Podcast appearances and mentions of john elwood

Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School and host of the “Passing Judgment” podcast, discusses Stormy Daniels' testimony at the Trump hush money trial. Eric Goldman, Co-Director of the High Tech Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law, discusses TikTok suing over the US ban. John Elwood, head of the Appellate and Supreme Court practice at Arnold & Porter, discusses the Supreme Court's unanimous decisions of late. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John Elwood, head of the Appellate and Supreme Court practice at Arnold & Porter, discusses why the Supreme Court has so many unanimous decisions so far this term. David Voreacos, Bloomberg legal reporter, discusses Stormy Daniels' testimony in the Trump hush money trial. Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg legal reporter, discusses the start of the trial of Bill Huang over the Archegos collapse. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

SIGN UP TO MAKE SURE BIGTECH CANT SHUT ME DOWN SO WE CAN STAY IN CONTACT HERE: derek-oshea-show.mailchimpsites.comSupport the SHOW https://www.buymeacoffee.com/derekosheashowWANT A MUG WITH MY FACE ON IT?https://store.streamelements.com/theoneminutenewsEnsure a “fair” or “free” election via Moore v. Harper! Why YOU SHOULD CARE#moorevharper #moorevsharper #scotus #voting Source:https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-harper-2/Moore v. HarperFacebookLinkedInTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShareLinked with:Costello v. CarterDocket No.Op. BelowArgumentOpinionVoteAuthorTerm21-1271N.C.TBDTBDTBDTBDOT 2022Issue: Whether a state's judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the “Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives ... prescribed ... by the Legislature thereof,” and replace them with regulations of the state courts' own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a “fair” or “free” election.SCOTUSblog Coverage“Clean-up” conference prompts three new grants, lots of separate writings (Amy Howe, June 30, 2022)Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections (Amy Howe, June 30, 2022)The (likely) last grants of October Term 2021 (John Elwood, June 29, 2022)The independent state legislature theory and more on jurisdiction (John Elwood, June 23, 2022)The independent-state-legislature theory for congressional maps and liability for cities under the ADA (Andrew Hamm, April 8, 2022)Justices decline to reinstate GOP-backed congressional voting maps in North Carolina, Pennsylvania (Amy Howe, March 7, 2022)SUPPORT THE SHOW : https://streamelements.com/theoneminutenews/tipPolitically Homeless Daily Comedy News Show#breakingnews #politics #politicallyhomelessEmail: derekosheashow@gmail.comYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/derekosheashowRumble  : https://rumble.com/c/c-624233Podcast Audio Webpage: https://derekosheashow.buzzsprout.comApple Podcast : https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/derek-oshea-show-comedy-news-show/id1508917484Spotify : https://open.spotify.com/show/3BNCK8HjbDOtyOlHMOVGTXOdysee: https://odysee.com/@DerekOsheaShowWebsite : https://theoneminutenews.wixsite.com/derekosheashowTwitter: https://twitter.com/DerekOsheaShowInstagram : https://www.instagram.com/derekosheashow/Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/LgKyzhcXmm52/Gab: https://gab.com/TheOneMinuteNewsFacebook : https://www.facebook.com/DerekOsheaShowTikTok : https://www.tiktok.com/@derekosheashow?moore vs harper supreme court,moore vs harper explained,moore vs harper case,moore vs harper supreme court explained,moore vs harper scotus,moore vs harper for dummies,moore vs harper npr,moore vs harper north carolina,moore vs harper simple,moore v harper decision,moore v harper ruling,moore v harper overturned,moore vs harper prediction,voting integrity,Voting Laws,Midterm,midterm election 2022,midterms,“fair” or “free” electionSupport the show

This is the story of Tone Dougie, an aspiring rapper who posted rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife and blowing up an FBI agent. Tone Dougie says he didn't intend to threaten anyone and was simply inspired by Eminem. But the federal government saw things differently and prosecuted him for making “true threats.” His case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where only one justice dissented. Were Tone Dougie's posts protected speech or criminal threats? Tune in to find out!Thanks to our guests Adam Liptak and John Elwood. Special thanks to our longtime editor John Carter for his rap portrayal of Tone Dougie. Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently signaled a retreat from deference to agency guidance in Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the Court narrowed judicial deference available to agencies construing their own ambiguous regulations. But what about judicial deference to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the agency housed in “within the Judicial Branch,” and which Justice Scalia derided as a “junior varsity Congress,” making policy choices that should be committed to the legislature? In Stinson v. United States, the Supreme Court held that courts should defer to the commentary the Sentencing Commission issued construing their formally adopted Sentencing Guidelines, unless they are “inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of,” the relevant Guideline. The Stinson Court required such deference even if the Commission's interpretation “may not be compelled by the guideline text.” On June 17, the Supreme Court's conference is slated to include discussion on a series of cases percolating up from the courts of appeals that all raise similar challenges to the use of Stinson deference in deciding criminal defendants' sentences. The Court seems poised to grant certiorari to one or more of these cases challenging deference in order to resolve a broad and deep split among the circuits that reflects inconsistencies in sentencing nationwide. Or, at least, it would explain why the court has been holding some of these cert petitions for over six months in order to consider all of them together—perhaps in order to select the best vehicle from among the slew of petitions clamoring for the Court's consideration. Here to discuss the pending Stinson deference cert petitions is appellate attorney John Elwood, a partner at Arnold & Porter who is better known in some circles as the relist guru on SCOTUSblog. John filed a petition for certiorari on behalf of Zimmian Tabb in a case out of the Second Circuit—one of the first Stinson deference cases to reach the Supreme Court last fall. John will explain what's at stake in the reconsideration of Stinson deference, including the following questions: Do constitutional due process and the rule of lenity preclude Stinson deference when commentary to a Sentencing Guideline would increase a sentence? Do courts owe deference to Guidelines commentary that appears to expand the scope of the Sentencing Guidelines? Post-Kisor, may courts defer to commentary without first determining whether the pertinent Guideline is ambiguous? Post-Kisor, must courts apply canons of construction like the rule of lenity before granting the agency deference? And, practically speaking, what might the Supreme Court be looking for to select the best vehicle for reconsideration of Stinson deference from among the pending cert petitions? Moderating the discussion will be New Civil Liberties Alliance Executive Director and General Counsel, Mark Chenoweth. NCLA authored another of the cert petitions pending before this week's conference at the Court on behalf of a defendant in the Eighth Circuit, Marcus Broadway. Featuring:-- John P. Elwood, Partner, Arnold & Porter -- Moderator: Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

While I take a couple of weeks to explore some new story-telling formats, here's a re-broadcast of our interview from October with Dr. John Elwood. 

What is the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket”? John Elwood, head of Arnold & Porter’s appellate and Supreme Court Practice, sits down with SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe to explain the often opaque work that happens outside of the court’s regular roster of argued cases. For much more on the shadow docket and its increasing importance, check out SCOTUSblog’s recent symposium on how this group of cases has shaped issues such as voting procedures, coronavirus responses, capital punishment and more. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

John Elwood of SCOTUS Blog joins us to talk about the Supreme Court and what a relist limbo is and why it’s important to lawyers and their client’s cases. Sources: Cockle Legal Briefs article “Relist as a Requisite to Certiorari” Law.com article by Marcia Coyle “How to Survive Relist Limbo” SCOTUS Blog Glossary of Terms SCOTUS Blog article by Michael Kimberly and Kristin Liska “The statistics of relists” SCOTUS Blog article by Ralph Mayrell, Michael Kimberly, and John Elwood “The statistics of relists redux: October Term 2015” SCOTUS Blog article by Ralph Mayrell, Michael Kimberly, and John Elwood “The statistics of relists, OT 2016 edition: Has the relist lost its mojo? Not quite”

John Elwood of SCOTUS Blog joins us to talk about the Supreme Court and what a relist limbo is and why it’s important to lawyers and their client’s cases. Sources: Cockle Legal Briefs article “Relist as a Requisite to Certiorari” Law.com article by Marcia Coyle “How to Survive Relist Limbo” SCOTUS Blog Glossary of Terms SCOTUS Blog article by Michael Kimberly and Kristin Liska “The statistics of relists” SCOTUS Blog article by Ralph Mayrell, Michael Kimberly, and John Elwood “The statistics of relists redux: October Term 2015” SCOTUS Blog article by Ralph Mayrell, Michael Kimberly, and John Elwood “The statistics of relists, OT 2016 edition: Has the relist lost its mojo? Not quite”

Last week, our companion podcast We the People was recorded live in front of our National Constitution Center audience for the first time! Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe and John Elwood to preview the Supreme Court’s 2019 term, which began this week. They discussed this term’s blockbuster cases, including a trio of cases argued at the Court this morning which raise the question of whether Title VII, a federal statute prohibiting employment discrimination because of sex, also prohibits discrimination by employers based on gender identity and sexual orientation. They also dove into other major topics that will soon come before the Court, including immigration policies like DACA, abortion, the Second Amendment, and school choice. [Update: after this episode was recorded, the Supreme Court agreed to hear June Medical Services LLC v. Gee, the Louisiana abortion case mentioned in this discussion.]  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week Amy Howe and John Elwood joined Jeffrey Rosen on the National Constitution Center's podcast "We the People" to preview the Supreme Court term that began this morning. The three discuss cases involving LGBT employment discrimination, DACA, public funding for private religious schools, gun rights and abortion. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week, We the People partnered with SCOTUSblog's podcast SCOTUStalk for a live preview of the Supreme Court's 2019 term – recording our show in front of a live National Constitution Center audience for the first time! Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe and John Elwood to preview the blockbuster cases of the upcoming term, on topics including LGBTQ rights under Title VII, immigration policies like DACA, the Second Amendment, school choice and the free exercise of religion, and more. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week, We the People partnered with SCOTUSblog's podcast SCOTUStalk for a live preview of the Supreme Court's 2019 term – recording our show in front of a live National Constitution Center audience for the first time! Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe and John Elwood to preview the blockbuster cases of the upcoming term, on topics including LGBTQ rights under Title VII, immigration policies like DACA, the Second Amendment, school choice and the free exercise of religion, and more. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

043 We're focusing this episode on music for children on the mountain dulcimer. You'll hear traditional and original songs, songs about whimsical instruments, animal adventures, and songs about people and places. With music from dulcimer players Heidi Muller, Bob Webb, Molly McCormack, Kevin Roth, Aubrey Atwater, Joellen Lapidus, Rick Scott, and John Elwood.

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court briefly covers the latest Supreme Court news before speaking with John Elwood about the essentials concerning petitions for certiorari. Elwood is a partner at Vinson & Elkins and the author of “Relist Watch.”(In the episode, Elwood suggested there were eight previously rescheduled cases. He later clarified with us that there were five: Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Tennessee Department of Revenue, Hunter v. United States, JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Automotive, Williams v. United States and Shular v. United States.) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

John Elwood, Leah Litman, and Christopher Yoo, three of Anthony Kennedy’s former clerks, join We The People to discuss the Justice’s Supreme Court legacy. John Elwood is a partner at Vinson & Elkins law firm, teaches at the University of Virginia School of Law’s Supreme Court litigation clinic, and is a contributor to SCOTUSblog. He clerked for Justice Kennedy from 1996–1997. Leah Litman is assistant professor of law at the University of California, Irvine Law School. She is a guest host of the First Mondays Supreme Court podcast and blogs at the Take Care blog. She clerked for Justice Kennedy from 2011-2012. Christopher Yoo is John H. Chestnut Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science; director, Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition at Penn Law School. He clerked for Justice Kennedy from 1997-1998. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE. 

This week, Elizabeth & Tiffany talk about cases challenging capital punishment, Seminole Rock deference, and more! They also chat with John Elwood about SCOTUSBlog's Relist Watch and his argument pump up songs. Tune in for Supreme Trivia to find out how Kentucky is beating Michigan at SCOTUS. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Stored Communications Act of 1986 authorizes federal, state, and local law enforcement officers to obtain subpoenas, orders, or warrants that permit them to seize emails. However, the storage of such data in the “cloud” of remote servers, many of them overseas, presents difficult questions Congress did not anticipate years before global internet access became commonplace. The main question in United States v. Microsoft is whether a warrant served on the tech giant’s U.S. offices requires it to turn over emails of a suspected drug trafficker that happen to be stored in Ireland.Because federal law is presumed not to apply outside the United States, the case presents the question whether the relevant conduct occurs domestically—whether the Act’s focus is the disclosure of electronic records available to the U.S. company, or whether its focus is the compelled retrieval of the data stored abroad. It is an increasingly important issue at a time when many leading email providers may store an email in one location and its attachments in another location entirely. Due to the potentially vast implications, more than 30 amicus briefs have been filed by several governments, members of Congress, numerous tech firms, privacy advocates, and law-enforcement officials. John Elwood will attend the oral argument and then join us to discuss his thoughts on the proceedings. Featuring: John Elwood, Partner, Vinson & ElkinsTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The Stored Communications Act of 1986 authorizes federal, state, and local law enforcement officers to obtain subpoenas, orders, or warrants that permit them to seize emails. However, the storage of such data in the “cloud” of remote servers, many of them overseas, presents difficult questions Congress did not anticipate years before global internet access became commonplace. The main question in United States v. Microsoft is whether a warrant served on the tech giant’s U.S. offices requires it to turn over emails of a suspected drug trafficker that happen to be stored in Ireland.Because federal law is presumed not to apply outside the United States, the case presents the question whether the relevant conduct occurs domestically—whether the Act’s focus is the disclosure of electronic records available to the U.S. company, or whether its focus is the compelled retrieval of the data stored abroad. It is an increasingly important issue at a time when many leading email providers may store an email in one location and its attachments in another location entirely. Due to the potentially vast implications, more than 30 amicus briefs have been filed by several governments, members of Congress, numerous tech firms, privacy advocates, and law-enforcement officials. John Elwood will attend the oral argument and then join us to discuss his thoughts on the proceedings. Featuring: John Elwood, Partner, Vinson & ElkinsTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

October 5th will mark the first day of the 2015 Supreme Court term. Thus far, the Court's docket includes major cases involving the death penalty, affirmative action, unions, civil asset forfeiture, and more. -- Notable cases include Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, which concerns pre-certification mootness; Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, which concerns class certification where statistical methods are used to establish liability and damages; Spokeo v. Robins, which concerns Article III standing and statutory damages; Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which concerns affirmative action in admissions; Evenwel v. Abbott, which concerns redistricting law; Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which concerns teacher unions; and Kansas v. Gleason, Kansas v. Carr, Montgomery v. Louisiana, Foster v. Humphrey, and Hurst v. Florida, which all concern the death penalty. -- In addition to these cases and others, which may include abortion and contraceptive mandate questions, the panelists will discuss the current composition and the future of the Court. -- Featuring: Prof. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law; Mr. John Elwood, Partner at Vinson & Elkins; Mr. Neal K. Katyal, Partner at Hogan Lovells; Prof. John F. Stinneford, Professor of Law and Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Center at Levin College of Law, University of Florida; and Mr. Ed Whelan, President of Ethics & Public Policy Center. Moderator: Mr. Adam Liptak, The New York Times.

October 5th will mark the first day of the 2015 Supreme Court term. Thus far, the Court's docket includes major cases involving the death penalty, affirmative action, unions, civil asset forfeiture, and more. -- Notable cases include Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, which concerns pre-certification mootness; Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, which concerns class certification where statistical methods are used to establish liability and damages; Spokeo v. Robins, which concerns Article III standing and statutory damages; Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which concerns affirmative action in admissions; Evenwel v. Abbott, which concerns redistricting law; Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which concerns teacher unions; and Kansas v. Gleason, Kansas v. Carr, Montgomery v. Louisiana, Foster v. Humphrey, and Hurst v. Florida, which all concern the death penalty. -- In addition to these cases and others, which may include abortion and contraceptive mandate questions, the panelists will discuss the current composition and the future of the Court. -- Featuring: Prof. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law; Mr. John Elwood, Partner at Vinson & Elkins; Mr. Neal K. Katyal, Partner at Hogan Lovells; Prof. John F. Stinneford, Professor of Law and Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Center at Levin College of Law, University of Florida; and Mr. Ed Whelan, President of Ethics & Public Policy Center. Moderator: Mr. Adam Liptak, The New York Times.