Podcast appearances and mentions of Ian Samuel

Pred več kot 15imi leti se je Ian Samuel z družino iz okolice Londona preselil v Prekmurje. V oddaji je spregovoril o tem, kako vidi novo domovino, kakšne spremembe v monarhiji pričakuje po smrti kraljice Elizabete II., v ospredju pa je bil tudi nogomet, saj se je v Murski Soboti njegovo nogometno srce ogrelo za Muro.

Pred več kot 15imi leti se je Ian Samuel z družino iz okolice Londona preselil v Prekmurje. V oddaji je spregovoril o tem, kako vidi novo domovino, kakšne spremembe v monarhiji pričakuje po smrti kraljice Elizabete II., v ospredju pa je bil tudi nogomet, saj se je v Murski Soboti njegovo nogometno srce ogrelo za Muro.

Andy, Michael, and Tarik marvel at the spectacular rise, dizzying fall, and curious redemption of Ian Samuel, a legal yarn humming with powerful energies.

This is the only episode of the Hijabi Diaries that doesn't involve a profile on a Muslim woman. During this episode, we take a break from our regular programming to speak with a former Supreme Court clerk, now a Law Professor at the IU Maurer School of Law, Ian Samuel. Samuel talks to us about the recent upholding of the Trump Administration's travel ban by the 2018 US Supreme Court, with a particular focus on its predicted impact on Muslim Americans. This travel ban will limit travel and immigration from 7 Muslim-majority nations in the Middle East. Samuel discusses the parallels that can be drawn between the case of Trump v. Hawaii (the case associated with the Travel Ban), and one of the most infamous Supreme Court cases of all time, Korematsu. The Hijabi Diaries is produced in partnership with the Openhearted Campaign to End Islamophobia. Aubrey Seader is our executive producer, with help from WFHB News Director Wes Martin and co-producer Anna Maidi. Music heard on the podcast includes Baraka Blue's "Love and Light." Subscribe, rate, and review on iTunes. Learn more the Hijabi Diaries at www.hijabidiaries.com.

It’s anybody’s guess whether or not President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, DC Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh, will replace retired Justice Anthony Kennedy on the High Court. The FBI is reported to be finishing up its supplemental background check on Mr. Kavanaugh, looking into multiple allegations of past sexual assault and misconduct made in recent weeks against the nominee.Former college classmates and current friends of the Judge have weighed in on his fitness for the Supreme Court, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised a vote this week. Today on Midday, perspectives on the Kavanaugh nomination from Cleta Mitchell, a former counsel to the National Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees; Ian Samuel, associate professor at Indiana University's Maurer School of Law and co-host of First Mondays, the weekly podcast about the Supreme Court; and Thiru Vignarajah, a former federal prosecutor, former Deputy Attorney General of Maryland and currently a litigator with DLA Piper in Baltimore.The Kavanaugh confirmation process and the future of the Supreme Court, today on Midday.

Here's a teaser of our bonus episode, which you can access in its entirety here. https://www.patreon.com/posts/law-prof-ian-on-21703637 I continue my chat with law professor Ian Samuel, and ask him how a socialist wound up clerking for Antonin Scalia, and how he shaped some of his decisions. He also tells me how he wound up going to law school, and, more importantly, if *I* should go to law school. I encourage him to create a DSA Supreme Court Working Group because the DSA definitely doesn't have enough of those. Plus, he explains why it's ok to go on Tucker Carlson.

Bonus: https://www.patreon.com/posts/law-prof-ian-on-21703637 We talk to #KTHSLC (Katie Halper Show Legal Correspondent) Ian Samuel about Brett Kavanaugh, his virgin/ catholic/ calendar excuse, packing the courts from the Left, Clarence Thomas and "no chalance." Ian talks about the similarities and differences between Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford.

It’s the Midday Newswrap: The Labor Department released the monthly job numbers this morning, and, as has been the case for the last seven or eight years, the numbers continue to be good. The unemployment rate has stayed steady at 3.9%. The economy added 201 thousand jobs in August, and wages grew by .4 percent , up nearly three percent for the year. Analysts have observed that wages are growing at a faster rate than inflation for the first time in a long time.In a now infamous op-ed in the NY Times from a person identified by the Times as a Senior Administration Official, someone claims that she or he is one of many people working behind the scenes to, in this person’s words, “frustrate parts of the Trump agenda, and the President’s “worst inclinations.” Just what parts, just how many people, and who is making this claim are not yet known. Plus, NFL opened its season last night in a broadcast that featured a new Nike commercial narrated by Colin Kaepernick. We’ll talk about Nike’s decision to place Kaepernick front and center in its 30th anniversary ad campaign.Tom is joined in studio by Michael Fletcher, a senior writer with ESPN’s The Undefeated, the online platform that explores the intersection of race, culture and sports; and Ian Samuel, an associate professor of law at Indiana University, and the co-host of a podcast about the Supreme Court, called First Mondays.

In episode 93, Dean Shanahan interviews Maurer School of Law professors Ian Samuel and Steve Sanders. They talk about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel's time as Antonin Scalia's counter-clerk, judicial politics, and Samuel's podcast First Mondays. #politicsandtheworld

An excerpt from today's bonus episode, available in full to our Patreon patrons, in which Current Affairs legal editor Oren Nimni and social media editor Vanessa A. Bee interview Indiana Law professor, First Mondays host, and rising legal star Ian Samuel about being a lefty in the law. Discussed: the three's lefty origin stories, the consequences of a Kavanaugh nomination, why the law is a conservatizing profession, and more. To listen to this episode — and gain access to our patrons' "Bird Feed" — consider becoming a monthly patron at our Patreon page. Call into Current Affairs anytime at (504) 867-8851.

The Current Affairs panel discusses what the end of racism and sexism might look like, legal star Ian Samuel enters the Lefty Shark Tank to pitch Supreme Court packing, and we all share our favorite historical what-ifs. (Plus, the segment breaks are haunted by disturbing 20th century ghosts!) Further reading on racial and gender utopias: Matt Bruenig and Economic Policy Institute have good data on the racial wealth gap here and here. The New York Times Magazine had a report this past spring on the crisis in black maternal health. Data on the gender gap in government is here and gender and racial pay gap information is here. We also read two conservatives in preparation for this episode: Michael Lind on the melting pot and John McWhorter on identity politics. The question that inspired this segment was asked by Harvard Law professor Randall Kennedy, who wrote about it here. Further reading on Supreme Court packing: Ian's original tweet is here. His Tucker clip is here. National Review responds to his proposal here. Dylan Matthews has a court packing Voxplainer here. Oren and Brianna's Current Affairs take on the whole idea of judges is here. Further reading on our historical what-ifs: Read Ho Chi Minh's Declaration of Independence here. History of Science is a really interesting discipline — read its wiki page here. Read more about free labor in Michael Sandel's Democracy's Discontent and Eric Foner's Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men. Read about one type of hierarchy organization here. Inside Job is here and Too Big to Fail is here. Joseph Singer's law review article on the Youngstown factory closing case is here. Support Current Affairs by becoming a patron on our Patreon page. For the written form of Current Affairs — and to subscribe to the beautiful print magazine — visit: CurrentAffairs.org. To join the conversation, leave us a voicemail at 504-867-8851.

It's our annual Supreme Court term roundup, with special guest Ian Samuel. We discuss, natch, one case, Carpenter v. United States, which concerns the need for a warrant to get records from cell phone companies concerning the location of your phone. But there's much more, including: hard drive upgrades, the sum total of human writing, audio vs. text for messaging, emojis, AI and grunts, Supreme Court-packing / balancing / restructuring (16:37), what rules of procedure an enlarged Court should set for itself and what rules should be imposed on it (29:00), podcast lengths and listening habits (51:04), Carpenter v. United States(01:02:06), Batman movies, and Hold-Up. This show’s links: First Mondays (http://www.firstmondays.fm) Ian Samuel’s writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=936551) Ian Samuel, The New Writs of Assistance (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3075587) Snopes, Did Facebook Shut Down an AI Experiment Because Chatbots Developed Their Own Language? (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-ai-developed-own-language/) (no, but interesting) Oral Argument 134: Crossover (http://oralargument.org/134) Christian Turner, Amendment XXVIII: A First Draft (https://www.hydratext.com/blog/2018/7/12/amendment-xxviii) Ian Ayres and John Witt, Democrats Need a Plan B for the Supreme Court. Here’s One Option. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-need-a-plan-b-for-the-supreme-court-heres-one-option/2018/07/27/4c77fd4e-91a6-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html) Oral Argument 37: Hammer Blow (http://oralargument.org/37) (with Michael Dorf); Oral Argument 38: You're Going to Hate this Answer_ (http://oralargument.org/38) (with Steve Vladeck); Christian Turner, Bound by Federal Law (http://www.hydratext.com/blog/2014/10/29/bound-by-federal-law) (including links to posts by Michael and Steve on the issue of state courts' not being bound by federal circuit courts) Carpenter v. United States (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_new_o75q.pdf) Radiolab, Eye in the Sky (https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/update-eye-sky/) Ian Samuel, Warrantless Location Tracking (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1092293) Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=659168721517750079) Florida v. Jardines (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2570635442757547915) Justice Souter’s discussion of Plessy and the role of history in judging (http://www.c-span.org/video/?284498-2/america-courts) (watch from minute one until about minute fourteen) and his Harvard Commencement speech (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/text-of-justice-david-souters-speech/) on Plessy Hold Up! (http://www.hydratext.com/blog/2015/7/24/hold-up) Special Guest: Ian Samuel.

A full hour of pre-roll before our extended conversation (in the next episode) with Ian Samuel. Opening topics: Words, Joe's new paper, phones and their spam and locations. We argue about how to have an argument. Then we stumble into a psychological typology of judginess and prescriptivism. The heartland of the episode concerns the self, law, death, being and non-being, Joe's youthful fear of blindness, the external and internal point of view, the reality of firehouses, and law as a social practice for reaching acceptable social conclusions vs. law as a queryable thing. (Other potential show titles: Pure Pre-Roll, The Jerk Box, and The Jailor.) This show’s links: About "antepenultimate" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antepenultimate) (including links to "propreantepenultimate") About Battle Royale games (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_royale_game) Tim Dowling, Order Force: The Old Grammar Rule We All Obey Without Realising (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/13/sentence-order-adjectives-rule-elements-of-eloquence-dictionary) Joe Miller, Law's Semantic Self-Portrait: Discerning Doctrine with Co-Citation Networks and Keywords (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3212131) Carpenter v. United States (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_new_o75q.pdf) Anil Seth, The Real Problem (https://aeon.co/essays/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-a-distraction-from-the-real-one) (on the problem of consciousness) Philip Bobbitt, Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution (https://books.google.com/books?id=qVrjzOHlKsEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false),

Just Joe and Christian on a double-album of an episode. Lots of nonsense and a smattering of sense, including: notaries public, international sport and boycotts and drugs, bears and snakes, the Deep South and weather, these days and conversation, a tiny, incomplete dip into the mailbag, the pronunciation of Argunauts, what we should do with our lives, law and neutrality, law as a substitute for war, 2 + 2 = 5 and right and wrong, hard and easy problems, freedom reasoning and the New Lochner, court packing, changing the constitution of the Supreme Court, religious tests for office and the nature of convictions about convictions. This show’s links: All about notaries public (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notary_public) Rebecca R. Ruiz and Michael Schwirtz, Russian Insider Says State-Run Doping Fueled Olympic Gold (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/sports/russia-doping-sochi-olympics-2014.html); the "McLaren Report" on Russian doping in Sochi (https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/20160718_ip_report_newfinal.pdf) Stephen Herrero, Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance (https://books.google.com/books/about/Bear_Attacks.html?id=dqRGDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false) Ella Morton, The Snake Catchers Who Handle Australia’s Most Venomous Home Invaders (https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-snake-catchers-who-handle-australias-most-venomous-home-invaders) About the "Deep South" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_South) Katie Herzog, How Air-Conditioning Made America — and How It Could Break Us All (https://grist.org/food/how-air-conditioning-made-america-and-how-it-could-break-us-all/) Christian Turner, The Failures of Freedom (https://www.hydratext.com/blog/2012/2/4/the-failures-of-freedom.html) Oral Argument 134: Crossover (http://oralargument.org/134) (guests Dan Epps and Ian Samuel)

It’s finally here, the one where we talk with the hosts of the world-famous First Mondays podcast, Ian Samuel and Dan Epps. Topics include physics conundrums, podcasts (05:13), the politics of Supreme Court nominations (27:08), and radically changing the rules governing the Supreme Court’s docket (54:54). This show’s links: First Mondays (http://www.firstmondays.fm) Dan Epps’ faculty profile (http://law.wustl.edu/faculty_profiles/profiles.aspx?id=10752) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=462731) Ian Samuel’s faculty profile (http://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/11599/Samuel/) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=936551) Feynman on mirrors (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msN87y-iEx0) Randall Munroe, The Goddamn Airplane on the Goddamn Treadmill (https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/) Randall Munroe, xkcd: 28-Hour Day (https://xkcd.com/320/) Christian Turner, Podcasts (https://www.hydratext.com/blog/2014/1/11/podcasts) (and somehow this post about Streamers (https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/14575/streamers) is still online) The Bernie Sanders Show (https://www.sanders.senate.gov/bernies-podcast) Chris Guthrie and Tracey George, Remaking the United States Supreme Court in the Courts' of Appeals Image (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1374449) Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12719084930434459940); Planned Parenthood v. Casey (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994) Nina Martin, The Supreme Court Decision That Made a Mess of Abortion Rights (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/supreme-court-decision-mess-abortion-rights) Barry Friedman, The Will of the People (https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Will_of_the_People.html?id=V004NCn4Vm8C) Daniel Epps and William Ortman, The Lottery Docket (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2928275) John Duffy, The Federal Circuit in the Shadow of the Solicitor General (http://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/78-3-Duffy.pdf) Washington Energy Co. v. United States (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=297528725569885130) Oral Argument 28: A Wonderful Catastrophe (http://oralargument.org/28) (background for Joe’s Erie question) Expression Hair Design v. Schneiderman (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1391_g31i.pdf); Guido Calabresi, Federal and State Courts: Restoring a Workable Balance (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2123/) The First Mondays Patreon page (https://www.patreon.com/firstmondays) Special Guests: Dan Epps and Ian Samuel.

Vilka drabbas av Trumps inreseförbud och vad är en exekutiv order? I det här avsnittet av Människor & Migration försöker vi reda ut vad som har hänt och vilka som drabbas av inreseförbudet. Hur har ledarna i länderna vars medborgare nu stoppas reagerat? Podcasten gästas av reseledarna från Arenagruppens USA-valresa, Maria-Elsa Salvo, från kommunikationsbolaget Arena Opinion, och Per Wirtén, författare och frilansskribent. Dessutom har Maja Dahl intervjuat Ian Samuel som undervisar vid Harvard och har erbjudit sig att företräda alla de statligt anställda som vägrar genomföra ordern. Avsnittet går igenom de olika turerna kring ordern och vad de många ändringarna säger om Donald Trumps presidentskap. Vilka fler ändringar i migrationspolitiken kan vi förvänta oss? I avsnittet diskuterar vi även fackföreningsrörelsens roll och vad de kan göra framöver.

Less than one week after President Donald Trump’s executive order banning immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, our latest Iran Chat is with Ian Samuel, Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School.  Ian previously served in the United States Department of Justice in the Office of the Solicitor General and on the appellate staff of the Civil Division.  Following his government service, Ian joined the appellate litigation practice at the law firm Jones Day.  Our conversation covers the legal issues surrounding President Trump's executive order as well as Ian’s offer to personally provide legal services to any government employee who refuses to help implement this ban. You can follow Ian on Twitter at @isamuel, and subscribe to his podcast about the Supreme Court at firstmondays.fm/subscribe. Some highlights from our conversation: On Why this Ban Is Illegal "Since 1965, US immigration law has prohibited discrimination on the basis of national origin in the issuance of visas.  It is quite explicit in the law - you cannot discriminate in the issuance of visas by national origin.   Secondly, this ban is a lightly disguised attempt to discriminate on the basis of religion against Muslims. This is made unusually clear by the fact that both the President himself and his closest advisers have more or less said as much.  US law understandably does not permit that kind of discrimination on the basis of religion. That is a constitutional requirement, quite apart from any statute, and sits above the President’s ability to do whatever he wants.   These are not slam dunks… but in my opinion at least they are both strong arguments."   On Why the Ban is Unjust "The thing that resonates with me is a matter of simple moral justice.  The people who are being affected by this are human beings who are our brothers and sisters, our neighbors, our friends; they’re us.  And I am deeply ashamed of the stain that this is putting on our national character.  The US government has not always been virtuous and has not always been wicked. There are moments of profound moral good and profound moral evil in our history. And I feel like I’m living through one of those moments that people are going to look back on with deep shame in 30 or 50 years." On His Offer to Provide Legal Assistance to Government Employees Who Refuse to Implement the Ban No government program is self-executing.  The White House can order something, but that order, to be effective, requires thousands upon thousands of people across the government - nearly all of whom are career civil servants who are not political appointees - to go along with it... And the order is also illegal, so that places it in a special status because civil servants generally don’t have any obligation to go along with illegal orders.   What I’m advocating is not just legal but is actually in support of the law. The purpose of this is not to encourage anybody to engage in law-breaking, but actually to tell people that what this order asks people to do is break the law." On US Citizens Being Affected by the Ban "The border is a tricky place because it is a place where there’s a lot of discretion that's traditionally been allowed to the government.  Citizens are in an advantaged position because they cannot be denied entry to the US, but that doesn’t meant that they aren’t going to be potentially subject to detention, criminal charges, or harassment.. so this is something that is going to affect potentially anybody, and I don’t blame anybody for feeling nervous about it because these are things that really happen to people. Just because someone is a citizen doesn’t mean they don’t have skin in the game." On How Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Might Have Ruled "I wouldn’t presume to say how he would come out on the result, but I know what his method was; his method was textualism.  This was not a person who was shy about reaching politically unpopular results if he thought it was what the text of the relevant law required.  And as I read the immigration statutes they are phrased very plainly. When they say no discrimination on the basis of national origin is permitted, to me that is a pretty easy case.  And although that may have politically unpalatable consequences depending on your politics, he was never really afraid of doing something like that. It’s always a risky business to speculate on someone who has now passed about how they would have come out on a particular case, but I know his methodology and his methodology to me indicates at least that this is actually not that hard of a case."

The write up for this one is going to be short and sweet, folks, because the content is long and savory.  We finally aligned technology and schedules and sat down with Ian for a talk about all things geek, legal, and lawery.  Want to know what it's like to argue before the Supreme Court? What it's like to be an Omeganaut at PAX?  How to fight back against unfair IP law?  If emulators are legal?  How much energy the Death Star took to destroy Alderaan?  We talk about it.  At length. As a bonus, we have a full transcript of the interview and a “highlight reel” version here.  Hope you enjoy!  We'll be having Ian on in the future, so if you have follow up questions, drop us a line!  You can also follow us on Twitter, and our Facebook fan page.  If you appreciate what we do, consider leaving us an iTunes review.  And don't forget our forums!  It's where all the cool kids hang out. [ratings]