Podcast appearances and mentions of justice holmes

For the latest Anchoring Truths Podcast, JWI Affiliated Scholar Paul DeHart joins for a fascinating in-depth discussion on themes from his latest book, The Social Contract in the Ruins: Natural Law and Government by Consent. DeHart is a distinguished professor of political science at Texas State University. Topics include the limits of the consent of the governed, philosophic errors of modern liberals such as John Rawls, what the American Founders correctly identified about the origins of rights, and the problems with Justice Holmes's legal positivism.

How has 19th-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill influenced America's conception of free speech and the First Amendment? In their new book, “The Supreme Court and the Philosopher: How John Stuart Mill Shaped U.S. Free Speech Protections,” co-authors Eric Kasper and Troy Kozma look at how the Supreme Court has increasingly aligned its interpretation of free expression with Mill's philosophy, as articulated in “On Liberty.” Eric Kasper is professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, where he serves as the director of the Menard Center for Constitutional Studies. Troy Kozma is a professor of philosophy and the academic chair at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire - Barron County. Timestamps 00:00 Intro 02:26 Book's origin 06:51 Who is John Stuart Mill? 10:09 What is the “harm principle”? 16:30 Early Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment 26:25 What was Justice Holmes' dissent in Abrams v. U.S.? 30:28 Why did Justice Brandeis join Holmes' dissents? 36:10 What are loyalty oaths? 40:36 Justice Black's nuanced view of the First Amendment 43:33 What were Mill's views on race and education? 50:42 Private beliefs vs. public service? 52:40 Commercial speech 55:51 Where do we stand today? 1:03:32 Outro Transcript is HERE  

Sarah and David welcome special guest Anthony Sanders, director of the Center for Judicial Engagement at the Institute for Justice, to eviscerate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Plus: David's rant on Presumed Innocent. The Agenda: —Judicial engagement —Social Darwinism and “putting to death the inadequate” —Progressive forgiveness for progressives —First Amendment —Civil rights and judicial abdications —Holmes' defense of sterilization —The difference between judicial progressives, liberals, and libertarians —Spoiler alerts for Presumed Innocent Show Notes: —Kelo v. New London —Institute of Justice's Bound by Oath podcast series —Oliver Wendell Holmes' The Common Law —Moore v. Dempsey —Buck v. Bell —Albert Alschuler's Law Without Values —Giles v. Harris —Bailey v. Alabama —Buchanan v. Warley —Skinner v. Oklahoma —Lochner v. New York —Minersville School District v. Gobitis Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ken Starr, former Solicitor General of the United States, discusses the “egregious” and “unprecedented” leak by an unknown person within the Supreme Court last night. The former law clerk to Chief Justice Warren Burger comments that, not only is this a “profound breach of a confidential duty”, but it shows “the breakdown of institutions, break down of the basic principles that have bound us together, ties of honor”. Saying, this is “going to affect everything, this is going to be as Justice Holmes said, ‘a brooding omnipresence' of the court, a terrible shadow.”See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Ayn Rand once observed that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. “has had the worst philosophical influence on American law." In this New Ideal article from October 6, 2021 (read by Alex Wigger), Tom Bowden examines the influence of Holmes's iconic dissent in the case of Lochner v. New York. "Holmes believed that the Supreme Court presides over an empty Constitution—empty of purpose, of moral content, of enduring meaning—bereft of any embedded principles defining the relationship between man and the state," Bowden observes. "This distinctively Holmesian view, novel in 1905, is today's orthodoxy." Podcast audio:

In this episode, Rebecca Curtin, Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School, discusses her article "The Art (History) of Bleistein," which will be published in the Journal of the Copyright Society. Curtin begins by explaining why Justice Holmes's opinion in Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239 (1903) is such a landmark of copyright doctrine. She observes that Holmes made many unusual and unnecessary observations about the nature of art in the opinion, and argues that his perspective was influenced by his wife, Fanny Holmes, who was a successful artist, working in the medium of embroidery. She describes Fanny Holmes's work, why it has been largely lost to history, and how it might have affected Holmes's opinion. Curtin's scholarship is available on SSRN.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode of New Ideal Live, Onkar Ghate and Ben Bayer discuss the recent oral arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case before the Supreme Court. They analyze what the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade would reveal about the Court's grasp of individual rights and the role of government. Among the topics covered: A brief history of abortion jurisprudence since Roe v. Wade;Ayn Rand's view of Roe and her support for abortion rights;Why abortion rights are not grounded in a right to privacy;Why activities don't need to be concretely enumerated to be protected by fundamental rights;Why we need abstract principles to state fundamental legal principles;Why conservative sympathy for the reversal of Lochner v. New York implies a presumption in favor of government power;Whether the potential to feel pain is the basis of rights;How Roe v. Wade tries to balance competing interests, not to protect rights;Why regarding life as sacred from conception is a baseless religious viewpoint;Why it's arbitrary to regard viability as the limit for justifiable abortion;Whether religion or judicial philosophy motivates Justice Thomas;Whether “individual responsibility” means a woman who chooses to have sex should carry a pregnancy to term;The Supreme Court Justices' unphilosophical approach. Mentioned in the discussion are Leonard Peikoff's essay “Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life,” Ben Bayer's essays “Ayn Rand's Radical Case for Abortion Rights” and “Science without Philosophy Can't Resolve Abortion Debate,” and Tom Bowden's “Justice Holmes and the Empty Constitution.” This podcast was recorded on December 9, 2021. Listen to the discussion below. Listen and subscribe from your mobile device on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify or Stitcher. Watch archived podcasts here. https://youtu.be/BGwS6CJ0UlE Podcast audio:

Americans would be far better off if, instead of further eroding Justice Holmes’ ruling, we upheld his "originalist" Commerce Clause logic, and the limit it imposed on federal power to do what it wants, whether it advances our joint interests or not. After all, as recent events have made blindingly obvious, it is not hard to see that much of what is emanating from the beltway fits in the "or not" category.

Professor Emily C. Burns, Terra Foundation Visiting Professor in American Art, gives the first in the series of The Terra Lectures in American Art: Performing Innocence: US Artists in Paris, 1865-1914. Between the end of the US Civil War and the start of World War I, thousands of American artists studied and worked in Paris. While popular thought holds that they went to imbibe culture and attain artistic maturity, in this four-part lecture series, Professor Emily Burns explores the various ways that Americans in Paris performed instead a cultural immaturity that pandered to European expectations that the United States lacked history, tradition, and culture. The lectures chart knowing constructions of innocence that US artists and writers projected abroad in both art practice and social performance, linking them to ongoing conversations about race, gender, art making, modernity, physio-psychological experience, evolutionary theory, and national identity in France and in the United States. Interwoven myths in art and social practice that framed Puritanism; an ironically long-standing penchant for anything new and original; primitivism designed by white artists' playing with ideas of Blackness and Indigeneity; childhood's incisive perception; and originary sight operated in tandem to turn a liability of lacking culture into an asset. In analyzing the mechanisms of these constructions, the lectures return to the question about the cultural work these ideas enacted when performed abroad. What is obscured and repressed by mythical innocence and feigned forgetting? Performing Innocence: Belated Abstract: Why did terms like innocence, naïveté, and artlessness have currency for US artists working in fin-de-siècle Paris? This lecture examines the language employed by artists and critics that applied these terms to Franco-American art exchange. Professor Burns traces the concepts' emergence and expansion at the end of the US Civil War. Linking the mass exodus to France for study to attempts at cultural rejuvenation, innocence reveals a culture triggered by the realities of war, failed Reconstruction, divisive financial interests, and imperial ambition. The impossibility of innocence gave the myth its urgency and paradox. Engaging with artists from Thomas Eakins and Robert Henri to writers Mark Twain, Henry James and Edith Wharton, as well as journalists, the lecture frames the definitions and stakes of claiming to be innocent and naïve in Paris. In performing these characteristics, these artists and writers built an idea that American culture was belated compared with Europe; the lecture contextualizes this idea of strategic belatedness alongside similar projections in other emergent national contexts. Biographies: Emily C. Burns is an Associate Professor of Art History at Auburn University where she teaches courses on eighteenth- and nineteenth-century American, Native American, and European art history. Her publications include a book, Transnational Frontiers: the American West in France (University of Oklahoma Press, 2018), which analyzes appropriations of the American West in France in performance and visual and material culture in the tripartite international relationships between the United States, France, and the Lakota nation between 1867 and 1914, as well as journal articles, exhibition catalogue essays, and book chapters related to art and circulation, US artists in France, and American impressionism. She is currently completing a co-edited volume with Alice Price on global impressionisms entitled Mapping Impressionist Painting in Transnational Contexts (forthcoming from Routledge). During her tenure as the Terra Foundation for American Art Visiting Professor in the Department of History of Art at the University of Oxford and a Visiting Fellow at Worcester College, Professor Burns will complete her second book, Performing Innocence: Cultural Belatedness and U.S. Art in fin-de-siècle Paris. Peter Gibian teaches American literature and culture in the English Department at McGill University (Montréal, Canada), where he has won four teaching awards. His publications include Mass Culture and Everyday Life (editor and contributor, Routledge 1997) and Oliver Wendell Holmes and the Culture of Conversation (Cambridge UP 2001; awarded the Best Book Prize in 2001-02 by NEASA, the New England branch of the American Studies Association) as well as essays on Whitman, Poe, Melville, Hawthorne, Twain, Dr. Holmes, Justice Holmes, Bayard Taylor, Washington Irving, G. W. Cable, Edward Everett Hale, Wharton and James, John Singer Sargent, Michael Snow and shopping mall spectacle, the experience of flânerie in 19th-century shopping arcades, and cosmopolitanism in nineteenth-century American literature. He is currently at work on two book projects: one exploring the influence of two competing speech models—oratory and conversation—on Whitman's writing and his notions of public life; the other tracing the emergence of a “cosmopolitan tradition” in American culture over the course of the long nineteenth century.

Professor Emily C. Burns, Terra Foundation Visiting Professor in American Art, gives the first in the series of The Terra Lectures in American Art: Performing Innocence: US Artists in Paris, 1865-1914. Between the end of the US Civil War and the start of World War I, thousands of American artists studied and worked in Paris. While popular thought holds that they went to imbibe culture and attain artistic maturity, in this four-part lecture series, Professor Emily Burns explores the various ways that Americans in Paris performed instead a cultural immaturity that pandered to European expectations that the United States lacked history, tradition, and culture. The lectures chart knowing constructions of innocence that US artists and writers projected abroad in both art practice and social performance, linking them to ongoing conversations about race, gender, art making, modernity, physio-psychological experience, evolutionary theory, and national identity in France and in the United States. Interwoven myths in art and social practice that framed Puritanism; an ironically long-standing penchant for anything new and original; primitivism designed by white artists’ playing with ideas of Blackness and Indigeneity; childhood’s incisive perception; and originary sight operated in tandem to turn a liability of lacking culture into an asset. In analyzing the mechanisms of these constructions, the lectures return to the question about the cultural work these ideas enacted when performed abroad. What is obscured and repressed by mythical innocence and feigned forgetting? Performing Innocence: Belated Abstract: Why did terms like innocence, naïveté, and artlessness have currency for US artists working in fin-de-siècle Paris? This lecture examines the language employed by artists and critics that applied these terms to Franco-American art exchange. Professor Burns traces the concepts’ emergence and expansion at the end of the US Civil War. Linking the mass exodus to France for study to attempts at cultural rejuvenation, innocence reveals a culture triggered by the realities of war, failed Reconstruction, divisive financial interests, and imperial ambition. The impossibility of innocence gave the myth its urgency and paradox. Engaging with artists from Thomas Eakins and Robert Henri to writers Mark Twain, Henry James and Edith Wharton, as well as journalists, the lecture frames the definitions and stakes of claiming to be innocent and naïve in Paris. In performing these characteristics, these artists and writers built an idea that American culture was belated compared with Europe; the lecture contextualizes this idea of strategic belatedness alongside similar projections in other emergent national contexts. Biographies: Emily C. Burns is an Associate Professor of Art History at Auburn University where she teaches courses on eighteenth- and nineteenth-century American, Native American, and European art history. Her publications include a book, Transnational Frontiers: the American West in France (University of Oklahoma Press, 2018), which analyzes appropriations of the American West in France in performance and visual and material culture in the tripartite international relationships between the United States, France, and the Lakota nation between 1867 and 1914, as well as journal articles, exhibition catalogue essays, and book chapters related to art and circulation, US artists in France, and American impressionism. She is currently completing a co-edited volume with Alice Price on global impressionisms entitled Mapping Impressionist Painting in Transnational Contexts (forthcoming from Routledge). During her tenure as the Terra Foundation for American Art Visiting Professor in the Department of History of Art at the University of Oxford and a Visiting Fellow at Worcester College, Professor Burns will complete her second book, Performing Innocence: Cultural Belatedness and U.S. Art in fin-de-siècle Paris. Peter Gibian teaches American literature and culture in the English Department at McGill University (Montréal, Canada), where he has won four teaching awards. His publications include Mass Culture and Everyday Life (editor and contributor, Routledge 1997) and Oliver Wendell Holmes and the Culture of Conversation (Cambridge UP 2001; awarded the Best Book Prize in 2001-02 by NEASA, the New England branch of the American Studies Association) as well as essays on Whitman, Poe, Melville, Hawthorne, Twain, Dr. Holmes, Justice Holmes, Bayard Taylor, Washington Irving, G. W. Cable, Edward Everett Hale, Wharton and James, John Singer Sargent, Michael Snow and shopping mall spectacle, the experience of flânerie in 19th-century shopping arcades, and cosmopolitanism in nineteenth-century American literature. He is currently at work on two book projects: one exploring the influence of two competing speech models—oratory and conversation—on Whitman’s writing and his notions of public life; the other tracing the emergence of a “cosmopolitan tradition” in American culture over the course of the long nineteenth century.

Professor Emily C. Burns, Terra Foundation Visiting Professor in American Art, gives the first in the series of The Terra Lectures in American Art: Performing Innocence: US Artists in Paris, 1865-1914. Between the end of the US Civil War and the start of World War I, thousands of American artists studied and worked in Paris. While popular thought holds that they went to imbibe culture and attain artistic maturity, in this four-part lecture series, Professor Emily Burns explores the various ways that Americans in Paris performed instead a cultural immaturity that pandered to European expectations that the United States lacked history, tradition, and culture. The lectures chart knowing constructions of innocence that US artists and writers projected abroad in both art practice and social performance, linking them to ongoing conversations about race, gender, art making, modernity, physio-psychological experience, evolutionary theory, and national identity in France and in the United States. Interwoven myths in art and social practice that framed Puritanism; an ironically long-standing penchant for anything new and original; primitivism designed by white artists’ playing with ideas of Blackness and Indigeneity; childhood’s incisive perception; and originary sight operated in tandem to turn a liability of lacking culture into an asset. In analyzing the mechanisms of these constructions, the lectures return to the question about the cultural work these ideas enacted when performed abroad. What is obscured and repressed by mythical innocence and feigned forgetting? Performing Innocence: Belated Abstract: Why did terms like innocence, naïveté, and artlessness have currency for US artists working in fin-de-siècle Paris? This lecture examines the language employed by artists and critics that applied these terms to Franco-American art exchange. Professor Burns traces the concepts’ emergence and expansion at the end of the US Civil War. Linking the mass exodus to France for study to attempts at cultural rejuvenation, innocence reveals a culture triggered by the realities of war, failed Reconstruction, divisive financial interests, and imperial ambition. The impossibility of innocence gave the myth its urgency and paradox. Engaging with artists from Thomas Eakins and Robert Henri to writers Mark Twain, Henry James and Edith Wharton, as well as journalists, the lecture frames the definitions and stakes of claiming to be innocent and naïve in Paris. In performing these characteristics, these artists and writers built an idea that American culture was belated compared with Europe; the lecture contextualizes this idea of strategic belatedness alongside similar projections in other emergent national contexts. Biographies: Emily C. Burns is an Associate Professor of Art History at Auburn University where she teaches courses on eighteenth- and nineteenth-century American, Native American, and European art history. Her publications include a book, Transnational Frontiers: the American West in France (University of Oklahoma Press, 2018), which analyzes appropriations of the American West in France in performance and visual and material culture in the tripartite international relationships between the United States, France, and the Lakota nation between 1867 and 1914, as well as journal articles, exhibition catalogue essays, and book chapters related to art and circulation, US artists in France, and American impressionism. She is currently completing a co-edited volume with Alice Price on global impressionisms entitled Mapping Impressionist Painting in Transnational Contexts (forthcoming from Routledge). During her tenure as the Terra Foundation for American Art Visiting Professor in the Department of History of Art at the University of Oxford and a Visiting Fellow at Worcester College, Professor Burns will complete her second book, Performing Innocence: Cultural Belatedness and U.S. Art in fin-de-siècle Paris. Peter Gibian teaches American literature and culture in the English Department at McGill University (Montréal, Canada), where he has won four teaching awards. His publications include Mass Culture and Everyday Life (editor and contributor, Routledge 1997) and Oliver Wendell Holmes and the Culture of Conversation (Cambridge UP 2001; awarded the Best Book Prize in 2001-02 by NEASA, the New England branch of the American Studies Association) as well as essays on Whitman, Poe, Melville, Hawthorne, Twain, Dr. Holmes, Justice Holmes, Bayard Taylor, Washington Irving, G. W. Cable, Edward Everett Hale, Wharton and James, John Singer Sargent, Michael Snow and shopping mall spectacle, the experience of flânerie in 19th-century shopping arcades, and cosmopolitanism in nineteenth-century American literature. He is currently at work on two book projects: one exploring the influence of two competing speech models—oratory and conversation—on Whitman’s writing and his notions of public life; the other tracing the emergence of a “cosmopolitan tradition” in American culture over the course of the long nineteenth century.

I was reading this week about Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Homes, who served the court in the early 1900's.  One day he was on a train and when the conductor called for tickets, Justice Holmes couldn't find his ticket and he seemed very upset.  He searched his pockets and fumbled through his wallet without success.  The conductor was sympathetic.  “Don't worry, Mr. Holmes,” he said.  “The Pennsylvania Railroad will be happy to trust you.  When you reach your destination you'll probably find the tickets and you can mail it to us.”  The conductor's kindness did not put Holmes at ease.  He said, “My dear man, my problem is not ‘Where is my ticket?' but rather ‘Where am I going”'Unfortunately we are too often just like that.  The problem is often that we have no clear direction or picture of where we are going.  We lack a defined destination.  We lack vision.We live in uncertain times.  Think about it.  All around us there is political uncertainty, financial uncertainty, relational uncertainty, and often times even, uncertainty in the church. Uncertainty, anxiety, and fear could cause us as believers to withdraw, retreat, and simply hold steady until things become more stable.I believe that we live in the time of the greatest opportunity for followers of Jesus. Here's why.  People are most likely to turn to God when:1.They are under tension 2.They are in transition 3.They are in trouble.And right now there is a ton of each going around.  Everywhere you turn there is tension, transition, and trouble.  Now is the best time to reach people for Christ.  Now is the best time to be diligent about evangelism and discipleship.  For far too long the church has been distracted by other things. It's time for us to rediscover our mission. It hasn't changed with the changing time. 2,000 years ago Jesus gave us the great commission. In Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus said, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."As followers of Christ, we are not left without direction, Jesus gives you and me clear instructions. We have our marching orders. The only question is will we obey?In order to rediscover this mission we have to understand several things:•The church belongs to Jesus.I will sometimes inadvertently say “my church” and you probably do the same thing as you talk about the church you attend. But it's really not my church or your church.  The church belongs to Jesus.•Every member is a ministerGod has given spiritual gifts to each believer to be used in this mission. Imagine the impact if every believer stepped out in faith and used what God has given them to further his kingdom purposes.•The church receives its mission from JesusChrist is the head of the church and we are the body.  A body can only do what the head suggests and what the head directs.  My hands and feet do not operate independently of my mind and if they begin operating independently you know I've got some serious health problems.  It is the function of the body of Christ to operate at the direction of its head.  We must say, “Lord, I want to understand where you want me and want your church to go.” Today's Challenge: The church is not a building, an organization, or a denomination. The church is the people of God. You are the church. Let's recommit ourselves today to the mission of Jesus. Ask him where and how he wants to use you to fulfill the great commision.

Canadian Common Sense  Is Canada a rule of law country or a let's make a deal country. BC Supreme Court Justice Heather Holmes' ruling today is firmly by the rule of law. What will be the fallout moving forward.  A B.C. judge has denied Meng Wanzhou’s case on extradition. What does the Supreme Court of BC decision mean moving forward?  Guest: Sandy Garossino - Writer; former trial lawyer; and columnist National Observer.  What the B.C. court decision means for Canada-China relations. How the decision will have an impact on students studying in Canada, trade relations and looking deeper at business connections with mainland China.  Guest: Matthew Fisher - Global News Columnist; and International affairs correspondent with over 35 years experience working abroad. Subscribe to the Charles Adler Tonight podcast to hear more: https://curiouscast.ca/podcast/135/charles-adler-tonight/​  

Introduction  “Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins.” -Oliver Wendell Holmes, a well respected American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932. My guess is that we would all agree with Justice Holmes. The question comes in how to apply this general rule to the corona world.  That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.  Continuing Before we can get into today’s topic, we need to deal with misplaced assumptions about other people’s and groups’ motives; let’s start with a few: “Democrats are so invested in defeating Trump they are willing to utterly destroy the economy to get the job done.” “Republicans are so invested in having Trump reelected they are willing to risk additional, widespread serious illness and death, especially among minorities and the elderly.” Me. “I believe the evidence that wearing a face mask protects others.” Response. “So, you are a supporter of the lockdown that is destroying businesses and livelihoods as well as the entire economy.” Or worse, “Government dupe!” Don’t we always run the risk of screwing up royally when we assume another’s motives to be borderline evil in order to make them wrong, and us right? Let’s take the three previous example in order: In the main, Democrats are for a more cautious approach to reopening America. And they cite statistics that support that approach. Some of them, including Bill Maher, have been wanting a recession as a way of getting rid of Trump in 2020. But does that by itself mean that the more gradual approach is wrong? Republicans are generally more aggressive in their reopening strategies, and tend to cite lower and less concerning numbers than the Democrats. And many of them are highly motivated to reelect the President. But does that by itself make the more aggressive strategy wrong? In the conversation that I cite, the responders clearly assume that anyone recommending face masks has a whole stack of other wrong beliefs, based on the assumptions they are making about the mask promoter’s motives. And the difference in outlook is stark. A recent poll shows that 71% of Republicans believe the worst of the virus has passed, while 74% of Democrats are saying the worst is yet to come. We’ll soon find out, but my money says that both sides will claim they were right.  Here is a recent Facebook exchange between two people whom I have known and respected for years. Ready? Hang on: Person 1. “There is an important distinction from ‘freedom to’ (do whatever we please even at the expense of others) which leads to anarchy, and ‘freedom from’ which implies consideration for others and the community as a whole and preventing the actions of ‘freedom to’. I believe that freedom means ‘freedom from’, because if I do whatever I please (gun down an innocent person because I feel threatened, or spread a virus) the person I hurt has no freedom. Freedom for one should not come at the expense of freedom for all.” Person 2. “Oh my gosh (Person 1)...gun down an innocent person because I feel threatened, or spread a virus.’ Seriously? That is how you see our point? That is so harsh and wrong to make that comparison. Hey, I could do that too...I could say all you lockdowners want people to die from lack of cancer treatment, increased poverty, effects of depression e.g., suicide. But I won't do that. I don't think that way. I don't think you think that way. Please stop thinking openers don't care about life. All we want is freedom ‘from’ nullifying the Constitution and marching headlong into socialism which historically kills MILLIONS in the long term. We must think long term here.” Followed by, “You are being conditioned to think that people who stand up for their freedoms are selfish, extreme, irresponsible, hateful, irrational and lawless.” This is an example of the type of national conversation that is being repeated over and ove...

Rabbi Barr reflects on an observation made by Justice Holmes.

In this episode, Shubha Ghosh, Crandall Melvin Professor of Law at Syracuse University College of Law, discusses his work on the legal history of intellectual property. He begins by describing the book he is currently editing on intellectual property law for Edward Elgar Publishing, including its beginnings in the Forgotten IP symposium published by the Syracuse Law Review. He also discusses his contribution to the book, "'If Music Did Not Pay': The State Court Roots of Justice Holmes’ Intellectual Property Jurisprudence," which reflects on how Justice Holmes's experiences as a state supreme court justice affected his perspective on intellectual property law and informed the opinions he wrote as a Supreme Court justice. Ghosh is on Twitter at @ShubhaGhosh.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In 1981, Caedmon released this LP of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's opinions, as read by E.G. Marshall, with commentary by Louis Nizer. The script was edited by William R. Van Gemert. The album was directed by Linda Morgenstern and produced by Daniel A. Wolfert.The album ends with an audio recording of Justice Holmes, made on the occasion of his 90th birthday, for a special radio program.Here is the tracklist:A1Commonwealth V. Perry (1889) 139 Mass. 198 (public Nuisance, Piggery)3:15A2Vegelahn V. Guntner (1896) 167 Mass. 92 (right Of Peaceful Picketing)9:56A3Lochner V. New York (1905) 198 U.S. 45 ( Social Legislation In Ny Re Hours Of Work For Bakery Workers )5:49A4Hammer V. Dagenhart (1918) 247 U.S. 251 (Child Labor Case)7:42B1Abrams V. U.S. (1919) 250 U.S. 616 (freedom Of Speech)5:32B2Missouri V. Holland (1920) 252 U.S. 416 ( Regulation Of Wildlife)8:42B3Olmstead V. U.S. (1928) 177 U.S. 438 ((Wire-tapping)4:15B4U.S. V. Schwimmer (199) 279 U.S. 644 ( Denial Of Citizenship)5:31B5Justice Holmes delivers his 90th birthday speech ( in response to high praise given by many prominent figures during special radio program)1:23 See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this episode, Cynthia and Yvette bash border patrol for the harm they cause to life, open up about their sex education, and shame Justice Holmes for his approval of sterilization in Buck v. Bell. They uplift the work of No More Deaths, reject the santa/puta dichotomy, and shed light on the sterilization history of the U.S. Visit cerebronas.com for more information and links on what we discussed. Follow us on IG and Twitter at @cerebronas Thanks to @romobeats for the intro tune! Transition song: Ryan Little – Lucy’s Song

“Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” The famous quote by US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. is inscribed above the entrance to the headquarters of the Internal Revenue Service. Most people don’t have a clue what he meant, or in what context the statement was made. They simply parrot it around to justify the state’s racketeering behavior. The logic is as twisted as saying “war is the price we pay for peace” or “debt is the price we pay for recovery.” They’re all logical fallacies, and assertions backed by zero objective evidence. There’s not much that’s civilized about confiscating people’s assets at gunpoint and spending it on bombs, drones, and wars. In fact, taxes in the United States are not even a civil matter-- they're an entirely criminal matter. As nearly every tax communication duly informs us, you can be thrown in jail for failing to file a form. This is not how a ‘civilized society’ conducts itself. At the time when Justice Holmes wrote that statement, the average tax rate in the Land of the Free was 3.5%. Today they keep raising taxes, and they keep printing money, because they’ve built an unsustainable system that depends on debt, overconsumption, and war in order to maintain itself. Everyone knows it can’t last. And to change the system, they put their confidence in the electoral system. As President Obama himself has said on numerous occasions, “Don’t boo. Vote.” The truth is that voting is a complete waste of time. The “change” is always hollow; the new guy almost invariably comes an incarnation of the last guy. US government debt now stands at nearly $18 trillion, and they’re borrowing money just to pay interest on the money they’ve already borrowed. They blow through almost 100% of their tax revenue just by paying interest and mandatory entitlements like Medicare. They could literally eliminate almost the entirety of government and still not be able to balance the budget. Of course, no politician is ever going to admit that or act accordingly. So does it really matter who is piloting the Hindenburg? The far more powerful way to vote is with your actions. This, and the whole context behind justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ statement (it’s rather revealing, really), is what we cover in today’s podcast.