Podcast appearances and mentions of Josh Blackman

The very RINOs who are undermining Trump's agenda are bizarrely securing his endorsement. We begin by showing once again how the endorsements are killing any effort to pass a MAGA agenda. I also comment on the latest policy jockeying with the reconciliation bill. Next, we're joined by constitutional law professor Josh Blackman for another discussion about judicial supremacy, recent political court cases, and the trajectory of their outcomes. Professor Blackman is not very optimistic in the long run that the Roberts court will fundamentally clip the wings of radical lower courts on enough cases. He offers some fascinating examples of hypocrisy with Roberts rushing in to overturn conservative lower courts while using the emergency shadow docket to keep terrible lower-court rulings alive, even when those issues are pressing. He also believes we are about to get screwed on birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court. The only solution is for other branches to grab back that power. The Florida attorney general is providing us with the test case. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What should Trump’s top priorities be for his next 100 days? // LongForm: GUEST: Rabbi Yaakov Menken, Vice President of the Coalition for Jewish Values on why Jews on the Left oppose Trump going after antisemitism. // Quick Hit: Guest: South Texas College Law professor Josh Blackman on Trump’s judicial nominees.

Some of you might be celebrating the Supreme Court nibbling around the edges of lower-court tyranny, but make no mistake about it, we will still have to litigate every deportation one by one … unless we delegitimize judicial supremacism. We're joined today by constitutional law professor Josh Blackman, who makes it clear that judicial supremacism was something nobody accepted until Cooper v. Aaron during the 1950s. He does not have faith in the current Supreme Court fully solving the problem and also makes the case that focusing on district court universal injunctions is also merely nibbling around the edges. He also explains the difference between a Thomas and a Barrett, those who are fighters vs. those who are climbers, and how Republicans have gotten judicial selection wrong for so many years. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In June 2021, the Superior Court of Connecticut approved amendments to Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4, which defines professional misconduct. The amendments expanded the definition of misconduct in subsection (7) to include engaging in "conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination...in conduct related to the practice of law" based on a long list of protected characteristics including "race, color, ancestry, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, status as a veteran, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or marital status".In November 2021, Mario Cerame and Timothy C. Moynahan, two Connecticut lawyers who regularly presented on issues potentially implicated by the new rule, brought suit, alleging the rule as amended violated their First and Fourteenth Amendments. They argued the rule was impermissibly overbroad and chilled lawful speech in so far as it was unclear what speech may be interpreted to be violative of the rule. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. Cerame and Moynahan appealed to the Second Circuit, which, in December 2024 vacated the district court's decision, ruling they did have standing and remanding for further proceedings.Join us for a litigation update for this interesting case implicating professional responsibility, ABA model rules, and free speech with Margaret Little of NCLA, which represents Cerame and Moynahan.Featuring:Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston

Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law, joined Court Watch host Alex Swoyer to discuss the Supreme Court's November caseload, and he detailed the justices' upcoming dispute over a state ban on medical treatment for transgender youth, which is scheduled for Dec. 4. 

Professor Ron Rotunda wrote seminal law books that are still used in law schools across the country and was the author of over 500 law review articles and other legal publications. These books and articles have been cited more than 2000 times by law reviews, by state and federal courts at every level, by the U.S. Supreme Court and by foreign courts in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America. He was also a member of the Federalist Society’s Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group holds an annual FedSoc Forum in his honor to discuss pressing issues and trends in legal culture.Join us for the 2024 installment in that series, where Erin Murphy will join us for a conversation moderated by Prof. Josh Blackman on the importance of courage as a lawyer as well as the state of the legal profession more broadly.Featuring:Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC(Moderator) Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston

In July, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed a criminal case charging former President Donald Trump with hoarding classified documents at his home in Mar-a-Lago and obstructing justice. Judge Cannon reasoned that the prosecutor in this case, Special Counsel Jack Smith, was not properly appointed by the Justice Department. Matthew Seligman of Stanford Law School and Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston, who argued before Judge Cannon on opposite sides of this issue, join Jeffrey Rosen to debate the legal basis for the special counsel role. Resources:  United States v. Nixon (1974)  Trump v. United States (2024)  Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman, Brief of Professor Seth Barrett Tillman and Landmark Legal Foundation as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant Trump's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, United States v. Trump (March 21, 2024)  Matthew Seligman, Motion for Leave to File Brief by Constitutional Lawyers, Former Government Officials, and State Democracy Defenders Action as Amici Curiae in Opposition to Defendant Donald J. Trump's Motion to Dismiss, United States v. Trump (April 3, 2024)  Judge Aileen Cannon, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment Based on Appointments Clause Violation, United States v. Trump (July 15, 2024)  Jack Smith, Brief for the United States, United States v. Trump, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (August 26, 2024)  Stay Connected and Learn More: Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. Donate

Josh Blackman is a national thought leader on constitutional law and the United States Supreme Court. Josh Blackman has served as a professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston. He holds the Centennial Chair of Constitutional Law. Josh is also an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. He has also authored three books.FOLLOW Josh Blackman on X: @JoshMBlackmanVISIT: https://joshblackman.com/SUPPORT OUR WORK https://www.judicialwatch.org/donate/thank-youtube/ VISIT OUR WEBSITE http://www.judicialwatch.org

Today's episode of First Liberty Live! features great insight and stories from one of our top lawyers as well as a highly respected legal professor. Listen to volunteer attorney Allyson Ho and professor Josh Blackman give expert analysis on the most pressing issues regarding our First Freedom now.

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, there is an argument that will be heard by Judge Aileen Cannon on whether the appointment of Jack Smith as special council was Constitutional. Smith is the most powerful prosecutor in the United States because AG Merrick Garland gave him that power without having the authority to do so. Cannon will hear arguments from both sides about whether there was a breach of the appointments clause with Smith. While we have judges like Chutkan and Merchan using their power to destroy the rule of law, we have judges like Cannon standing up to the corrupt Biden regime, mob attorney general, and rogue prosecutor. Later, Mark is joined by Josh Blackman, a lawyer who will be making one of the oral arguments about Jack Smith being unconstitutionally appointed, to discuss the basic points of the brief and the overstepping of Merrick Garland in appointing Smith. Also, the crisis on our southern border did not exist under the Trump administration but was created by President Biden through his open border policies and non-enforcement of our immigration laws. Everything Biden is doing now is to get re-elected, which is why he is acting like he is the savior and closing the border. Finally, Mark speaks with Congressman Byron Donalds (R-FL) to talk about the Biden campaign and the Democrat media hit pieces twisting his words and lying to smear him. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

First – there were no LEGAL consequences for President Biden for his mishandling of classified documents -- but there's plenty of POLITICAL fallout for the president in the newly released Special Counsel's report. Axios political reporter Erin Doherty gives us a rundown. Then - the OTHER big story in Washington this week: The high-stakes Supreme Court case on former President Trump's eligibility to appear on the Colorado ballot. We examine the legal and constitutional questions with Ilya Somin of the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School and Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Plus – It's been one week since the U-S began military strikes against Iran-backed proxies in the Middle East. We speak with national security expert and retired Navy captain GENE MORAN about what was accomplished. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump should be struck from the ballot for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which applies to certain officials who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion. Does this Section apply to the former President? Can state officials enforce it in the absence of an implementing statute from Congress? Does this Section still apply in 2024?On February 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson – what may be one of most important cases the Court has ever considered. Join us on the eve of oral arguments as Heritage's John Malcolm moderates a discussion of the legal issues with Josh Blackman (co-author of a law review article on the subject), Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (who is leading a coalition of 27 states supporting Trump), Patrick Strawbridge of Consovoy McCarthy (former Supreme Court clerk who filed an amicus brief for the RNC and NRCC), and Heritage Senior Fellow Hans von Spakovsky. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State determined that President Trump “engaged in an insurrection” after taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and that he is therefore disqualified from serving as president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In this episode, professors Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston and Gerard Magliocca of the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law dive into the meaning and purpose of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the arguments for and against Trump's eligibility to run for a second term this fall. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   Resources:  Jeffrey Rosen, “The Supreme Court's Election Dilemma,” WSJ (Jan. 5, 2024)  Gerard Magliocca, “Background as Foreground: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and January Sixth,” (Dec. 21, 2022)  Gerard Magliocca, “Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” (July 20, 2021)  Gerard Magliocca, “What the Supreme Court Should Not Do in Trump's Disqualification Case,” NY Times (Jan. 5, 2024)   Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section Three,” (Sept. 19, 2023)   Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Is the President an ‘Officer of the United States' for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?” (Dec. 20, 2021)   Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, Amicus Brief in Support of Trump in Trump v. Anderson  Griffin's Case (1869)   The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)   Bradwell v. Illinois (1873)   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, joins Lisa Dent to talk about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case of former President Donald Trump and if he can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. Josh Blackman […]

In 1945, the population of the United States was around 140 million people, and those Americans owned an estimated 45 million guns, or about one gun for every three people. By 2023, the population of the United States stood at just over 330 million people, and according to historical data from the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the number of guns produced and imported for the US market since 1899 exceeds 474 million firearms. Even assuming some of those guns have broken or been destroyed or illegally exported, there are easily more guns than people in the United States today. How and why the number of guns rose so precipitously in the US since World War II is our story today. Joining me to help us learn more about guns in the United States in the second half of the 20th Century is Dr. Andrew C. McKevitt, the John D. Winters Endowed Professor of History at Louisiana Tech University and author of Gun Country: Gun Capitalism, Culture, and Control in Cold War America. Our theme song is Frogs Legs Rag, composed by James Scott and performed by Kevin MacLeod, licensed under Creative Commons. The mid-episode music is “Johnny Get Your Gun,” composed by Monroe H. Rosenfeld and performed by Harry C. Browne, in New York on April 19, 1917; the audio is in the public domain and available via the Library of Congress National Jukebox. The episode image is a Hi-Standard ad from 1957. Additional sources: “How Many Guns Are Circulating in the U.S.?” by Jennifer Mascia and Chip Brownlee, The Trace, Originally posted March 6, 2023, and Updated August 28, 2023. “The Mysterious Meaning of the Second Amendment,” by James C. Phillips and Josh Blackman, The Atlantic, February 28, 2020. “Timeline of Gun Control in the United States,” by Robert Longley, ThoughtCo, updated on January 08, 2023. “Do Black People Have Equal Gun Rights?” by Charles C. W. Cooke, The New York Times, October 25, 2014. “Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West,” by Matt Jancer, Smithsonian Magazine, February 5, 2018. “The NRA Wasn't Always Against Gun Restrictions,” by Ron Elving, NPR, October 10, 2017. “How NRA's true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby,” by Joel Achenbach, Scott Higham and Sari Horwitz, Washington Post, January 12, 2013. “Opinion: The reality of gun violence in the US is bleak, but history shows it's not hopeless,” by Julian Zelizer, CNN, April 1, 2023. “Firearms and Federal Law: The Gun Control Act of 1968,” by Franklin E. Zimring, The Journal of Legal Studies 4, no. 1 (1975): 133–98. “Remarks Upon Signing the Gun Control Act of 1968,” by President Lyndon B. Johnson, The American Presidency Project. “The Inside History of How Guns Are Marketed and Sold in America,” by Olivia B. Waxman, Time Magazine, August 19, 2022. “The Supreme Court will hear a case that could effectively legalize automatic weapons,” by Ian Millhiser, Vox, November 3, 2023. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court will hear two cases over public officials blocking people on social media and a trademark battle over the phrase "Trump too small" during the upcoming term -- as well as take up a major Second Amendment case dealing with disarming people under civil domestic violence protection orders. Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law, joined Court Watch host Alex Swoyer to detail the legal battles and potential outcomes.

The 2023 Ron Rotunda Memorial Webinar featured a conversation with Gregory Jacob and Prof. Josh Blackman discussing the current state of the legal culture and the future of the legal profession. Professor Rotunda wrote seminal law books that are still used in law schools across the country and was the author of over 500 law […]

The 2023 Ron Rotunda Memorial Webinar featured a conversation with Gregory Jacob and Prof. Josh Blackman discussing the current state of the legal culture and the future of the legal profession. Professor Rotunda wrote seminal law books that are still used in law schools across the country and was the author of over 500 law review articles and other legal publications. These books and articles have been cited more than 2000 times by law reviews, by state and federal courts at every level, by the U.S. Supreme Court and by foreign courts in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America. He was also a member of the Federalist Society’s Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group holds an annual Teleforum in his honor. Ron Rotunda was not only a renowned professor but also a mentor to many, including Prof. Josh Blackman, who wrote heartfelt remembrances about him on his blog here and in the Chapman Law Review here. Featuring: Gregory Frederick Jacob, Parter, O’Melveny & Meyers LLP Moderator: Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston

In 1984, Hon. Pauline Newman became the first judge appointed directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge Newman has served on that court since, and serves to this day. Reports surfaced in April of this year that Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore had initiated a complaint against Judge Newman under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. On May 10, 2023, Judge Newman filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Chief Judge Moore; two other Federal Circuit judges in their capacities as members of the special committee appointed by Chief Judge Moore to investigate the complaint; and the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit and its members. Judge Newman's federal lawsuit raises issues not just of judicial conduct (given the underlying complaint) and patent law (which are interesting given Judge Newman's and the court's history as well as what some view as its drift away from innovation-protective jurisprudence), but also separation of powers (since Judge Newman was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate), and even age/disability discrimination (Judge Newman is 95 years old). Our panel discussed these and related issues arising from this most-unusual set of circumstances. Featuring: Prof. Paul R. Gugliuzza, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of LawProf. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law HoustonProf. Arthur Hellman, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of LawCheryl Stanton, Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer, BrightStar CareModerator: John J. Park Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP

EPISODE 226: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:42) SPECIAL COMMENT: In a normal world the criticisms were so milquetoast and so covered in caveats that they'd barely be noticed. In the context of the perpetual darkness of Donald Trump and the Coalition of Hatreds, they are bursts of sunlight. They inspired absolutely nobody, and it could all go away tomorrow as it has so many times before, but graded on degree of difficulty Nikki Haley and Tim Scott each gave The Gettysburg Address yesterday. SOMETHING has happened in the calculations of other Republicans regarding today's indictment of Donald Trump. As it ridiculous as it might be Haley and Scott are running for the Republican nomination and that there have been calls on the right for them and everybody but Trump to drop out and endorse Trump as a way to show they believe in Trump. And instead, at an event where he announced the endorsement of 140 Republicans, Tim Scott instead said “This case is a serious case with serious allegations.” And while that squeak heard round the Trump-World was reverberating, Nikki Haley went on Fox and said if the indictment is “true...President Trump was incredibly reckless with our national security. More than that, I'm a military spouse, my husband's about to deploy this weekend. This puts all of our military men and women in danger, if you talk about what our military is capable of, or how we would go about invading or doing something with one of our enemies. If that's the case, it's reckless, it's frustrating and it causes problems.” In the time of terrified subservience, as if Trump were Shtalin with hemorrhoids, Nikki Haley accused Trump of being reckless with the national security and endangering the lives of military men and women and talking about our military plans to invade – or defend against – other countries. In other words, she said everything I said on this podcast yesterday. And all the things DEMOCRATS WON'T SAY. And she said them on Fox.  Tim Scott and Nikki Haley would be the LAST two I would've expected this from, and they did it on the same day, and they did it in what was for them very high profile venues and it means that they have completely re-calculated the equations. Each had slammed the indictments, unequivocally, last week. Haley and Scott didn't grow consciences over the weekend. The scales did not fall from their eyes. Neither is smart enough to have figured this all out by themselves. They HAVE to seen internal polling, or heard dire assessments of what is behind the indictment, or gotten advice from people THEY know and people they think know, that this is the moment to turn on Trump. It could be something we don't know about or it could be something The Wall Street Journal put up at noon yesterday. Headline: “Trump Needs White Suburban Women. His Indictment Splits Them. Key swing group could help decide who takes White House in 2024.”  SOMETHING has HAPPENED. B-Block (20:43) POSTSCRIPTS TO THE NEWS: Fox sues Tucker Carlson for damages. Damages? Have you SEEN his Twitter videos? And the Saudi purchase of the PGA Tour now has to get past a Senate investigation (24:44) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Josh Blackman, would-be Maureen Dowd replacement; The Guardian has bad news for Harmeet Dhillon; And the guy who nearly killed The Washington Post, Fred Ryan, quits to become the boss at the Center For Civility at The Ronald Reagan Foundation (that's a job that comes with 52 weeks of vacation a year). 29:32 THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: I played a clip of him a few weeks back, from a New York radio newscast we did together in 1980. He was the most talented person I ever worked with, and in the 40 years since nobody's come close. He was also the most mean-spirited, the most screwed up, and he met a tragic end. Will Spens, remembered.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Missouri GOP Sen. Eric Schmitt and Josh Blackman, professor at South Texas College of Law, weigh in on the Supreme Court considering Biden student loan case and potential legal liabilities for big tech. 

Professors Randy Barnett and Josh Blackman will discuss the most important Supreme Court cases of all time, as featured in their new book, An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know. Plus, they will debut a new video series, including previews of Dobbs and Bruen. Featuring: Prof. Randy Barnett, Patrick Hotung […]

Professors Randy Barnett and Josh Blackman discuss the most important Supreme Court cases of all time, as featured in their new book, An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know. Plus, they debut a new video series, including previews of Dobbs and Bruen.Featuring:--Prof. Randy Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center--Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston

Under the Constitution, two branches of government are formally involved in the selection of federal judges. The President makes the nomination and Senators provide their advice and consent. Yet, the third branch of government often plays a role in that process: federal judges can influence the selection of other judges. This influence can manifest itself in several ways. First, judges can reach understandings with the executive branch to take senior status if the President nominates a specific person to fill the vacancy. Second, rather than taking senior status at a date certain, judges can condition their status change upon the appointment of their successor. Third, judges who reach such an understanding, and who are not satisfied with the President’s ultimate nomination, can rescind their decision to take senior status. Fourth, in the District of Columbia, one federal judge actually chairs the committee that can nominate judges for the District’s regional courts over the President’s authority. This panel will explore the ethical issues of federal judges choosing other judges.Featuring:Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law HoustonMr. David Lat, Founder, Original Jurisdiction; Founder, Above the LawMr. Rob Luther III, Of Counsel, Jones Day, Former Associate Counsel to the PresidentMr. Michael Fragoso, Republican Leader for Nominations, U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryModerator: Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, U.S. Court International Trade

Trump's legal drama — Judge Cannon returns! Ken Paxton opines! Fraud alleged! — will be discussed at last... But first, Sarah and David preview what promises to be a spicy term for the Supreme Court (with not one, but two Section 230 cases!). They then pass through a culture war cul-de-sac via Judge James Ho's clerkship boycott of Yale law students, and conclude with a tribute to Judge Laurence Silberman. Plus: the committed listener will learn the truth about how Sarah ended up in The Federalist Society.Show Notes:-David's amicus brief-Twitter at the Supreme Court-Ken Paxton's amici for Fulton County v. Lindsey Graham-David Lat on Ho v. Yale reactions-Josh Blackman supporting on Yale Law sellouts-Laurence Silberman's WSJ obit

In this bonus episode, four guests joined us to make the case for why the Supreme Court should overrule Chevron v. NRDC, Kelo v. City of New London, Wickard v. Filburn, or the Slaughterhouse Cases. Hear the arguments and then YOU decide. Cast your vote in the Twitter poll posted by @CaseyMattox_.Thanks to our guests Daniel Dew, Ilya Somin, Josh Blackman, and Clark Neily. Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Rod Arquette Show Daily Rundown – Monday, May 16, 20224:20 pm: Josh Blackman, author and assistant professor at the South Texas College of Law, joins Rod to discuss recent comments from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas that trust within the court has been destroyed following the leak of the Roe v. Wade draft opinion4:38 pm: Megan Basham, Culture Reporter for The Daily Wire, joins the show for a conversation about her piece on the legend of the real Jane Roe5:05 pm: Carson Jorgenson, Chairman of the Utah Republican Party, joins Rod to discuss why the party is shunning the Utah Debate Commission in favor of holding its own debates prior to the primary election6:05 pm: Leor Sapir, an Adjunct Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, joins the program to discuss the results of a Princeton study of the effectiveness of “gender affirming therapy”6:20 pm: Brad Wilcox, a Sociology Professor at the University of Virginia joins Rod to discuss his piece in the Deseret News about what family policies should look like in post-Roe America6:38 pm: Naomi Schaefer Riley, a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, joins the show to discuss her Deseret News piece remembering Midge Decter, who warned us about the dangers of progressivism

What's the best way from a libertarian perspective to think about abortion rights and Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito's... The post Is Abortion a Constitutional Right? Josh Blackman on Alito's Draft appeared first on Reason.com.

The purloined draft by Samuel Alito on the SCOTUS abortion case has created a political and legal earthquake. Reason.com legal analyst Josh Blackman walks us through the minefields. Duane Patterson and I discuss the political ramifications, plus break down the stunning NY Times leak on US intel targeting Russian generals in Ukraine. Rebecca Dow talks to me about her GOP primary campaign for New Mexico's gubernatorial race, plus how CRT makes its way into the classroom.

Does returning decisions about abortion to the states increase liberty or shrink it?

In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jacobson v. Massachusetts, upholding a state's ability to enforce compulsory vaccination laws pursuant to its police powers and for the protection of its citizens. This precedent has recently come under scrutiny for its possible overbreadth. Two distinguished experts join us to discuss and debate the holding of the case, its merits, its relevance today, and ultimately, whether it should be limited or overruled. Featuring: -- Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston-- Prof. Sanford Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair and Professor of Government, University of Texas at Austin School of Law

Before the National Student Symposium begins, the Federalist Society's Faculty Division will host a panel of young legal scholars, presenting prize winning papers with comments from more senior scholars in Brown 102 at the University of Virginia School of Law. All early arrivals are welcome to sit in and hear some of the exciting scholarship these young legal scholars are working on before the National Student Symposium. For more information, visit https://fedsoc.org/events/2022-young-legal-scholars-panel. The Federalist Society's Faculty Division hosted a panel of young legal scholars before the National Student Symposium began, presenting prize winning papers with comments from more senior scholars in Brown 102 at the University of Virginia School of Law. Featuring:The Irrepressible Myth of Jacobson v. MassachusettsProf. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law HoustonCommenter Prof. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawElection Emergencies: Voting in Times of PandemicProf. Michael T. Morley, Sheila M. McDevitt Professor, Florida State University College of LawCommenter Prof. Bertrall Ross, Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawOf Statutes and Spirits: Interpretation on the English High Courts, c. 1800-2020Jonathan Green, Law Clerk to Judge Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. CircuitCommenter Prof. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Sheila Spaeth Professor of Law, Stanford Law School Reconstructing Reconstruction Era RightsProf. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State UniversityCommenter Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University

Michael offers his analysis of the senate confirmation hearings this week of Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, and then speaks with South Texas College of Law, Houston, Professor Josh Blackman, author of "An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know." Original air date 23 March 2022.

Conservatives across the nation are very concerned about the fate of the Texas Heartbeat Act, after Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett […]

Conservatives across the nation are very concerned about the fate of the Texas Heartbeat Act, after Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett spent a significant amount of their time undermining the law with their questions. Josh Blackman is one of the most respected conservative legal minds in the nation, and he lives here in Texas. Josh was… The post Josh Blackman: SCOTUS & The Heartbeat Bill – Episode 141 appeared first on Luke Macias.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to a New York state law that allows residents to carry a concealed handgun only if they can demonstrate a special need beyond a general desire for self-protection. Josh Blackman comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.