Podcast appearances and mentions of Justice Marshall

This episode showcases an exemplary leader, Thurgood Marshall. The first African-American to serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. A believer in realism, not textualism. A believer in equal protection.  Justice Marshall was a notable supporter of human, individual, and civil rights. In doing this he personified the quest of this podcast: do the right thing.

Today's guest has an incredibly timely book addressing the differences, and some surprising similarities, between these two pillars of the Court, and the still unfolding impact of the transition from Justice Marshall to his replacement on the bench in Justice Thomas. Our very own Professor Daniel Kiel has authored the forthcoming book, “The Transition: Interpreting Justice from Thurgood Marshall to Clarence Thomas.” These two Justices may have been a generation apart in life, but they both spent the majority of their lives confronting the questions of race, the Constitution, and American Citizenship. Professor Kiel makes the case that this particular transition was one of the most momentous shifts in power in the judicial branch of our lifetime. Not only did it shift the ideological balance on the Court; it was inextricably entangled with the persistent American dilemma of race. He explores the lives and writings of the first two African American Justices on the Court, touching on lasting consequences for understandings of American citizenship as well as the central currents of Black political thought over the past century. The consequences of this transition are still unfolding today, both on the Court and in society. Take a listen to today's episode to hear Professor Kiel tell us more about how their unique perspective as Black justices – the lives they have lived as African Americans and the rooting of their judicial philosophies in the relationship of government to African Americans – that makes this succession echo across generations.

In Season 3, Episode 5 of Notorious, we continue to discuss the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment – from Justice Marshall's viewpoint, as well as Justice Ginsburg's viewpoint.  This topic is broken up into two episodes, with Episode 5 focusing mostly on Justice Ginsburg's views and how those views intersect with those of Justice Marshall. Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano, Greg Baker and Catherine Djang discuss the history of the death penalty, as well as the cases of Gregg v. Georgia and Glossip v. Gross, and the impact of their legal legacy on future capital punishment jurisprudence. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg's writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see  www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Related People: Michelle Bufano Greg Baker Catherine Djang Catherine Djang  

In Season 3, Episode 4 of Notorious, we discuss the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment – from  Justice Marshall's viewpoint, as well as Justice Ginsburg's viewpoint.  This topic is broken up into two episodes, with Episode 4 focusing mostly on Justice Marshall's views and historical context. Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano, Greg Baker and Catherine Djang discuss the history of the death penalty, as well as the cases of Gregg v. Georgia and Glossip v. Gross, and the impact of their legal legacy on future capital punishment jurisprudence. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg's writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see  www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Related People: Michelle Bufano Greg Baker Catherine Djang

In Season 3, Episode 3 of Notorious, we discuss campaign finance, from legal viewpoints of Justices Ginsburg and Marshall. Among the issues discussed are what it means to participate in a fair and free election and the intersection between money and its impact on free speech during a political campaign.  Guests will include Patterson Belknap Partner Alejandro H. Cruz and Patterson Belknap Associates Greg Margolis and Bonita L. Robinson. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg's writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Michelle M. Bufano Alejandro H. Cruz Greg Margolis Bonita L. Robinson

Today on Boston Public Radio: We begin the show by talking with listeners about parental burnout. Interim DA Kevin Hayden discusses his new plan on handling arrests at Mass & Cass. He also shares his thoughts on Mayor Michelle Wu's statement on providing support for the children allegedly responsible for multiple attacks around Boston Common. Hayden is the interim District Attorney for Suffolk County, and he's running for election for a full term as DA this fall. Callie Crossley reflects on a post-Roe America, and the story of Jessica Watkins, the first Black woman on the International Space Station (ISS) crew. Crossley hosts GBH's Under the Radar and Basic Black. Sy Montgomery talks about her encounters with birds of prey while learning falconry. Montgomery is a journalist, naturalist and a BPR contributor. Her latest book is "The Hawk's Way: Encounters with Fierce Beauty.” Justice Margaret Marshall discusses the unprecedented leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion that could overrule Roe v. Wade. Justice Marshall is the former Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice. Lisa Graham, Gabrielle Goodman, and the Metropolitan Chorale of Brookline perform live at the Boston Public Library ahead of their upcoming May 15 performance of Duke Ellington's “Sacred Concert.” Graham is the music director of the Metropolitan Chorale, Conductor of Choral Program at Wellesley. Goodman is a soloist and a professor of music at the Berklee College of Music in the Voice Department. Goodman has performed in both classical and jazz idioms with the Syracuse Symphony, the Baltimore Symphony, the Baltimore Opera, and the National Symphony. The Metropolitan Chorale is a 100-voice audition chorus.

In Season 3, Episode 2 of Notorious, we discuss the First Amendment and how it was addressed by Justice Ginsburg and Justice Marshall. Specifically, this episode will cover Justice Ginsburg's and Justice Marshall's jurisprudence concerning the religious clauses of the First Amendment, including the Establish Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Guests will include Patterson Belknap Partner Michelle Bufano; Patterson Belknap Counsel Jacqueline Bonneau; and Patterson Belknap Associates Greg Margolis and Bonita Robinson. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg's writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Michelle Bufano Jacqueline L. Bonneau Greg Margolis Bonita L. Robinson

In Season 3, Episode 1 of Notorious, we discuss Justice Thurgood Marshall's and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's contributions to the Civil Rights Movement, and parallels and differences between their legal and judicial strategies. Guests will include Judge Joseph A. Greenway Jr., who currently sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and previously sat on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; Gregory L. Diskant, Patterson Belknap Of Counsel and former judicial clerk to Justice Marshall; Patterson Belknap Partner Michelle M. Bufano; and Patterson Belknap Associate Mariana Múnera-Keating. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg's writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Michelle Bufano Gregory L. Diskant Mariana Múnera-Keating

Legal Question: Whether school officials may prohibit a vulgar and lewd student speech at an assembly even if the speech does not create a substantial disruption. Action: The Court held the district was “within its permissible authority in imposing sanctions upon Fraser” in response to his speech. Justice Brennan, concurring, at 19:43 Justice Marshall, dissenting, at 26:28 Justice Stevens, dissenting, at 27:36 This opinion's citations have been edited down for ease of listening. For more information, visit our explanation. Watch a brief overview of Bethel v. Fraser. For more on Bethel v. Fraser, visit FIRE's First Amendment Library. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.

In Episode two of The Other Side of the Water, host Raymond Audain revisits Jean v. Nelson and Justice Marshall's dissent with some of the people closest to the litigation. The episode features Ira Kurzban, Irwin Stotzky, Muzaffar Chishti, Richard Revesz, and Steven Forester.

July 25th will mark the 46th anniversary of the SCOTUS ruling on the Milliken v. Bradley case. Today, we revisit our episode from a year ago about this important and under-appreciated case.  Joined by Michelle Adams, Constitutional Law Professor at Cardozo School of Law, who is writing Soul Force: Detroit, The Supreme Court, and the Epic Battle for Racial Justice in America, we discuss the case and its implications for today.Based in Detroit, the Milliken decision functionally halted the promise of Brown v Board of Education at the city limits, allowing all-white suburbs (created through policies like redlining) to maintain all-white schools. The implications for ideas about what is possible regarding desegregation today, and how we fund schools are profound.  LINKS: Parents Involved v Seattle SchoolsMilliken v BradleyKeyes v Denver School District 1Swann v Mecklenburg Brown v Board of EdEdBuild report on the $23 Billon funding gapComplete audio from the opinion, including the entirety of Justice Marshall's dissent.Join our Patreon to support this work, and connect with us and other listeners to discuss these issues even further. We are an all volunteer organization and your support would mean the world to us.Let us know what you think of this episode, suggest future topics, or share your story with us - @integratedschls on twitter, IntegratedSchools on Facebook, or email us hello@integratedschools.org.The Integrated Schools Podcast is produced by Courtney Mykytyn and Andrew Lefkowits. Audio editing and mixing by Andrew Lefkowits. Music by Kevin Casey.

The Democrats and impeachment......Fake news and the media.........Thurgood Marshall 1967......Yvonne Craig (1937-2015)......Peggy Lipton (1946-2019)....and other stories............. Please check our blog or follow me on Twitter.... Check Carlos Guedes' schedule this week in Dallas........  

In this episode of the American Society for Legal History’s podcast Talking Legal History Siobhan talks with Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, about his book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation’s Highest Court(Harvard University Press, 2018). Finkelman is a specialist on the history of slavery and the law. He is also the author of more than 200 scholarly articles and the author or editor of more than fifty books on a broad range of topics including American Jewish history, American legal history, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War―Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story―upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice’s proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life. Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime―a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks. Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America’s founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the American Society for Legal History’s podcast Talking Legal History Siobhan talks with Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, about his book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation’s Highest Court(Harvard University Press, 2018). Finkelman is a specialist on the history of slavery and the law. He is also the author of more than 200 scholarly articles and the author or editor of more than fifty books on a broad range of topics including American Jewish history, American legal history, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War―Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story―upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice’s proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life. Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime―a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks. Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America’s founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the American Society for Legal History’s podcast Talking Legal History Siobhan talks with Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, about his book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation’s Highest Court(Harvard University Press, 2018). Finkelman is a specialist on the history of slavery and the law. He is also the author of more than 200 scholarly articles and the author or editor of more than fifty books on a broad range of topics including American Jewish history, American legal history, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War―Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story―upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice’s proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life. Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime―a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks. Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America’s founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the American Society for Legal History's podcast Talking Legal History Siobhan talks with Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, about his book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation's Highest Court(Harvard University Press, 2018). Finkelman is a specialist on the history of slavery and the law. He is also the author of more than 200 scholarly articles and the author or editor of more than fifty books on a broad range of topics including American Jewish history, American legal history, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War―Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story―upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice's proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life. Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime―a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks. Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America's founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

In this episode of the American Society for Legal History's podcast Talking Legal History Siobhan talks with Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, about his book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation's Highest Court(Harvard University Press, 2018). Finkelman is a specialist on the history of slavery and the law. He is also the author of more than 200 scholarly articles and the author or editor of more than fifty books on a broad range of topics including American Jewish history, American legal history, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War―Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story―upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice's proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life. Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime―a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks. Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America's founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, July 25th, is the 45th anniversary of the SCOTUS ruling on the Milliken v. Bradley case. We’re joined by Michelle Adams, Constitutional Law Professor at Cardozo School of Law, who is writing a book on this important and under-appreciated case. Based in Detroit, this case functionally halted the promise of Brown v Board of Education at the city limits, allowing all-white suburbs (created through policies like redlining) to maintain all-white schools. We talk about the history of the case, and what it means today. LINKS: -Parents Involved v Seattle Schools -Keyes v Denver School District 1 -Swann v Mecklenburg -Brown v Board of Ed -Complete audio from the opinion, including the entirety of Justice Marshall's dissent, If you've found this podcast valuable, please consider chipping in to help make it. We are an all volunteer organization and your support would mean the world to us. Let us know what you think of this episode, suggest future topics, or share your story with us - @integratedschls on twitter, IntegratedSchools on Facebook, or email us hello@integratedschools.org. The Integrated Schools Podcast is produced by Courtney Mykytyn and Andrew Lefkowits. Audio editing and mixing by Andrew Lefkowits. Music by Kevin Casey.

Today's episode takes a deep dive into an 1832 decision, Worcester v. Georgia, to try and answer the question of what happens when the executive and judicial branches come into conflict. Yes, there's a lesson to be drawn to today's Supreme Court-vs.-Donald Trump showdown over the citizenship question on the census. We begin, however, with a pair of updates to previous shows, including "Joey Salads" and his nonsense "complaint" against AOC, and a listener email and update from our friend Seth Barrett Tillman regarding the status of the emoluments clauses litigation in both Maryland and DC. In fact, a late-breaking decision in the DC case led to a Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic! Then, it's time for the main event: breaking down the case that led to the famous aphorism, "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." As is usually the case with these deep dives, there isn't an easy answer as to what the outcome will be when the executive and judiciary stare each other down, but we can always learn from history. In the "C" segment, we check out an update from friend of the show Randall Eliason, who taunts us with an Andrew Was Wrong about the future of Bridgegate (from Episode 232). Learn what issue is in fact going before the Supreme Court and why Prof. Eliason thinks the Bridgegate conspirators are going to get off scot-free. After all that, it's time for #T3BE #135, in which Thomas once again manages to analyze a question absolutely perfectly... only to pick the wrong answer yet again. You won't want to miss the full discussion. Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Registry Matters podcast discussing the Supreme Court, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote from the live show in Philadelphia talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links We last discussed the Emoluments Clauses litigation in Episode 297. and for more, check out our Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic! Here's the full text of the 1832 Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia. We last discussed Bridgegate in Episode 232, and you can click here to read Prof. Eliason's latest blog on the topic. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! Download Link

Today’s quote comes from the first African-American to ever be appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States, Thurgood Marshall – “Where you see wrong or inequality or injustice, speak out because this is your country. This is your democracy. Make it. Protect it. Pass it on." There are flash-points in life where silence is no longer a choice. When you encounter these moments, do as Justice Marshall said and "speak out." Now, let's get out there and #bebettertoday!

Marshall Rothstein served as a Justice on the Supreme Court of Canada from 2006 - 2015. He previously was a Judge on the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal. Garth Barriere is a criminal defence attorney in Vancouver. He was counsel in Khosa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration, a major Supreme Court of Canada immigration decision in which Justice Rothstein wrote a concurring opinion. In this episode Justice Rothstein provides tips for written and oral advocacy. While the focus is on appellate litigation, anyone interesting in strengthening their advocacy skills will benefit from what he has to say. We also discuss the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Khosa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), and its impact on administrative law in Canada. It is a frank conversation.

Harvard Law Professor Carol Steiker, co-author of the highly acclaimed book, Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment (https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/books-courting-death-the-supreme-court-and-capital-punishment), joins DPIC’s Robin Konrad for a provocative discussion of the past and future of America’s death penalty. Professor Steiker, who served as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, takes us inside the walls of the court for insights on the justices’ approaches to capital-punishment jurisprudence and the impact of Justice Marshall’s legacy on the Court today. She explains the relationship between lynching and the rise of the modern death penalty in the United States, discusses the plunge in death-penalty usage since the 1990s, and offers thoughts on the future prospects for capital punishment in America.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,(1831), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Cherokee Nation sought a federal injunction against laws passed by the U.S. state of Georgia depriving them of rights within its boundaries, but the Supreme Court did not hear the case on its merits. It ruled that it had no original jurisdiction in the matter, as the Cherokees were a dependent nation, with a relationship to the United States like that of a "ward to its guardian," as said by Justice Marshall.

Every hundred years or so, the Supreme Court decides a question with truly vast economic implications. In 2012 such a decision was handed down, in a case that had the potential to affect the economy in the near term more than any court case ever had. The substance of the case, and its lasting legal implications, are the subject of Andrew Koppelman’s The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2012). The plaintiffs in the “Obamacare” case, NFIB v. Sebelius, had political and legal goals. Politically, they failed, because Justice Roberts was not willing to undo the huge Congressional effort to reform the country’s health-insurance system. But legally, in terms of doctrine, the litigation was a smashing success, altering principles that reach back hundreds of years. Andrew Koppelman has written a superb layman’s guide to what was at stake, legally, in last year’s case — and what the plaintiffs accomplished. They persuaded five justices of the Supreme Court to call into question both of the Court’s most economically significant previous decisions, one from the early days of the Republic, and one from the New Deal. In 1819, the Court agreed unanimously that the federal government could solve national problems: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adopted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” (James Marshall) In 1935, the vote on a similar question was five to four: “Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise that control.” (Charles Evan Hughes) But the dissent in 1935 took a very different view, one that resonates with the conservative voices of 2012: “The right to contract is fundamental, and includes the privilege of selecting those with whom one is willing to assume contractual relations.” (James McReynolds) In 2012, the Court is now split 4-5, in the other direction, on both of these topics. Prof. Koppelman shows that the “necessary & proper” clause, held to trump states’ rights by Justice Marshall, is hollowed out by Justice Roberts’ opinion. And Justice McReynolds’ “right to contract,” made infamous by the Lochner court, has returned in ghostly form, as a new individual right not to contract with insurance companies. In economic matters, the tide of constitutional law is shifting. The power of the Tough Luck constitutional doctrine was not exercised because of Justice Roberts’ forbearance in preserving the Affordable Care Act on other grounds. But with the help of Prof. Koppelman’s lucid and persuasive book, any reader can now fully grasp the legal significance of this line of thinking. Its practical implications, meanwhile, are becoming visible in the context of Medicaid, because a secondary holding in the case empowered governors to refuse new federal money for health care for the working poor. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Every hundred years or so, the Supreme Court decides a question with truly vast economic implications. In 2012 such a decision was handed down, in a case that had the potential to affect the economy in the near term more than any court case ever had. The substance of the case, and its lasting legal implications, are the subject of Andrew Koppelman’s The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2012). The plaintiffs in the “Obamacare” case, NFIB v. Sebelius, had political and legal goals. Politically, they failed, because Justice Roberts was not willing to undo the huge Congressional effort to reform the country’s health-insurance system. But legally, in terms of doctrine, the litigation was a smashing success, altering principles that reach back hundreds of years. Andrew Koppelman has written a superb layman’s guide to what was at stake, legally, in last year’s case — and what the plaintiffs accomplished. They persuaded five justices of the Supreme Court to call into question both of the Court’s most economically significant previous decisions, one from the early days of the Republic, and one from the New Deal. In 1819, the Court agreed unanimously that the federal government could solve national problems: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adopted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” (James Marshall) In 1935, the vote on a similar question was five to four: “Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise that control.” (Charles Evan Hughes) But the dissent in 1935 took a very different view, one that resonates with the conservative voices of 2012: “The right to contract is fundamental, and includes the privilege of selecting those with whom one is willing to assume contractual relations.” (James McReynolds) In 2012, the Court is now split 4-5, in the other direction, on both of these topics. Prof. Koppelman shows that the “necessary & proper” clause, held to trump states’ rights by Justice Marshall, is hollowed out by Justice Roberts’ opinion. And Justice McReynolds’ “right to contract,” made infamous by the Lochner court, has returned in ghostly form, as a new individual right not to contract with insurance companies. In economic matters, the tide of constitutional law is shifting. The power of the Tough Luck constitutional doctrine was not exercised because of Justice Roberts’ forbearance in preserving the Affordable Care Act on other grounds. But with the help of Prof. Koppelman’s lucid and persuasive book, any reader can now fully grasp the legal significance of this line of thinking. Its practical implications, meanwhile, are becoming visible in the context of Medicaid, because a secondary holding in the case empowered governors to refuse new federal money for health care for the working poor. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Every hundred years or so, the Supreme Court decides a question with truly vast economic implications. In 2012 such a decision was handed down, in a case that had the potential to affect the economy in the near term more than any court case ever had. The substance of the case, and its lasting legal implications, are the subject of Andrew Koppelman’s The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2012). The plaintiffs in the “Obamacare” case, NFIB v. Sebelius, had political and legal goals. Politically, they failed, because Justice Roberts was not willing to undo the huge Congressional effort to reform the country’s health-insurance system. But legally, in terms of doctrine, the litigation was a smashing success, altering principles that reach back hundreds of years. Andrew Koppelman has written a superb layman’s guide to what was at stake, legally, in last year’s case — and what the plaintiffs accomplished. They persuaded five justices of the Supreme Court to call into question both of the Court’s most economically significant previous decisions, one from the early days of the Republic, and one from the New Deal. In 1819, the Court agreed unanimously that the federal government could solve national problems: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adopted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” (James Marshall) In 1935, the vote on a similar question was five to four: “Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise that control.” (Charles Evan Hughes) But the dissent in 1935 took a very different view, one that resonates with the conservative voices of 2012: “The right to contract is fundamental, and includes the privilege of selecting those with whom one is willing to assume contractual relations.” (James McReynolds) In 2012, the Court is now split 4-5, in the other direction, on both of these topics. Prof. Koppelman shows that the “necessary & proper” clause, held to trump states’ rights by Justice Marshall, is hollowed out by Justice Roberts’ opinion. And Justice McReynolds’ “right to contract,” made infamous by the Lochner court, has returned in ghostly form, as a new individual right not to contract with insurance companies. In economic matters, the tide of constitutional law is shifting. The power of the Tough Luck constitutional doctrine was not exercised because of Justice Roberts’ forbearance in preserving the Affordable Care Act on other grounds. But with the help of Prof. Koppelman’s lucid and persuasive book, any reader can now fully grasp the legal significance of this line of thinking. Its practical implications, meanwhile, are becoming visible in the context of Medicaid, because a secondary holding in the case empowered governors to refuse new federal money for health care for the working poor. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Every hundred years or so, the Supreme Court decides a question with truly vast economic implications. In 2012 such a decision was handed down, in a case that had the potential to affect the economy in the near term more than any court case ever had. The substance of the case, and its lasting legal implications, are the subject of Andrew Koppelman's The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2012). The plaintiffs in the “Obamacare” case, NFIB v. Sebelius, had political and legal goals. Politically, they failed, because Justice Roberts was not willing to undo the huge Congressional effort to reform the country's health-insurance system. But legally, in terms of doctrine, the litigation was a smashing success, altering principles that reach back hundreds of years. Andrew Koppelman has written a superb layman's guide to what was at stake, legally, in last year's case — and what the plaintiffs accomplished. They persuaded five justices of the Supreme Court to call into question both of the Court's most economically significant previous decisions, one from the early days of the Republic, and one from the New Deal. In 1819, the Court agreed unanimously that the federal government could solve national problems: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adopted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” (James Marshall) In 1935, the vote on a similar question was five to four: “Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise that control.” (Charles Evan Hughes) But the dissent in 1935 took a very different view, one that resonates with the conservative voices of 2012: “The right to contract is fundamental, and includes the privilege of selecting those with whom one is willing to assume contractual relations.” (James McReynolds) In 2012, the Court is now split 4-5, in the other direction, on both of these topics. Prof. Koppelman shows that the “necessary & proper” clause, held to trump states' rights by Justice Marshall, is hollowed out by Justice Roberts' opinion. And Justice McReynolds' “right to contract,” made infamous by the Lochner court, has returned in ghostly form, as a new individual right not to contract with insurance companies. In economic matters, the tide of constitutional law is shifting. The power of the Tough Luck constitutional doctrine was not exercised because of Justice Roberts' forbearance in preserving the Affordable Care Act on other grounds. But with the help of Prof. Koppelman's lucid and persuasive book, any reader can now fully grasp the legal significance of this line of thinking. Its practical implications, meanwhile, are becoming visible in the context of Medicaid, because a secondary holding in the case empowered governors to refuse new federal money for health care for the working poor.

Every hundred years or so, the Supreme Court decides a question with truly vast economic implications. In 2012 such a decision was handed down, in a case that had the potential to affect the economy in the near term more than any court case ever had. The substance of the case, and its lasting legal implications, are the subject of Andrew Koppelman's The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2012). The plaintiffs in the “Obamacare” case, NFIB v. Sebelius, had political and legal goals. Politically, they failed, because Justice Roberts was not willing to undo the huge Congressional effort to reform the country's health-insurance system. But legally, in terms of doctrine, the litigation was a smashing success, altering principles that reach back hundreds of years. Andrew Koppelman has written a superb layman's guide to what was at stake, legally, in last year's case — and what the plaintiffs accomplished. They persuaded five justices of the Supreme Court to call into question both of the Court's most economically significant previous decisions, one from the early days of the Republic, and one from the New Deal. In 1819, the Court agreed unanimously that the federal government could solve national problems: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adopted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” (James Marshall) In 1935, the vote on a similar question was five to four: “Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise that control.” (Charles Evan Hughes) But the dissent in 1935 took a very different view, one that resonates with the conservative voices of 2012: “The right to contract is fundamental, and includes the privilege of selecting those with whom one is willing to assume contractual relations.” (James McReynolds) In 2012, the Court is now split 4-5, in the other direction, on both of these topics. Prof. Koppelman shows that the “necessary & proper” clause, held to trump states' rights by Justice Marshall, is hollowed out by Justice Roberts' opinion. And Justice McReynolds' “right to contract,” made infamous by the Lochner court, has returned in ghostly form, as a new individual right not to contract with insurance companies. In economic matters, the tide of constitutional law is shifting. The power of the Tough Luck constitutional doctrine was not exercised because of Justice Roberts' forbearance in preserving the Affordable Care Act on other grounds. But with the help of Prof. Koppelman's lucid and persuasive book, any reader can now fully grasp the legal significance of this line of thinking. Its practical implications, meanwhile, are becoming visible in the context of Medicaid, because a secondary holding in the case empowered governors to refuse new federal money for health care for the working poor. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

Every hundred years or so, the Supreme Court decides a question with truly vast economic implications. In 2012 such a decision was handed down, in a case that had the potential to affect the economy in the near term more than any court case ever had. The substance of the case, and its lasting legal implications, are the subject of Andrew Koppelman’s The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2012). The plaintiffs in the “Obamacare” case, NFIB v. Sebelius, had political and legal goals. Politically, they failed, because Justice Roberts was not willing to undo the huge Congressional effort to reform the country’s health-insurance system. But legally, in terms of doctrine, the litigation was a smashing success, altering principles that reach back hundreds of years. Andrew Koppelman has written a superb layman’s guide to what was at stake, legally, in last year’s case — and what the plaintiffs accomplished. They persuaded five justices of the Supreme Court to call into question both of the Court’s most economically significant previous decisions, one from the early days of the Republic, and one from the New Deal. In 1819, the Court agreed unanimously that the federal government could solve national problems: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adopted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” (James Marshall) In 1935, the vote on a similar question was five to four: “Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise that control.” (Charles Evan Hughes) But the dissent in 1935 took a very different view, one that resonates with the conservative voices of 2012: “The right to contract is fundamental, and includes the privilege of selecting those with whom one is willing to assume contractual relations.” (James McReynolds) In 2012, the Court is now split 4-5, in the other direction, on both of these topics. Prof. Koppelman shows that the “necessary & proper” clause, held to trump states’ rights by Justice Marshall, is hollowed out by Justice Roberts’ opinion. And Justice McReynolds’ “right to contract,” made infamous by the Lochner court, has returned in ghostly form, as a new individual right not to contract with insurance companies. In economic matters, the tide of constitutional law is shifting. The power of the Tough Luck constitutional doctrine was not exercised because of Justice Roberts’ forbearance in preserving the Affordable Care Act on other grounds. But with the help of Prof. Koppelman’s lucid and persuasive book, any reader can now fully grasp the legal significance of this line of thinking. Its practical implications, meanwhile, are becoming visible in the context of Medicaid, because a secondary holding in the case empowered governors to refuse new federal money for health care for the working poor. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

L. Michael Seidman, professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center and a former clerk of Justice Marshall's, discusses a portrait of Thurgood Marshall by Betsy Graves Reyneau

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

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