Podcasts about judicial power

If most voters are misinformed, is democracy legitimate? What sort of voting system should we have in its place? And should some votes count more than others?[00:00] Introduction to the Problems of Democracy[00:17] Brexit: A Case Study in Misinformed Voting[05:33] Voter Behavior: Social Benefits and Signaling[18:29] The Legitimacy of Democratic Systems[30:32] The Challenge of Political Incentives[33:02] The Abortion Debate and Judicial Power[36:41] Depoliticizing Social Life[43:10] Proposals for Enlightened Preference Voting[55:10] Global Voting and Democratic Legitimacy[58:28] Philosophical Reflections on Democratic TheoryCheck out FeedSpot's list of 90 best philosophy podcasts, where Brain in a Vat is ranked at 15, here: https://podcast.feedspot.com/philosophy_podcasts/

What started as a challenge to the Trump administration’s deportation policy has morphed into a battle over executive and judicial power. A federal judge said there is probable cause to hold the administration in criminal contempt after officials defied his orders to turn around planes carrying deported migrants to a mega-prison in El Salvador. Amna Nawaz discussed the latest with Steve Vladeck. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

In this episode, Aaron McIntire discusses the implications of President Trump's recent executive order instituting reciprocal tariffs on various countries, the potential economic impact of these tariffs, and the challenges posed by universal injunctions in the judicial system. The conversation also touches on the current state of Congress and the effectiveness of legislative actions under the Trump administration.

Jon Herold breaks down a packed news day with major moves from the Trump administration, including a bold restructuring of U.S. military commands, aggressive executive orders to streamline government and root out waste, and the ongoing battle with rogue judges over constitutional authority. Trump also weighs in on the JFK files, drops hints about future executive action, and praises Elon Musk for his role in a dramatic space rescue. Plus, a special guest appearance from Chanel Rion, who shares her front-line fight against the corrupt White House press corps and what it takes to restore true press freedom.  

Dr. Jeremy Gatdula talks about the misunderstandings surrounding natural law, why the judiciary is reluctant to use it, and the consequences when natural law is denied or ignored.

What happens when a cornerstone of democracy begins to show cracks? On this episode of After America as we scrutinize the U.S. Supreme Court's transformation and its far-reaching impacts on American democracy. We trace key moments from Justice Antonin Scalia's death to the rapid confirmation of conservative justices under President Trump. This episode unpacks the historical roots of the judiciary, its intended role as an independent arbiter of justice, and the seismic shifts that have led to a 6-3 conservative supermajority.We confront the controversies marring the Supreme Court's image, from contentious nomination processes to ethical dilemmas involving Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. We also explore how these controversies are eroding public trust and threatening the judiciary's credibility.  Landmark cases like Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization underscore the judiciary's evolving influence on societal values and individual liberties, and alert us to the grave consequences of increasing partisan divides in judicial appointments.Is American democracy at risk? We discuss how the judiciary might bolster or dismantle democratic values amid these challenges. From the strategic delays in confirming justices to the potential chaos of a future Trump presidency, this episode offers a sobering look at the judiciary's pivotal role in safeguarding—or undermining—democratic principles. Guests: Dr. Sara Benesh, Dr. Tara Grove, Dr. David Faris, Dr. Tom Ginsburg, and Stephen Marche Credits:Infados - Kevin MacLeodDark Tales: Music by Rahul Bhardwaj from Pixabay-------------------------Follow Deep Dive:InstagramYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

As we count down to the release of the limited series After America, we are revisiting some past episodes of Deep Dive to help lay the groundwork for this important project that will attempt to answer the question - What would it actually look like if American democracy were to fail?Dark Tales: Music by Rahul Bhardwaj from Pixabay-------------   Can America's democracy survive the rising tide of extremism, judicial assertiveness, and political violence? Dr. David Faris kicks off the conversation by dissecting the radical shifts within the Republican Party and their profound implications for political polarization and legislative deadlock. His analysis raises urgent questions about the future of bipartisan cooperation and the erosion of democratic norms in the United States.Next, Dr. Sarah Benesh delves into the Supreme Court's increasingly influential role in shaping policy on contentious issues from voting rights to reproductive health. Through detailed exploration of landmark cases, she reveals how the court's originalist philosophy exacerbates ideological divides and impacts public perception, offering a crucial perspective on the judiciary's evolving power. Dr. Benesh's examination provides essential context for understanding the court's decisions and their far-reaching consequences.Lastly, Dr. James Hawdon brings to light the unsettling rise of political violence and its destabilizing effects on democracy. By drawing connections between misinformation, incendiary rhetoric, and events like the January 6th Capitol attack, he underscores the urgent need to counteract these threats. As we head towards the 2024 election, Dr. Hawdon's insights stress the importance of proactive strategies to protect democratic institutions. Tune in for a compelling discussion that offers a sobering yet hopeful look at the forces shaping America's future.-------------------------Follow Deep Dive:InstagramPost.newsYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com **Artwork: Dovi Design **Deep Dive Music: Joystock

New presidential administrations start with a flurry of administrative actions. These fresh rules, guidelines, and procedures in turn face judicial scrutiny from the moment they are finalized. Oversight from the judiciary can keep agencies accountable and within the bounds of the law. But when judges get the final say on everything the executive does, policies can take years—even decades—to implement and can fluctuate wildly with the ebbs and flows of litigation. Has something gone awry with the way judges are “saying what the law is”?Featuring:Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Amanda L. Tyler, Shannon C. Turner Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of LawProf. Jeannie Suk Gersen, John H. Watson, Jr. Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Gary S. Lawson, Associate Dean for Intellectual Life and Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law Moderator: Hon. Benjamin Beaton, Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky

Hour 3 of the Wednesday Bob Rose Show for 3-27-24

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a pair of cases that threaten to topple four decades of precedent about federal agencies' authority to interpret statutes. Leah, Melissa, and Kate recap the arguments and outline the Koch-funded basis for the Supreme Court's latest power grab.Read the NYT's reporting on the funding behind the conservative quest to overrule Chevron Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

Seeking Supremacy: The Pursuit of Judicial Power in Pakistan (Cambridge University Press, 2022) discusses the emergence of the judiciary as an assertive and confrontational center of power which has been the most consequential new feature of Pakistan's political system. This book maps out the evolution of the relationship between the judiciary and military in Pakistan, explaining why Pakistan's high courts shifted from loyal deference to the military to open competition, and confrontation, with military and civilian institutions. Yasser Kureshi demonstrates that a shift in the audiences shaping judicial preferences explains the emergence of the judiciary as an assertive power center. As the judiciary gradually embraced less deferential institutional preferences, a shift in judicial preferences took place and the judiciary sought to play a more expansive and authoritative political role. Using this audience-based approach, Kureshi roots the judiciary in its political, social and institutional context, and develops a generalizable framework that can explain variation and change in judicial-military relations around the world. Yasser Kureshi is a Department Lecturer in South Asian Studies at the Oxford School of Global and Area Studies, University of Oxford. Working at the intersection of political science and public law, his research looks at the politics of unelected state institutions outside democratic contexts. In particular, he studies the military and the judiciary and their impact on constitutional configurations and democratic outcomes in authoritarian and post-authoritarian states. Syed Muhammad Khalid is a MSc student in Modern South Asian Studies at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Seeking Supremacy: The Pursuit of Judicial Power in Pakistan (Cambridge University Press, 2022) discusses the emergence of the judiciary as an assertive and confrontational center of power which has been the most consequential new feature of Pakistan's political system. This book maps out the evolution of the relationship between the judiciary and military in Pakistan, explaining why Pakistan's high courts shifted from loyal deference to the military to open competition, and confrontation, with military and civilian institutions. Yasser Kureshi demonstrates that a shift in the audiences shaping judicial preferences explains the emergence of the judiciary as an assertive power center. As the judiciary gradually embraced less deferential institutional preferences, a shift in judicial preferences took place and the judiciary sought to play a more expansive and authoritative political role. Using this audience-based approach, Kureshi roots the judiciary in its political, social and institutional context, and develops a generalizable framework that can explain variation and change in judicial-military relations around the world. Yasser Kureshi is a Department Lecturer in South Asian Studies at the Oxford School of Global and Area Studies, University of Oxford. Working at the intersection of political science and public law, his research looks at the politics of unelected state institutions outside democratic contexts. In particular, he studies the military and the judiciary and their impact on constitutional configurations and democratic outcomes in authoritarian and post-authoritarian states. Syed Muhammad Khalid is a MSc student in Modern South Asian Studies at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Seeking Supremacy: The Pursuit of Judicial Power in Pakistan (Cambridge University Press, 2022) discusses the emergence of the judiciary as an assertive and confrontational center of power which has been the most consequential new feature of Pakistan's political system. This book maps out the evolution of the relationship between the judiciary and military in Pakistan, explaining why Pakistan's high courts shifted from loyal deference to the military to open competition, and confrontation, with military and civilian institutions. Yasser Kureshi demonstrates that a shift in the audiences shaping judicial preferences explains the emergence of the judiciary as an assertive power center. As the judiciary gradually embraced less deferential institutional preferences, a shift in judicial preferences took place and the judiciary sought to play a more expansive and authoritative political role. Using this audience-based approach, Kureshi roots the judiciary in its political, social and institutional context, and develops a generalizable framework that can explain variation and change in judicial-military relations around the world. Yasser Kureshi is a Department Lecturer in South Asian Studies at the Oxford School of Global and Area Studies, University of Oxford. Working at the intersection of political science and public law, his research looks at the politics of unelected state institutions outside democratic contexts. In particular, he studies the military and the judiciary and their impact on constitutional configurations and democratic outcomes in authoritarian and post-authoritarian states. Syed Muhammad Khalid is a MSc student in Modern South Asian Studies at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/south-asian-studies

Seeking Supremacy: The Pursuit of Judicial Power in Pakistan (Cambridge University Press, 2022) discusses the emergence of the judiciary as an assertive and confrontational center of power which has been the most consequential new feature of Pakistan's political system. This book maps out the evolution of the relationship between the judiciary and military in Pakistan, explaining why Pakistan's high courts shifted from loyal deference to the military to open competition, and confrontation, with military and civilian institutions. Yasser Kureshi demonstrates that a shift in the audiences shaping judicial preferences explains the emergence of the judiciary as an assertive power center. As the judiciary gradually embraced less deferential institutional preferences, a shift in judicial preferences took place and the judiciary sought to play a more expansive and authoritative political role. Using this audience-based approach, Kureshi roots the judiciary in its political, social and institutional context, and develops a generalizable framework that can explain variation and change in judicial-military relations around the world. Yasser Kureshi is a Department Lecturer in South Asian Studies at the Oxford School of Global and Area Studies, University of Oxford. Working at the intersection of political science and public law, his research looks at the politics of unelected state institutions outside democratic contexts. In particular, he studies the military and the judiciary and their impact on constitutional configurations and democratic outcomes in authoritarian and post-authoritarian states. Syed Muhammad Khalid is a MSc student in Modern South Asian Studies at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Seeking Supremacy: The Pursuit of Judicial Power in Pakistan (Cambridge University Press, 2022) discusses the emergence of the judiciary as an assertive and confrontational center of power which has been the most consequential new feature of Pakistan's political system. This book maps out the evolution of the relationship between the judiciary and military in Pakistan, explaining why Pakistan's high courts shifted from loyal deference to the military to open competition, and confrontation, with military and civilian institutions. Yasser Kureshi demonstrates that a shift in the audiences shaping judicial preferences explains the emergence of the judiciary as an assertive power center. As the judiciary gradually embraced less deferential institutional preferences, a shift in judicial preferences took place and the judiciary sought to play a more expansive and authoritative political role. Using this audience-based approach, Kureshi roots the judiciary in its political, social and institutional context, and develops a generalizable framework that can explain variation and change in judicial-military relations around the world. Yasser Kureshi is a Department Lecturer in South Asian Studies at the Oxford School of Global and Area Studies, University of Oxford. Working at the intersection of political science and public law, his research looks at the politics of unelected state institutions outside democratic contexts. In particular, he studies the military and the judiciary and their impact on constitutional configurations and democratic outcomes in authoritarian and post-authoritarian states. Syed Muhammad Khalid is a MSc student in Modern South Asian Studies at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

Roberto Diaz  @dieresis_u reports from Mexico City on the abortion decriminalization in Mexico.   Since 2021, abortion has no longer been a federal crime in Mexico. The criminal law in Mexico varies by state. On 7 September 2021, the Mexican Supreme Court unanimously ruled that penalizing abortion is unconstitutional, setting an important precedent across the whole country. Before 2019, abortion had been severely restricted outside of Mexico City, where it was legalized on-request in 2007. As of August 2023, abortion is available on request to any woman during the first twelve weeks of a pregnancy in Mexico City and the states of Oaxaca, Hidalgo, Veracruz, Coahuila, Colima, Baja California, Sinaloa, Guerrero, Baja California Sur, Quintana Roo, and Aguascalientes. However, even in states where abortion is legal, there continue to be women in pre-trial detention for murder due to the spontaneous miscarriages of pregnancies.    On September 6th of the current year 2023, Mexico's The Supreme Court of Justice decriminalized the abortion on a federal level. The sentence was passed after the unanimous vote of the three ministers inside the First CourtRoom. A significant advance in the fight for the reproductive rights of Mexican women, since the latest sentence of 2021, in which criminalizing the abortion became unconstitutional in Mexico. Because of the Judicial Power internal division, this decriminalizing measure doesn't mean that abortion became legal in the entire Mexican nation, a declaration given by the Subdirector of the civilian association: Group of Information in Chosen Reproduction or (GIRE) in Spanish, the latest verdict doesn't cover 21 of the 32 states of Mexico, as some states haven't modified their own Criminal Code. Nonetheless, the independent jurist, Carla Escoffie confirmed that even though this measure won't protect women in states in which the abortion is considered a crime, the same measure allows the accused to process a legal protection against the state law and be judged in a federal court. The controversial result has generated polarizing opinions in the country, from the official's senator; Olga Sanchez Cordero, who seconded with animosity the Supremes' court decision, to conservative activist, Irma Barrientos, from the civilian association "Derechos del Concebido" (Conceived Rights) who repudiated the verdict of the maximum entity of justice in Mexico. The abortion topic is still generating controversy in a country in which 78% of the population considers themselves as catholic. The decriminalizing process for the abortion is still recent, but started to have more impact in the legislative discussions. 1 5 years ago, Mexico City became the first federal entity, where the abortion became legalized and from there, the discussion became stagnated until 2019, when the state of Oaxaca became the first state in decriminalize the abortion in its constitution, then in 2021, a wave of decriminalization processes started in other states, such as Veracruz, Hidalgo, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Colima, Sinaloa, Guerrero and Quintana Roo. Although some states keep on the fight against the abortion; The state of Mexico is number one on the list of states that have more legal processes against women that have practiced an abortion, in 2021 were reported 149 and in 2021 were 114. The second state is Nuevo Leon with 119 abortion crimes reported in 2021 and 119 in 2022. Before this measure to decriminalize the abortion in the Mexican country, a study from the Guttmacher Institute, estimated that 54% of all unwanted pregnancies ended in abortion, which translated into more than a million procedures yearly. In this estimation legal abortions and clandestine ones, were taken into consideration. In the case of clandestine abortion procedures 36% of all abortions ended with some type of complication, from sterilization to bleeding to death.  As Mexican society becomes more polarized, the topic of abortion took major relevance in the common political speech, from figures that boosters Women Rights fight such as federal deputy Andrea Chavez Treviño, and antagonistic postures such as conservative senator Lilly Tellez and more recently far-right first Mexican presidential candidate, Eduardo Verastegui, better known for been the producer of the film, Sound of Freedom. The abortion topic in Mexico, should be taken more seriously as the country is shifting to a more progressivist society, the population becomes more urban and more educated, that in response helps to booster the support for pro-choice movements, evidence of this shift can be seen in the populous annual protest of the Woman's Day, where the green handkerchief is worn by thousands of women looking to take control of their reproductive rights, and decriminalization of abortion takes a relevant part of the spotlight.  #Mexico #Abortion #Decriminalization Recorded 2023-09-16. Duration:  00:07:17 Our published content is on our podcast host http://democracycast.libsyn.com    Send Listener feedback by sending an email to:    democracycast@earthlink.net    http://www.DemocracyWatchNews.org  https://twitter.com/dwatchnews?lang=en    https://facebook.com/dwatchnews    https://www.instagram.com/democracywatchnews/  https://www.linkedin.com/company/35464830  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRhWxBiRG-01eLS9A_vlVuA    We also augment the news on Twitter globally   DWatchNews Eastern Asia Curates and covers news for West Asia, North Africa & Central Asia #democracy #HumanRights #PressFreedom #environment #OpenGov DWatchNewsPacific Curates and covers news for Polynesia, Melanesia, Micronesia, Australia, & New Zealand Aotearoa #democracy #humanrights #opengov #environment DWatchNews MENA Curates and covers news for West Asia, North Africa & Central Asia on #democracy #HumanRights #PressFreedom #environment #OpenGov DWatchNews Europe Augments/covers news throughout Europe  #Democracy #HumanRights #PressFreedom #PublicPolicy #MediaEthics #environment #transparency   DWatchNews Latin America, Caribbean & Atlantic Curates and covers news for Latin America & South Atlantic. #HumanRights #OpenGov #PressFreedom #NonviolentConflict #Environment in #SouthAmerica #Caribbean #CentralAmerica. DWatchNews North America Curates and covers news for Mexico, Canada, USA, Greenland. #OSIF News/events affecting #democracy #humanrights #journalism #opengov #environment DWatchNews Africa Curates and covers news for Sub Saharan Africa #News #WestAfrica #CentralAfrica #EastAfrica #SouthernAfrica #HumanRights #PressFreedom #Environment       Our production team and theme music    Democracy Watch News is currently produced by volunteers. Please donate,  we are now a 501c3 charitable nonprofit in the USA. Donations are tax deductible.     Please share with your networks.

Protests erupt in Manipur after assault, Jerusalem sees anti-government demonstrations, Netanyahu to undergo pacemaker surgery, Russian missile strikes hit Odesa, Putin and Lukashenko to meet, focus on preparing Ukraine's armed forces, wildfires prompt evacuation in Rhodes, heavy rains cause damage in Canada, New Zealand women's football team evacuated due to fire, Macron visits New Caledonia and Papua New Guinea to counter China's influence.

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states that “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” We're all probably familiar with how the courts work today, but how many of you have considered what this judicial power actually is? Patriots of talk about the deep...

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states that “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” We're all probably familiar with how the courts work today, but how many of you have considered what this judicial power actually is? Patriots of talk about the deep...

Israelis are holding demonstrations across the country in the latest mass protest against moves by the government to overhaul the judicial system. The law would make it more difficult for courts to remove a prime minister deemed unfit for office. We'll hear from a former prime minister who tells us he believes the government is looking increasingly isolated. Also in the programme: The boss of TikTok prepares to testify before Congress in the US about the company's links to the Chinese Communist Party; and is Germany trying to derail an EU ban on petrol and diesel vehicles from 2035? (Photo shows demonstrators attending a "Day of Shutdown" protest in Tel Aviv, Israel on 23 March 2023. Credit: Ronen Zvulun/Reuters)

https://www.solgood.org - View our full collection of audiobooks, short stories, & sounds for sleep at our website

Book Launch with Yasser Kureshi Book Launch - Seeking Supremacy: The Pursuit of Judicial Power in Pakistan In this talk, Kureshi will launch his recently-published book that maps out the evolution of the relationship between the judiciary and military in Pakistan, explaining why Pakistan's high courts shifted from loyal deference to the military to open competition, and confrontation, with military and civilian institutions. In the book Kureshi demonstrates that a shift in the audiences shaping judicial preferences explains the emergence of the judiciary as an assertive power center. As the judiciary gradually embraced less deferential institutional preferences, a shift in judicial preferences took place and the judiciary sought to play a more expansive and authoritative political role. Using this audience-based approach, Kureshi roots the judiciary in its political, social and institutional context, and develops a generalizable framework that can explain variation and change in judicial-military relations around the world.

Topics Discussed: The intent behind the leak of the Supreme Court Majority Opinion draftWhat does this draft opinion mean?Lies from the media and politiciansWhat does this mean for the government funding of abortion?Is this a victory for the pro-life movement? Links Mentioned:Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - PoliticoYouTube Video: Psaki Says Limitations Prevent Us From Seeing Biden's MagicChief Justice Roberts responds to leaked Supreme Court draft opinion - ABC NewsThe Supreme Court marshal leading the leak investigation is a career Army lawyer - NPRElizabeth Warren's TweetBiden defends abortion rights after leak of Supreme Court draft striking down Roe v. Wade - CNBCYouTube Video: VP Kamala Harris delivers remarks at gala hosted by abortion rights group Emily's ListRate & Review Our Podcast Have a topic you want to see discussed on the show? [Submit it here.]To learn more about what Life Dynamics does, visit: https://lifedynamics.com/about-us/Support Our Work Be Sure To Follow Life Dynamics:Our WebsiteFacebookTwitterInstagramYouTube

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason. Section 1 of Article Three vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court, as well as inferior courts established by Congress. Along with the Vesting Clauses of Article One and Article Two, Article Three's Vesting Clause establishes the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Section 1 authorizes the creation of inferior courts, but does not require it; the first inferior federal courts were established shortly after the ratification of the Constitution with the Judiciary Act of 1789. Section 1 also establishes that federal judges do not face term limits, and that an individual judge's salary may not be decreased. Article Three does not set the size of the Supreme Court or establish specific positions on the court, but Article One establishes the position of chief justice. Section 2 of Article Three delineates federal judicial power. The Case or Controversy Clause restricts the judiciary's power to actual cases and controversies, meaning that federal judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Section 2 states that federal judiciary's power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, federal treaties, controversies involving multiple states or foreign powers, and other enumerated areas. Section 2 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction when ambassadors, public officials, or the states are a party in the case, leaving the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in all other areas to which the federal judiciary's jurisdiction extends. Section 2 also gives Congress the power to strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction, and establishes that all federal crimes must be tried before a jury. Section 2 does not expressly grant the federal judiciary the power of judicial review, but the courts have exercised this power since the 1803 case of Marbury v Madison. Section 3 of Article Three defines treason and empowers Congress to punish treason. Section 3 requires that at least two witnesses testify to the treasonous act, or that the individual accused of treason confess in open court. It also limits the ways in which Congress can punish those convicted of treason. Section 1: Federal courts. Section 1 is one of the three vesting clauses of the United States Constitution, which vests the judicial power of the United States in federal courts, requires a supreme court, allows inferior courts, requires good behavior tenure for judges, and prohibits decreasing the salaries of judges. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

In his 11th essay, Brutus begins his examination of the federal judiciary - and he's not happy with it at all. Concerns include indefinite legal terms, the nature of power, and precedent - all enabling the courts to “mould the government into almost any shape they please.” The post Unprecedented Judicial Power: Antifederalist Brutus No. 11 first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Today, the Supreme Court , in a unanamous decision, ruled that Philadelphia may not reject a Catholic organization that refused to work with same-sex couples from screening potential foster parents. We will discuss that ruling with our guests, Stephen M. Engel and Timothy S. Lyle.  We will also be talking about their new book DISRUPTING DIGNITY: Rethinking Power and Progress in LGBTQ Lives (NYU Press, June 2021). In the book, they explore how dignity is deployed by different authorities in different ways—and often brandished to marginalize, restrain, and shame members of LGBTQ+ communities. DISRUPTING DIGNITY explores the concept of Respect versus Respectability, with attention to how the chase for dignity has severed LGBTQ+ communities from the potential of liberated worldmaking.   Stephen is Professor of Politics and an Affiliated Scholar of the American Bar Foundation. He teaches courses in US constitutional law, American Political Development, and LGBTQ+ politics. He is the author of multiple books including Fragmented Citizens: The Changing Landscape of Gay and Lesbian Lives and American Politicians Confront the Courts: Opposition Politics and Changing Responses to Judicial Power.  Timothy (they/them) is an Assistant Professor of English. They specialize in contemporary African American literature and culture, focusing on the intersections of race, gender, sexuality, and disability. They have published work on Tyler Perry in Callaloo and Continuum, on Janet Mock in the College Language Association Journal, Callaloo, and MELUS, and on HIV/AIDS narratives in African American Review and The Journal of West Indian Literature. With co-host Brody Levesque.

Today, the Supreme Court , in a unanamous decision, ruled that Philadelphia may not reject a Catholic organization that refused to work with same-sex couples from screening potential foster parents. We will discuss that ruling with our guests, Stephen M. Engel and Timothy S. Lyle.  We will also be talking about their new book DISRUPTING DIGNITY: Rethinking Power and Progress in LGBTQ Lives (NYU Press, June 2021). In the book, they explore how dignity is deployed by different authorities in different ways—and often brandished to marginalize, restrain, and shame members of LGBTQ+ communities. DISRUPTING DIGNITY explores the concept of Respect versus Respectability, with attention to how the chase for dignity has severed LGBTQ+ communities from the potential of liberated worldmaking.   Stephen is Professor of Politics and an Affiliated Scholar of the American Bar Foundation. He teaches courses in US constitutional law, American Political Development, and LGBTQ+ politics. He is the author of multiple books including Fragmented Citizens: The Changing Landscape of Gay and Lesbian Lives and American Politicians Confront the Courts: Opposition Politics and Changing Responses to Judicial Power.  Timothy (they/them) is an Assistant Professor of English. They specialize in contemporary African American literature and culture, focusing on the intersections of race, gender, sexuality, and disability. They have published work on Tyler Perry in Callaloo and Continuum, on Janet Mock in the College Language Association Journal, Callaloo, and MELUS, and on HIV/AIDS narratives in African American Review and The Journal of West Indian Literature. With co-host Brody Levesque.

Kicking off the week is author of Sinatra and Me, Tony Oppedisano—aka “Tony O”— a former professional musician and singer who went on to become an award-winning producer, served as a member of Frank Sinatra's management team, and also managed comedian Don Rickles. Tony was only twenty-one when he first met and befriended Frank Sinatra. Tony later became the singer's best friend and road manager, a contributor to two of Sinatra's platinum albums, and a producer of the documentary To Be Frank: Sinatra at 100. Tony grew up in Brooklyn, New York, and currently lives in Los Angeles. https://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/Tony-Oppedisano/171537030We're talking true crime with Stuart Sobel, longtime journalist and ghost writer of multiple martial art books. This first time author in the genre of ‘True Crime' was given a rare opportunity for the inside scoop of as yet, a still unsolved gangland killing, that of the notorious mobster “Bugsy” Siegel. That opportunity was offered from a boyhood friend, Robbie Sedway. Sobel was to chronicle Sedway's parents' full story. Bee Sedway, Robbie's mother, married to Mobster “Little” Moe Sedway, revealed the killing of their best friend, Siegel. Sobel interviewed Bee Sedway for almost eight years before she passed away.Also joining the program today is author of DISRUPTING DIGNITY: Rethinking Power and Progress in LGBTQ Lives - STEPHEN M. ENGEL is Professor of Politics at Bates College in Maine and an Affiliated Scholar of the American Bar Foundation. He teaches courses in US constitutional law, American Political Development, and LGBTQ+ politics. He is the author of multiple books including Fragmented Citizens: The Changing Landscape of Gay and Lesbian Lives and American Politicians Confront the Courts: Opposition Politics and Changing Responses to Judicial Power.

In Part 46 of Inside the Robe, Judge Mader continues her story of a love-triangle attempted murder trial, and explains the political implications of her objecting to the Court giving its official sanction to a religious denomination ceremony for judges.

In Part 45 of Inside the Robe, Judge Mader continues the story of a victim who is being jailed at prosecutor's request because the deputy DA fears his disappearance and/or self-harm. She discusses the case of a serial drunk driver who has exhausted all possible treatment avenues and now faces arrest and incarceration. And the Judge explores cautionary tales of significant ethical misconduct by judges.

Katherine Mader spent two decades as a judge in Los Angeles Criminal Court, before retiring early in 2020. Before that she was the LAPD's first Inspector General, prosecuted two murder-for-hire trials and served as a defense attorney who convinced a jury to spare the life of the Hillside Strangler. In August of this year, Judge Mader published Inside the Robe: A Judge's Candid Tale of Criminal Justice in America, which best selling author Michael Connelly called: “a perfect book: engrossing and telling at the same time.” The Judge has granted Crime Story permission to excerpt the entirety of her book over the coming months. You can find previous installments of Inside the Robe here. This is Part 37.

More justices doesn't mean more justice. In this episode of Chapel Phil, Max Hazerjian tours the history of the US Supreme Court to examine when and how it can be expanded. After historical framing, Max argues that many other methods of court reform could be superior political and constitutional alternatives -- listen to find out why! Citations: All music in this episode is the property of Epidemic Sound. Berman, Russell. “Republicans Abandon the Filibuster to Save Neil Gorsuch.” The Atlantic, April 6, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/republicans-nuke-the-filibuster-tosave-neil-gorsuch/522156/. Buchanan, Mary Jo. “The Need for Supreme Court Term Limits.” Center for American Progress (blog), August 3, 2020. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/reports/2020/08/03/488518/need-supreme-courtterm-limits/. Burns, James MacGregor. Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court. New York City, New York: The Penguin Press, 2009. Elving, Ron. “What Happened With Merrick Garland in 2016 and Why It Matters Now.” National Public Radio. June 29, 2018. https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-withmerrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now. Emery Jr., C. Eugene. “In Context: The ‘Biden Rule’ on Supreme Court Nominations in an Election Year.” PolitiFact. March 17, 2016. https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/mar/17/contextbiden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/. Hemel, Daniel. “Court-Packing Is a Dreadful Option. Biden Shouldn’t Rule It out.” Washington Post, October 12, 2020. http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/12/court-packing-bidenthreat-supreme/. Hodge, Maria L. Review of The Feasibility of “Rotating” Supreme Court Justices, by Tim Zubizarreta. JURIST, July 1, 2019. https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2019/07/maria-hodgerotating-justices/. Sprunt, Barbara. “Biden Campaign Continues to Deflect on Court-Packing.” National Public Radio. October 11, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/11/922806310/biden-campaign-continues-todeflect-on-court-packing. Stephenson, Jr., D. Grier, ed. An Essential Safeguard: Essays on the United States Supreme Court and Its Justices. Contributions in Legal Studies 63. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1991. Ballotpedia. “United States Court Reorganization Legislation,” n.d. https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_court_reorganization_legislation#:~:text=The%20Eighth% 20and%20Ninth%20Circuits,new%20states%20to%20the%20Union.&text=This%20Act%20als o%20rearranged%20the,to%20support%20the%20circuit%20court.

Katherine Mader spent two decades as a judge in Los Angeles Criminal Court, before retiring early in 2020. Before that she was the LAPD's first Inspector General, prosecuted two murder-for-hire trials and served as a defense attorney who convinced a jury to spare the life of the Hillside Strangler. In August of this year, Judge Mader published Inside the Robe: A Judge's Candid Tale of Criminal Justice in America, which best selling author Michael Connelly called: “a perfect book: engrossing and telling at the same time.” The Judge has granted Crime Story permission to excerpt the entirety of her book over the coming months. You can find previous installments of Inside the Robe here. This is Part 13.

More great books at LoyalBooks.com

Martin Lynch joins me once again to discuss his work with getting a jury system activated for family court.   E-mail: NWLNews@protonmail.com FB Page: northwestlibertynews Twitter: @nwLibertyNews Website: http://northwestlibertynews.com Website: http://eivradio.com Network: http://redstatetalkradio.com   Support the show: Patreon: https://tinyurl.com/u7spjd4 Go Fund Me: https://tinyurl.com/vmam4bq Direct Support: https://tinyurl.com/uwezw2u Bio Stove: https://myprostove.com Great Health: https://bloodboost.net

Why is it harder to define the Judicial Power than the Legislative or Executive Powers? Professor Gary Lawson of Boston University School of Law discusses the history of judicial power and the concept of judicial review. Learn more at https://fedsoc.org/no86.

The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The second panel was titled "Restoring Judicial Power: Righting the Ship of Judicial Review and Deference Doctrines."One aspect of almost all constitutional systems is judicial deference, which could be loosely defined as the concept that certain matters are best decided by entities other than the judiciary. While nearly all agree that some level of judicial deference is necessary in our current constitutional system, the extent to which the Judiciary should practice deference remains a highly complex and controversial area of constitutional law. During the past several decades, the rise of the administrative state in the federal government has only added fuel to this ongoing legal debate. On one side, many believe that the administrative state is better equipped to deal with particular matters, because members of the administrative state will have more expertise in specific subject matter areas than federal judges. Many of these proponents of deference support Supreme Court cases that carved out the well-known deference doctrines of Chevron and Auer. On the other hand, skeptics of excessive judicial deference criticize much of the Supreme Court’s related jurisprudence. They instead argue that the increasing number of "cases and controversies" decided by regulators, enforcers, and adjudicative bodies within the administrative state, that are neither elected nor directly subject to the political process, has led to a less democratic form of government in America. Proponents of judicial power taking a less deferential approach believe that a strong doctrine of judicial review is a vital way to ensure that we truly have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That said, is there a way to prevent a less-deferential judiciary from becoming overly ambitious?This distinguished panel of experts will be discussing and debating this controversial and engaging issue. The panel will provide helpful information to attorneys practicing many fields of law, in particular, attorneys working in administrative, constitutional, and regulatory law. Featuring:Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PCProf. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor, Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolProf. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of LawDean Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law SchoolHon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of JusticeModerator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The second panel was titled "Restoring Judicial Power: Righting the Ship of Judicial Review and Deference Doctrines."One aspect of almost all constitutional systems is judicial deference, which could be loosely defined as the concept that certain matters are best decided by entities other than the judiciary. While nearly all agree that some level of judicial deference is necessary in our current constitutional system, the extent to which the Judiciary should practice deference remains a highly complex and controversial area of constitutional law. During the past several decades, the rise of the administrative state in the federal government has only added fuel to this ongoing legal debate. On one side, many believe that the administrative state is better equipped to deal with particular matters, because members of the administrative state will have more expertise in specific subject matter areas than federal judges. Many of these proponents of deference support Supreme Court cases that carved out the well-known deference doctrines of Chevron and Auer. On the other hand, skeptics of excessive judicial deference criticize much of the Supreme Court’s related jurisprudence. They instead argue that the increasing number of "cases and controversies" decided by regulators, enforcers, and adjudicative bodies within the administrative state, that are neither elected nor directly subject to the political process, has led to a less democratic form of government in America. Proponents of judicial power taking a less deferential approach believe that a strong doctrine of judicial review is a vital way to ensure that we truly have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That said, is there a way to prevent a less-deferential judiciary from becoming overly ambitious?This distinguished panel of experts will be discussing and debating this controversial and engaging issue. The panel will provide helpful information to attorneys practicing many fields of law, in particular, attorneys working in administrative, constitutional, and regulatory law. Featuring:Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PCProf. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor, Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolProf. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of LawDean Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law SchoolHon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of JusticeModerator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Why is it harder to define the Judicial Power than the Legislative or Executive Powers? Professor Gary Lawson of Boston University School of Law discusses the history of judicial power and the concept of judicial review. Learn more at https://fedsoc.org/no86.

***  Supreme Court Juries!  No, they don't exist.  We have to create the legislation to make that happen.  But someone has to create something to curb the tyrranical power of the Judiciary because no one and no part of government does that.  It started with Marbury v Madison and the usurped power of Judicial Review to "interpret" the Constitution, and order anything the court or judge wants after that -- and everyone goes along with this tyranny.  Therefore, it has to end with Action Radio taking action.  That was the first 30 minutes.  The second 30 is with Kevin Derby, editor of FloridaDaily.com.  In our second hour, Pianki joined me for a discussion of his recent jury experience.  We talked about all the problems of judge instructions and orders to rule on the facts only and leave the law judgement to the judges.  That is so incredibly unconstitutional that we have to restore the original intent of the Founders that JURIES are the guardians of the Constitution, and the entity that controls government, rather than a rubber stamp for the power of the Judiciary to make all the rules, define the cases, do what they want with the laws, and order whatever they want for their own policy and legislative objectives.  Josie joined us later in the second hour, and we also started work on Pianki's microchip the illegal aliens bill. Stay connected by going to the "Action Radio with Greg Penglis" Facebook page:   https://www.facebook.com/radiolegislature/ Please share our show with friends and family at: BlogTalkRadio.com/citizenaction Check out our citizen written bills at:  www.WriteYourLaws.com On iTunes, Stitcher and Tunein - now at: Action Radio Online with Greg Penglis On Twitter at GregPenglis@ActionRadioGP

Ep. 420 | Originally Aired: November 24, 2018 The confirmation of Justice Bret Kavanaugh was a bruising episode for many Americans. Jed Shugerman views that confirmation process against the long history of America’s courts and essential debates over the constitutional limits on executive power. Shugerman is a Professor of Law at Fordham University. He attended Yale Law School and graduated in 2002, and went on to earned his PhD in History. Blending his two areas of study, Shugarman published, The People’s Courts: The Rise of Judicial Elections and Judicial Power in America. The book “traces the history of judicial elections and Americans’ quest for an independent judiciary―one that would ensure fairness for all before the law―from the colonial era to the present.” (Harvard University Press, 2012). His articles often appear in Law Journals such as Yale Law Journal, the Georgia Law Review and the Harvard Law Review.  

SPECIAL TOPIC Night - "Examining Institutional Abuse" with special co-host Dr Jill Jones-Solderman (PhD, MSW, MSHS), a NAASCA family member. ~~ TONIGHT'S TOPIC: "Abuse of Judicial Power, Predator Professionals" ~~ This evening we'll take a look at a number of issues included in the work and experience of our special guest, Sebastian Doggard, President of the New York Chapter of the Families Civil Liberties Union. He's also an internationally renowned journalist and documentary film maker. The FCLU works tirelessly to represent parents whose rights are being compromised by judicial overreach, deprivation of due process and equal access to courts, among many other acts of malfeasance. They work on issues of coercion, compulsion and suspicion of Cash for Kids. We'll ask Sebastian about the process of assessment, intervention, action plans and outcomes. Jill reminds us that her organization, the FCVFC, ".. considers of the utmost importance, that children know that their parents are fighting for them. What may not appear as of significant impact in the moment, becomes of great meaning with twenty / twenty hindsight." ~~ NAASCA knows "institutional abuse" is rampant, worldwide, and dramatically effects childhood experience of our youth, frequently causing trauma that lasts a lifetime. Many issues of child abuse involve dealing with the courts and law enforcement, foster care, child protection services, CASA and CAC organizations, etc. Jill's experience with her Foundation for Child Victims of Family Courts and her US Whistleblower effort uniquely position her to speak to these issues.

Hamilton referred to the federal judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch of the new federal government. But the Court has clearly done more than he envisioned. What is its proper role? How much should judges interpret the exact text and how much should they look to the core principles the text seeks to protect?Welcome: Ethan Womble, President, Georgetown Student ChapterOpening Remarks: Dean Mitchell C. Bailin, Associate Vice President and Dean of Students, Georgetown LawJustice Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme CourtEd Whelan, President, Ethics & Public Policy Center, former Law Clerk to Justice Scalia, and Co-Editor, Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith and Life Well LivedModerator: Judge Kevin C. Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitIntroduction: Darina Merriam, Vice President and Symposium Chair, Georgetown Student Chapter

Hamilton referred to the federal judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch of the new federal government. But the Court has clearly done more than he envisioned. What is its proper role? How much should judges interpret the exact text and how much should they look to the core principles the text seeks to protect?Welcome: Ethan Womble, President, Georgetown Student ChapterOpening Remarks: Dean Mitchell C. Bailin, Associate Vice President and Dean of Students, Georgetown LawJustice Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme CourtEd Whelan, President, Ethics & Public Policy Center, former Law Clerk to Justice Scalia, and Co-Editor, Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith and Life Well LivedModerator: Judge Kevin C. Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitIntroduction: Darina Merriam, Vice President and Symposium Chair, Georgetown Student Chapter

Between the courts setting immigration policy, national security policy, election law, social policy, redistricting, and criminal justice policy, we no longer live in a republic.  The lower courts, not just the Supreme Court, stand above the other branches of government and the 50 states.   But how did this happen?  How can the other branches, which have more robust powers, get rolled by courts created by Congress?   In this episode of the Conservative Conscience, we explore the recent immigration rulings and some other cases to demonstrate how the judicial crisis stems from a political crisis whereby the other branches of government are needlessly giving in to the courts.  In fact, as it relates to the Fourth Circuit opinion on Trump’s executive order, the administration is giving the courts even more than they ask for.   At some point, could we really blame the courts for grabbing power that is handed to them on a silver platter by the other branches of government?   We explore some simple solutions laid out in Stolen Sovereignty, if only there was the political willing to enact them.   Key quotes:     “It is not probable that the Supreme Court would long be indulged in a career of usurpation opposed to the decided opinions & policy of the Legislature. Nor do I think that Congress, even seconded by the Judicial Power, can, without some change in the character of the nation, succeed in durable violations of the rights & authorities of the States.” James Madison to Spencer Roane, 6 May, 1821   “It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 81.   Show Links:   A summary of congressional power over the courts The Fourth Circuit’s opinion is the most radical and dangerous ever Why Trump has a responsibility to ignore the courts What can be done about immigration and the courts   Mnuchin Wants Debt Ceiling Raised Unconditionally Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our century is permanently presenting paradoxical situations. Thanks to Globalization, the economical vicissitudes of Gambia can produce a decided influence in Bolivia. Even though the growth of the communication media is undeniable, people feel increasingly alone. Internet has burst into our lives to stay. Alberto Elisavetsky, director of the non-profit social network ODR Latinoamerica, will speak with us about his experiences in the use of new technologies applied to conflict resolution in Hispanic America, and how this modality can provide quick and low-cost resolution to various sorts of conflicts. Alberto Elisavetsky is the director of ODR LATINOAMERICA. Among his most remarkable achievements, there’s the agreement of professional capacitation in distance mediation with the Justice and Human Rights Ministries of the provinces of Salta and Córdoba, Argentina. Another training agreement was made with the School of Judicial Investigation of the Judicial Power of the State of Guanajuato, Mexico. He is the director of the Observatory of Conflict in the National University of Tres de Febrero, Argentina, dedicated to research and advance of conflict resolution through new technologies. He’s also a professor in the virtual modality of the University. Tracy Culbreath has a passion for conflict resolution that began after pursuing her Bachelors of Science degree from the University of Central Florida in Interpersonal Organizational Communication. After observing the consequences of poor communication on a personal and professional level, she realized she needed additional skills to address the conflicts that often resulted from communication breakdowns. Tracy graduated from the University of Baltimore with a Master’s of Science in Negotiation and Conflict Management.

On this episode, we discuss the Court's decision this week in Wellness International Network v. Sharif, which considered whether Article III permits the exercise of the judicial power of the United States by the bankruptcy courts on the basis of litigant consent, and if so, whether implied consent based on a litigant’s conduct is sufficient to satisfy Article III.

Last year’s cert denials in various same-sex marriage cases led to renewed discussion concerning the counterintuitive (to Christian, at least) notion but conventional wisdom that state courts are not bound to follow lower federal courts’ interpretations of federal law. While we discussed and debated this last fall, Amanda Frost was putting the finishing touches on an article reviewing, challenging, and otherwise completely examining this curious doctrine. Was Michael Dorf’s Hammer Blow, as we named the episode with him, the final blow or might some of Christian’s naive doubts be rehabilitated by Prof. Frost’s exhaustive analysis? Yep, that kind of cliffhanger is how we roll around here. Also, North Dakota and the permissibility of “funny business” in our email address. This show’s links: Amanda Frost’s faculty profile and writing A helpful list of North Dakota landmarks 2 Hidden Ways to Get More from Your Gmail Address The Georgia Law Summer Program in China, where you can be misinformed by Christian in person and in China Amanda Frost, Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent on the Meaning of Federal Law? Our trilogy of prior episodes on this issue: with Anthony Kreis, with Michael Dorf, and with Steve Vladeck The series of blog posts coinciding with those episodes: from Michael Dorf here and here, Steve Vladeck, and Christian Turner Michael Dorf, Even More Thoughts on State Court (Non)Obligation to Follow Federal Appeals Court Precedents (Wherein I Respond to Professor Frost) Amanda Frost, The “Inferior” Federal Courts Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Administrative Order Eric Eckholm, Supreme Court Undercuts Alabama Chief Justice’s Argument to Delay Same-Sex Marriages Lockhart v. Fretwell, in which Justice Thomas concurred and briefly argued that the “Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court's interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court's interpretation” Cooper v. Aaron Martin v. Hunter’ Lessee Amanda Frost, Overvaluing Uniformity Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins; see also our episode all about Erie About the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine James Pfander, One Supreme Court: Supremacy, Inferiority, and the Judicial Power of the United States (see also this very brief book review) Dice v. Akron, Canton and Youngstown Railroad Co. Bush v. Gore (Rehnquist’s concurring opinion arguing that state courts may not interfere, even through state constitutional judgments, with certain legislatively enacted election laws that interact in advantageous ways with federal law) About Chevron deference Abbe Gluck, The States as Laboratories of Statutory Interpretation United States Telecom Association v. FCC Peter Strauss, One Hundred Fifty Cases Per Year: Some Implications of the Supreme Court's Limited Resources for Judicial Review of Agency Action Special Guest: Amanda Frost.

This Federalist Society Faculty Book Podcast features Professor Scott Gerber’s new book, A Distinct Judicial Power: The Origins of an Independent Judiciary, 1606-1787. -- A Distinct Judicial Power analyzes the origins of judicial independence in the United States. The book sets forth both the political theory behind and the historical progression of independent judicial power in the United States during the colonial period. It concludes with an examination of how this mixture of theory and experience coalesced to produce Article III of the U.S. Constitution and a power of judicial review committed to the protection of individual rights. -- Professor Scott Gerber, a professor at Ohio Northern University College of Law, is joined by critical commenter Jim Pfander, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, to discuss the book.