Podcast appearances and mentions of judge richard posner

Why is reforming capitalism so essential? In the latest issue of Liberties Quarterly, Tim Wu argues that unregulated capitalism not only leads to economic monopolies, but also drives populist anger and authoritarian politics. In “The Real Road to Serfdom”, Wu advocates for "decentralized capitalism" with distributed economic power, citing examples from Scandinavia and East Asia. Drawing from his experience in the Biden administration's antitrust efforts, he emphasizes the importance of preventing industry concentration. Wu expresses concern about big tech's growing political influence and argues that challenging monopolies is critical for fostering innovation and maintaining economic progress in the United States.Here are the 5 KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways from our interview with Tim Wu:* Historical Parallels: Wu sees concerning parallels between our current era and the 1930s, characterized by concentrated economic power, fragile economic conditions, and the rise of populist leaders. He suggests we're in a period where leaders are moving beyond winning elections to attempting to alter constitutional frameworks.* The Monopoly-Autocracy Connection: Wu argues there's a dangerous cycle where monopolies create economic inequality, which generates populist anger, which then enables authoritarian leaders to rise to power. He cites Hugo Chavez as a pioneer of this modern autocratic model that leaders like Trump have followed.* Decentralized Capitalism: Wu advocates for an economic system with multiple centers of distributed economic power, rather than just a few giant companies accumulating wealth. He points to Denmark, Taiwan, and post-WWII East Asia as successful examples of more balanced economic structures.* Antitrust Legacy: Wu believes the Biden administration's antitrust enforcement efforts have created lasting changes in legal standards and public consciousness that won't be easily reversed. He emphasizes that challenging monopolies is crucial for maintaining innovation and preventing industry stagnation.* Big Tech and Power: Wu expresses concern about big tech companies' growing political influence, comparing it to historical examples like AT&T and IBM. He's particularly worried about AI potentially reinforcing existing power structures rather than democratizing opportunities.Complete Transcript: Tim Wu on The Real Road to SerfdomAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. We live in very strange times. That's no exaggeration. Yesterday, we had Nick Bryant on the show, the author of The Forever War. He was the BBC's man in Washington, DC for a long time. In our conversation, Nick suggested that we're living in really historic times, equivalent to the fall of the Berlin Wall, 9/11, perhaps even the beginnings of the Second World War.My guest today, like Nick, is a deep thinker. Tim Wu will be very well known to you for many things, including his book, The Attention Merchants. He was involved in the Biden White House, teaches law at Columbia University, and much more. He has a new book coming out later in the year on November 4th, The Age of Extraction. He has a very interesting essay in this issue of Liberties, the quarterly magazine of ideas, called "The Real Road to Serfdom."Tim had a couple of interesting tweets in the last couple of days, one comparing the behavior of President Trump to Germany's 1933 enabling act. And when it comes to Ukraine, Tim wrote, "How does the GOP feel about their president's evident plan to forfeit the Cold War?" Tim Wu is joining us from his home in the village of Manhattan. Tim, welcome. Before we get to your excellent essay in Liberties, how would you historicize what we're living through at the moment?Tim Wu: I think the 1930s are not the wrong way to look at it. Prior to that period, you had this extraordinary concentration of economic power in a very fragile environment. A lot of countries had experienced an enormous crash and you had the rise of populist leaders, with Mussolini being the pioneer of the model. This has been going on for at least 5 or 6 years now. We're in that middle period where it's moving away from people just winning elections to trying to really alter the constitution of their country. So I think the mid-30s is probably about right.Andrew Keen: You were involved in the Biden administration. You were one of the major thinkers when it came to antitrust. Have you been surprised with what's happened since Biden left office? The speed, the radicalness of this Trump administration?Tim Wu: Yes, because I expected something more like the first Trump administration, which was more of a show with a lot of flash but poor execution. This time around, the execution is also poor but more effective. I didn't fully expect that Elon Musk would actually be a government official at this point and that he'd have this sort of vandalism project going on. The fact they won all of the houses of Congress was part of the problem and has made the effort go faster.Andrew Keen: You talk about Musk. We've done many shows on Musk's role in all this and the seeming arrival of Silicon Valley or a certain version of Silicon Valley in Washington, DC. You're familiar with both worlds, the world of big tech and Silicon Valley and Washington. Is that your historical reading that these two worlds are coming together in this second Trump administration?Tim Wu: It's very natural for economic power to start to seek political power. It follows from the basic view of monopoly as a creature that wants to defend itself, and the second observation that the most effective means of self-defense is control of government. If you follow that very simple logic, it stands to reason that the most powerful economic entities would try to gain control of government.I want to talk about the next five years. The tech industry is following the lead of Palantir and Peter Thiel, who were pioneers in thinking that instead of trying to avoid government, they should try to control it. I think that is the obvious move over the next four years.Andrew Keen: I've been reading your excellent essay in Liberties, "The Real Road to Serfdom." When did you write it? It seems particularly pertinent this week, although of course you didn't write it knowing exactly what was going to be happening with Musk and Washington DC and Trump and Ukraine.Tim Wu: I wrote it about two years ago when I got out of the White House. The themes are trying to get at eternal issues about the dangers of economic power and concentrated economic power and its unaccountability. If it made predictions that are starting to come true, I don't know if that's good or bad.Andrew Keen: "The Real Road to Serfdom" is, of course, a reference to the Hayek book "The Road to Serfdom." Did you consciously use that title with reference to Hayek, or was that a Liberties decision?Tim Wu: That was my decision. At that point, and I may still write this, I was thinking of writing a book just called "The Real Road to Serfdom." I am both fascinated and a fan of Hayek in certain ways. I think he nailed certain things exactly right but makes big errors at the same time.To his credit, Hayek was very critical of monopoly and very critical of the role of the state in reinforcing monopoly. But he had an almost naivete about what powerful, unaccountable private economic entities would do with their power. That's essentially my criticism.Andrew Keen: In 2018, you wrote a book, "The Curse of Bigness." And in a way, this is an essay against bigness, but it's written—please correct me if I'm wrong—I read it as a critique of the left, suggesting that there were times in the essay, if you're reading it blind, you could have been reading Hayek in its critique of Marx and centralization and Lenin and Stalin and the Ukrainian famines. Is the message in the book, Tim—is your audience a progressive audience? Are you saying that it's a mistake to rely on bigness, so to speak, the state as a redistributive platform?Tim Wu: Not entirely. I'm very critical of communist planned economies, and that's part of it. But it's mainly a critique of libertarian faith in private economic power or sort of the blindness to the dangers of it.My basic thesis in "The Real Road to Serfdom" is that free market economies will tend to monopolize. Once monopoly power is achieved, it tends to set off a strong desire to extract as much wealth from the rest of the economy as it can, creating something closer to a feudal-type economy with an underclass. That tends to create a huge amount of resentment and populist anger, and democracies have to respond to that anger.The libertarian answer of saying that's fine, this problem will go away, is a terrible answer. History suggests that what happens instead is if democracy doesn't do anything, the state takes over, usually on the back of a populist strongman. It could be a communist, could be fascist, could be just a random authoritarian like in South America.I guess I'd say it's a critique of both the right and the left—the right for being blind to the dangers of concentrated economic power, and the left, especially the communist left, for idolizing the takeover of vital functions by a giant state, which has a track record as bad, if not worse, than purely private power.Andrew Keen: You bring up Hugo Chavez in the essay, the now departed Venezuelan strongman. You're obviously no great fan of his, but you do seem to suggest that Chavez, like so many other authoritarians, built his popularity on the truth of people's suffering. Is that fair?Tim Wu: That is very fair. In the 90s, when Chavez first came to power through popular election, everyone was mystified and thought he was some throwback to the dictators of the 60s and 70s. But he turned out to be a pioneer of our future, of the new form of autocrat, who appealed to the unfairness of the economy post-globalization.Leaders like Hungary's Viktor Orbán, and certainly Donald Trump, are direct descendants of Hugo Chavez in their approach. They follow the same playbook, appealing to the same kind of pain and suffering, promising to act for the people as opposed to the elites, the foreigners, and the immigrants. Chavez is also a cautionary lesson. He started in a way which the population liked—he lowered gas prices, gave away money, nationalized industry. He was very popular. But then like most autocrats, he eventually turned the money to himself and destroyed his own country.Andrew Keen: Why are autocrats like Chavez and perhaps Trump so much better at capturing that anger than Democrats like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?Tim Wu: People who are outside the system like Chavez are able to tap into resentment and anger in a way which is less diluted by their direct information environment and their colleagues. Anyone who hangs around Washington, DC for a long time becomes more muted and careful. They lose credibility.That said, the fact that populist strongmen take over countries in distress suggests we need to avoid that level of economic distress in the first place and protect the middle class. Happy, contented middle-class countries don't tend to see the rise of authoritarian dictators. There isn't some Danish version of Hugo Chavez in the running right now.Andrew Keen: You bring up Denmark. Denmark always comes up in these kinds of conversations. What's admirable about your essay is you mostly don't fall into the Denmark trap of simply saying, "Why don't we all become like Denmark?" But at the same time, you acknowledge that the Danish model is attractive, suggesting we've misunderstood it or treated it superficially. What can and can't we learn from the Danish model?Tim Wu: American liberals often misunderstand the lesson of Scandinavia and other countries that have strong, prosperous middle classes like Taiwan, Japan, and Korea. In Scandinavia's case, the go-to explanation is that it's just the liberals' favorite set of policies—high taxation, strong social support systems. But I think the structure of those economies is much more important.They have what Jacob Hacker calls very strong "pre-distribution." They've avoided just having a small set of monopolists who make all the money and then hopefully hand it out to other people. It goes back to their land reform in the early 19th century, where they set up a very different kind of economy with a broad distribution of productive assets.If I'm trying to promote a philosophy in this book, it's for people who are fed up with the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism and think it leads to autocracy, but who are also no fans of communism or socialism. Just saying "let people pile up money and we'll tax it later" is not going to work. What you need is an economy structured with multiple centers of distributed economic power.Andrew Keen: The term that seems to summarize that in the essay is "architecture of parity." It's a bit clunky, but is that the best way to sum up your thinking?Tim Wu: I'm working on the terminology. Architecture of equality, parity, decentralized capitalism, distribution—these are all terms trying to capture it. It's more of a 19th century form of Christian or Catholic economics. People are grasping for the right word for an economic system that doesn't rely on just a few giant companies taking money from everybody and hopefully redistributing it. That model is broken and has a dangerous tendency to lead to toxicity. We need a better capitalism. An alternative title for this piece could have been "Saving Capitalism from Itself."Andrew Keen: Your name is most associated with tech and your critique of big tech. Does this get beyond big tech? Are there other sectors of the economy you're interested in fixing and reforming?Tim Wu: Absolutely. Silicon Valley is the most obvious and easiest entry point to talk about concentrated economic power. You can see the dependence on a small number of platforms that have earnings and profits far beyond what anyone imagined possible. But we're talking about an economy-wide, almost global set of problems.Some industries are worse. The meat processing industry in the United States is horrendously concentrated—it takes all the money from farmers, charges us too much for meat, and keeps it for itself. There are many industries where people are looking for something to understand or believe in that's different than socialism but different than this libertarian capitalism that ends up bankrupting people. Tech is the easiest way to talk about it, but not the be-all and end-all of my interest.Andrew Keen: Are there other examples where we're beginning to see decentralized capitalism? The essay was very strong on the critique, but I found fewer examples of decentralized capitalism in practice outside maybe Denmark in the 2020s.Tim Wu: East Asia post-World War II is a strong example of success. While no economy is purely small businesses, although Taiwan comes close, if you look at the East Asian story after World War II, one of the big features was an effort to reform land, give land to peasants, and create a landowning class to replace the feudal system. They had huge entrepreneurism, especially in Korea and Taiwan, less in Japan. This built a strong and prosperous middle and upper middle class.Japan has gone through hard times—they let their companies get too big and they stagnated. But Korea and Taiwan have gone from being third world economies to Taiwan now being wealthier per capita than Japan. The United States is another strong example, vacillating between being very big and very small. Even at its biggest, it still has a strong entrepreneurial culture and sectors with many small entities. Germany is another good example. There's no perfect version, but what I'm saying is that the model of monopolized economies and just having a few winners and hoping that anybody else can get tax payments is really a losing proposition.Andrew Keen: You were on Chris Hayes recently talking about antitrust. You're one of America's leading thinkers on antitrust and were brought into the Biden administration on the antitrust front. Is antitrust then the heart of the matter? Is this really the key to decentralizing capitalism?Tim Wu: I think it's a big tool, one of the tools of managing the economy. It works by preventing industries from merging their way into monopoly and keeps a careful eye on structure. In the same way that no one would say interest rates are the be-all and end-all of monetary policy, when we're talking about structural policy, having antitrust law actively preventing overconcentration is important.In the White House itself, we spent a lot of time trying to get other agencies to prevent their sectors, whether healthcare or transportation, from becoming overly monopolized and extractive. You can have many parts of the government involved—the antitrust agencies are key, but they're not the only solution.Andrew Keen: You wrote an interesting piece for The Atlantic about Biden's antitrust initiatives. You said the outgoing president's legacy of revived antitrust enforcement won't be easy to undo. Trump is very good at breaking things. Why is it going to be hard to undo? Lina Khan's gone—the woman who seems to unite all of Silicon Valley in their dislike of her. What did Biden do to protect antitrust legislation?Tim Wu: The legal patterns have changed and the cases are ongoing. But I think more important is a change of consciousness and ideology and change in popular support. I don't think there is great support for letting big tech do whatever they want without oversight. There are people who believe in that and some of them have influence in this administration, but there's been a real change in consciousness.I note that the Federal Trade Commission has already announced that it's going to stick with the Biden administration's merger rules, and my strong sense is the Department of Justice will do the same. There are certain things that Trump did that we stuck with in the Biden administration because they were popular—the most obvious being the turn toward China. Going back to the Bush era approach of never bothering any monopolies, I just don't think there's an appetite for it.Andrew Keen: Why is Lina Khan so unpopular in Silicon Valley?Tim Wu: It's interesting. I'm not usually one to attribute things to sexism, but the Justice Department brought more cases against big tech than she did. Jonathan Kanter, who ran antitrust at Justice, won the case against Google. His firm was trying to break up Google. They may still do it, but somehow Lina Khan became the face of it. I think because she's young and a woman—I don't know why Jonathan Kanter didn't become the symbol in the same way.Andrew Keen: You bring up the AT&T and IBM cases in the US tech narrative in the essay, suggesting that we can learn a great deal from them. What can we learn from those cases?Tim Wu: The United States from the 70s through the 2010s was an extraordinarily innovative place and did amazing things in the tech industry. An important part of that was challenging the big IBM and AT&T monopolies. AT&T was broken into eight pieces. IBM was forced to begin selling its software separately and opened up the software markets to what became a new software industry.AT&T earlier had been forced to license the transistor, which opened up the semiconductor industry and to some degree the computing industry, and had to stay out of computing. The government intervened pretty forcefully—a form of industrial policy to weaken its tech monopolies. The lesson is that we need to do the same thing right now.Some people will ask about China, but I think the United States has always done best when it constantly challenges established power and creates room for entrepreneurs to take their shot. I want very much for the new AI companies to challenge the main tech platforms and see what comes of that, as opposed to becoming a stagnant industry. Everyone says nothing can become stagnant, but the aerospace industry was pretty quick-moving in the 60s, and now you have Boeing and Airbus sitting there. It's very easy for a tech industry to stagnate, and attacking monopolists is the best way to prevent that.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Google earlier. You had an interesting op-ed in The New York Times last year about what we should do about Google. My wife is head of litigation at Google, so I'm not entirely disinterested. I also have a career as a critic of Google. If Kent Walker was here, he would acknowledge some of the things he was saying. But he would say Google still innovates—Google hasn't become Boeing. It's innovating in AI, in self-driving cars, it's shifting search. Would he be entirely wrong?Tim Wu: No, he wouldn't be entirely wrong. In the same way that IBM kept going, AT&T kept going. What you want in tech industries is a fair fight. The problem with Google isn't that they're investing in AI or trying to build self-driving cars—that's great. The problem is that they were paying over $20 billion a year to Apple for a promise not to compete in search. Through control of the browsers and many other things, they were trying to make sure they could never be dislodged.My view of the economics is monopolists need to always be a little insecure. They need to be in a position where they can be challenged. That happens—there are companies who, like AT&T in the 70s or 60s, felt they were immune. It took the government to make space. I think it's very important for there to be opportunities to challenge the big guys and try to seize the pie.Andrew Keen: I'm curious where you are on Section 230. Google won their Supreme Court case when it came to Section 230. In this sense, I'm guessing you view Google as being on the side of the good guys.Tim Wu: Section 230 is interesting. In the early days of the Internet, it was an important infant industry protection. It was an insulation that was vital to get those little companies at the time to give them an opportunity to grow and build business models, because if you're being sued by billions of people, you can't really do too much.Section 230 was originally designed to protect people like AOL, who ran user forums and had millions of people discussing—kind of like Reddit. I think as Google and companies like Facebook became active in promoting materials and became more like media companies, the case for an absolutist Section 230 became a lot weaker. The law didn't really change but the companies did.Andrew Keen: You wrote the essay "The Real Road to Serfdom" a couple of years ago. You also talked earlier about AI. There's not a lot of AI in this, but 50% of all the investment in technology over the last year was in AI, and most of that has gone into these huge platforms—OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Gemini. Is AI now the central theater, both in the Road to Serfdom and in liberating ourselves from big tech?Tim Wu: Two years ago when I was writing this, I was determined not to say anything that would look stupid about AI later. There's a lot more on what I think about AI in my new book coming in November.I see AI as a classic potential successor technology. It obviously is the most significant successor to the web and the mass Internet of 20 years ago in terms of having potential to displace things like search and change the way people do various forms of productivity. How technology plays out depends a lot on the economic structure. If you think about a technology like the cotton gin, it didn't automatically lead to broad flourishing, but reinforced plantation slavery.What I hope happens with AI is that it sets off more competition and destabilization for some of the tech platforms as opposed to reinforcing their advantage and locking them in forever. I don't know if we know what's going to happen right now. I think it's extremely important that OpenAI stays separate from the existing tech companies, because if this just becomes the same players absorbing technology, that sounds a lot like the darker chapters in US tech history.Andrew Keen: And what about the power of AI to liberate ourselves from our brain power as the next industrial revolution? When I was reading the essay, I thought it would be a very good model, both as a warning and in terms of offering potential for us to create this new architecture of parity. Because the technology in itself, in theory at least, is one of parity—one of democratizing brainpower.Tim Wu: Yes, I agree it has extraordinary potential. Things can go in two directions. The Industrial Revolution is one example where you had more of a top-down centralization of the means of production that was very bad for many people initially, though there were longer-term gains.I would hope AI would be something more like the PC revolution in the 80s and 90s, which did augment individual humanity as opposed to collective enterprise. It allowed people to do things like start their own travel agency or accounting firm with just a computer. I am interested and bullish on the potential of AI to empower smaller units, but I'm concerned it will be used to reinforce existing economic structures. The jury's out—the future will tell us. Just hoping it's going to make humanity better is not going to be the best answer.Andrew Keen: When you were writing this essay, Web3 was still in vogue then—the idea of blockchain and crypto decentralizing the economy. But I didn't see any references to Web3 and the role of technology in democratizing capitalism in terms of the architecture of corporations. Are you skeptical of the Web3 ideology?Tim Wu: The essay had its limits since I was also talking about 18th century Denmark. I have a lot more on blockchain and Web3 in the book. The challenge with crypto and Bitcoin is that it both over-promises and delivers something. I've been very interested in crypto and blockchain for a long time. The challenge it's had is constantly promising to decentralize great systems and failing, then people stealing billions of dollars and ending up in prison.It has a dubious track record, but it does have this core potential for a certain class of people to earn money. I'm always in favor of anything that is an alternative means of earning money. There are people who made money on it. I just think it's failed to execute on its promises. Blockchain in particular has failed to be a real challenge to web technologies.Andrew Keen: As you say, Hayek inspired the book and in some sense this is intellectual. The father of decentralization in ideological terms was E.F. Schumacher. I don't think you reference him, but do you think there has been much thinking since Schumacher on the value of smallness and decentralized architectures? What do people like yourself add to what Schumacher missed in his critique of bigness?Tim Wu: Schumacher is a good example. Rawls is actually under-recognized as being interested in these things. I see myself as writing in the tradition of those figures and trying to pursue a political economy that values a more balanced economy and small production.Hopefully what I add is a level of institutional experience and practicality that was missing. Rawls is slightly unfair because he's a philosopher, but his model doesn't include firms—it's just individuals. So it's all about balancing between poor people and rich people when obviously economic power is also held by corporations.I'm trying to create more flesh on the bones of the "small is beautiful" philosophy and political economy that is less starry-eyed and more realistic. I'm putting forward the point that you're not sacrificing growth and you're taking less political risk with a more balanced economy. There's an adulation of bigness in our time—exciting big companies are glamorous. But long-term prosperity does better when you have more centers, a more balanced system. I'm not an ultra-centralist suggesting we should live in mud huts, but I do think the worship of monopoly is very similar to the worship of autocracy and is dangerous.Andrew Keen: Much to discuss. Tim Wu, thank you so much. The author of "The Real Road to Serfdom," fascinating essay in this month's issue of Liberties. I know "The Age of Extraction" will be coming out on November 10th.Tim Wu: In England and US at the same time.Andrew Keen: We'll get you back on the show. Fascinating conversation, Tim. Thank you so much.Hailed as the “architect” of the Biden administration's competition and antitrust policies, Tim Wu writes and teaches about private power and related topics. First known for coining the term “net neutrality” in 2002, in recent years Wu has been a leader in the revitalization of American antitrust and has taken a particular focus on the growing power of the big tech platforms. In 2021, he was appointed to serve in the White House as special assistant to the president for technology and competition policy. A professor at Columbia Law School since 2006, Wu has also held posts in public service. He was enforcement counsel in the New York Attorney General's Office, worked on competition policy for the National Economic Council during the Barack Obama administration, and worked in antitrust enforcement at the Federal Trade Commission. In 2014, Wu was a Democratic primary candidate for lieutenant governor of New York. In his most recent book, The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age (2018), he argues that corporate and industrial concentration can lead to the rise of populism, nationalism, and extremist politicians. His previous books include The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads (2016), The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires (2010), and Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World (2006), which he co-authored with Jack Goldsmith. Wu was a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times and also has written for Slate, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post. He once explained the concept of net neutrality to late-night host Stephen Colbert while he rode a rollercoaster. He has been named one of America's 100 most influential lawyers by the National Law Journal; has made Politico's list of 50 most influential figures in American politics (more than once); and has been included in the Scientific American 50 of policy leadership. Wu is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He served as a law clerk for Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Ten years ago, political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern took an extraordinary data set compiled by Gilens and a small army of researchers and set out to determine whether America could still credibly call itself a democracy. They used case studies 1,800 policy proposals over 30 years, tracking how they made their way through the political system and whose interests were served by outcomes. For small D democrats, the results were devastating. Political outcomes overwhelmingly favored very wealthy people, corporations, and business groups. The influence of ordinary citizens, meanwhile, was at a “non-significant, near-zero level.” America, they concluded, was not a democracy at all, but a functional oligarchy.  Fast forward to 2024 and a presidential campaign that saw record support by billionaires for both candidates, but most conspicuously for Republican candidate Donald Trump from Tesla and Starlink owner Elon Musk, the world's richest man. That prompted outgoing President Joe Biden, in his farewell address, to warn Americans about impending oligarchy—something Gilens and Page said was already a fait accompli ten years before. And as if on cue, the new president put billionaire tech bro supporters like Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg front and center at his inauguration and has given Musk previously unimaginable power to dismantle and reshape the federal government through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. So what does it mean that American oligarchy is now so brazenly out in the open?  Joining host Ralph Ranalli are Harvard Kennedy School Professor Archon Fung and Harvard Law School Professor Larry Lessig, who say it could an inflection point that will force Americans to finally confront the country's trend toward rule by the wealthy, but that it's by no means certain that that direction can be changed anytime soon. Archon Fung is a democratic theorist and faculty director of the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at HKS. Larry Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School and a 2016 presidential candidate whose central campaign theme was ridding politics of the corrupting influence of money. Archon Fung's Policy Recommendations:Involve the U.S. Office of Government Ethics in monitoring executive orders and changes to the federal government being made by President Trump, Elon Musk, and other Trump proxies.Demand transparency from Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency about their actions in federal agencies, what changes and modifications they are making to systems, and an accounting of what information they have access to.Lawrence Lessig's Policy Recommendations:Build support for a test court case to overturn the legality of Super PACs, which are allowed to raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates.Experiment with alternative campaign funding mechanisms, such as a voucher program that would give individuals public money that they could pledge to political candidates.Urge Democratic Party leaders to lead by example and outlaw Super PAC participation in Democratic primaries.Episode Notes:Archon Fung is the Winthrop Laflin McCormack Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government and director of the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Kennedy School. at the Harvard Kennedy School. His research explores policies, practices, and institutional designs that deepen the quality of democratic governance. He focuses upon public participation, deliberation, and transparency. His books include “Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency” (Cambridge University Press, with Mary Graham and David Weil) and “Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy” (Princeton University Press). He has authored five books, four edited collections, and over fifty articles appearing in professional journals. He holds two S.B.s — in philosophy and physics — and a Ph.D. in political science from MIT.Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School. Prior to returning to Harvard, he taught at Stanford Law School, where he founded the Center for Internet and Society, and at the University of Chicago. He clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. Lessig is the founder of Equal Citizens and a founding board member of Creative Commons, and serves on the Scientific Board of AXA Research Fund. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society, he was once cited by The New Yorker as “the most important thinker on intellectual property in the Internet era,” Lessig has turned his focus from law and technology to institutional corruption and the corrupting influence of money on democracy, which led to his entering the 2016 Democratic primary for president. He has written 11 books, including “They Don't Represent Us: Reclaiming Our Democracy” in 2019. He holds a BA in economics and a BS in management from the University of Pennsylvania, an MA in philosophy from Cambridge University, and a JD from Yale.Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an BA in political science from UCLA and a master's in journalism from Columbia University.Scheduling and logistical support for PolicyCast is provided by Lillian Wainaina.Design and graphics support is provided by Laura King and the OCPA Design Team. Web design and social media promotion support is provided by Catherine Santrock and Natalie Montaner of the OCPA Digital Team. Editorial support is provided by Nora Delaney and Robert O'Neill of the OCPA Editorial Team.  

World-renowned law professor Jonathan Turley named the “European Digital Services Act (DSA) as one of the greatest assaults on free speech in history” after European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton (“one of the notorious figures in an anti-free speech movement”) threatened to censor X because of Elon Musk's live interview of Donald Trump. In 2022, the EU and Thierry Breton also threatened to ban X (formerly Twitter) entirely if Musk restored protections of free speech. “Under the DSA, users are 'empowered to report illegal content online and online platforms will have to act quickly.' This includes speech that is viewed not only as ‘disinformation' but also ‘incitement.' Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University, holding the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law since 1998. He has served as counsel in high-profile cases, represented members of Congress, and testified before Congress over 100 times, including during the impeachments of Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. He has written for major newspapers and worked as a legal analyst for the world's top news organizations. A study by Judge Richard Posner ranked Turley as the second most cited law professor among public intellectuals. Find more at https://jonathanturley.org and follow him at https://x.com/jonathanturley Read Jonathan Turley's new book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” at https://amzn.to/3X13dmx Dr. Darshan Shah is the founder of Next Health, the world's first and largest Health Optimization and Longevity clinic. A board-certified surgeon and Longevity Medicine specialist, Dr. Shah has performed over 20,000 surgical procedures. He earned his medical degree at 21, trained at the Mayo Clinic, and holds alumni status at Harvard Business School and Singularity University. Dr. Shah has authored a book, published papers, patented medical devices, and given over 100 speeches on longevity and health. Find more at https://next-health.com and follow him at https://x.com/darshanshahMD 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 Find out more about the brands that make this show possible and get special discounts on Dr. Drew's favorite products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors  • FATTY15 – The future of essential fatty acids is here! Strengthen your cells against age-related breakdown with Fatty15. Get 15% off a 90-day Starter Kit Subscription at https://drdrew.com/fatty15 • CAPSADYN - Get pain relief with the power of capsaicin from chili peppers – without the burning! Capsadyn's proprietary formulation for joint & muscle pain contains no NSAIDs, opioids, anesthetics, or steroids. Try it for 15% off at https://drdrew.com/capsadyn • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at https://drdrew.com/paleovalley • TRU NIAGEN - For almost a decade, Dr. Drew has been taking a healthy-aging supplement called Tru Niagen, which uses a patented form of Nicotinamide Riboside to boost NAD levels. Use code DREW for 20% off at https://drdrew.com/truniagen • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your physician before making any decisions about your health. 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Some of Lessig's notable works on Amazon: Free Culture – https://amzn.to/4aFonuS Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0 – https://amzn.to/4aYaEz3 Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It – ⁠https://amzn.to/4cZsdAF Lawrence Lessig's entire collection of books – ⁠https://amzn.to/4b4hcfP Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you. __________________________________________________ Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School. (The Roy Furman chair is in honor of this extraordinary alumnus.) Prior to rejoining the Harvard faculty, where he was the Berkman Professor of Law until 2000, Lessig was a professor at Stanford Law School, where he founded the school's Center for Internet and Society, and at the University of Chicago. Lessig clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. He serves on the Board of the AXA Research Fund, and is an Emeritus member of the board at Creative Commons. Lessig is a Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Association, and has received numerous awards, including the Free Software Foundation's Freedom Award, Fastcase 50 Award. In 2002, he was named one of Scientific American's Top 50 Visionaries. Lessig holds a BA in economics and a BS in management from the University of Pennsylvania, an MA in philosophy from Cambridge, and a JD from Yale.⁠ Audio source⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Buy me a coffee⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theunadulteratedintellect/support

Today on the podcast, Robin and Lester interview Lance McMillian acclaimed legal author and scholar.   Guest Bio Lance obtained his B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Phi Beta Kappa and his J.D., University of Georgia, summa cum laude, Order of the Coif. He is a full-time professor of law at John Marshall School of Law where he teaches Torts, Constitutional Law, Federal Courts, Constitutional Law Seminar, First Amendment Seminar, White Collar Crime, Domestic Relations, Depositions, Law Office Management, Remedies in Context, Scholarly Writing.   Professor McMillian joined the Atlanta's John Marshall faculty in 2007. Before embarking on a teaching and writing career, Professor McMillian wore many different hats in the legal profession, including those of civil litigator, commercial arbitrator, and certified mediator. The focus of his practice centered primarily on complex litigation—class action prosecution and defense, business torts, constitutional torts, and discrimination. In 2002, he became a founding partner of the law firm of McMillian & Camp, LLP. Following its inception, the firm was approved as lead counsel by numerous federal and state courts in class and collective actions arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. In this role, Professor McMillian successfully negotiated several six and seven-figure settlements. As a neutral, Professor McMillian mediated and arbitrated over 100 active lawsuits.   Professor McMillian's writing career is just as diverse. He is a novelist and creator of the Atlanta Murder Squad series. The first book in the series, The Murder of Sara Barton, won a prestigious B.R.A.G. Medallion and became a #1 Best Seller Legal Thriller on Amazon. His nonfiction work has appeared in such legal journals as the North Carolina Law Review, the Washington and Lee Law Review, the Wisconsin Law Review, the Alabama Law Review, the Tennessee Law Review, the Southern Cal Interdisciplinary Law Journal, and the American Journal of Trial Advocacy. He also contributed a chapter for Lawyers In Your Living Room! Law On Television, a book project from the American Bar Association that also featured essays from actors Sam Waterston and James Woods. A number of federal and states courts, including an opinion by Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, have cited Professor McMillian in their opinions.   Professor McMillian is married to Justice Carla Wong McMillian of the Georgia Supreme Court. Atlanta'ss John Marshall Law School (AJMLS) is a private for-profit law school in Atlanta, Georgia. It was founded in 1933 and named for John Marshall, the fourth chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. AJMLS is accredited by the American Bar Association. It was among the first southern law schools to integrate. It is in Midtown Atlanta and is accredited by the American Bar Association. AJMLS offers five J.D. programs: full-time day, part-time day, part- time evening, accelerated/spring start, and a Criminal Justice Certificate Program (led by MacArthur Genius Fellow, Jonathan Rapping).   Lance's books are: To Kill A Lawyer (2021)   Death to the Chief (2021)   The Murder of Sara Barton (2020) Lance's latest novel is “Hard Way to Die”, the 4 th in the Atlanta Murder Squad series, and takes place at a Georgia State Bar Annual Meeting on Jekyll Island.   Links: Lance McMillian - Atlanta's John Marshall Law School http://www.akintate.com/ https://www.gatriallawyers.net/ See You In Court Website To learn more about the Georgia Civil Justice Foundation, visit fairplay.org

I'm so thrilled to share this conversation with my friend Kathryn Judge about her new book Direct, The Rise of the Middleman Economy and the Power of going to the Source. I met Kate in our downtown NYC studio about 10 years ago. Her calm presence and practice effected everyone so positively. I knew she was a whip-smart law professor, but I was so drawn into how she genuinely cared about people in class. Her sense of community and compassion and self care seemed effortless and working for her. Her wellbeing radiates. I feel so lucky to know her, be moms at the same time, and catch up about all the life stuff. Her book Direct reminds me of Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food. She makes it easy for everyday people to understand how global supply chain and middlemen impact every aspect of our lives, and even more empowering, she provides simple principles we all can apply in our daily lives to feel better and do better. Direct is truly yoga, off the mat and in real life. Kathryn is the Harvey J. Goldschmid Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. Her research on financial markets and regulation has been published in top law journals and won accolades from academic peers and industry. She served as a clerk for Judge Richard Posner and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. She is a graduate of Stanford Law School and Wesleyan University. She lives with her husband and their two daughters in New York City.You can pre-order Direct and learn more about Kathryn Judge here. https://kathrynjudge.com/The goal here is to simply, help you feel better. When we feel better, we do better and everything is better. Our wellbeing is connected. Leave Tara a voice message and find out more at: https://www.tarastiles.comJoin us on the Stråla Yoga app for daily practice of yoga, qigong, tai chi, shiatsu, and now even DANCE! Start your 7 day FREE Trial now.http://www.stralahome.comWe LOVE hearing from you.Connect with TaraLeave Tara a voicemailNewsletterStrala YogaInstagramFacebookTwitterApparelBooksStrala InstaStrala FacebookStrala TwitterWe LOVE mail. Send it here.Strala YogaPO box 1636Effingham, IL 62401 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Cover is a term used in the law of contracts to describe a remedy available to a buyer who has received an anticipatory repudiation of a contract for the receipt of goods. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the buyer is permitted (but not required) to find another source of the same type of goods. The buyer may then file a lawsuit against the breaching seller to recover the difference, if any, between the cost of the goods offered and the cost of the goods actually purchased. The possibility of cover will prevent a party from being able to sue for specific performance, which is an equitable remedy that requires the buyer to have no adequate remedy at law. If the buyer is able to buy elsewhere and sue for the difference, that provides an adequate remedy. This prohibition does not apply, however, to the sale of unique goods such as original works of art, collectibles, real estate, and exclusive rights. Judge Richard Posner has suggested that the availability of cover allows for efficient breach - that is, that it encourages the most efficient allocation of resources by allowing a seller to breach a contract to sell goods to one buyer when another, more lucrative opportunity comes along. The seller may thus be able to realize a sufficiently increased profit to make more money even after repaying the difference to the original buyer. Therefore, no value is lost in the transaction because the original buyer is in the same position he would have been in but for the breach, and the seller is in a better position. An exclusion clause is a term in a contract that seeks to restrict the rights of the parties to the contract. Traditionally, the district courts have sought to limit the operation of exclusion clauses. In addition to numerous common law rules limiting their operation, in England and Wales Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 applies to all contracts, but the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, unlike the common law rules, do differentiate between contracts between businesses and contracts between business and consumer, so the law seems to explicitly recognize the greater possibility of exploitation of the consumer by businesses. Types of exclusion clause. There are various methods by which a party may seek to exclude or mitigate liability by use of a contractual term: True exclusion clause: The clause recognizes a potential breach of contract, and then excuses liability for the breach. Alternatively, the clause is constructed in such a way it only includes reasonable care to perform duties on one of the parties. Limitation clause: The clause places a limit on the amount that can be claimed for a breach of contract, regardless of the actual loss. Time limitation: The clause states that an action for a claim must be commenced within a certain period of time or the cause of action becomes extinguished. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

In this episode, J. Remy Green, a partner at Cohen & Green PLLC, discusses their article “Digitizing Brandenburg: Common Law Drift Toward a Causal Theory of Imminence,” which is published in the Syracuse Law Review. Green begins by discussing imminence as it has been applied since the pivotal U.S. Supreme Court case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, and how imminence has been conceptualized in a spatiotemporal manner. They continue by noting the uneven and unpredictable application of imminence by courts, arguing that the current system is unsustainable. Noting that the current moment of Brandenburg jurisprudence is ripe for common law innovation, Green proposes using a causal theory of imminence.Green then explores the underlying First Amendment theory for speech restrictions and briefly discusses market failures in the “marketplace of ideas.” They also note a hypothetical “entrapment machine” presented by Judge Richard Posner and its relationship to the theory of imminence through analogy. They conclude by discussing the application of the causal theory of imminence in the real world and provides insights for students, scholars, and policymakers. They are on Twitter at @j_remy_green.This episode was hosted by Luce Nguyen. She is on Twitter at @NguyenLuce. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Today’s podcast features former United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Judge Richard Posner, and former Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker. The two use their time to discuss the challenges confronting those who apply market analysis to social questions. Using examples like drug use, sexually transmitted diseases, and addiction, they discuss the possibilities of using economics to solve these problems while thinking about the government’s role in dealing with them. Originally Recorded: 1994

Former US Presidential candidate among the Democratic Party (2016), Lester Lawrence Lessig III is an attorney, university lecturer and political activist. Lawrence holds the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard University. He is the former director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. A supporter of net neutrality, he founded the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University. Lessig also formerly taught at the University of Chicago. Early in his career, Lessig clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and for Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. His books include: The Don't Represent US: Reclaiming Our Democracy (2019), America, Compromised (2018), Republic, Lost v2 (2015) and Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress - and a Plan to Stop It (2011). Other publications of note by Lessig are: Code v2 (2006), The Future of Ideas (2001) and Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999). "The most important thinker on intellectual property in the Internet era." - The New Yorker Lawrence Lessig holds degrees of the University of Pennsylvania (BA and BS), an MA in philosophy from Trinity College, Cambridge University and a JD from Yale University. He is a native of Rapid City, South Dakota. He clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/iantrottier/support

Voter suppression, gerrymandering, money in politics, and even issues with the electoral college all call into question whether the United States truly has a representative democracy. How might these issues play a role in the upcoming 2020 elections? Renowned scholar Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law School joins Sam Wang on today’s program for a discussion on election reform. Lessig is the is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership. Prior to rejoining the Harvard faculty, he was a professor at Stanford Law School, where he founded the school’s Center for Internet and Society, and a professor at the University of Chicago. He clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. Author of numerous books, he’s also received many awards, including the Free Software Foundation’s Freedom Award, Fastcase 50 Award and was named one of Scientific American’s Top 50 Visionaries.

In this episode, Professor Lawrence Lessig, the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership and Harvard Law School discusses his newest book, Fidelity and Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution. In his book, Professor Furman discusses the challenges Supreme Court Justices face when interpreting our "ancient' Constitution in modern times. In this discussion, Professor Lessig explains what he means by fidelity to the role of judicial decision making and explains that Supreme Court justices, regardless on either side of the political spectrum share the same constraints. The Court, he suggests, has an obligation to defend its institution and to make sure the institution can survive and develop its authority to do its job. As our discussion makes clear, in Fidelity and Constraint, Professor Lessig mines past judicial decisions to explain present-day judicial rulemaking making for a compelling and understandable read. About our guest…Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School.Prior to rejoining the Harvard faculty, Lessig was a professor at Stanford Law School, where he founded the school’s Center for Internet and Society, and at the University of Chicago.He clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. Lessig serves on the Board of the AXA Research Fund, and on the advisory boards of Creative Commons and the Sunlight Foundation.He is a Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Association, and has received numerous awards, including the Free Software Foundation’s Freedom Award, Fastcase 50 Award and being named one of Scientific American’s Top 50 Visionaries.Lessig holds a BA in economics and a BS in management from the University of Pennsylvania, an MA in philosophy from Cambridge, and a JD from Yale. To Learn more about our Professor Lessig visit:http://www.lessig.org/about/You can purchase Fidelity and Constraint by clicking on the link belowhttps://global.oup.com/academic/product/fidelity-and-constraint-9780190945664?cc=us&lang=en&Want to learn more about Professor Lessig? Visit the links below: As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know! You can email us at leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet to @lawtofact. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter and Instagram (@lawtofact) and to like us on FaceBook! And finally, your ratings and reviews matter! Please leave us a review on iTunes. Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact? Join our mailing list by visiting us at www.lawtofact.com.

A Seventh Circuit extravaganza featuring Tacy Flint, Will Baude, and Jim Pfander. The episode was recorded before a live student audience at the University of Chicago Law School at the invitation of UChicago chapter of the Federalist Society.   Tacy Flint is a partner at Sidley Austin who has practiced before the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous federal courts of appeal. She clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer and Judge Richard Posner. Tacy is a UChicago law grad.   Will Baude is a professor at UChicago Law and the author of Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful? Will clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts, Judge Michael McConnell and at the Institute for Justice.   Jim Pfander is a professor at Northwestern Law and the author of many articles examining Bivens and the importance of remedies against federal officers for constitutional violations. Jim clerked for Judge Levin Campbell. 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 Pretrial detention: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D01-23/C:17-1510:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2282458:S:0   Vicarious liability: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D04-03/C:17-3618:J:Hamilton:con:T:fnOp:N:2318717:S:0   Indianapolis forfeiture: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D02-26/C:17-2933:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:2299727:S:0

With commentary by Professor Jonathan Masur John G. Malcolm oversees The Heritage Foundation's work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law as director of the think tank's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. In addition to his duties at Heritage, Malcolm is chairman of the Criminal Law Practice Group of the Federalist Society. Malcolm has previously served in both the public and private sectors. Among other positions, he has worked as general counsel at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, as executive vice president and director of worldwide anti-piracy operations for the Motion Picture Association of America, as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, as a partner in the Atlanta law firm of Malcolm & Schroeder, and as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Atlanta fraud and public corruption section. Malcolm began his law career clerking for Judge James C. Hill on the Eleventh Circuit and for Chief Judge Charles A. Moye, Jr. on the Northern District of Georgia. Malcolm is a graduate of Harvard Law School and holds a bachelor's degree in economics from Columbia College. Jonathan Masur received a BS in physics and an AB in political science from Stanford University in 1999 and his JD from Harvard Law School in 2003. After graduating from law school, he clerked for Chief Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and for Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He joined the Law School faculty in 2007 and received tenure in 2012. He served as Deputy Dean from 2012 to 2014 and was named the John P. Wilson Professor of Law in 2014. He won the Graduating Students Award for Teaching Excellence in 2014 and 2017 and the Class of 2016 Award. He has served as director of the Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Program in Behavioral Law, Finance and Economics since its founding.

With commentary by Professor Jonathan Masur John G. Malcolm oversees The Heritage Foundation's work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law as director of the think tank's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. In addition to his duties at Heritage, Malcolm is chairman of the Criminal Law Practice Group of the Federalist Society. Malcolm has previously served in both the public and private sectors. Among other positions, he has worked as general counsel at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, as executive vice president and director of worldwide anti-piracy operations for the Motion Picture Association of America, as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, as a partner in the Atlanta law firm of Malcolm & Schroeder, and as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Atlanta fraud and public corruption section. Malcolm began his law career clerking for Judge James C. Hill on the Eleventh Circuit and for Chief Judge Charles A. Moye, Jr. on the Northern District of Georgia. Malcolm is a graduate of Harvard Law School and holds a bachelor's degree in economics from Columbia College. Jonathan Masur received a BS in physics and an AB in political science from Stanford University in 1999 and his JD from Harvard Law School in 2003. After graduating from law school, he clerked for Chief Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and for Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He joined the Law School faculty in 2007 and received tenure in 2012. He served as Deputy Dean from 2012 to 2014 and was named the John P. Wilson Professor of Law in 2014. He won the Graduating Students Award for Teaching Excellence in 2014 and 2017 and the Class of 2016 Award. He has served as director of the Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Program in Behavioral Law, Finance and Economics since its founding.

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.

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

Wherein we discuss Syria, Gorsuch's confirmation and the death of the Supreme Court filibuster, Benadryl, Hively v. Ivy Tech, Title VII, Judge Richard Posner, and more on Originalism. Apologies for any audio weirdness — we had some dumb tech issues at the outset that we scrambled to remedy.

According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, over 97% of mergers and acquisitions result in "strike suits," litigation seeking to enjoin a merger that often quickly settles for attorneys' fees and supplemental disclosures to shareholders. In In Re: Walgreen Co. Stockholder Litigation, 832 F.3d 718, a recent case over such a settlement, Judge Richard Posner called the practice a "racket," and the Seventh Circuit rejected the lawsuit’s claims. Meanwhile, Delaware and New York courts have come out on opposite sides of the issue. -- Ted Frank of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who successfully argued Walgreen and has multiple appeals on the subject pending in other jurisdictions, discussed developments in the area over the last year and answer questions. -- Featuring: Theodore H. Frank, Senior Attorney & Director, Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF), CEI.

When should the police be able to search your phone, your computer, your email, or your dropbox? Orin Kerr thinks that over time, and in the face of changing technology and social practices, courts maintain a relatively consistent balance between privacy and the state’s interest in criminal investigation. The legal changes that maintain that consistency seem to be acceptable to originalists, pragmatists, and living constitutionalists alike. From cell phones to horses and buggies to automobiles and confidential informants. It’s the search episode. And then … yep, speed traps. Joe and Orin make a spiritual connection as non-warners. This show’s links: Orin Kerr’s faculty profile, writing, and blogging at the Volokh Conspiracy Background on the Fourth Amendment and the exceptions to the warrant requirement Orin Kerr, An Equilibrium-Adjustment Theory of the Fourth Amendment Carroll v. United States and the automobile exception Ex Parte Jackson (one of the earliest Fourth Amendment decisions) Riley v. California (and see Orin’s post about the case shortly after it was decided Example undercover informant cases: On Lee v. United States and Lewis v. United States Keynote by Judge Richard Posner at the Empirical Legal Studies Conference Jacqueline Ross, Tradeoffs in Undercover Investigations: A Comparative Perspective John Mikhail on Universal Moral Grammar, on the excellent philosophy bites podcast Orin Kerr, The Curious History of Fourth Amendment Searches Orin Kerr, Foreword: Accounting for Technological Change United States v. Robinson Paul Giannelli, Independent Crime Laboratories: The Problem of Motivational and Cognitive Bias United States v. Ganias Our first speed trap shows: Speed Trap and Party All Over the World Special Guest: Orin Kerr.

The New Hampshire Rebellion Room 003, Rockefeller Center 4:30 PM PP_W14_Lawrence_Lessig Lawrence Lessig Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership, Harvard Law School Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, and founder of Rootstrikers, a network of activists leading the fight against government corruption. He has authored numerous books, including Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Our Congress—and a Plan to Stop It, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Free Culture, and Remix. Lessig holds a BA in economics and a BS in management from the University of Pennsylvania, an MA in philosophy from Cambridge, and a JD from Yale. Prior to rejoining the Harvard faculty, Lessig was a professor at Stanford Law School, where he founded the school's Center for Internet and Society, and at the University of Chicago. He clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme 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. The University of Chicago Law School's "Shakespeare and the Law" conference brought together thinkers from law, literature, and philosophy to investigate the legal dimensions of Shakespeare's plays. Participants explored the ways in which the plays show awareness of law and legal regimes and comment on a variety of legal topics, ranging from general themes, such as mercy and the rule of law, to highly concrete legal issues of his time. Other papers investigated the subsequent influence of his plays on the law and explored more general issues concerning the relationship between law and literature. The keynote session of the conference featured Justice Stephen Breyer, Judge Richard Posner, Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics Martha Nussbaum, and Frank L. Sulzberger Distinguished Service Professor Richard Strier (English, University of Chicago). It was recorded May 15th, 2009.

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. In September, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law Omri Ben-Shahar and Fischel-Neil Visiting Professor of Law Ariel Porat organized a conference intended to reevaluate the role of fault in contract law. Speakers included Chicago faculty Saul Levmore, Eric Posner, Richard Epstein and Judge Richard Posner, along with experts in contract law from around the world.While only 10 of the video files can be downloaded here, audio and video of the entire conference is now available on the conference website

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. In September, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law Omri Ben-Shahar and Fischel-Neil Visiting Professor of Law Ariel Porat organized a conference intended to reevaluate the role of fault in contract law. Speakers included Chicago faculty Saul Levmore, Eric Posner, Richard Epstein and Judge Richard Posner, along with experts in contract law from around the world.While only 10 of the video files can be downloaded here, audio and video of the entire conference is now available on the conference website

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. In September, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law Omri Ben-Shahar and Fischel-Neil Visiting Professor of Law Ariel Porat organized a conference intended to reevaluate the role of fault in contract law. Speakers included Chicago faculty Saul Levmore, Eric Posner, Richard Epstein and Judge Richard Posner, along with experts in contract law from around the world.While only 10 of the video files can be downloaded here, audio and video of the entire conference is now available on the conference website

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. In September, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law Omri Ben-Shahar and Fischel-Neil Visiting Professor of Law Ariel Porat organized a conference intended to reevaluate the role of fault in contract law. Speakers included Chicago faculty Saul Levmore, Eric Posner, Richard Epstein and Judge Richard Posner, along with experts in contract law from around the world.While only 10 of the video files can be downloaded here, audio and video of the entire conference is now available on the conference website

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. In September, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law Omri Ben-Shahar and Fischel-Neil Visiting Professor of Law Ariel Porat organized a conference intended to reevaluate the role of fault in contract law. Speakers included Chicago faculty Saul Levmore, Eric Posner, Richard Epstein and Judge Richard Posner, along with experts in contract law from around the world.While only 10 of the video files can be downloaded here, audio and video of the entire conference is now available on the conference website

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. In September, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law Omri Ben-Shahar and Fischel-Neil Visiting Professor of Law Ariel Porat organized a conference intended to reevaluate the role of fault in contract law. Speakers included Chicago faculty Saul Levmore, Eric Posner, Richard Epstein and Judge Richard Posner, along with experts in contract law from around the world.While only 10 of the video files can be downloaded here, audio and video of the entire conference is now available on the conference website

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. In September, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law Omri Ben-Shahar and Fischel-Neil Visiting Professor of Law Ariel Porat organized a conference intended to reevaluate the role of fault in contract law. Speakers included Chicago faculty Saul Levmore, Eric Posner, Richard Epstein and Judge Richard Posner, along with experts in contract law from around the world.While only 10 of the video files can be downloaded here, audio and video of the entire conference is now available on the conference website

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. In September, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law Omri Ben-Shahar and Fischel-Neil Visiting Professor of Law Ariel Porat organized a conference intended to reevaluate the role of fault in contract law. Speakers included Chicago faculty Saul Levmore, Eric Posner, Richard Epstein and Judge Richard Posner, along with experts in contract law from around the world.While only 10 of the video files can be downloaded here, audio and video of the entire conference is now available on the conference website

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. In September, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law Omri Ben-Shahar and Fischel-Neil Visiting Professor of Law Ariel Porat organized a conference intended to reevaluate the role of fault in contract law. Speakers included Chicago faculty Saul Levmore, Eric Posner, Richard Epstein and Judge Richard Posner, along with experts in contract law from around the world.While only 10 of the video files can be downloaded here, audio and video of the entire conference is now available on the conference website

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. In September, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law Omri Ben-Shahar and Fischel-Neil Visiting Professor of Law Ariel Porat organized a conference intended to reevaluate the role of fault in contract law. Speakers included Chicago faculty Saul Levmore, Eric Posner, Richard Epstein and Judge Richard Posner, along with experts in contract law from around the world.While only 10 of the video files can be downloaded here, audio and video of the entire conference is now available on the conference website

Lawrence Lessig on Campaign Finance Reform Mike talks with Lawrence Lessig, the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School. Prior to his time at Harvard, Professor Lessig clerked for not one, but two of Mike's intellectual heroes, Judge Richard Posner and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Professor Lessig is the author of numerous books on law, commerce, culture, and ideas. His latest, Republic, Lost, Version 2.0, is a revised and expanded version of Republic, Lost, which Mike says is the best introduction to, and analysis of, not only campaign finance, but the fundamental incentives that drive public policy in the United States. Professor Lessig followed up on Republic, Lost with a major campaign to enact the reforms he believes to be vital to restoring American democracy, including launching a political action committee, giving a number of TED talks, and most notably, running for the Democratic Party's nomination for president in 2016. Professor Lessig Recommends Fifty Shades of Green: High Finance, Political Money, and the U.S. Congress. Thomas Ferguson, Jie Chen, Paul Jorgensen (http://bit.ly/2vCpW9P) Citizens Divided: Campaign Finance Reform and the Constitution. Robert C. Post (http://amzn.to/2vCShx5) Unlock Congress. Michael Golden (http://amzn.to/2vCMB66) Follow Lawrence Lessig on Twitter (https://twitter.com/lessig) Interested in supporting the show and getting even more Politics Guys content? Check out our Insiders program at https://www.patreon.com/politicsguys This week's show is sponsored by: Brooklinen, where listeners get $20 dollars off and free shipping by using promo code tpg at https://www.brooklinen.com Casper, where Politics Guys listeners get $50 dollars toward any mattress purchase by visiting https://www.casper.com/tpg Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-politics-guys/donations Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy