Podcast appearances and mentions of judge posner

The Destiny's Child of constitutional law (aka Strict Scrutiny) is back on Getting Curious to help us digest and dissect all the wack-a-doodle nonsense that is: Project 2025. Leah Litman & Kate Shaw from the hit podcast Strict Scrutiny sat down with JVN to really parse out the MAGA manifesto. We're talking all about Project 2025's hallmark proposals, the key players involved, as well as tossing in some Supreme Court, Alito/Thomas Updates for good measure. Leah Litman is an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. She clerked for Judge Sutton on the Sixth Circuit and Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Leah researches and writes about constitutional law and federal courts. She also maintains an active pro bono practice (and she loves reality television). Kate Shaw is a Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in NYC. She teaches Constitutional Law, Legislation, Administrative Law, and a seminar on the Supreme Court, and writes about executive power, the law of democracy, and reproductive rights and justice. Before becoming a law professor she worked in the Obama White House Counsel's Office, and before that was a clerk to Justice Stevens and Judge Posner. You can follow Strict Scrutiny on Twitter @StrictScrutiny_ and on Instagram @strictscrutinypodcast. For more information, check out crooked.com. Leah is on Twitter @LeahLitman and Instagram @profleahlitman. Kate is on Twitter @Kateashaw1 and Instagram @kateashaw. Follow us on Instagram @CuriousWithJVN to join the conversation. Jonathan is on Instagram @JVN. Our senior producer is Chris McClure. Our editor & engineer is Nathanael McClure. Production support from Julie Carrillo, Anne Currie, and Chad Hall. Our theme music is “Freak” by QUIÑ; for more, head to TheQuinCat.com. Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What's better than one constitutional law expert? THREE! This spring we had the honor of speaking with Professor Melissa Murray about the Supreme Court's recent term. Now she's back, with her brilliant Strict Scrutiny co-hosts, Professors Leah Litman and Kate Shaw. They join Jonathan to discuss WTF is going on with the Supreme Court these days—from Clarence Thomas' luxury vacations to what the nation's highest court has in store for us this fall. Plus, an epic round of judicial-themed F*ck, Marry, Kill… You can follow Strict Scrutiny on Twitter @StrictScrutiny_ and on Instagram @strictscrutinypodcast. For more information, check out crooked.com. Melissa is on Twitter and Instagram @profmmurray. Leah is on Twitter @LeahLitman and Instagram @profleahlitman. Kate is on Twitter @Kateashaw1 and Instagram @kateashaw. Melissa Murray is a Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, where she teaches constitutional law, family law, criminal law, and reproductive rights and justice and writes about the legal regulation of intimate life. Melissa clerked for Judge Stefan Underhill on the District of Connecticut and for Justice Sotomayor when she served on the Second Circuit. When she's not reading the SCOTUS tea leaves, she's practicing the violin, reading People magazine, and keeping up with Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex. Leah Litman is an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. She clerked for Judge Sutton on the Sixth Circuit and Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Leah researches and writes about constitutional law and federal courts. She also maintains an active pro bono practice (and she loves reality television). Kate Shaw is a Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in NYC. She teaches Constitutional Law, Legislation, Administrative Law, and a seminar on the Supreme Court, and writes about executive power, the law of democracy, and reproductive rights and justice. Before becoming a law professor she worked in the Obama White House Counsel's Office, and before that was a clerk to Justice Stevens and Judge Posner. Follow us on Instagram @CuriousWithJVN to join the conversation. Jonathan is on Instagram @JVN. Transcripts for each episode are available at JonathanVanNess.com. Find books from Getting Curious guests at bookshop.org/shop/curiouswithjvn. Our executive producer is Erica Getto. Our producer is Chris McClure. Our associate producer is Allison Weiss. Our engineer is Nathanael McClure. Production support from Julie Carrillo, Samantha Martinez, and Anne Currie. Our theme music is “Freak” by QUIÑ; for more, head to TheQuinCat.com. Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Professor Richard Re stops by Supreme Myths to discuss whether Dobbs should have been decided more narrowly and his fascinating new Harvard article on personal precedent. We also discussed Justice Kennedy, Judge Posner, and much more.

Professor Brian Leiter stops by Supreme Myths to talk about the Supreme Court, abortion, legal realism, retired Judge Posner and much more.

Joe and Kathryn discuss the top stories of the week at Above the Law including the rise and fall of Judge Posner's pro se organization, Weil Gotshal's cafeteria cold shoulder, and the California Bar's good news. Plus we talk a bit about Emory's struggles with racial slurs. Just another week in the annals of the legal industry.

This week on the podcast: D.C. Circuit extravaganza featuring special guests Professor Aaron Nielson, wanted “Anti-Administrativist” and Sage of the C.A.D.C.; and Cate Stetson, Hogan Lovells’ legendary appellate litigator who is one of the D.C. Circuit’s most frequent (and successful litigators). We record the episode with a LIVE student audience at Georgetown Law Center (thanks to our hosts, the students of the Georgetown chapter of the Federalist Society). Hear Aaron and Cate discuss what makes the D.C. Circuit unique? What are the biggest admin law issues coming out of the court? And just who is Judge Posner’s “mystery” D.C. Circuit judge, anyway? Plus: a lightning round of trivia about the current judges. WARNING: this episode’s guests may be armed with anti-deference arguments. Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Use Android (RSS)? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:84493247/sounds.rss Newsletter: http://ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org Links to a few items we discuss on this episode: Aaron Nielson's JREG post on the Lucia v. SEC oral argument: http://yalejreg.com/nc/d-c-circuit-review-reviewed-en-banc-oral-argument-part-ii/ Law Prof Kent Barnett’s article on Administrative Law Judges (ALJs): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144217 Aaron Nielson’s JREG post on Judge Posner’s D.C. Circuit “Mystery Judge”: http://yalejreg.com/nc/d-c-circuit-review-reviewed-can-you-guess-the-mystery-judge/ IJ’s latest lawsuit, a free speech challenge to the FDA’s Orwellian “skim milk” labeling regulations: http://ij.org/case/fda-skim-milk/ Aaron Nielson’s JREG post on the D.C. Circuit’s quirky “asterisk rule”: http://yalejreg.com/nc/d-c-circuit-review-reviewed-by-aaron-nielson/

In this edition, hosts Jon Amarilio and Carl Newman interview Retired Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals – one of the preeminent legal minds of 20th century. Posner opens up about his unexpected recent retirement from the bench, his views about the treatment of unrepresented litigants in the legal system and his plans for the future. Also, if you’re eager to learn why Judge Posner left our recording session convinced he would be dreaming about donkeys, this edition is a must listen.

Just Joe and Christian, coming to you after a terrible week. We talk guns, ex-Judge Posner's book and humility, the right rules for disabled stoplights, the closing of a coffeehouse, and airplane seat reclining behavior. This show’s links: Oral Argument 101: Tug of War (http://oralargument.org/101) Richard Posner, Reforming the Federal Judiciary (https://www.amazon.com/Reforming-Federal-Judiciary-Televising-Arguments/dp/1976014794) Steven Lubet, Richard Posner, Unedited (Part One) (http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2017/10/richard-posner-unedited.html) Zoran Tasic, Reforming Richard Posner (https://medium.com/@ztasic/reforming-richard-posner-a25ce8fddece) Oral Argument 32: Go Figure (http://oralargument.org/32) (on Judge Posner's gay marriage opinion in Baskin) and Oral Argument 131: Because of Sex (http://oralargument.org/131) (featuring discussion with Anthony Kreis about Judge Posner's Hively opinion) WINIR (http://winir.org) How do you pronounce Utrecht? (https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-pronounce-Utrecht) The Perfect Cappuccino (http://cappuccinomovie.com) Two Story's Last Day in Five Points (http://www.redandblack.com/multimedia/photos-two-story-s-last-day-in-five-points/collection_5a4052c2-a21f-11e7-bd12-5391199be363.html) (including a photo of Christian with the shop's last cap) Christian Turner, The Cost of Foregone Biergartens (https://www.hydratext.com/blog/2013/3/8/the-cost-of-foregone-biergartens.html) Oral Argument 31: Knee Defender (http://oralargument.org/31) (and see episode 32, above, for more knee defender discussion) Christopher Buccafusco and Christopher Jon Sprigman, How to Resolve Fights over Reclining Airplane Seats: Use Behavioral Economics (http://evonomics.com/resolve-fights-reclining-airplane-seats-use-behavioral-economics/)

Wherein we are joined by John Friend, class action and civil rights attorney in Lousiville, KY to discuss updates to the Texas redistricting case and the Muslim travel ban order pending before the Supreme Court. We also look back at the career of the retiring Judge Posner out of the 7th Circuit and dive into a few of his cases and his project advocating for pro se plaintiffs and defendants in his post-judicial life. John Friend: https://twitter.com/K_NoiseWaterMD TX Redistricting Order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/091217zr3_4g15.pdf Travel Ban Order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/091217zr_h3ci.pdf Baskin v Bogan: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/baskin-v-bogan-7th-circuit-decision Fuller v Lynch: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15310008229826581922&q=Fuller+v.+Lynch,+833+F.3d+866&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44 Davis v Maroney: http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/16-2471/16-2471-2017-05-22.pdf?ts=1495488652

Last week, Judge Richard Posner suddenly retired from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after nearly 36 years on the bench. The 1981 President Reagan appointee authored over 3,300 judicial opinions during his tenure and is widely considered one of the most vocal, provocative, and influential appellate court judges of all time. On today’s episode of So to Speak, we hear Judge Posner’s candid thoughts on the First Amendment as we play for you a conversation he had with Professor Geoffrey Stone on May 16, 2016, at the University of Chicago Law School. In this wide-ranging and candid dialogue, Judge Posner discusses his views on executive power in wartime, including why he believes President Franklin Roosevelt was justified in interning Japanese-Americans during World War II and why President Abraham Lincoln was right to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision in Ex Parte Merryman. He also addresses Citizens United v. FEC (“terrible”), the Supreme Court in general (“a mediocre institution”), McCullen v. Coakley, the Pentagon Papers, flag burning, and much, much more. This podcast is presented as part of So to Speak’s exclusive partnership with the First Amendment Salon. The First Amendment Salon is a quarterly gathering of members of the First Amendment community for a 90-minute discussion with leading thinkers concerning a timely topic related to freedom of expression. VIDEO: youtu.be/bhLJliXX848 www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Call in a question: 215-315-0100

Friend of the show and treasured guest Anthony Kreis returns to talk about important recent developments in legal protection of gay rights. We discuss the recent spate of appellate decisions finding discrimination against gay employees violates the Civil Rights Act, including a remarkable concurrence by Judge Posner. The interesting issue, though, is why. This show’s links: Anthony Kreis’s faculty profile (https://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/faculty/full-time-faculty/anthony-michael-kreis), his writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2277553), and his twitter feed (https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis) Oral Argument 36: Firehose of Equality (http://oralargument.org/36) (Anthony’s last, historic guest appearance on the show) Anthony Kreis, Against Gay Potemkin Villages: Title VII and Sexual Orientation Discrimination (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2944046) Seventh Circuit, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3783878574608367042) (includes the concurrence of Judge Posner that occupies much of our discussion) Second Circuit, Anonymous v. Omnicom Group (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1449039503425455437) Eleventh Circuit, Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6662354858682210483) William Eskridge and John Ferejohn, [Super-Statutes][eskridge] [eskridge]: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=dlj Special Guest: Anthony Kreis.

In this episode, Matt Kelly pinch hits for a Walt Disney World-vacationing Jay Rosen. Matt and I have a wide-ranging discussion on some of the week’s top FCPA and compliance related stories. We discuss:  Shearman & Sterling issues its  Report to the Wells Fargo Board on the fraudulent account scandal. For Tom’s three-part series see Part I,  Part II and Part III.United Airlines is at it again. Click  here for Matt’s article on Radical Compliance. Click  here for Tom’s article in Compliance Week.Interesting judicial decision on restitution from Judge Posner. See article in the  Grand Jury Target blog.Barclay’s CEO penalized for trying to unmask internal and anonymous whistleblower by using corporate security and US law enforcement. See Tom’s article in  Compliance Week.Matt reports on Oracle’s Modern Finance Experience conference. Click  here for Matt’s blog post on Radical Compliance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Matt Kelly pinch hits for a Walt Disney World-vacationing Jay Rosen. Matt and I have a wide-ranging discussion on some of the week’s top FCPA and compliance related stories. We discuss:  Shearman & Sterling issues its Report to the Wells Fargo Board on the fraudulent account scandal. For Tom’s three-part series see Part I, Part II and Part III. United Airlines is at it again. Click here for Matt’s article on Radical Compliance. Click here for Tom’s article in Compliance Week. Interesting judicial decision on restitution from Judge Posner. See article in the Grand Jury Target blog. Barclay’s CEO penalized for trying to unmask internal and anonymous whistleblower by using corporate security and US law enforcement. See Tom’s article in Compliance Week. Matt reports on Oracle’s Modern Finance Experience conference. Click here for Matt’s blog post on Radical Compliance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Do you have a right to film the police? Should people film the police? A lot of attention has been given to the use by police officers of body cameras (and dash cameras), but what about citizens’ filming arrests on the street? With Jocelyn Simonson, we explore the ways that the use of cameras both facilitates and is expression. This show’s links: Jocelyn Simonson’s facult profile and writing Oral Argument 64: Protect and Serve (guest Seth Stoughton) Jocelyn Simonson, Beyond Body Cameras: Defending a Robust Right to Record the Police Timothy Williams, James Thomas, Samuel Jacoby, and Damien Cave, Police Body Cameras: What Do You See? (an interactive NY Times feature using videos created by Seth Stoughton); see also Jason Kottke’s link to this piece, which also features links to related ideas in film direction The Chicago Police Accountability Task Force (with links to the report); see also Monica Davey and Mitch Smith, Chicago Police Dept. Plagued by Systemic Racism, Task Force Finds ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez (featuring a dissent by Judge Posner) Floyd v. City of New York (the stop and frisk case); see also p.597 of the same case for the judge’s quotations of police, some used in Jocelyn’s paper, evincing a “contempt and hostility . . . toward the local population”) This American Life 414: The Right to Remain Silent, Act Two (“For 17 months, New York police officer Adrian Schoolcraft recorded himself and his fellow officers on the job, including their supervisors ordering them to do all sorts of things that police aren't supposed to do.”) Jocelyn Simonson, Copwatching About the panopticon Seth Stoughton, Law Enforcement’s ‘Warrior’ Problem (read online here if you don’t want the PDF) About Stephen Colbert’s performance at the 2006 White House Correspondents’ Dinner (Here’s the video.) City of Houston v. Hill (“Why don’t you pick on somebody your own size?”) Fields v. City of Philadelphia (finding no First Amendment right to film police officers) Samuel Warren and and Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy Oral Argument 1: Send Joe to Prison (guest Sonja West) Sonja West, First Amendment Neighbors Sonja West, The Monster in the Courtroom Special Guest: Jocelyn Simonson.

Our main topic is fair use, the engine of so much cultural reuse and advancement. We’re joined by one of the doctrine’s most interesting scholars, Mike Madison. But the conversation spans: Joe’s telecomm cursing issues (0:00:36), FBiPhones and the Apple-FBI imbroglio (0:09:26), and fair use (0:28:27), including discussion of Mike’s Big Idea of social practices (0:53:03), reverse engineering, parody, video tapes, and much more. This show’s links: Mike Madison’s website, writing, and blog FCC v. Pacifica Foundation FCC v. Fox (Fox II) (containing a link to Fox I) This American Life 267: Propriety (It’s all good, but the discussion of the legal issue in Fox is at about 19:15.) Amy Davidson, The Dangerous All Writs Act Precedent in the Apple Encryption Case John Gruber, The Next Step in iPhone Impregnability Oral Argument 80: We’ll Do It LIVE! Oral Argument 42: Shotgun Aphasia (guest Orin Kerr) Orin Kerr, An Equilibrium-Adjustment Theory of the Fourth Amendment Apple’s motion to vacate the order to assist the FBI Riley v. California (and see Orin Kerr’s post about the case shortly after it was decided About Fair Use Week Ty v. Publications Int’l (Judge Posner, giving an explanation of market substitution and fair use); see also Richard Posner, When Is Parody Fair Use? Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co. Key, lower-court cases deciding whether university course packets qualify for fair use protection: Basic Books Inc. v. Kinko’s Graphics Corp., Princeton Univ. v. Michigan Document Services, and, most recently, Cambridge University Press v. Patton David Fagundes, Market Harm, Market Help, and Fair Use Kickstarter page for Star Trek: Axanar, an independent Star Trek film (includes the twenty-minute video Prelude to Axanar) Ryan Reed, Crowdfunded 'Star Trek' Movie Facing Copyright Infringement Lawsuit; Eriq Gardner, 'Star Trek' Fans Want Paramount, CBS to Do Better Job Explaining Franchise to Court See also the unrelated and rather amazing Star Trek New Voyages, a nonprofit web series; and Paul Post, A ‘Star Trek’ Dream, Spread From Upstate New York A googol Statement of the Librarian of Congress Relating to Section 1201 Rulemaking; about anti-circumvention exemptions Electronic Frontier Foundation, Victory for Users: Librarian of Congress Renews and Expands Protections for Fair Uses Michael Madison, A Pattern-Oriented Approach to Fair Use Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios Joel Hruska, How Sony’s Betamax Made YouTube and Twitch Possible Sega v. Accolade Frank Pasquale, Toward an Ecology of Intellectual Property: Lessons from Environmental Ecology for Valuing Copyright’s Commons Randy Picker, Closing the Xbox Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp. MGM v. Grokster Jonathan Zittrain, The Generative Internet Horace Dediu, Seeing What’s Next (featuring a wonderful graph showing the adoption rates of various technologies, including the VCR); see also Derek Thompson, The 100-Year March of Technology in One Graph Eduardo Peñalver and Sonia Katyal, Property Outlaws: How Squatters, Pirates, and Protesters Improve the Law of Ownership (see also this article-length treatment) Eben Moglen, Freeing the Mind: Free Software and the Death of Proprietary Culture (“It is wrong to ask, ‘What is the incentive for people to create?’ It's an emergent property of connected human minds that they do create.”) Jennifer Rothman, The Questionable Use of Custom in Intellectual Property Michael Madison, Madisonian Fair Use Special Guest: Mike Madison.

Should judges surf the web to scrutinize the truth of facts in front of them? With Amanda Frost, we discuss a recent case in which Judge Posner did just that. Some basic internet research cast serious doubt on a prison doctor’s medical opinion suggesting a prisoner did not need Zantac before meals to control a serious esophageal condition. While the websites Posner visited and cited did not control the outcome, they supported his conclusion that the evidence in the district court was insufficient to throw out the prisoner’s case. This show’s links: Amanda Frost’s faculty profile and writing Rowe v. Gibson Coleen Barger, On the Internet Nobody Knows You’re a Judge Alli Orr Larsen, The Trouble with Amicus Facts; see also Alli Orr Larsen, Factual Precedents, which Christian must have had rolling around in his head somewhere Alli Orr Larsen on the Colbert Report discussing amicus briefs and factfinding Amanda Frost, The Limits of Advocacy Brianne Gorod, The Adversarial Myth: Appellate Court Extra-Record Factfinding Zantac’s Comparison of OTC Heartburn Treatment Options Mitchell v. JCG Industries (dissent and concurrence in the denial of a rehearing and Posner’s defense of the court’s staff’s trying on protective gear to gauge the plausibility of the claim that it took more than fifteen minutes) Special Guest: Amanda Frost.

Big week. Let’s just call this one our second annual Supreme Court round-up, where, naturally, we focus on only two cases: gay marriage and Obamacare II. It’s made awesome by our special guest, Steve Vladeck. This show’s links: Steve Vladeck’s faculty profile and writing Oral Argument 22: Nine Brains in a Vat (guest Dahlia Lithwick) Obergefell v. Hodges Oral Argument 40: The Split Has Occurred (about Judge Sutton’s gay marriage opinion) and Oral Argument 32: Go Figure (guest Lori Ringhand) (about Judge Posner’s gay marriage opinion), both episodes containing ample links concerning the issue San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez Oral Argument 30: A Filled Milk Caste, containing discussion and links concerning United States v. Carolene Products Co. Brown v. Board of Education; see also What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said (Jack Balkin, ed.) Town of Greece v. Galloway; Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment Reed v. Reed Boumediene v. Bush Lochner v. New York; Dred Scott v. Sanford King v. Burwell City of Arlington v. FCC, Roberts’ dissenting regarding the application of Chevron v. NRDC Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1309 v. Laidlaw Transit Services, one of the cases about “not less than seven days” Adam Zimmerman, Chevron after King v. Burwell (the comments to which feature thoughts from listener Asher) Shelby County v. Holder Steward Machine Co. v. Davis Special Guest: Steve Vladeck.

Richard A. Posner, Senior Lecturer in Law and a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, devoted a lunchtime keynote to discussing how judges might receive and view empirical research. Richard A. Posner is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Following his graduation from Harvard Law School, Judge Posner clerked for Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. From 1963 to 1965, he was assistant to Commissioner Philip Elman of the Federal Trade Commission. For the next two years, he was assistant to the solicitor general of the United States. Prior to going to Stanford Law School in 1968 as Associate Professor, Judge Posner served as general counsel of the President's Task Force on Communications Policy. He first came to the University of Chicago Law School in 1969, and was Lee and Brena Freeman Professor of Law prior to his appointment in 1981 as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He was the chief judge of the court from 1993 to 2000. This talk was recorded on October 23, 2014.

Richard A. Posner, Senior Lecturer in Law and a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, devoted a lunchtime keynote to discussing how judges might receive and view empirical research. Richard A. Posner is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Following his graduation from Harvard Law School, Judge Posner clerked for Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. From 1963 to 1965, he was assistant to Commissioner Philip Elman of the Federal Trade Commission. For the next two years, he was assistant to the solicitor general of the United States. Prior to going to Stanford Law School in 1968 as Associate Professor, Judge Posner served as general counsel of the President's Task Force on Communications Policy. He first came to the University of Chicago Law School in 1969, and was Lee and Brena Freeman Professor of Law prior to his appointment in 1981 as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He was the chief judge of the court from 1993 to 2000. This talk was recorded on October 23, 2014.

This is the week the circuits split. We discuss Judge Sutton’s opinion for a panel of the Sixth Circuit upholding bans on gay marriage in several states. Although Joe and Christian mainly agree about this case, Joe finds plenty of other things Christian says and does to be irritating, especially during our first eighteen minutes when we discuss feedback. This show’s links: Michael Dorf, Why Danforth v. Minnesota Does Not Undermine My View About State Court Decisions to Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent Our episode with Peabody award winner, Tom Goldstein About typefaces (and the difference between typefaces and fonts) About King v. Burwell, the case the Supreme Court has taken up challenging subsidies on federally run exchanges; see also Christian’s take and Abbe Gluck’s The Unrecorded Podcast Michelle Meyer, Will the Real Evidence-Based Ebola Policy Please Stand Up? Seven Takeaways from Maine DHHS v. Hickox (which Christian wrongly attributed to Hank Greely, who has also written on Ebola, but is in fact from fantastic friend of the show Michelle Meyer - sorry Michelle), further to our last episode on the domestic side of the Ebola DeBoer v. Hodges, the Sixth Circuit decision by Judge Sutton upholding various state marriage bans Oral Argument 36: Firehose of Inequality (guest Anthony Kreis) Baskin v. Bogan, Judge Posner’s decision striking down state marriage bans and Christian’s post about the Seventh Circuit’s oral arguments in that case About Baker v. Nelson Hicks v. Miranda Loving v. Virginia Plessy v. Ferguson Romer v. Evans Balkinization Symposium on Unconstitutional Animus (We’d apologize for the error of attributing this to SCOTUSblog, but we don’t have time to apologize for all of our errors.) William Eskridge, Jr. A History fo Same Sex Marriage

We’re back with knees and gay marriage. And constitutional scholar Lori Ringhand. In the battle between recliners and knee defenders, Joe tells us the real enemy is the airline who has sold the same space twice. Somehow nose-punching, rapid window shade flipping, and the high arctic figure into the discussion. Turning to Judge Posner’s smackdown of midwestern marriage bans, we start with style: is there such a thing as too much smack? Then we turn to the really interesting bit, Posner’s reimagining of judicial scrutiny of discrimination. Also: speed traps. This show’s links: Lori Ringhand’s faculty profile, books, and articles Episode 31: Knee Defender, in which we first spoke of the airplane seat reclining controversy Neil Buchanan, Airplane Seatbacks, the Coase Theorem, and Simplistic Solutions to Difficult Questions Josh Barro, Don’t Want Me to Recline My Airline Seat? You Can Pay Me Katia Hetter, Seat Recline Fight Diverts Another Flight Baskin v. Bogan, Judge Posner’s opinion for the Seventh Circuit striking down marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin Robicheaux v. Caldwell, Judge Feldman’s opinion upholding Louisiana’s marriage ban Mark Joseph Stern, Judge Posner’s Gay Marriage Opinion Is a Witty, Deeply Moral Masterpiece Christian Turner, 404: Argument Not Found Brown v. Board of Education What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said, Jack Balkin ed. Episode 30: A Filled Milk Caste, in which we discuss United States v. Carolene Products Windsor v. United States (the Second Circuit opinion that led to the Supreme Court case) and SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories (a Ninth Circuit case), each deciding to apply heightened scrutiny to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation Romer v. Evans, nominally using the deferential rational basis standard to strike down a state’s constitutional prohibition on any governmental efforts to protect gays from discrimination Special Guest: Lori Ringhand.

Our labor day episode, in which we discuss: Judge Posner’s castigation of state attorneys in gay marriage cases, professionalism (shiver) and politeness, the knee defender and recliners, airplane boarding and luggage retrieval, the exciting new adventures of the Town of Greece, satanists, and contempt of cop. This show’s links: Seventh Circuit arguments in Baskin v. Bogan and Wolf v. Walker Christian Turner, 404: Argument Not Found Paul Ford, How to Be Polite About the duty to rescue Paul Bloom, Against Empathy in the Boston Review, with respondents Richard Greenstein, Against Professionalism The Knee Defender AP, Plane Diverted as Passengers Fight over Seat Reclining CBC News, Fired RIM Execs “Chewed Through Restraints” on Flight Josh Barro, Don’t Want Me to Recline My Airline Seat? You Can Pay Me About the so-called Coase Theorem Stanley Coren, Is It Safe to Ship Dogs or Cats by Air? About boarding patterns on airplanes Dahlia Lithwick, Checking In on the Town of Greece Episode 19: The Prayer Abides (guest Nathan Chapman), discussing the Town of Greece case About the Streisand effect Jack Jenkins, How Satanists Are Testing The Limits Of Religious Freedom In Oklahoma Swartz v. Insogna About contempt of cop

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. A common perception is that since the Supreme Court frequently divides 5-4, it is balanced between conservatives and liberals. The vote breakdown, however, does not tell us anything about the Court's ideological breakdown. The Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction, and any group of nine justices will tend to choose cases that divide them because those cases are the ones that are the most legally uncertain.On April 14, 2009, Professor Geoffrey Stone presented a talk in the Chicago's Best Ideas lecture series entitled "Obama's Supreme Court." He discussed what he thinks the makeup of the current Court really is. (Throwing the word "Obama" in the title is a good way to get people in the door.) In a series of entries on Huffington Post, he describes what follows in more depth.First, Professor Stone served up some facts about the current Court. Seven of the nine sitting Justices were appointed by Republicans, as were twelve of the last fourteen appointees. The so-called "swing" vote on the Court has shifted from Justice Stewart to Powell to O'Connor to Kennedy, each of whom is widely considered more conservative than the last. According to an article by Professor Landes and Judge Posner, four of the current Justices are more conservative than any Justice since 1937 except Rehnquist. Finally, there are not any "full-throated" liberals like Justice Marshall or Brennan on the Court.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. A common perception is that since the Supreme Court frequently divides 5-4, it is balanced between conservatives and liberals. The vote breakdown, however, does not tell us anything about the Court's ideological breakdown. The Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction, and any group of nine justices will tend to choose cases that divide them because those cases are the ones that are the most legally uncertain.On April 14, 2009, Professor Geoffrey Stone presented a talk in the Chicago's Best Ideas lecture series entitled "Obama's Supreme Court." He discussed what he thinks the makeup of the current Court really is. (Throwing the word "Obama" in the title is a good way to get people in the door.) In a series of entries on Huffington Post, he describes what follows in more depth.First, Professor Stone served up some facts about the current Court. Seven of the nine sitting Justices were appointed by Republicans, as were twelve of the last fourteen appointees. The so-called "swing" vote on the Court has shifted from Justice Stewart to Powell to O'Connor to Kennedy, each of whom is widely considered more conservative than the last. According to an article by Professor Landes and Judge Posner, four of the current Justices are more conservative than any Justice since 1937 except Rehnquist. Finally, there are not any "full-throated" liberals like Justice Marshall or Brennan on the Court.