty cool, I have to say. Anonymous says: “I was diagnosed with relationship OCD this year after sharing my doubts and rumination patterns with a therapist. My parents have expressed concerns about a boyfriend I have been with for over a year, and I don't think these concerns are valid and my therapist doesn't think they're concerning either. My parents' comments still trigger my relationship OCD doubts big time. However, I have opened up to my parents about how I'm considering marrying my boyfriend and have responded to their criticism calmly without getting mad at them. It's been really hard to establish boundaries, but also be kind. But I feel like I'm on track. I also am trying to see my parents' criticism of him as a gift, at least I know that I can't go to them for reassurance and it's a great exposure opportunity.” Anonymous, you are literally winning. The reason I am so thrilled, last week we did a whole episode on relationship OCD with Amy Mariaskin, and I really feel like you're mastering all of those skills that we talked about last week. So, that is just amazing. Congratulations on that hard thing. It's really, really cool work you're doing.  And quickly, before we move on, here's the review of the week. This is from Susan in Plano. They said: “It's a life preserver! Kimberley, your podcast has been such a help to me as I pursue recovery from a particularly active and pesky flare-up of OCD. Diagnosed in 2007, I have just this year found an incredible therapist who specializes in anxiety and OCD. Your podcast encourages me to keep doing the hard things. It makes me laugh and assists me in realizing just how much company travels on this road (even when it feels lonely and isolating). I am profoundly grateful for your work, and I have personally recommended this podcast to at least ten people. Thank you so much.” Susan, thank you so much. You guys, if you're able to leave a review, of all the gifts you could give me, that would be the most beneficial to me. I love your reviews. Go to wherever you listen to this podcast and leave a review if you can. It does help me to reach more people and gain their trust. So, thank you so much.  WHAT CAUSES ANXIETY? All right, let's do it. What causes anxiety and why it is not your fault. Okay, so let's first look at what causes anxiety. The first thing to remember here is, anxiety is actually not a problem. And what I mean by that is it is normal and healthy and an important part of our functioning and survival. What we're talking about here is, normal anxiety has its roots in fear and what it really does is it helps us to respond to dangerous situations. So, if you were there facing some kind of dangerous, stressful situation, a bus was coming your way or your house was on fire, or your car broke down on the highway with tons of cars beating past you, you would naturally get anxiety. And that anxiety would show up to alert you that you must be careful and take care of this somewhat dangerous situation. When that happens, you'll notice your heart beating faster, your chest might get tired, you might need to pee, you might need to poop. You might feel like you need to throw up. You might feel an overall irritability or jitteriness. So many different symptoms. You might get dizzy, you might have a headache. So many symptoms of anxiety show up, not because there's anything wrong with you, but because that is your brain's way of preparing you for fight, flight, or freeze. It's very, very important. And so, it is a normal function of the body. However, some of us experience extreme degrees of this and our brain sends this “normal anxiety” out when there's not danger. Your brain is perceived there to be danger when in fact there isn't any danger. And this becomes a problem and it becomes a cycle, particularly if we respond to it.  So, what are we talking about when we're talking about excessive degrees of anxiety, or in the case, we may be an anxiety disorder, which I'll get to here in a minute, is we understand that problematic degrees of anxiety or high levels of anxiety are caused by genetics, which is your generations above you. It's hereditary, but it's also caused by environment. We don't yet really understand what specifically causes it, but we know so far that it is a combination of genetics and environment.  What that means is, you were probably genetically set up to have anxiety. It's in your DNA the day you were born, which is why I'm going to emphasize to you that it is not your fault that you have anxiety. A lot of this could be passed down multiple generations. So, you might be thinking, “What? My parents aren't anxious, my parents aren't depressed, can't be my family. Can't be genetic for me. Must be just something wrong with me innately.” And I'm going to say, no, it could be paternal grandparents, maternal grandparents, or even further up the chain of genetics. Now we also know it could be environmental, it could be what you've been exposed to. We know that if you've been exposed to multiple stresses throughout your life, you may be more predisposed to anxiety. But we'll get to that here in a little bit.  The thing to remember as we move through is this going to keep reaffirming to you that it's not your fault. You never asked for this. In fact, my guess is you're asked to not have this many, many times. You've asked your brain, why are you this way? So, you really didn't want this, you didn't ask for it, and you're doing the best you can with what you have. Meaning, even if it's environmental, you would make-- some people might go, “Yeah, if I didn't make this one decision, I wouldn't have been exposed to this one thing.” We're all doing the best we can with the information we have. It's easier to look back with 20/20 vision, but in the moment, we're all just doing the best we can. Now, the thing to remember here as we go through is, please don't get hopeless. Just because it's environmental and genetic, it doesn't mean that you are stuck with this problem now and that there's nothing you can do. I'm going to outline here in a little bit close to the end exactly what you can do to have a toolkit to help you work through this situation that you've got this brain that's responding. So, let's really focus on that piece at the end. Okay?  WHAT CAUSES ANXIETY DISORDERS? So, let's move on now. What specifically causes anxiety disorders? Now, I'm going to leave you some links here in the show notes. If you want to do more in-depth, I am not going to go into great depth here because it'll go over your head, most likely it goes over my head completely. They're using some very scientific words. Unless you have some kind of really great science, you have great knowledge in this area, I'm not going to go into that because I don't think it's beneficial to fill your brain with all these words. That doesn't mean anything. But basically, the National Institute of Health have said that mood and anxiety disorders – I'm actually reading directly from their website here – are characterized by a variety of neuroendocrine, neurotransmitter, and neuroanatomical disruptions. That is what they have said. And what they're really talking about is a bunch of functions that happen in the brain that can get disrupted, causing us to have a brain that sets off the fire alarm or the danger alarm too often, too many times. Now, what we also know, and this is actually coming from a Harvard Journal article, what we know is that they considered them to be risk factors for getting anxiety disorders. So, as we talked about above, anxiety is genetic and environmental, but what we do understand is that there are these particular risk factors that may make you more likely to develop an anxiety disorder. Again, not your fault, because we're set up with this genetically or we're exposed to these things environmentally. So, let's go through them just briefly.  Number one is personality. So, this is, again, a genetic thing. People with certain personality types are more likely to have anxiety such as anxiety disorder like OCD, PTSD, panic disorder, generalized anxiety, health anxiety, phobias, and so forth. There are certain personality types or personality factors. We know people who are more hyper-responsible are more likely to have anxiety. People who are perfectionistic are more likely to have anxiety. People who like to have more control tend to have more anxiety because we can't control much in our lives like most of the people in our lives are. A lot of the times, we can't control environmental factors. And so, that can create a lot of anxiety.  Another risk factor is if you have another mental health disorder. So, if you have depression, you're so much more likely to have generalized anxiety or panic disorder. If you have an eating disorder, you're so much more likely to have OCD, generalized anxiety, phobias. These are really important factors to consider. And again, those disorders are more likely to be genetic as well.  We know and we've already discussed, you are much more likely and you have a greater risk if you have a blood relative with an anxiety disorder. They do run in families. We also know that there are some risk factors related to drugs and alcohol. So, misuse or withdrawal of drugs and alcohol can cause anxiety. And this is not even just hardcore drugs. It could be caffeine, alcohol, marijuana, even some medical drugs. So, talk with your doctor about if any of these drugs you're taking are causing anxiety.  I have had clients report to me that they have several drinks or a couple of drinks every day, and they didn't really see that to be a problem. Or maybe a little bit of marijuana every day, they didn't see it to be a problem. But then once they took a break, they realized how much the alcohol and drugs were actually causing their anxiety. Same goes for caffeine. Again, I'm not giving you medical advice here. Please speak with your doctor about these things, but we do know that they are considered risk factors based on science. Another one, and you know I've done episodes on this recently, is stress due to an illness can be a risk factor for having an anxiety disorder. Health conditions can cause significant stress on you and your family and can be something that can also impact your ability to succeed in treatment because you're managing another illness, which I want to make sure, again, you recognize it is not your fault. You're doing the best you can at juggling multiple things at the same time.  Another one is stress buildup. A buildup of stress over time can increase your chances of having an anxiety and an anxiety disorder. This could be worry about work, school, finances, children, your medical health. It could be the pandemic. We have a massive increase in mental health issues right now because of the pandemic and the effects of the isolation of the pandemic. Again, please give yourself a break for what you've been going through.  And then the last one, again, this is according to a Harvard research review, is trauma. Children who do endure abuse or trauma or witness, this is for adults too, have witnessed traumatic events are at higher risk of developing an anxiety throughout their life. This is true for adults. And I think it's important that we acknowledge that. It doesn't mean it's always caused by trauma. Unfortunately, on social media, particularly Instagram, I feel like everything is caused by trauma these days. And I don't want to discount that for people who have been through a traumatic event. But please don't jump to that because then it confuses people who have anxiety and they didn't have a trauma, and it makes everybody question everything. So, it can be trauma, but we don't want to over-label that either. And I bring that up just because I do see everything being labeled as trauma these days, and that can be problematic and stigmatizing in and of itself.  Okay. How are we doing, everybody? Are we hanging in? We're getting through this. I know it's a bigger, heftier session this time, but I think it's so important.  WHAT CAUSES ANXIETY IN THE BRAIN? Alright, so let's now talk about what causes anxiety in your brain. Again, we're not going to go into too much depth here, but I'm going to throw some words at you, and we're just going to do the best we can.  Again, this is from the National Institute of Health, and they said a primary alteration in brain structure or function or in neurotransmitter signaling may result from environmental experiences or underlying genetic predisposition. Again, what they're saying is environmental experiences and genetic predisposition can both create alterations in the brain structure or function of your brain. So, we are really getting clear on that. And these alterations increase the risk.  Now, what they're saying here is abnormalities in a brain neurotransmitter called gamma-aminobutyric acid are all often inherited. So, don't worry about that big word. It's just saying these abnormalities are often inherited and do make us more susceptible to, specifically here they were talking about generalized anxiety, but we do have information about that also being for OCD and panic disorder and so forth as well. Link is in the show notes if you want to read more about this.  They're also saying life events can trigger these. And what we know is our brain is what we call “neuroplastic.” Meaning, events can change our brain to having these alterations causing anxiety. But if we change our behaviors, we can actually reverse that in your brain. So, this is where we start talking about solutions to the problem. We can reverse the alterations made to our brain, particularly the neurotransmitters that were caused by genetics and environmental, when we change our behaviors.  WHAT CAUSES ANXIETY AND PANIC ATTACKS? So, let's talk about it. If we were to just overview what causes anxiety and panic attacks in general, we could say we've clearly outlined as genetics and environmental factors. That is completely out of our control. When we have these environmental factors or genetic predispositions, often, as I talked about, when our brain perceives anxiety, our natural instinct is to run away or do something or fight it. That's your natural reaction. Anybody would do it. Anybody in your situation would do it. Again, I'm going to reinforce, this is not your fault. But what we do is when we have that faulty system in our brain that sets off an alarm that tells you there's danger, what we end up doing is a bunch of what we call safety behaviors to try and reduce our discomfort and reduce our anxiety. Safety behaviors such as avoidance, reassurance-seeking, mental rumination, physical compulsions, or self-punishment. So, when we do that, our brain then goes, “Oh, they're interpreting this as a danger. They're responding to it as a danger. So, next time I have that thought or that situation, I'm going to send all the anxiety again.” And so, when it comes out again, if you respond with avoidance and reassurance-seeking and mental rumination and physical compulsions and self-punishment, you're now stuck in a cycle where we reinforce the fear, the perceived danger.  So, here is again where I'm going to offer to you, we have some options of intervening into this cycle. We talk about this in ERP School, the online course for OCD. We talk about it in overcoming anxiety and panic in our course for anxiety and panic on breaking the cycle by reducing our reaction to this stressful event or this brain danger alert. And when we do that, we can actually reverse that alteration in the brain. We have scientific proof of this, so I'm so excited that we get to do this together. It's not like we end the episode by going, “Yeah, this is the problem and there's no solution.” There's multiple solutions. And it's about really, again, intervening at the reaction we have to that anxiety.  If you have a therapist, I want you to be talking with them about how you can intervene and break the cycle. If you don't have a therapist, consider going to CBTschool.com and looking at some of the courses that we have that may help you understand this process and help you intervene where and when you're ready. Those courses are self-led. They're not therapy, but they may help you look at the cycle and see where you're getting stuck. And so, that is where I'm going to leave you guys, which is with so much hope that, number one, we know what causes anxiety. We know very clearly, it's not your fault. And then we can all come together and work at reducing the cycle that happens and changing our brain. It's so cool. So, so cool.  Thank you, guys, so much for being here with me. That was a hefty episode, but I hope you found it helpful. I'm so happy to get through that. Actually, I feel like that was super productive. And for me even, it's like, oh, it's so good to know that we can do so much about this. So, as you guys know, I'm always going to say it's a beautiful day to do hard things. Go and do some hard things today. They could be small hard things, big hard things, it doesn't matter. Just baby steps lead to medium size steps, which lead to life-changing steps.  Alright, my loves, have a wonderful day. I will see you next week. Please do go and leave a review. It should take you no more than a couple of minutes and it will help me so much. Thank you so much.

I spent an amazing year clerking on the Ninth Circuit for Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, who could not have been a better boss. And after speaking to numerous clerks over the years, I believe that most enjoy positive clerkship experiences like mine. When law students and young lawyers ask for my opinion on clerking, I generally recommend it (depending on the individual's particular circumstances).But not every law clerk is as fortunate as I was. As we have learned in recent years, some clerks are subjected to harassment and abuse from the judges they clerk for. And because of judges' power and prestige, as well as structural problems that exempt the judiciary from most forms of workplace accountability, clerks often find themselves with nowhere to turn when mistreated by their judicial employers.Aliza Shatzman wants to change that. After being harassed and discriminated against by the judge for whom she clerked, she has become a leading advocate for greater judicial accountability and transparency. She has submitted testimony to Congress, written and spoken widely about these issues, and co-founded the Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit devoted to “ensur[ing] that as many law clerks as possible have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not.”I was pleased to welcome Aliza to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. We talked about her harrowing clerkship experience, the need to pass the Judiciary Accountability Act, why she launched the Legal Accountability Project, and the Project's current initiatives, including a centralized clerkships reporting database. You can listen to our conversation by clicking on the embed above.Show Notes:* Statement for the Record of Aliza Shatzman, Former DC Superior Court Law Clerk, House Judiciary Committee* The Conservative Case for the Judiciary Accountability Act, by Aliza Shatzman for the Harvard Journal on Legislation* Law schools are part of the problem—but they can (and should) be part of the solution, by Aliza Shatzman for the Yale Law & Policy Review* The Legal Accountability Project, official websitePrefer reading to listening? A transcript of the entire episode appears below.Two quick notes:* This transcript has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter meaning—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning.* Because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email. To view the entire post, simply click on "View entire message" in your email app.David Lat: Hello, and welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to by visiting davidlat.substack.com.You're listening to the sixth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 28. My normal schedule is to post episodes every other Wednesday.One of the nice things about having your own podcast is the ability to cover topics that are important to you. One topic near and dear to my own heart is clerking. I have written about law clerks and judicial clerkships for years, dating back to my first blog, Underneath Their Robes, and my novel, Supreme Ambitions, is also set in the clerkship world.I had a wonderful experience clerking for Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain of the Ninth Circuit, who continues to be a mentor and friend more than two decades after my clerkship, and I want every law clerk to have such a great experience. So I was pleased to welcome to the podcast Aliza Shatzman, co-founder and president of the Legal Accountability Project. The goal of the Project is to ensure that as many law clerks as possible have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not.Aliza is an attorney and advocate based in Washington, D.C. She graduated from Williams College and the Washington University School of Law. After law school, Aliza moved to Washington to clerk for a judge on the D.C. Superior Court. Unfortunately, she endured terrible harassment and abuse during her clerkship, as well as retaliation afterwards. She has shared her story—in congressional testimony, articles, and interviews like this one—in order to increase judicial accountability and transparency.As Aliza discusses, one reason it can be so hard to hold judges accountable for mistreating law clerks is the culture of “hero worship” that surrounds judges. And here I have a confession to make: I have definitely contributed to the culture of “judicial celebrity” over the years, which I have come to increasingly regret over time. Without further ado, here's my interview of Aliza Shatzman.DL: Thanks so much for joining me, Aliza!Aliza Shatzman: Thanks for having me on the show.DL: So let's start at the beginning, before we get into your work with the Legal Accountability Project. Why did you decide to go to law school?AS: I went to law school because I wanted to be a reproductive-rights litigator. I wanted to be a trial attorney at Planned Parenthood. I'd always had kind of a sense of moral outrage, particularly on injustices affecting women. Between college and law school, I took a couple of years—I interned and worked on the Hill, did some internships at Planned Parenthood and the National Women's Law Center, and was really just moved by some of the personal stories I heard. So I went to law school knowing I wanted to do public-interest work.DL: And you were at Wash U, I believe, for law school?AS: I was, yes. I was a transfer, so I spent my 1L year at UNC and then transferred to Wash U.DL: And did your plans change in law school in terms of what you wanted to do? It seems like you certainly wanted to stay in public interest, but did your interests shift?AS: They definitely did. Pretty early in law school, I got the prosecutor bug. I did four different internships with the Justice Department during law school, and then decided that I wanted to become a homicide prosecutor in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office.DL: And what did you do towards that end? You mentioned the internships—what did you do right after law school?AS: I decided to clerk in D.C. Superior Court during the 2019-2020 term. I knew that D.C. AUSAs appeared before D.C. Superior Court judges, so I was really focused on clerking in that courthouse.DL: As I recall from some of your writing, and you've written quite a bit about your clerkship experience, you were initially pretty excited about it, right? And you had heard from professors or references or recommenders good things about the judge you were going to clerk for?AS: Yes, I was excited to launch my career, and definitely Wash U professors made calls on my behalf to help me secure the clerkship. I was definitely excited when I went into it, and the messaging at Wash U Law, like at most law schools, was uniformly positive. This was going to be a lifelong mentor-mentee relationship; the position was going to confer only professional benefits. Nobody back when I was applying for clerkships, or when I started my clerkship, talked about any potential downsides to clerking.DL: And of course it's also good for the law schools to send graduates into these prestigious positions.AS: Indeed it is. They report those clerkship numbers publicly in a variety of fashions, and especially with similarly ranked schools, it goes to their ability to get the most competitive applicants to law school and the best professors who come with their own clerkship networks and relationships with the judiciary. So the relationship between the judiciary and law schools is very closely intertwined in a way that I don't think I fully realized until I started writing and speaking about this.DL: That's so true, and I would also add: applicants are much more savvy than say I was. When I went to law school, I didn't even really know what a clerkship was. But I get calls every year from people who are thinking about law school and a lot of them will ask, “Oh, if I want a clerk, is this a good law school for that?” People are more aware than they were maybe when you were in law school, and certainly when I was in law school, about the value professionally and as a credential of a clerkship.AS: Definitely. I would caution that the law schools that report the highest number of clerks per year are not necessarily the ones most focused on ensuring a positive clerkship experience. And this is based on a lot of conversations with law schools, a lot of conversations with students. But yes, there is a huge push toward clerking. And even now, I'm not dissuading anybody from clerking in the work I'm doing now. It's really about ensuring a positive clerkship experience. And that is different for every student. That is different for every applicant. There is no one-size-fits-all model, and I remain concerned that law schools are just trying to funnel students into as many clerkships as possible.DL: Yes. Weren't you told when you were applying to accept the first clerkship you were offered because this is such a plum position?AS: I absolutely was. And there are still law schools that are giving that advice, which is bad advice, and some have backed off it in recent years, maybe because I'm poking at them and telling them to stop giving that advice. I was told to apply broadly, across the U.S. and across the political spectrum, and to accept the first clerkship I was offered. I did all those things. I should not have done those things, but I did.DL: That brings us to your clerkship in D.C. Superior Court. I think some of my—or many of my—listeners might be familiar with your experience. But for those who are not, can you talk about it?AS: Definitely. I think it's important to share my experience. My experience is not rare, but it is one that is rarely shared publicly, and every clerkship application cycle, so much ink is spilled, so many statements are made, to highlight the best of circumstances. Nobody's talking about the worst of circumstances.I started this clerkship in D.C. Superior Court in August 2019, and just weeks into it, the judge for whom I clerked began to harass me and discriminate against me because of my gender. He would kick me out of the courtroom, telling me I made him “uncomfortable” and he “just felt more comfortable” with my male co-clerk. He told me I was “bossy” and “aggressive” and had “personality issues.” The day I found out I passed the D.C. bar exam—a big day in my life—he called me into his chambers, got in my face and said, “You're bossy. And I know bossy because my wife is bossy.”DL: Oh my gosh. You would've thought, “Congratulations on passing the bar!”AS: I think he also said, “I didn't think you'd pass.”DL: Oh my gosh. Wow.AS: Yeah, I'm painting a picture of this judge. I was just devastated. I remember crying in the courthouse bathroom, crying myself to sleep at night. This was my first legal job out of law school. This judge just seemed to be singling me out for mistreatment. I wished I could be reassigned to another judge. My workplace didn't have an employee dispute resolution or “EDR” plan that might have enabled that to happen. I did confide in some attorney mentors and some other clerks, who advised me to stick it out, and I knew that I needed a year of work experience to be eligible to apply to the U.S. Attorney's Office. So I really tried to.DL: So you were just going forward, crying in the bathroom, putting up with this abuse and harassment, but the best advice—or not the best, but the advice you were given—was, just keep on trucking?AS: Yes, that's correct.DL: Okay, and then what happened?AS: Pandemic happened. March 2020, I moved back to Philly to stay with my parents and worked remotely, and the judge basically ignored me for six weeks, before he called me up and told me he was ending my clerkship early because I made him “uncomfortable” and “lacked respect” for him, but he “didn't want to get into it.” Then he hung up on me.DL: Oh my gosh. So he did that. Just fired you over the phone. Wow. He did not even give you the courtesy of meeting in person. And also I think you mentioned in one of the pieces you wrote that in the lead-up to this, weren't you sending him things like orders and other drafts to look at, and he wouldn't respond to you, he would respond to your co clerk?AS: Yes. Yes.DL: That's crazy. AS: It was pretty bad. I reached out to the D.C. Courts' HR. They said there's nothing they could do because HR doesn't regulate judges, judges and law clerks have a unique relationship, and then they asked me whether I knew that I was an at-will employee. So then I reached out to my law school, Wash U, for support and advice, and I found out the judge had a history of harassing his clerks, which law school officials, including several professors, and the clerkships director, who still works there, knew about at the time I accepted the clerkship. But they decided not to share that with me, I guess, because they wanted another Wash U law student to clerk.DL: Wow. Now this is something we'll return to, but when you were applying for clerkships, did you have access to evaluations or reports about this judge in the Wash U. clerkships office that might have told you about these bad experiences?AS: I did not. Wash U does not conduct a post-clerkship survey. At the time, I did not even know whether they had a list of former clerks who clerked for this judge or others, so they are far behind others in the T20 [top 20 law schools] in this regard.DL: I remember, when I was at Yale, there were these lists of clerks, former clerks, to different judges. You could look them up, and there were evaluations. And we'll return to this—the evaluations were almost uniformly positive because anyone could walk in and look at them, and if you wrote a scathing report, that probably would not be a great thing. But they were there. And I remember sometimes you could read between the lines, and maybe detect something less effusive, but they were mostly positive.AS: Yep. Your alma mater might push back on that, but you are correct. Most of the reports are positive. Yes. DL: Fair enough. Let's go back to where you've been left in this process, and HR says they can't help you, and your law school can't help you. What did you do next?AS: I reached out to some other D.C. judges who connected me with the commission where I ultimately filed my judicial complaint. I wrote it, but I wanted to wait to find a new job because I was worried the judge would retaliate against me. It took me about a year to get back on my feet. I secured my dream job in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office and moved back to D.C. in the summer of 2021, intending to launch my career as a prosecutor and, I hoped, put all this behind me. I had not been in touch with the judge, and I was hoping to move forward.DL: And I think he had said at some point to you that he would give you a neutral reference if asked?AS: Yes. That's correct.DL: You're at the U.S. Attorney's Office. This is your dream job. This is what you had wanted to do in law school. This is why you clerked for the D.C. Superior Court, to get this job. It seems like everything is going great, right?AS: For a couple weeks. Security clearance seemed to be taking a little bit longer than it should have, which was a red flag. But I was two weeks into training, I'd already started working there, they'd given me all the materials—and I received some pretty devastating news that altered the course of my life. I was told that the judge had made negative statements about me during my background investigation, I wouldn't be able to obtain a security clearance, and my job offer was being revoked.DL: Wow…. And then what did you do next? Did you have any ability to push back or explain or say, look, this was a really biased and unfair review or assessment?AS: I called HR, I called management at the D.C. U.S.A.O. and they said there was nothing they could do, that the decision was final. I absolutely tried to explain. I cried on the phone. I ultimately filed a FOIA request, which was denied in full, even though it was a reference about me that led to the denial of my security clearance. I actually was offered the opportunity a couple days later to interview for another job with that office, and then they revoked that too, based on the judge's same negative reference. At this point, I was two years into my legal career, and this judge just seemed to have enormous power to ruin my reputation and destroy my career.So I filed a judicial complaint with the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure. That is a regulatory body for D.C. judges. I hired attorneys and in the summer, in fall of 2021, participated in the investigation into the now-former judge, and we were partway through that when I found out separately that the judge was on administrative leave pending an investigation into other misconduct. At the time he had filed this negative reference, but the U.S.A.O. really was not alerted to the circumstances surrounding that negative reference until January 2022, when pursuant to the terms of our private settlement agreement, separate from anything the judiciary can or would do for a law clerk, the former judge issued a clarifying statement addressing some but not all of his outrageous claims. But by then, the damage had been done. It had been way too long, and I was pretty much blackballed from what I thought was my dream job.DL: Wow. Now, I think you wrote at some point that you did see some of the content of the negative reference—how did you get that? You mentioned your FOIA request was denied.AS: I have a copy of the negative reference, through private settlement negotiations between my attorneys and the then-judge's. I am enormously grateful for everything my attorneys did for me. Were it not for them, I would never have seen this outrageous negative reference, and most law clerks in my position are not fortunate enough to be able to hire attorneys to pursue this type of a claim.DL: I'm curious, this is maybe a bit of a digression, but whom did you hire? It's not like “clerkship abuse” is a practice area. Were these employment lawyers, did they have experience with the judiciary, how did you even know where to turn?AS: Great question. I found my attorneys through a high-profile person in the movement to prevent harassment in the judiciary. She let me use her name. Gave me a list. I started calling through it. It was a large employment litigation shop that does this type of work—not this type of work specifically, but they were fantastic. I'm really grateful for them.DL: So you reached an agreement with the judge. Were you then able to move on with your life professionally? What happened after that?AS: Sort of. I agreed not to identify the judge by name. That is why I refer to him as “the former judge.” He agreed to issue a clarifying statement to the U.S.A.O. addressing some of the claims in the reference. I reapplied to the U.S.A.O., but they definitely did not want anything to do with me. So I found a new job as a family law attorney and thought I would pursue that work.But during the summer when I was going through the judicial misconduct investigation, I became aware of the Judiciary Accountability Act, or “JAA,” which is legislation that would extend Title VII protections to judiciary employees, including law clerks. Currently, folks like me cannot sue our harassers and seek damages for harms done to our lives. So I reached out to a bunch of House and Senate offices involved with that bill to share my story, advocate for the legislation, advocate for an amendment to cover the D.C. courts, which are Article I courts and are currently not covered under the bill. And then a House Judiciary hearing occurred in March of 2022, and I was invited to submit written testimony advocating for the bill, sharing my story. And then I got involved in the weeks and months following that [with] further advocacy work around these issues. Eventually I launched the non-profit in June.DL: I would recommend to people that they check out your testimony. I put it in the show notes. It's very powerful, very detailed. It identifies the problem and talks about possible solutions. In a nutshell—you talked a little bit about it just now—what would the Judiciary Accountability Act do?AS: The JAA, H.R. 4827 and S. 2553, is such important legislation. It would extend Title VII protections to judiciary employees, including law clerks and federal public defenders, but it would do a lot of other important things too. It would clarify that Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which defines judicial misconduct, includes discrimination, harassment, retaliation—currently it doesn't even say that. It would specify that judges who retire, resign, or die amid a misconduct investigation—those [inquiries] won't cease. Currently they do. Some of the most notorious harassers, like former Judge [Alex] Kozinski, step down amid a misconduct investigation, and the judiciary loses jurisdiction over them.It would also standardize employee dispute resolution or EDR plans in the federal courthouses. Courts are theoretically required to follow the EDR plan, but they each implement it a little bit differently. And then it would also impose some really important data collection requirements on the federal judiciary, requiring them to collect and publicly report the results of a workplace culture assessment. They have been just notoriously unwilling to do that until very recently. It would require more transparency around the judicial misconduct complaints. When a judge is adjudicated to have committed misconduct, currently, if you go on the U.S. Courts website, their names are redacted. They are not searchable. It would increase transparency in that. It would also require the judiciary to report data on the lack of diversity in law clerk and federal public defender hiring. The real dearth of data in these spaces has allowed judges to get away with misconduct for decades.DL: This legislation seems like a very important part of the solution. Was your suggestion that it be amended to include D.C. Superior Court and similar courts accepted? Is that now part of the proposed legislation?AS: It's not yet—a Senate hearing would help to revisit this and other issues. It's definitely under consideration. I was told that it was more an oversight than anything else. So, I'm hopeful.DL: What is the status of the JAA right now? Are you optimistic about its chances of passage?AS: It's kind of stalled in Congress. It has 26 co-sponsors in the House, one Republican, six co-sponsors in the Senate, no Republicans yet, but I think that really does not—I know that does not represent the broad swath of folks interested in this legislation. It just needs some sustained attention and a Senate hearing. I always caution that we can't only talk about these issues when there's a flashy hearing. At the same time, I've been told that [a hearing] would garner additional co-sponsors, so it's really important.It's a bipartisan issue. Both Democratic and Republican judicial appointees harass their clerks, both liberal and conservative clerks face mistreatment. The federal judiciary leadership is a weirdly powerful lobby, and they are vociferously opposed to this bill. They have been since 1995, when Title VII was extended to the other two branches. It just needs some sustained attention. Congress has a lot going on every year, but I'm going to keep poking at them about this bill, about a Senate hearing. It's so important. Law clerks absolutely cannot wait another year for these urgently needed reforms. It's outrageous that law clerks are uniquely exempt from Title VII.DL: Why is it that it has so much less support on the Republican side of the aisle? I agree with you that it doesn't seem like it should be a partisan issue.AS: It just doesn't have enough folks lobbying Republicans on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees right now, which was part of the point of my article with the Harvard Journal on Legislation, The Conservative Case for the JAA. I have been reaching out to Republican offices to talk about the bill, and they are receptive and interested. House Republicans during the March 2022 hearing seemed receptive as well, at least to the Title VII protections. I'm a little worried they might want to sever the bill and deal with the Title VII protections now and handle other things later, which I don't think they should do. It just has a lack of support generally, and if we got more Dems we might get more Republicans too. It's a question of putting someone's personal face and story on abstract issues and giving this bill sustained attention.DL: Absolutely. And your testimony did that. And several other women came forward as well and offered testimony. There has been media coverage, so it is starting to get traction. But I guess we'll see what happens in January or in the new session.AS: The lack of people willing to come out and speak publicly on this issue makes it more challenging because judiciary leadership likes to claim these issues are not pervasive in the courts. And I think House and Senate Republicans, probably some House and Senate Democrats too, think similarly, because there's just a dearth of folks willing to share their stories publicly. My story is definitely not rare, but it is certainly rarely shared. And there is just a real culture of fear and silence, one of deifying judges and disbelieving law clerks. I think we're in a better position now than we were in 2018 or 2020, when two previous hearings occurred on these issues. But we still have a long way to go.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. What do you say to arguments that the judge-clerk relationship is a unique relationship and there are duties of clerk confidentiality? There were certainly clerks who, for example, wanted to report allegations against Judge Kozinski, but they were worried about violating the duty of confidentiality. What do you say to people who say this is going to undermine that, that special relationship that makes a clerkship such a great mentorship experience for so many?AS: The judiciary has taken some steps to clarify that the duty of confidentiality does not deal with workplace issues, and anybody who is mistreated can and should report that. Perhaps it is a unique relationship, but I think a clerkship should be considered a job like any other, and the judges should be considered employers running a small workplace. What makes it a unique job is that judges have outsized influence over their former clerks' lives, careers, and reputations, and that this first legal job for many folks has outsized influence over their future career success, which makes it particularly important that we address these issues and particularly important that the next generation of young attorneys are protected from mistreatment.DL: Another point you've made in your writings is at least for the Article III judges, there's life tenure, so in some ways they have even more protection than members of Congress or the president. They're not responsible to the voters. And also they're in some ways more low-profile. Even if there's a kind of hero worship or celebrity worship of judges, at the end of the day, they're not as famous as, say, U.S. senators—so they can probably get away with a lot more, I would guess.AS: Absolutely, they can and they do. Continuing to exempt judges from Title VII and conferring upon them life tenure really sends the message that they're untouchable, that they're above the laws they enforce. They shouldn't be. And definitely life tenure contributes to these problematic behaviors.There's a lack of accountability in the judiciary. Judges are never disciplined. Complaints are rarely filed to begin with. It is a broken system, and I think the JAA and the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which is the federal complaint process whereby a clerk can complain about a judge, are really the floor and not the ceiling for judicial accountability legislation. And I would just underscore for anybody who thinks my story is rare or particularly outrageous, it is definitely not, and judges are empowered to get away with outrageous misconduct. And what keeps law clerks silent, what keeps them from filing any sort of complaint, is that they fear that what happened to me will happen to them. That is how judges, some judges, the misbehaving ones, lord their power over their clerks, which is really troubling. It's definitely not all judges. There are lots of wonderful judges who reach out to me to extend their support for what I'm doing and thank me. But these issues are unaddressed in both the state and federal courts, and I'm really hoping that judiciary leadership takes it seriously.DL: What about the argument that the judiciary can police itself and that things like the JAA are threats to judicial independence and the separation of powers?AS: Internal self-policing leads to a lack of policing, and any attempts at internal self-discipline really lead to a lack of discipline. I remain enormously troubled that all judicial accountability mechanisms are run by other judges in the courthouse or the circuit where the complainant law clerk and the misbehaving judge work. Judges are notoriously unwilling to discipline their colleagues. Even when they see misconduct occurring, they're notoriously unwilling to even pull a judge aside and say something.The judicial independence argument is kind of nonsense. We are not talking about suing judges for their rulings, something I would not support. We are saying that judges are employers running a workplace like any other, like the other two branches of government, those are employers. When employees are mistreated, they can sue and seek damages. We're just talking about treating judges like other employers.DL: Have we seen any disasters result from the fact that other governmental entities are subject to suit for workplace violations?AS: Not at all. And part of it is just it sends the right message to say that you are an employer, you are subject to Title VII, you are an employee, you are protected by it. We have not seen any downstream negative consequences from extending Title VII to the other two branches of government.DL: Your testimony was in March 2022, this year, and then in June you started the Legal Accountability Project. Can you tell us what that is about?AS: Sure. So the Legal Accountability Project basically seeks to ensure that law clerks have a positive clerkship experience and then extends support and resources to the ones who don't. I think of the nonprofit as the resource I wish existed as a Wash U law student applying for a clerkship, a law clerk facing harassment and unsure where to go for help, and a former clerk engaging in the formal judicial complaint process. And we're working on a couple of major initiatives in collaboration with law schools beginning this year, and I think that law schools have historically received a free pass in the conversation about judicial accountability and that they should be the first to step forward and make some changes to protect the next generation of folks.DL: You have a couple of projects or initiatives you're working at the Project—can you talk about some of them that you're rolling out this fall?AS: Absolutely. So the Legal Accountability Project is basically premised on gaps that I see in the clerkship application process, a lack of standardization, a lack of transparency, as well as larger issues related to a lack of accountability in our judiciary. So I speak to a lot of law students and I'll say, “So you want to clerk? Great. How would you avoid judges who harass their clerks?” Some might say, “I'd ask someone,” but who are you going to ask? Clerkship directors and deans tell students to “do their research,” but what research are they going to do when so little information about judges is available on an equitable basis?The major initiative we're working on this year is a centralized clerkships reporting database, which is going to democratize information about judges so students considering a clerkship have as much info about as many judges as possible before they make what is clearly a really important decision about their careers. It's basically a better version of the post-clerkship survey that a handful of schools do already internally. As you and I talked about earlier, the schools that do them recognize they're mostly positive reports in there. What I try to tell schools is no school has a monopoly on information about judges. Every school has a ceiling on the number of judges they can keep track of, and it totally depends on who their alumni have clerked for in the past.We are going to have law clerk alumni from participating schools create an account with us and write a report about their judge and their clerkship—good, bad, medium, we want to hear everything—and our questions elucidate lots of information you might want to know before clerking. Certainly mistreatment is something we seek to capture in a way that law schools are not doing right now, but it's also how does the judge provide feedback, do I get writing and courtroom experience, can I take vacation? All kinds of stuff you might want to know about your boss and your job, most of which is just not available to students right now.Law clerk alumni report into the database. It's a subscription model, so law schools pay us $5 per student per year based on their total J.D. enrollment, and then in exchange, law students get access to reading the reports. But why it's better than anything law schools do right now [is that applicants] don't just get to read their [own school's] alumni reports. They read the reports of all the alumni from all the schools participating in database. I am confident this is the best way to infuse transparency into the opaque clerkship application process and protect the next generation of attorneys against harassment.DL: It sounds really useful. It's a resource I would've wanted to have when I was applying for clerkships. Are you going to require clerks to put their names in? Because obviously, as we know from your case, retaliation can be a problem. But if the clerks are[] anonymous, is there a fear of false reports? And what about if students want to get in touch with somebody for further discussion? Can people be anonymous?AS: Yes, law clerks can report anonymously. There is an option on the last page: would you like to provide your name to students considering this clerkship? We anticipate that the law clerks who face mistreatment will report anonymously, and that is one of many reasons why a lot of law-clerk alumni like this. They also feel an increased sense of anonymity because there are just more people reporting in from more schools in a way. I talk to students and alums from schools that do a post-clerkship survey and they say, I would not fill out my school's, I don't feel sufficiently anonymous, I would fill out yours.Your question about false reports—we do not have a culture of false allegations against judges. We have a culture of fear and gross underreporting. I'm not at all concerned about false allegations. We do obviously have a privacy policy, and law clerks are signing off that they will report truthfully. I am confident they will. I think students and alumni understand this is a desperately needed resource, and if there were false reports or folks misusing the database, it could no longer exist.What you talked about with the clerk-to-student information sharing is often referred to as the “clerkships whisper network.” This is inefficient at best and ineffective at worst, and that the folks who have the information, it often does not get shared with the folks who need. We are not saying you should not reach out to former clerks. What we are saying is that it is an inefficient system, and for law clerks who face mistreatment, they typically do a couple things. They either don't report that back to their law schools, or they take themselves off the list of alumni to be contacted for clerkships, or they do respond to requests, but they are re-traumatized every time somebody reaches out, or they just don't share the full information. Those are all issues we're seeking to combat. Instead of those things, the mistreated clerk can take 10 minutes, fill out our post-clerkship survey once, and then never have to be contacted again. So we think it's better.DL: Again, I think it's a great resource and a great idea. Are you worried about—again, I think this would be unlikely because it's sort of like the Streisand Effect, it would just draw more attention—but are you worried about a judge, say, finding out about this and then suing the Project to try and either unmask this person or get a retraction or, I don't know what….AS: A couple things. This is not a public-access website. The only people who will have access to reading the reports are students from participating law schools and young alums from those law schools. Law clerk alumni get write-only access. They write a report, they can't read them. Part of the privacy policy is that you cannot screenshot this, you cannot share this with folks who do not have access. We are not worried about defamation because we will have Section 230 immunity. We are just posting what people want to write. They can write seven paragraphs, they can write my judge was nice, we're just posting what they write.Judges actually support this. They reach out to me a lot to convey their private support. We're hoping to turn that into public support very soon. Judges understand that positive reviews in the database will bolster not only their reputations, but also their clerkship applicant pools, because what I see is it's historically marginalized groups, women, non-white folks, LGBTQ folks, who face the brunt of mistreatment during these clerkships, and either decide not to apply or they apply less broadly because they just don't have the info they need. I receive a lot of outreach from LGBTQ students asking who are the friendly judges to apply to, who are the not-so-friendly ones to avoid? I have to say we don't have that info yet, but we will. Judges like this. I know it's a disproportionate sample of folks who reach out to say, I support you and I'm a judge, and probably the ones who hate this are going to be quiet. It should be a red flag if any judges are out there publicly opposing this because there must be reasons why they do. And look, the thing is, we are doing what a handful of schools, including your alma mater, already do internally. Judges know which schools have a database. They bring them up and they don't make us think about that because they know that most other employers, in most other professions, are reviewed. Why should they be uniquely not subject to any reviews?DL: What is the status of the database—when will it go live, when will people start to be able to access these reports?AS: The database is a working prototype right now, and our engineers are building the final product. Law clerk alumni will begin reporting into it this winter, and it will go live in spring 2023 for students from participating schools considering clerkships. And for folks who think this is a good idea, if you are a law student or an attorney, reach out to your law school and encourage them to partner with us. Most administrations are considering this right now, and we think student and alumni support is going to make a difference everywhere.DL: I think people should, if they're interested in this resource, let their school know that the school should sign up for it if it hasn't already. Before we go, I was wondering if you could also talk about what the Project is working on in terms of the culture assessment?AS: Yes, we are doing a workplace culture assessment of the federal and state judiciaries. It's a climate survey that's finally going to answer the question, “How pervasive is harassment in the judiciary?” The federal judiciary has just been notoriously unwilling to do this until very recently. [After] five years of advocates poking at them, they finally agreed to do one, but they've specifically not committed to reporting the results publicly, which I think is an enormous red flag.We are surveying both state and federal clerks from a variety of institutions. In addition to standard climate-survey-type questions, we're also asking a section of questions that is particularly important, and it's about law clerk concerns about reporting formally to the judiciary, informally to their law schools. The federal judiciary likes to claim that these issues are not pervasive, yet they have conducted no type of workplace assessment that would show that.Unfortunately, a handful of law school clerkship directors and deans say things to me like, “We're blessed to work with only good judges in this circuit! All our alumni have a positive experience!” That is nonsense. But the dearth of folks reporting back to their law schools right now means that they can kind of disclaim responsibility, so we're seeking to quantify that as well for some challenging clerkship directors and some challenging judiciary officials.DL: When do you expect the assessment to be available?AS: We're not going to send it out until summer of 2023, so a little while. We're trying to focus on the database. We overshot our timelines a bit for getting schools on board, so our full effort goes toward that right now. But I've been heartened by the very positive response from the vast majority of law schools who are very willing to engage, and I appreciate that.It's the right time. Advocates over the past couple years have really laid the groundwork, and now it's time to make changes to protect the next generation of young attorneys. Law schools are working in good faith with me and I appreciate that, but no school is doing an adequate job of protecting their students and alumni against mistreatment right now. We are offering them concrete solutions for radically under-addressed issues, and I hope everybody considers partnering with us this year.We're definitely facing a first-mover problem. Everybody's looking around and seeing who's partnering with us. That's the first question we get from every dean, who else is doing this? Somebody's got to be first. There are a couple of really brave deans and clerkship directors who I'm optimistic will be leaders.DL: I think, just based on having observed the legal profession for so long, that they're like lemmings. Once you get one or two or three, especially if they're big-name schools, you'll get many. You just need—it's like what just happened with these U.S. News rankings and Yale and Harvard—you just need somebody to do it. So you're working on a first mover, but you don't have one just yet?AS: We're very optimistic about a couple. We're not ready to announce them, but we feel very good.DL: Well, in closing, Aliza, I'm so thankful for your time and insight. For people who want to reach out to you to help out with the Project or to tap into resources, what's the best way for them to either contact you or get in touch with the Project?AS: Our website is legalaccountabilityproject dot org, and my email is Aliza dot Shatzman at legalaccountabilityproject dot org. I receive a lot of outreach from current and former clerks. I always appreciate that. Please reach out, learn more, support us. We're recording this the day before Giving Tuesday, so it's a good time to support us.DL: You are a 501(c)(3)?AS: We are working on it. We will be in a few weeks.DL: Excellent. Well, anyway, thank you so much for your time, your insight, and all of the work you're doing on these very important issues. A lot of us really appreciate what you're doing.AS: Thank you.DL: Thanks again to Aliza, who is doing very important work. Reasonable minds can disagree on the details of specific reform proposals, but everyone who cares about the judiciary should care about the workplace treatment of law clerks.As always, thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers, for tuning in. If you'd like to connect with me, you can email me at davidlat@substack.com, and you can find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to Original Jurisdiction. Since this podcast is new, please spread the word by telling your friends about it. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, as is most of the newsletter content, but it is made possible by your paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast should appear two weeks from now, on or about Wednesday, December 14. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; and (3) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Daniel Schwarcz, Fredrikson & Byron Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, Josephine Wolff, Associate Professor of Cybersecurity Policy at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, and Daniel W. Woods, Lecturer of Cybersecurity at the University of Edinburgh School of Informatics, discuss their article "How Privilege Undermines Cybersecurity," which will be published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. They begin by explaining what the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines are and how they negatively affect cybersecurity investigations and the implementation of lessons learned from those investigations. They describe their qualitative study of lawyers and cybersecurity professionals conducting cybersecurity investigations. And they make recommendations about how courts could amend their approach to privilege to improve cybersecurity outcomes.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr. Samuel Gregg is Distinguished Fellow in Political Economy and Senior Research Faculty at the American Institute for Economic Research, and a research fellow at the Acton Institute. He has a D.Phil. in moral philosophy and political economy from Oxford University, and an M.A. in political philosophy from the University of Melbourne. The author of sixteen books and more than four hundred articles, he has written for publications such as The Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, the Spectator, Foreign Affairs, National Review, American Banker, and Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. His brand new book, The Next American Economy: Nation, State, and Markets in an Uncertain World, was released earlier this month. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/americas-talking/support

Adam White and Jace Lington chat with Anthony P. Campau about his experience with regulatory budgeting during the Trump administration. They discuss Campau’s recent paper, Regulatory Budgeting in the U.S. Federal Government: A First-Hand Account of the Initial Experience and Recommendations for Future Regulatory Budgets, published as part of a symposium in the Harvard Journal of Law & Source

Adam White and Jace Lington chat with Anthony P. Campau about his experience with regulatory budgeting during the Trump administration. They discuss Campau's recent paper, Regulatory Budgeting in the U.S. Federal Government: A First-Hand Account of the Initial Experience and Recommendations for Future Regulatory Budgets, published as part of a symposium in the Harvard Journal of Law & Source

Yana starts with a background of herself and her company before getting into specifics about specific use cases and the founding story of Kraftful. They then talk about usability issues in IoT and the importance of analyzing data. Yana also shares insights on the most significant changes she's seen in this niche of IoT and what her journey of raising capital was like.Yana is the CEO and Co-Founder of Kraftful, where she's working to make smart home technology accessible to many more people. Before starting Kraftful, she headed up the product management team at IFTTT, helping people unlock magical experiences by connecting their different products. Previously, Yana worked on disrupting manufacturing with digital production at Carbon and tackled free knowledge creation on Wikipedia. She also co-created CollabMark, an open source and free culture brand guide, which has been adopted by Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap, and Node.js. As a tech policy thought leader, she's published pieces in the New York Times, the Harvard Journal of Law & Tech, and a chapter in the Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Privacy. Yana holds an LL.M. from Harvard Law School, a J.D. from the University of Southern California, and an LL.B. from the London School of Economics and Political Science.