Podcasts about Judiciary

In this special episode, Jeff sits down with Dr. Joshua Dunn to discuss the overturning of Roe v. Wade and blockbuster decisions about religious liberty, free speech, and the 2nd Amendment. You can download a free PDF copy of Josh’s Core Documents Collection on the Judiciary. Host: Jeff Sikkenga Executive Producer: Greg McBrayer Producer: Jeremy […]

On Monday's show: What last week's Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade signals about politics and the judiciary beyond abortion, here in Texas, and across the nation. Also this hour: We talk about the resources available for young people dealing with mental illness in Greater Houston. The conversation is in conjunction with the new two-part PBS film from Ken Burns, Hiding in Plain Sight: Youth Mental Illness, which airs tonight and Tuesday night at 8 on Houston Public Media TV 8. And Jeff Balke updates us on Houston sports.

Rania Khalek and Kevin Gosztola discuss the steady overturning of rights by courts in the United States judiciary system, including the Supreme Court. They spend time talking about a decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a law requiring contractors in Arkansas to pledge their loyalty to Israel if they want to be given a contract. BECOME A SUBSCRIBER at Patreon.com/UnauthorizedDisclosure for access to the full episode.

Global Policy Watch: Woe Vs RaidInsights on policy issues making news around the World - RSJOn Friday, Justice Samuel Alito along with the conservative bloc of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) overturned the landmark Roe v Wade judgment that had granted women a federal right to terminate a pregnancy about half a century ago. The conservative raid into the SCOTUS that started with the efforts of Bush Jr and concluded with Trump appointing three judges during his term has delivered to the great woe of the progressives. The learned judges searched for the word abortion in the Constitution. And to their surprise, they figured it just wasn't there. To quote:We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”  The right to abortion does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.” Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.Strong stuff. But with a minor problem. I’m not sure SCOTUS has always stayed away from subjects that don’t have a reference to them in the Constitution like the learned judges have claimed. I mean I have gone through the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence document a few times. I could have also told them they won’t find a reference to abortion there. But I didn’t find the word woman in them either. No idea how that section of the human species got all sorts of rights in the US then. Also, missing from the Constitution are references to wild house parties involving strippers, or to tomatoes, home video recording, or swats to your bottom with a paddle to name just a few of my favourite things. But these are all things on whom the Court has delivered verdicts. Read them if your life is as boring as mine: Wild house parties involving strippers. Is the tomato a fruit or vegetable? The Betamax case of using a home recording device. And the case of the Principal who delivered 20 swats with a paddle to his pupil James. The SCOTUS has opined on them all. So, you see the judges aren’t exactly being consistent with precedence here. And they are setting new dubious benchmarks. There have been numerous instances of the Court striking down past judgments to grant more rights. Not to take them away. This is a repudiation of a lot of truths that progressives take for granted. That the arc of history in the long term bends towards moral justice. Or, that gains on individual liberty that survive more than a generation become irreversible. Apparently not. So, we have the US now joining El Salvador, Poland and Nicaragua in the list of countries that have rolled back abortion rights in the last three decades. About 26 states will make abortion illegal or restrict it on the back of this judgment with immediate effect. It is all quite remarkable. Some days you try and make sense of the pitched battles on the US cultural landscape: on how to use pronouns - he, she, they, it, them, their; or the definition of woman; or cancelling J.K. Rowling because she is a TERF. The terms of such debates are so rarefied that you need a primer first to understand the language being used before you can come to the substantive issues. And while they busy themselves in an ever-splintering contest of being ‘purer’ than the other, the rug gets pulled from under their feet with a judgment that rolls back years of hard-fought wins on women’s autonomy on their bodies, individual liberty and female reproductive health and safety. Now more than half the states are readying themselves to implement it tomorrow. It reinforces my view that any ideology or “-ism” isn’t threatened by its rival but by the absolute section of its own adherents. The desire to finish off the ‘near enemy” is stronger than fighting the real one. Some day the ‘trads’ and ‘raitas’ of Indian wrong wing will also get there. It is a point I have made a few times in explaining Schmitt’s notion of an enemy being essential for a political ideology to flourish.It is not that progressive are alone in this kind of hypocrisy. The same conservatives who value the life of a foetus or of those who are ‘unborn’ don’t see any problem in defending the ‘gun culture’ that takes away more than fifty thousand lives every year. For some convoluted reasons, those lives are an acceptable cost to pay for the right to possess firearms. It is sad yet funny to an outsider looking in.  This won’t stop here. The conservative majority in the SCOTUS took decades, and a lot of good fortune, to come to fruition. They will make the most of it. Justice Clarence Thomas gave a sense of what is to come in his concurring note to this ruling:“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”Quick reminder. Griswold v Connecticut is about a married couple’s right to use contraception without state interference. Lawrence v Texas restricts the states from criminalising sodomy, and Obergefell v Hodges established the right for same-sex couples to marry in 2015. Justice Thomas might be alone now in raking these up. But something tells me that the genie is out now.For all its pretensions, ideology reduces itself to three functional truths. Find something to hate viscerally, over-extend the shadow of your ideology to all realms of a citizen’s life and protect yourself by sanctifying a core principle within the ideology that cannot be made profane. You will enjoy the fruits of power while future generations will foot the bill. We are now on an overdrive of ideology on both sides of the partisan divide.  Stepping back there are three points I want to make here about what this reversal could mean from the seemingly ineluctable path the American society was marching on since the civil rights movement of the 60s. First, the tyranny of the well-organised minority in a democracy is real. American society isn’t as divided on the issue of abortion as it was decades back. Roe v Wade didn’t ‘deepen division and enflamed debate’ as Justice Alito puts it. I went through Pew and Gallup surveys over the years on people’s attitudes towards abortion. It is safe to say anywhere between 60 - 80 per cent of Americans are against the idea of making abortion illegal. Most of the remaining too don’t hold extreme positions on this topic. Maybe there’s a 15 per cent minority of evangelicals and Catholics concentrated in certain states that hold views that have been upheld by the SC. Yet they have prevailed because single-issue voters like them matter in the Republican primaries and in winning the swing states. This is what explains Trump’s base among these groups despite his standing for everything they abhor on moral grounds. And once you establish this ‘tyranny of minority’, you can override the silent majority. Because the benefits are concentrated with them while the costs are diffused among the majority. It is not as if the founding framers of the US Constitution were unaware of this risk. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Papers #22 (1788) had cautioned:“To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser.If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.” This is the reality. The only way to deal with this is for the opponents to mobilise themselves into a single issue minority that counters this or to wait for this to splinter on its own. Neither seems possible at this time in the US. But the broader message on how a minority cause can overturn a majority consensus will not be lost on many who champion fringe causes. And this is also the reason one shouldn’t casually dismiss any voice even in India as fringe as we tend to do. Fringe swings votes and influences the social and cultural agenda of political parties. It is wise to remember that when considering the statements of Yati Narsinghanand or Nupur Sharma. Second, the concurrence note by Justice Thomas that refers to other hot-button conservative cultural causes will play out in a certain way. It is important to understand this. As he wrote:“we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents …. After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”What Justice Thomas has done is in public policy called ‘shifting the Overton window’. What was earlier not in the realm of discussion or consideration now comes into play. The terms of reference for the cultural debate to be played out in courts have been widened with those lines. This will have an impact on the decisions made in numerous lower courts. Lives will be affected. Lastly, I come back to a point I have made before about the sanctity of Courts directing social norms in a top-down fashion as it was first done in Roe v Wade and the manner of overturning it on Friday. A bit of context will help here.The conservative preference is for any social change to be gradual. Societal change is shaped through the many eddies of debates and protests that resist the flow of the mainstream. As they gain wider acceptance, they begin changing the course of flow of social norms. This could be painstakingly slow, but it makes change acceptable and sustainable. For the conservatives, the role of the judges is to apply laws, not to create them. Going beyond this brief becomes judicial activism. So, the original conservative view was that all issues of public or social policy should be discussed and debated by the legislative and executive branches of the state that represents the society. Courts resolve disputes following the written-down law while sending back any ambiguities to the legislative arm for approval.The liberal position, as it has evolved over time, is marked with suspicion of the society reforming itself. The classical liberal approach to this problem was to accelerate the process of change in society. This was to be achieved through a combined political, social and cultural assault on the bastions of conservatism in the society. This led to the portrait of a liberal as a perpetual activist in a constant state of mobilisation to upend existing norms. The liberal belief that society must change from within was no different from the conservative stance. The difference was between the need to induce change through proactive measures and the speed of change. This need for speed eventually led the liberals to the courts.Based on the evidence it can be argued the conservatives have lost the argument. The courts are at the front and centre of social policy-making today. The many historic judgments that cleave the US society are evidence of it. The legislative arms of the state representing the society aren’t drafting these laws.But here’s the irony. The conservatives have co-opted the liberal model. With a few strokes of good fortune, the single-minded agenda of turning the US SC bench into a conservative majority has been fruitful. The peril of pushing social change into the cabins of a powerful, centralised and autonomous institution is clear to the liberals now when the shoe is on the other foot. A blunt instrument doesn’t look blunt till it is in the hands of your adversary. The path of wresting back control to society will be long and arduous. Roe v Wade verdict in 1973 was ahead of its time. It was imposed on a society where the majority weren’t onboard. It bred resentment and a counter-movement. Justice Alito’s verdict on Friday takes us back in time. It too is imposed on a society where the majority isn’t with it. The Court is either ahead or behind the times in which they live.And it is on this subject, I come to the only line that I agreed with in Justice Alito’s 213-paged judgment:It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”That’s the way it should always be. Back in 1973. In 2022. And in future.Addendum— Pranay KotasthaneI don’t follow American politics. I’m also cognizant of my ignorance of the context of the abortion debate. And so I’ll stick to three broader points of comparison between the Indian and American political systems. First, this case brings the Constitutional Immutability Dilemma into focus. The underlying reasoning of the judgment is that the American constitution makes no specific reference to a right to obtain an abortion. The cases Roe and Casey tried to link it with other rights, which the current Court did not find acceptable. As an Indian observer, one would think that the constitution should’ve been amended to insert this right expressly, but that’s where the Constitutional Immutability Dilemma kicks in — how amendable should a constitution be after all?To resolve this dilemma, India and the US pick opposite ends. Amending the American constitution requires fulfilling extraordinary conditions, and hence just 27 amendments have been made in its nearly 250-year-old history. On the other hand, amending the Indian constitution is far easier. The latter’s mutability often attracts criticism on these lines—“a document that flexible is a periodical, not a constitution”. However, I’ve always been sceptical of that view. Constitutions are neither sacred books nor indisputable words of a supernatural force. Allowing subsequent generations to alter the constitution through their elected representatives is perhaps a better equilibrium than relying on future judges’ interpretations of an inflexible constitution. Ambedkar, in fact, cited Jefferson in defence of this choice:“We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”As this case illustrates, having rigid conditions for amendments open the door for partisan court benches to interpret the constitution as per their ideological worldviews. At the very least, I submit that a periodical is not worse than an immutable book. The working of a constitution is dependent on many factors outside the nature of the constitution itself. These lines from Ambedkar’s Constituent Assembly speech reverberate today:“..however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics. Who can say how the people of India and their purposes or will they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them?… It is, therefore, futile to pass any judgment upon the Constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties are likely to pay.Second, every polity has its unique set of ‘sacred cows’—issues involving such deference and passion that logical arguments stand no chance. For reasons of historical path dependence, these issues over time become wicked, insurmountable problems. Guns and pro-life are two such sacred cow issues of the American polity. To an external observer, the solutions might seem absurdly simple. But to someone in the midst of it all, the issue seems intractable. India too has many such sacred cow issues, one of which is the sacred cow itself. Third, the judiciary often ends up confusing itself for the politician. These lines from the judgment are instructive: “And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.” Why should it be a court’s problem if its judgment has led to more division? Is it a Panchayat that needs to come to a mandavali (negotiated settlement) or should it only be concerned with the Constitutional provisions? These questions keep making a frequent appearance in India. Looks like they aren’t settled yet in the US as well. Course Advertisement: Admissions for the Sept 2022 cohort of Takshashila’s Graduate Certificate in Public Policy programme are now open! Apply by 23rd July for a 10% early bird scholarship. Visit this link to apply.India Policy Watch: Pension TensionInsights on burning policy issues in India— Pranay KotasthaneThe protests against the Agnipath scheme seem to have peaked. This gives us an opportunity to step back and look at the issue dispassionately. We have already looked at the Agnipath scheme in some detail last week. This time around, I’ll focus on the underlying motivation behind this scheme: India’s defence pension bill. In the Hindustan Times, I present a short history of India’s pension bill. "Before 1965, soldiers below officer ranks were recruited through a mechanism resembling Agnipath in the sense that they served seven years of compulsory service and didn’t receive a pension on retirement. This service period was first raised in 1965 to 10 years for bulking the armed forces after the 1962 defeat. Since a pension required a minimum service of 15 years, most soldiers still didn’t qualify.In 1976, this ten-year service term increased to 17 years, meaning every soldier in normal circumstances qualified for a pension on retirement. With the welcome development of a rising life expectancy, there was also a steady increase in the number of pensioners. The combined effect of these factors was a rapid rise in the pension bill. From Rs 228 crores in FY81, the pension expenditure galloped to Rs 5923 crores by FY99.The Kargil Review Committee (1999) set off the alarm bells over the pension issue, mooting the idea of reducing the service term to 7-10 years. As an alternative, the committee also proposed an inverse lateral induction mechanism, whereby a paramilitary force recruit would be deputed to the armed forces for seven years and repatriated back to the parent organisation after that. Through this mechanism, the experienced soldiers could be retained in the national security system longer while reducing the pension bill. None of these alternatives received the political nod. Meanwhile, in 2004, the union government was able to find a long-term solution for pensioners from the civil services cadre. While continuing to pay pensions of all current employees, the government moved its incoming employees recruited after 1 Jan 2004 to the National Pension System (NPS). NPS is a “defined contribution” scheme, where the pension is paid out of a corpus the employee and the government co-create over the employment period. Over time, this move will likely make the pension bill sustainable, as the liability is not being passed on exclusively to future taxpayers. However, armed forces personnel were kept out of this reform, mainly because non-officer rank soldiers retiring after a short 15-year service would not be able to build a robust corpus, unlike their civilian counterparts who were in service for twice that period. The lost opportunity in 2004 proved to be costly. By 2014, the public discourse had shifted in the opposite direction. Rather than customise the NPS to soldiers’ requirements—which would have been an ideal long-term solution—the NDA government implemented the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme. By agreeing to a “defined benefit” scheme that resets periodically based on current employee compensation, the union government unthinkingly committed itself to a perpetually fast-growing liability. While the government was happy to kick the can down the road, the COVID-19 pandemic was a wake-up call. On the one hand, government finances were thrown off balance. On the other, the border stand-off with China drove home the point that defence reforms are not just essential but also urgent. The creation of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) position was the first step. General Bipin Rawat repeatedly drew attention to the unsustainable defence pensions. During his tenure, a few alternatives were discussed. Each available option came with its own set of implementation challenges. Out of this imperfect set, the government chose to reduce the default service term to four years, labelling it as the Agnipath scheme.In the Times of India, I try to estimate the defence pension savings arising from Agnipath:Over the long term, it has the potential to reduce the pension burden substantially. At the same time, the scheme will not directly impact the allocations for modernisation in the short term. Here’s why.Agniveers recruited today are replacing soldiers who would have retired approximately 15 years from now. The purported pension savings would start accruing only after a decade-and-half. As for the size of savings, we created a basic model from publicly available data. Our thumb rule suggests that the net present value of all future pension outflows per soldier is Rs 1 crore. The actual savings might be higher. Reports on the initial proposal by the Indian Army for a three-year Tour of Duty put the prospective lifetime savings per soldier at nearly ten times our estimate.Arriving at an accurate figure is difficult as the government does not release the split-up of total pension expenditures between officers, soldiers, and defence civilians. To get around this data hole, we assumed that the average pension of a retiring officer is 3.5 times the average pension of a retiring soldier. To calculate the total pension outflow per soldier, we assumed that a soldier receives a pension for 29 years on average, i.e. the difference between average life expectancy (69) and the retiring age of a soldier (40). Further, since pension outflows happen over several years in the future, we use the Net Present Value (NPV) method to determine the current value of all future payments. For simplicity, we assume that the pension is indexed to the discount rate. Using even this extremely conservative model suggests significant long-term gains. Allowing 75% of the Agniveers recruited this year to let go after four years alone has a net present value of approximately Rs 34500 crores.As highlighted earlier, these savings will accrue only after 15 years. But just as today’s deficits are tomorrow’s taxes, today’s reforms become tomorrow’s savings. Through Agnipath, the government can manage pension expenditures over the long term.Finally, this entire defence pension debate has three important lessons in public policy.First, secrecy is the enemy of public policy. Kelkar & Shah, in their book In Service of the Republic, identify secrecy levels as one of the barriers to building state capacity. They write that it is harder to achieve state capacity in areas closed to open feedback and criticism. The defence pension debate is a good illustration of their assessment. As a policy analyst, the sad feature of this entire debate over defence pension is the complete absence of good data. Believe it or not, the government does not release defence pension data beyond the aggregate numbers listed in the budget documents. For example, we still don’t know how this Rs 1 Trillion amount is split up between officers, non-officers, and defence civilians. In the absence of this foundational information, myths abound (We tried to tackle five common myths in ThePrint). Moreover, without good data, the policy pipeline is clean-bowled at the very first step. There are no good models or projections to inform a cost-benefit analysis. Second, is the absolute need for ex-ante fiscal projections of government plans. Seemingly innocuous changes in pension policies can have hard-to-reverse adverse effects. An institution such as an Independent Fiscal Council can help the people and politicians understand the financial consequences of such plans even before they are implemented.Finally, I liken pension reforms to six-day test matches. Reducing employees' pensions while they are in service would be an immoral breach of trust. And hence, all pension reform options can only tackle future employees. Reforms done today can at best contain the rise in spending a couple of decades later when these yet-to-be-hired employees retire. Hence, it is imperative to exercise caution on pension policies at the inception stage. HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Articles] In #171, we discussed two missing meta-institutions in India. This week, a couple of excellent articles throw light on two other missing mechanisms. KP Krishnan in Business Standard writes about the need for an independent evaluation mechanism for statutory regulatory authorities. Rajya Sabha MP Sujeet Kumar, Vedant Monger, and Vikram Vennelakanti propose a method for formalised impact assessments before and after any law/scheme get a go-ahead.[Audiobook] The late Richard Baum’s The Fall and Rise of China lectures are terrific.[Podcast] Over at Puliyabaazi, we discuss Agnipath and related issues.* Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com

Pat O'Shane was the first female Aboriginal teacher in Queensland, the first woman and Aboriginal person to be the head of a Government department and the first Aboriginal Magistrate in Australia

Trump's Pressure Campaign on the DOJ and Pardon's Sought by the GOP's Most Ardent Trumpsters | If Today's Supreme Court Ruling Against Gun Safety Had Been in Effect on Jan. 6, Bullets and Bloodshed Would Have Ensued | With Originalists Imposing Government by Judiciary, Liberals Must Find an Alternative Legal Doctrine backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

“I am not going to stop, I am going to continue,” says minister of tourism Lindiwe Sisulu on her sustained offensive against the country's constitution and judiciary. Sisulu was addressing a virtual Youth Month event organised by the Unisa Law School on Tuesday. In her speech she resuscitated her controversial letter that launched an unprovoked attack on the country's constitutional order. Her letter was an expression of observations made over time about what she holds as problematic aspects of the country's constitution and judiciary. Sisulu said she is still puzzled by the backlash that followed the open letter but remained firm that her views were correct.

Imaan Zainab-Mazari Hazir, an activist and a lawyer, comes on the podcast to discuss the recent harassment her, and her family, faced at the hands of the state. We discuss the missing persons issues and the remedies that the law provides. On this deep dive podcast we discuss State Fascism, the role of the judiciary, what our politicians and bureaucrats should do, the inaction of our mainstream parties and the law. The Pakistan Experience is an independently produced podcast looking to tell stories about Pakistan through conversations. Please consider supporting us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thepakistanexperience And Please stay in touch: https://twitter.com/ThePakistanExp1 https://www.facebook.com/thepakistanexperience https://instagram.com/thepakistanexpeperience The podcast is hosted by comedian and writer, Shehzad Ghias Shaikh. Shehzad is a Fulbright scholar with a Masters in Theatre from Brooklyn College. He is also one of the foremost Stand-up comedians in Pakistan and frequently writes for numerous publications. Instagram.com/shehzadghiasshaikh Facebook.com/Shehzadghias/ Twitter.com/shehzad89 Chapters: Chapters: 0:00 Introduction 2:00 Privilege and Fascism 6:30 Silence on Balochistan 11:00 Judiciary and the Missing Persons issue 14:00 Mainstream Political Parties not doing anything on Enforced Disappearances 23:50 The Legal Process and remedies 36:30 Twitter Toxicity 46:30 Musharraf 50:30 Qazi Fes Isa 52:00 Peoples Questions

Deference doctrines utilized by the federal Judiciary when federal agencies act is the subject of substantial debate and attention. Chevron deference, Skidmore deference, and Kisor/Auer deference are recognizable to many. But less attention is paid to how state legislatures and judiciaries calibrate the balance of separated powers on the same score.In this webinar, Professor Aram Gavoor will lead a balanced discussion and press the governors' General Counsel or Chief Legal Counsel from Florida, Tennessee, and Texas. The program will explore the similarities, differences, and unique features of state judicial deference to administrative agency interpretations of law.Featuring:Ryan D. Newman, General Counsel, Governor of Florida Ron DeSantisJonathan T. Skrmetti, Chief Legal Counsel , Office of Tennessee Governor Bill LeeJames P. Sullivan, General Counsel , Office of Texas Governor Greg AbbottModerator: Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School---To register, click the link above

A popular way to think about strengthening the Indian republic is to ponder on improving its institutions. Sridhar Krishna speaks to Pranay Kotasthane who goes beyond this to talk about the institutions that don't exist. India is missing many meta-institutions which could truly strengthen our republic and Pranay has lots to say on this subject.Suggested Readings:The House that Jack built and other stories from Anticipating the UnintendedOver 4.70 crore cases pending in various courts – Economic TimesIndians have the most trust in societal institutions: Edelman reportFollow Sridhar on Twitter: https://twitter.com/sridhar_kriFollow Pranay on Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranaykotasCheck out Takshashila's courses: https://school.takshashila.org.in/You can listen to this show and other incredible shows on the new and improved IVM Podcast App on Android: https://ivm.today/android or iOS: https://ivm.today/iosYou can check out our website at https://www.ivmpodcasts.com

This Friday, the Malaysian Bar is staging a “Walk for the Independence of the Judiciary” at Padang Merbok, in response to the anti-corruption probe into Justice Mohd Nazlan Ghazali, the judge who presided over the SRC International 1MDB trial and convicted former Prime Minister Dato' Sri Najib Razak. However, given the current climate of political polarisation, how much of an impact will the protest make? We speak to lawyer and activist Dato' Ambiga Sreenivasan on why the legal fraternity is marching.

This Friday, the Malaysian Bar is staging a “Walk for the Independence of the Judiciary” at Padang Merbok, in response to the anti-corruption probe into Justice Mohd Nazlan Ghazali, the judge who presided over the SRC International 1MDB trial and convicted former Prime Minister Dato' Sri Najib Razak. However, given the current climate of political polarisation, how much of an impact will the protest make? We speak to lawyer and activist Dato' Ambiga Sreenivasan on why the legal fraternity is marching.

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today, we're talking with guest Aliza Shatzman from The Legal Accountability Project about some of the things that can go wrong with judicial clerkships, and what clerks can do to protect themselves when that happens. In this episode we discuss: Aliza's story that led to The Legal Accountability Project The power disparity between judges and law clerks: Are judges really untouchable? The current status of the Judiciary Accountability Act What needs to happen to make a difference for judicial employees facing harassment or discrimination? The role law schools play in protecting their students and alumni Where to look for information on individual judges, and how to share your experience so other people know what they're signing up for Resources: The Legal Accountability Project (https://www.legalaccountabilityproject.org/) Statement for the Record of Aliza Shatzman, Former DC Superior Court Law Clerk (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU03/20220317/114503/HHRG-117-JU03-20220317-SD005.pdf) LinkedIn – Aliza Shatzman (https://www.linkedin.com/in/aliza-shatzman-58b55223/) Twitter – Aliza Shatzman (https://twitter.com/AlizaShatzman) Untouchable Judges? What I've Learned about Harassment in the Judiciary, and What We Can Do to Stop It – article by Aliza Shatzman (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4096245) Model Employment Dispute Resolution Plan (https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/guide-vol12-ch02-appx2a_oji-2019-09-17-post-model-edr-plan.pdf) Podcast Episode 44: How to Get a Judicial Clerkship (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-44-how-to-get-a-judicial-clerkship/) Podcast Episode 176: Talking About Judicial Clerkships with Kelsey Russell (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-176-talking-about-judicial-clerkships-with-kelsey-russell/) Podcast Episode 258: Law Clerks for Diversity (w/Guest Danielle Barondess) (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-258-law-clerks-for-diversity-w-guest-danielle-barondess/) The Benefits of Doing Both a Federal District Court and a Circuit Court Clerkship (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/the-benefits-of-doing-both-a-federal-district-court-and-a-circuit-court-clerkship/) Why You Should Consider a Judicial Internship (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/why-you-should-consider-a-judicial-internship/) What Is It Really Like To Be a Judicial Clerk? (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/what-is-it-really-like-to-be-a-judicial-clerk/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-346-judicial-accountability-in-the-workplace-w-aliza-shatzman/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

We discuss a couple legal immunities, one listeners will be familiar with and one that's pretty unknown. The second is being addressed by our special guest, Aliza Shatzman. She is the co-founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a new nonprofit whose mission is to ensure that as many law clerks as possible have positive clerkship experiences while extending support and resources to those who do not. Aliza had a harrowing experience as a law clerk and found that the laws that apply to other government employees often don't extend to those in the judicial branch. She also presents a recent case from the Fourth Circuit about a judicial branch employee who brought a number of claims to try and get around sovereign immunity—and actually succeeded on a few of them. Then Kirby Thomas West of IJ discusses a Fifth Circuit case with terrible facts, but a good outcome on the qualified immunity front. Strickland v. U.S., https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/211346.P.pdf Sims v. Griffin, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-40457-CV0.pdf Aliza on Ipse Dixit, https://shows.acast.com/ipse-dixit/episodes/aliza-shatzman-on-holding-judges-accountable Untouchable Judges? What I've Learned About Harassment in the Judiciary, and What We Can do to Stop It, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4096245 Aliza's Statement for the Record to Congress, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU03/20220317/114503/HHRG-117-JU03-20220317-SD005.pdf Aliza Shatzman and the Legal Accountability Project, https://www.legalaccountabilityproject.org/ Kirby Thomas West, https://ij.org/staff/kirby-thomas-west/ Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/

The NRL has today announced major changes to their Judiciary process, allowing different sets of rules for representative matches. Listen now to the details and what the boys think about it.

People across the country have been closely watching primary elections these past few months. One point of interest: the success of former President Trump's endorsements. Despite seeing six unsuccessful races so far, the former president may use the Republican victories for a future campaign. Co-founder and President of RealClearPolitics Tom Bevan joins the Rundown with a look back on some of the high- profile races and a look into what's to come, how President Biden's "ultra-MAGA" rhetoric hurt the Democrats, and how former President Trump may use his primary success for another presidential election bid in 2024.   Despite all of the efforts to make cars safer, U.S. traffic deaths are at a 16-year high, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reporting an average of 117 deaths a day. Earlier this year, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg announced a National Roadway Safety Strategy to cut down on these automobile accidents, but will it be enough? Pam Shadel Fischer, Senior Director of External Management with the Governors Highway Safety Association, joins the Rundown to explain what factors have contributed to the rise of road fatalities and why she's optimistic about the approach introduced by the Department of Transportation.   Plus, commentary by former CEO of Hardee's, Andrew Pudzer. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

War is an unfortunate part of history and as we honor those who died while serving in United States Armed Forces this Memorial Day we also know that we wouldn't know the truth about battles around the world without the dedication of war correspondents. FOX's Lucas Tomlinson speaks with Greg Palkot, FOX News Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent, about his time and experience covering areas of conflict.  Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: War On Ukraine' https://listen.foxaud.io/rundown?sid=fnr.podeve  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Memorial Day, Americans across the country are honoring fallen heroes and celebrating the freedom made possible by their sacrifice. Fox News Chief Political Anchor Bret Baier joins the Rundown to discuss his two new documentary specials streaming on Fox Nation, 'The Unauthorized History of the Vietnam War' and 'Lost Ships of WWII' that give a deep dive into these moments of U.S. history when military heroes stepped up to the occasion. He explains how these two documentary series explore overlooked and recently discovered details about these historic parts of U.S. history and the importance of reexamining these generation-defining wars on Memorial Day.   At the turn of the 20th century, as war became a common reality for the United States, Americans turned to war correspondents to give them first-hand accounts from active war zones, keeping them informed about what was truly happening on the ground. More and more, the world has relied on these journalists to put themselves in harm's way to provide critical reporting, but the job of a war correspondent is dangerous and, in some cases, deadly. Fox News National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin joins the podcast to break down her and her fellow correspondents' intense experiences reporting in war zones and the physical and mental toll covering war closely has on journalists.   Plus, commentary by author and vice president of communications for Focus on The Family, Paul Batura. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In recent weeks, we have seen multiple mass shootings. Just days ago, the world was shocked by the gruesome massacre at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas, that left 19 children and two teachers dead.  Less than two weeks before that, an 18-year-old gunman opened fire in a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, killing ten people and leaving three others injured, most of them Black. Law enforcement is investigating evidence that suggests it was motivated by racism. Shortly after the Buffalo shooting, FOX News Rundown host Jessica Rosenthal spoke with Scott Shepard, a former member of the Klu Klux Klan who now calls himself a reformed racist.  Shepard discussed how hate groups recruit people, and why he believes hate crimes are still so persistent in the U.S.. He also discusses his own story including, how his abusive upbringing led him down a hateful and violent path and how eventually left his ideology behind.   Due to time limitations, we could not include all of the conversation in our original segment. On the FOX News Rundown Extra, you will hear the entire discussion with Scott Shepard and hear even more about his past, his regrets, and how he finally reformed himself and found ways to help others. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Americans across the country will spend Memorial Day remembering and honoring the service of fallen soldiers. Retired Major General Mark Graham is familiar with this grief as he lost two sons fighting different but very tragic battles: suicide and in the field of combat in Iraq. He joins the FOX News Rundown: From Washington podcast to discuss the legacy his sons leave behind, how his organization Vets4Warriors, works to support those in the military community, and how he hopes the stigma surrounding mental health is eliminated in the future. Georgia votes for a rematch in the swing state's governor's race this week. Republican incumbent Brian Kemp coasted to a primary win on Tuesday, easily defeating former Senator David Perdue who was backed by former President Donald Trump. Kemp's landslide to victory, along with the wins of other GOP incumbents without a Trump endorsement, raises questions about the power of the former President's stamp of approval in the Republican party. Managing Editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center For Politics, Kyle Kondik discusses Tuesday's primary results and what they tell voters about the Midterm Elections in November. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Days after the tragic events where 19 children and 2 teachers were killed in a Texas elementary school shooting, the country remains in mourning for the community of Uvalde.  A day after the massacre, host Lisa Brady spoke to Congressman Tony Gonzales (R-TX) and FOX's Eben Brown to get a sense of how the residents were reacting. Rep. Gonzales, who represents Uvalde, Texas, described the town before Tuesday's horrible events, what actions his constituents wanted to be done and whether or not Congress could find a middle ground on gun safety legislation. Eben Brown spoke to citizens of Uvalde, Texas, some of which lost family members. He described their pain and some of the questions they were asking just hours after the shooting. Due to time limitations, we could not include all of the conversations within our original segment. On the FOX News Rundown Extra, you will hear the entire discussions with both Rep. Gonzales and FOX's Eben Brown and hear even more about what both of them witnessed as they visited the small Texas city.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This past Tuesday, a gunman entered Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, killing nineteen students and two teachers. Following the tragedy, many are demanding answers from Congress to stop something like this from occurring again. FOX News Congressional Correspondent Chad Pergram joins Jared to discuss the reactions on Capitol Hill, bipartisan solutions being discussed, and the timeline for a compromise to be reached as Congress enters into a recess. Last week, President Biden made his first trip to Asia while in office, visiting South Korea and Japan. During the visit, the President answered questions regarding a United States military intervention in the event that China invades Taiwan. Gordon Chang has authored books about China and North Korea including "The Great U.S.-China Tech War." He joins to explain the Biden administration's Indo-Pacific strategy, the likelihood of a forceful invasion from China, and the potential for a shift in U.S. policy towards North Korea.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Russia's constant shelling of the Ukrainian city of Severodonetsk in the Donbas has fears growing it will also be flattened like the port of Mariupol. Ukrainian officials have expressed concern they are becoming out manned as Russian forces try to encircle the last two cities in the Luhansk region they do not control. FOX's Alex Hogan speaks with Dr. Matthew Schmidt, Associate Professor of National Security and Political Science at the University of New Haven, who says the battle for Severodonetsk will be key to how much territory Ukraine may give up in the East Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: War On Ukraine' https://listen.foxaud.io/rundown?sid=fnr.podeve  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many of America's veterans struggle with post-traumatic stress and other mental health issues after returning from war. Command Sgt. Major (ret.) Tom Satterly battled addiction, survivor's guilt and depression when he returned to civilian life. With the help of his wife, Jennifer, he turned his life around and started the All Secure Foundation, which helps other vets and their families heal from the trauma of war. The new Fox News Digital Original feature “All Secure” highlights their incredible story. They join the Rundown to discuss the show, the importance of destigmatizing mental health treatments, and how their foundation helps veterans.   Since 2006, actor and director Gary Sinise has been hosting the National Memorial Day Concert at the Capitol, which airs Sunday on PBS. Most remembered for his role as Lieutenant Dan in the 1994 classic, Forrest Gump, Sinise has been a longtime advocate for American veterans. He joins the Rundown to discuss the special, the legacy of Colin Powell, who will be honored during the event, and how the Gary Sinise Foundation has worked to help veterans over the years.   Don't miss the good news with Tonya J. Powers.   Plus, commentary from FOX Nation host Tom Shillue. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Over two million Ukrainians have returned to their country in areas that were once threatened by Russian forces but are now considered safer. While that could be seen as some good news the refugee crisis continues as countries and individuals open their homes to the displaced. The FOX's Alex Hogan speaks with Chris Meltzer, a senior external relations officer at the United Nations refugee agency, about the current state of the refugee crisis caused by the invasion and he shares his own personal story of hosting a Ukrainian family. Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: War On Ukraine' https://listen.foxaud.io/rundown?sid=fnr.podeve  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Days after the tragic events where 19 children and 2 teachers were killed in a Texas elementary school shooting, the country remains in mourning for the community of Uvalde. New information reveals the shooter announced his intentions via private Facebook message just 30 minutes prior to entering Robb Elementary School wielding an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle he recently purchased for his 18th birthday. Fox's Eben Brown is in Texas and he joins the Rundown to relay how the community and families in Uvalde are grappling with the loss and pain. Later, Congressman Tony Gonzales (R-TX) joins the podcast to mourn the members of his district who perished in this attack and share his hopes that Congress can work together on solutions to gun safety.   The U.S. Air Force is struggling to meet its annual recruiting goal. With a limited number of Americans who are eligible interested in joining the military, the Air Force Recruiting Service filmed a cutting-edge commercial which will air before the highly anticipated Top Gun: Maverick film. Air Force Recruiting Service Major General Ed Thomas joins the Rundown to discuss why he hopes the commercial will inspire moviegoers to join the Air Force, what factors are contributing to the recruitment struggle, and misconceptions people may have as they consider joining the military.   Plus, commentary by Fox News contributor Tomi Lahren.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The war on Ukraine is front and center at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland as world leaders in attendance worry about the global impact of the conflict. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged more sanctions on Russia during an address to the conference. FOX's Alex Hogan speaks with Ambassador Kurt Volker, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and Distinguished Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, in Davos, about what is being discussed there.   Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: War On Ukraine' https://listen.foxaud.io/rundown?sid=fnr.podeve Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A shooter entered an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas and opened fire, killing at least 18 students and one adult. President Biden addressed the nation about this tragedy saying, “As a nation we have to ask when in God's name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby, I am sick and tired of it -- we have to act.” Former FBI investigator and international security consultant Bill Daly joins the Rundown to discuss why we continue to see shootings like these occur, how the U.S. can use valuable resources to make schools hard targets and how this tragedy may spark further discussion about gun control.   President Biden has been aiming to put an end to Title 42, a policy from the Trump administration which prevented migrants from entering the U.S. during the Covid-19 pandemic. Although a federal judge blocked the Biden administration from lifting Title 42, Republicans have warned that this could lead to a surge at the southern border with more than 200,000 entering illegally just last month. FOX News National Correspondent Bill Melugin joins the Rundown to discuss what he's been seeing at the border, why border agents are overwhelmed, and how one migrant is raising national security concerns.   Plus, commentary by Guy Benson, host of 'The Guy Benson Show.'  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Since the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has been trying to control Ukraine's Black Sea coast while putting hundreds of ships delivering goods including food at risk. Also, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy shared the news that nearly ninety fighters were killed in an airstrike on a barracks. FOX's John Saucier speaks with Dr. Rebecca Grant, National security analyst and FOX News Contributor, about the Russian strategy to take Ukraine's coast and why they want it so badly.    Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: War On Ukraine' https://listen.foxaud.io/rundown?sid=fnr.podeve Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The federal judiciary system has three steps: district court, circuit court, and the Supreme Court, and despite what you see on screen, many cases do not end with that first courtroom verdict. This is how the federal judiciary system works, what makes a case worthy of consideration by the Supreme Court, and what happens when case lands in front of SCOTUS. We talked with Erin Corcoran,  Executive Director for the Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies, and Behzad Mirhashem, Assistant Federal Public Defender in New Hampshire and professor of law at UNH Law.  Listen to our breakdown of Tinker v Des Moines in IRL1: Free Speech in Schools. 

Tuesday, May 24th voters will head to the primary polls in Alabama, Arkansas and Georgia. With midterms approaching, so has more in-depth discussions and forecasting into how the balance of power may shift in Congress following the 2022 elections. Democrats are fighting hard to maintain their majorities while the GOP is gearing up to attempt to flip both houses in November. Daron Shaw, member of the Fox News Decision Desk team and professor at the University of Texas at Austin, joins the Rundown to break down what the latest primary polls are suggesting, what tone the campaign ads have been hitting this primary season, the interesting developments within the Georgia and Alabama elections and why we are seeing a favorable election climate for Republicans. COVID cases are still on the rise throughout the country with an estimated 800,000 just last week. But as Americans continue to deal with the latest wave, a new virus has entered the country: Monkeypox. Reports of Monkeypox infections are now in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia. Many are concerned as this is the first-time multiple cases in different countries have been simultaneously reported in people who have not been infected due to travel to Africa. Johns Hopkins University Professor and FOX News Medical Contributor Dr. Marty Makary joins the Rundown to explain what the virus is, how it's spread and why he doesn't believe it will become as big a threat as COVID. Plus, commentary by Jimmy Failla, host of "Fox Across America with Jimmy Failla." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

China and Russia are as close as they have ever been with Beijing specifically telling news agencies to not demean Russia's actions in Ukraine but that may have changed after a Chinese military veteran has criticized the invasion. Meanwhile, President Biden, speaking in Japan, said that the United States would defend Taiwan militarily if China attacked them. FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Dean Cheng, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation Asian Studies Center, about how China views the invasion of Ukraine and what they may want out of it.   Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: War On Ukraine' https://listen.foxaud.io/rundown?sid=fnr.podeve Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A rerun from Judge Week!   When the Constitution says "cruel and unusual punishment" does it mean by the standards of the 18th century, or our own? How much latitude should jurists take when interpreting the law?   Professor David Strauss of the University of Chicago has argued nineteen cases before the United States Supreme Court, formerly served as Special Counsel to the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, and sits on the Board of Directors of the American Constitution Society. He joins Heaton to discuss Living Constitutionalism: the school of jurisprudence favored by progressive judges.