Podcasts about law prof

"If the president can violate the Constitution and there's no court that can enforce an order against him. Then you really do have a dictatorship." Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky joins Thom Hartmann to discuss the latest attempts to turn Donald Trump into a dictator. Plus Trump's no taxes on tips has become no healthcare for restaurant workers. Trump tries to BS Americans about his phone conversation with Putin, but Russia isn't going to let him get away with it. And FEMA is AWOL in tornado ravaged cities. Surprised? See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA must approve new tobacco products. Wages and White Lion Investments (dba Trion Distribution) and Vapetasia manufacture and sell flavored nicotine-containing liquids for use in refillable e-cigarette systems. They applied for FDA approval in 2020; about ten months later, the FDA announced new requirements for approval and, based on those requirements, denied the applications citing the deficiency. The manufacturers challenged the denial and the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, found the FDA's actions were arbitrary and capricious. SCOTUS heard oral argument on Monday, December 2, 2024. On April 2, 2025, the Court issued a decision vacating the Fifth Circuit in a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Alito. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision panel discussion, where a group of experts will discuss this important case and its potential effects not just for regulated parties but in the broader administrative law space. Featuring: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School (Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP

Headlines for March 24, 2025; Pro-Palestinian Cornell Student Momodou Taal Ordered to Surrender to ICE, Faces Possible Deportation; Georgetown Scholar Badar Khan Suri Remains in Immigration Jail After Masked Agents Snatched Him in D.C.; Law Prof. Katherine Franke Accuses Columbia of Empowering Trump by Agreeing to $400M “Ransom Note”

What if we are asking the wrong questions when selecting American judges? Mark Tushnet thinks our current criteria might be off. “We should look for judges who are likely to display good judgment in their rulings … and we shouldn't care whether they have a good theory about how to interpret the Constitution as a whole—and maybe we should worry a bit if they think they have such a theory,” the Harvard Law professor writes in his new book, Who Am I to Judge? Judicial Craft Versus Constitutional Theory. In looking at what qualities were shared by great Supreme Court justices, Tushnet identified five he thinks were of especial importance: Longevity and age Location in political time Prior experience in public life NOT A JUDGE (“I put this in capital letters because it's common today to think that justices have to have been judges,” Tushnet wrote. He doesn't see having a past judicial career as disqualifying, but points out that many great justices were not sitting judges when appointed.) Intellectual curiosity In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Tushnet and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how he thinks people should be evaluated for judicial positions; his experience as a clerk for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; what makes a well-crafted opinion; and why he thinks any overarching theory about the Constitution will fall short.

What if we are asking the wrong questions when selecting American judges? Mark Tushnet thinks our current criteria might be off. “We should look for judges who are likely to display good judgment in their rulings … and we shouldn't care whether they have a good theory about how to interpret the Constitution as a whole—and maybe we should worry a bit if they think they have such a theory,” the Harvard Law professor writes in his new book, Who Am I to Judge? Judicial Craft Versus Constitutional Theory. In looking at what qualities were shared by great Supreme Court justices, Tushnet identified five he thinks were of especial importance: Longevity and age Location in political time Prior experience in public life NOT A JUDGE (“I put this in capital letters because it's common today to think that justices have to have been judges,” Tushnet wrote. He doesn't see having a past judicial career as disqualifying, but points out that many great justices were not sitting judges when appointed.) Intellectual curiosity In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Tushnet and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how he thinks people should be evaluated for judicial positions; his experience as a clerk for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; what makes a well-crafted opinion; and why he thinks any overarching theory about the Constitution will fall short. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What if we are asking the wrong questions when selecting American judges? Mark Tushnet thinks our current criteria might be off. “We should look for judges who are likely to display good judgment in their rulings … and we shouldn't care whether they have a good theory about how to interpret the Constitution as a whole—and maybe we should worry a bit if they think they have such a theory,” the Harvard Law professor writes in his new book, Who Am I to Judge? Judicial Craft Versus Constitutional Theory. In looking at what qualities were shared by great Supreme Court justices, Tushnet identified five he thinks were of especial importance: Longevity and age Location in political time Prior experience in public life NOT A JUDGE (“I put this in capital letters because it's common today to think that justices have to have been judges,” Tushnet wrote. He doesn't see having a past judicial career as disqualifying, but points out that many great justices were not sitting judges when appointed.) Intellectual curiosity In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Tushnet and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how he thinks people should be evaluated for judicial positions; his experience as a clerk for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; what makes a well-crafted opinion; and why he thinks any overarching theory about the Constitution will fall short.

Cindy Buys is a SIUC Simmons School of Law Professor. She answers Megan's questions about ramifications for potentially 'harboring' undocumented immigrants as the Trump administration begins a crackdown.

In this episode of The Student Lawyer Podcast, host Camilla Uppal speaks Dimitrios Kyriazis, a distinguished academic with a wealth of experience, including teaching at Oxford University and currently serving as Assistant Professor of EU Law at the Law School of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Dimitrios is also the creator of The Law Prof blog and author of How to Write Excellent Law Essays: An Unorthodox Guide. Having taught at prestigious institutions like Oxford, Dimitrios shares his expert insights on what makes a first-class law essay. He reveals the unorthodox approach featured in his book and offers invaluable tips on how students can refine their writing skills to achieve top marks. In this episode, Dimitrios discusses the common mistakes students make, how to avoid them, and how to take your legal writing to the next level. Whether you're working toward your law degree or simply looking to improve your academic writing, Dimitrios' advice will give you the tools you need to succeed. Tune in to hear from an expert on legal essay writing—your academic success starts here! Visit The Law Prof Blog: https://www.thelawprof.com/about Buy ‘How to Write Excellent Law Essays: an unorthodox guide' on Amazon: Link Here

The United Nations Pact for the Future, despite being passed using tactics of dubious legality, represents a “power grab” of enormous proportions that must be resisted by all governments and nations, explained University of Illinois Professor of International Law Francis Boyle in this interview on Conversations That Matter with The New American magazine Senior Editor ... The post Top Int’l Law Prof Warns of UN ‘Power Grab’ With ‘Pact for the Future’  appeared first on The New American.

This panel discussion of Christian Nationalism and what it means for our democracy comprised Sam Marcosson, Prof. of Law at Brandeis Law School, Cassie Chambers Armstrong, Kentucky State Senator and Law Prof.. Philip Shepherd, Franklin County Circuit Court Judge, Morgan McGarvey, Kentucky Third District U.S. Congressman, the Reverend Erica Whittaker, Pastor and Director of the Institute for Black Church Studies, and Dr. David Gushee, Prof. of Christian Ethics & Director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer Univ whose book, Defending Democracy from Its Christian Enemies, was the inspiration for this panel. This event took place at the Crescent Hill Baptist Church in Louisville, KY.

In the case of Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court quite literally ruled that portions of our Constitution are unconstitutional. This is a gross abuse of judicial power by six Supreme Court justices. Kim Wehle is a law professor, a constitutional law and separation of powers expert, an ABC News legal analyst, a former federal prosecutor, and the author of three books (links below). She also has a fourth book set to be released on September 2nd that could not be more timely: "Pardon Power: How The Pardon System Works - And Why." This podcast is part 1 of our 3-part conversation about the precarious and dangerous state of the rule of law in today's America.To pre-order Pardon Power: How The Pardon System Works―And WhyReleased date - September 2, 2024https://a.co/d/6iiAxBKKimm's. other books:How to Read the Constitution--and Whyhttps://a.co/d/4DKz18oWhat You Need to Know About Voting--and Whyhttps://a.co/d/78V2EJCHow to Think Like a Lawyer--and Why: A Common-Sense Guide to Everyday Dilemmashttps://a.co/d/gv1ab88See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In the case of Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court quite literally ruled that portions of our Constitution are unconstitutional. This is a gross abuse of judicial power by six Supreme Court justices. Kim Wehle is a law professor, a constitutional law and separation of powers expert, an ABC News legal analyst, a former federal prosecutor, and the author of three books (links below). She also has a fourth book set to be released on September 2nd that could not be more timely: "Pardon Power: How The Pardon System Works - And Why." This podcast is part 1 of our 3-part conversation about the precarious and dangerous state of the rule of law in today's America.To pre-order Pardon Power: How The Pardon System Works―And WhyReleased date - September 2, 2024https://a.co/d/6iiAxBKKimm's. other books:How to Read the Constitution--and Whyhttps://a.co/d/4DKz18oWhat You Need to Know About Voting--and Whyhttps://a.co/d/78V2EJCHow to Think Like a Lawyer--and Why: A Common-Sense Guide to Everyday Dilemmashttps://a.co/d/gv1ab88See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Host Garrett Snedeker and JWI intern Isaac Michael speak with Prof. Andrew Walker of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary about his new book Faithful Reason: Natural Law Ethics for God's Glory and Our Good. Professor Walker discusses his intended audience for the book, its main ideas, and his hopes for a revival of the Natural Law in American legal discussions. He also touches upon common difficulties many Protestants have with the Natural Law and makes the case for the authority of the Natural Law in Protestant moral thought. He ultimately presents a Christ-centered case for Natural Law reasoning which he sees as essential to any coherent account of a natural moral order.   Dr. Walker serves as Associate Dean in the School of Theology, and Associate Professor of Christian Ethics and Public Theology. He is also the Director of the Carl F. H. Henry Institute for Evangelical Engagement. Additionally, he is a fellow in Christian Political Thought at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and serves as the Managing Editor of WORLD Opinions. Walker joined the faculty of Southern Seminary in 2019. His previous appointment was Senior Fellow in Christian Ethics at the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. He is married to Christian, and they have three children. He is a member of Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky.  Purchase Faithful Reason here. Learn more about Prof. Walker here.

Now nine months after the October 7 terrorist attacks, Israel's economy has bounced back incredibly well, with some metrics showing the market is even better than before the war. Agreements like the Abraham Accords are still in place, and corporations are still investing in Israel. Host Steven Shalowitz sits down with Dr. Chalamish, a Professor of International Economic Law at NYU, to discuss the resiliency of the Israeli market, how corporations analyze risk in Israel, and how difficult times lead to creative solutions in the startup world.

JLP Wed 6-26-24 Jim Crow means no black swimmers! Experts: Emotional men's retreat and women embracing being "sex objects"! Hr 1 Law prof: Jim Crow to blame blacks not swimming Olympics! Cliff: Wife is controlling; we're frustrated; I'm on pot! Hr 2 Ashley: No one has morals and values. Calls… Tony: Latino appreciates Jesse. Raina: How to forgive myself? Donnell: God's agape unconditional love! Hr 3 EXPERTS: Men expressing their emotions? Close friends? Myron Gaines: Women's value is "sexual access." Women "sex objects," men "success ojbects." Biblical Question: Why is evil able to work with you? (0:00:00) HOUR 1 (Late!) (0:05:50) JLP: Educated people, enemies of America… Listen to yourself. (0:13:05) Law Prof: 2 blacks on Olympic swim team, Jim Crow! (0:32:00) Most love lies. (0:34:00) CLIFF, NY: Wife is controlling, frustrated w/ 14yo son (0:41:00) CLIFF, working on yourself? Frustrated she's not! (0:44:10) CLIFF: It's the weed, a little high! Not praying! (0:48:35) ASHLEY, CA: No identity with gym, music… HOLD (0:55:00) Hake News (1:01:00) HOUR 2 (1:02:50) ASHLEY: Drop morals and values? BQ: Evil work with you (1:09:25) JASON, NY: Heaven before Jesus? Doctrine? Karma. (1:13:10) Super Chats… Flying has changed! (1:19:25) HADEN, TX: MJ 15yr "Angelversary," believe allegations? (1:23:50) JOHN, Houston: Evil able to work with you (1:25:40) TONY, IL: Latinos, blacks vs white libs; don't like anybody! BREAK (1:33:15) RAINA, Canada (1st) How forgive myself? Who? Never done wrong. (1:43:35) DONNELL, NC: Hot out!...Return to the father, John 14: 6 (1:49:30) DONNELL: God's Agape love unconditional, want that from my wife! (1:55:00) Hake News (2:03:00) HOUR 3: Manhood Hour (non-"If" women) EXPERTS… (2:07:40) Men's group, $3k Montana retreat… Close friends? (2:20:00) Is a man ever supposed to cry? (2:22:45) No one to turn to: Suffering quietly. Push it down? Cry at home? BREAK (2:32:55) Myron Gaines: women "sexually accessible" (2:41:40) Women "sex objects," men "success objects" (2:44:30) JLP: Ladies, that's a lie, evil! Turning you into a slut! (2:49:30) Super Chats: How to let go… Flying vs bus (2:51:50) REMIR, NV (1st) BQ: Evil work with you? (2:54:55) Closing

With the Supreme Court's ruling on gun rights and domestic violence this morning, and a new mandate in Louisiana to display the Ten Commandments in public school, we discuss the Bill Of Rights in practice.On Today's Show:Aziz Huq, professor of law at the University of Chicago and author of the forthcoming The Rule of Law: A very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2024) offers legal analysis of the Supreme Court's recent opinions, and other legal news.

This lecture was given on November 30th, 2023, at Vanderbilt University. For more information on upcoming events, visit us at thomisticinstitute.org/upcoming-events About the speaker: Francis J. Beckwith is Professor of Philosophy & Church-State Studies at Baylor University, where he also serves as Associate Director of the Graduate Program in Philosophy. Among his over one dozen books are Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge University Press, 2007), Politics For Christians: Statecraft As Soulcraft (IVP, 2010), and Taking Rites Seriously: Law, Politics, and the Reasonableness of Faith (Cambridge University Press, 2015), winner of the American Academy of Religion's prestigious 2016 Book Award for Excellence in the Study of Religion in Constructive-Reflective Studies. He is a graduate of the Washington University School of Law, St. Louis (MJS) as well as Fordham University (PhD, MA, philosophy).

A Note from James: I'm confused. There are so many national and international issues being debated on constitutional grounds lately. For example, issues at the Texas border and federal versus state powers-like the case of friends versus the state of Colorado. Does a state have the right to decide who appears on the national presidential ballot?Regarding COVID-19, I'm wondering if it was constitutional to close down all the businesses. It might have been the right decision, but does it infringe on our right to life, liberty, and property without due process? I posed these questions to a renowned constitutional expert, the author of "The Odd Clauses," who is also a professor of constitutional law at Boston University, Jay Wexler. He provided insights into which recent events were constitutional and which may not have been. Here's what he had to say.Episode Description:James leads an enlightening conversation with Jay Wexler, a professor of constitutional law at Boston University and author of 'The Odd Clauses'. They explore topics ranging from state rights in decision-making, such as Texas' border policies and Colorado's stance on the national presidential ballot, to significant constitutional debates such as the power of the Supreme Court, the implications of COVID-19 business shutdowns, and the increasingly prominent discussions around freedom of speech and presidential powers. Wexler provides deep insights into each topic, shedding light on the constitutional underpinnings and contemporary interpretations that inform these critical national discussions. The discussion also touches on potential constitutional conflicts and the nuanced understanding required to navigate these issues, with particular emphasis on the importance of Constitution's adaptability over time and the ongoing debate between originalism versus evolutionary interpretation. Episode Summary:01:00 Introduction: The Constitution in the News01:46 Interview with Constitutional Expert Jay Wexler02:33 The Life of a Law Professor03:13 Challenges of Teaching in the Digital Age04:49 Constitutional Battles in Recent Years06:16 The Power of the Supreme Court07:00 The Intricacies of Marbury v. Madison08:34 The Role of the Supreme Court in the Executive Branch11:38 The Texas Border Issue and Constitutional Merit24:46 The Power of States in Deciding Presidential Candidates33:18 Understanding the Qualifications for Presidential Candidates36:06 Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 on Businesses and Constitutional Rights37:34 The Lochner Era and its Influence on Business Regulations40:20 Religious Rights and Restrictions during the COVID-19 Pandemic44:22 The Controversial Topic of State Secession51:31 The Intricacies of Freedom of Speech and its Boundaries54:51 The Power and Limitations of Presidential Executive Orders01:05:51 The Unusual Third Amendment and its Interpretation ------------What do YOU think of the show? Head to JamesAltucherShow.com/listeners and fill out a short survey that will help us better tailor the podcast to our audience!Are you interested in getting direct answers from James about your question on a podcast? Go to JamesAltucherShow.com/AskAltucher and send in your questions to be answered on the air!------------Visit Notepd.com to read our idea lists & sign up to create your own!My new book, Skip the Line, is out! Make sure you get a copy wherever books are sold!Join the You Should Run for President 2.0 Facebook Group, where we discuss why you should run for President.I write about all my podcasts! Check out the full post and learn what I learned at jamesaltuchershow.com------------Thank you so much for listening! If you like this episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to "The James Altucher Show" wherever you get your podcasts: Apple PodcastsiHeart RadioSpotifyFollow me on social media:YouTubeTwitterFacebookLinkedIn

A Note from James: I'm confused. There are so many national and international issues being debated on constitutional grounds lately. For example, issues at the Texas border and federal versus state powers—like the case of friends versus the state of Colorado. Does a state have the right to decide who appears on the national presidential ballot?Regarding COVID-19, I'm wondering if it was constitutional to close down all the businesses. It might have been the right decision, but does it infringe on our right to life, liberty, and property without due process? I posed these questions to a renowned constitutional expert, the author of "The Odd Clauses," who is also a professor of constitutional law at Boston University, Jay Wexler. He provided insights into which recent events were constitutional and which may not have been. Here's what he had to say.Episode Description:James leads an enlightening conversation with Jay Wexler, a professor of constitutional law at Boston University and author of 'The Odd Clauses'. They explore topics ranging from state rights in decision-making, such as Texas' border policies and Colorado's stance on the national presidential ballot, to significant constitutional debates such as the power of the Supreme Court, the implications of COVID-19 business shutdowns, and the increasingly prominent discussions around freedom of speech and presidential powers. Wexler provides deep insights into each topic, shedding light on the constitutional underpinnings and contemporary interpretations that inform these critical national discussions. The discussion also touches on potential constitutional conflicts and the nuanced understanding required to navigate these issues, with particular emphasis on the importance of Constitution's adaptability over time and the ongoing debate between originalism versus evolutionary interpretation. Episode Summary:01:00 Introduction: The Constitution in the News01:46 Interview with Constitutional Expert Jay Wexler02:33 The Life of a Law Professor03:13 Challenges of Teaching in the Digital Age04:49 Constitutional Battles in Recent Years06:16 The Power of the Supreme Court07:00 The Intricacies of Marbury v. Madison08:34 The Role of the Supreme Court in the Executive Branch11:38 The Texas Border Issue and Constitutional Merit24:46 The Power of States in Deciding Presidential Candidates33:18 Understanding the Qualifications for Presidential Candidates36:06 Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 on Businesses and Constitutional Rights37:34 The Lochner Era and its Influence on Business Regulations40:20 Religious Rights and Restrictions during the COVID-19 Pandemic44:22 The Controversial Topic of State Secession51:31 The Intricacies of Freedom of Speech and its Boundaries54:51 The Power and Limitations of Presidential Executive Orders01:05:51 The Unusual Third Amendment and its Interpretation ------------What do YOU think of the show? Head to JamesAltucherShow.com/listeners and fill out a short survey that will help us better tailor the podcast to our audience!Are you interested in getting direct answers from James about your question on a podcast? Go to JamesAltucherShow.com/AskAltucher and send in your questions to be answered on the air!------------Visit Notepd.com to read our idea lists & sign up to create your own!My new book, Skip the Line, is out! Make sure you get a copy wherever books are sold!Join the You Should Run for President 2.0 Facebook Group, where we discuss why you should run for President.I write about all my podcasts! Check out the full post and learn what I learned at jamesaltuchershow.com------------Thank you so much for listening! If you like this episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to “The James Altucher Show” wherever you get your podcasts: Apple PodcastsiHeart RadioSpotifyFollow me on social media:YouTubeTwitterFacebookLinkedIn

Ray Brescia, a law professor at Albany Law School, has taken a hard look at the country's legal system in his new book, Lawyer Nation: The Past, Present and Future of the American Legal Profession. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brescia tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the efforts in the late 19th and early 20th century to exclude people from the legal profession who were not part of the dominant social class, and how access-to-justice issues persist today as a result of some of those measures. The early American Bar Association is one of the organizations he names as a participant in the exclusionary efforts through its law school accreditation program, and he and Rawles discuss the ABA's current efforts to increase diversity, equity and inclusion. As someone who has worked in academia, the non-profit world, legal aid organizations and as a clerk at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, he says he's come across many people who care deeply and want the justice system to function better. But without fundamental changes to the ways legal services are delivered, he does not think the access-to-justice issues can be solved. A large part of Brescia's concern that he expresses in Lawyer Nation is for legal professionals themselves. Brescia says the mental illness and substance-use levels within the profession demonstrate that greater care has to be shown for lawyers' well-being and work-life balance. He shares his advice for making the profession more sustainable for the incoming generation. He also discusses how law schools and legal education can change.

Ray Brescia, a law professor at Albany Law School, has taken a hard look at the country's legal system in his new book, Lawyer Nation: The Past, Present and Future of the American Legal Profession. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brescia tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the efforts in the late 19th and early 20th century to exclude people from the legal profession who were not part of the dominant social class, and how access-to-justice issues persist today as a result of some of those measures. The early American Bar Association is one of the organizations he names as a participant in the exclusionary efforts through its law school accreditation program, and he and Rawles discuss the ABA's current efforts to increase diversity, equity and inclusion. As someone who has worked in academia, the non-profit world, legal aid organizations and as a clerk at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, he says he's come across many people who care deeply and want the justice system to function better. But without fundamental changes to the ways legal services are delivered, he does not think the access-to-justice issues can be solved. A large part of Brescia's concern that he expresses in Lawyer Nation is for legal professionals themselves. Brescia says the mental illness and substance-use levels within the profession demonstrate that greater care has to be shown for lawyers' well-being and work-life balance. He shares his advice for making the profession more sustainable for the incoming generation. He also discusses how law schools and legal education can change.

Ray Brescia, a law professor at Albany Law School, has taken a hard look at the country's legal system in his new book, Lawyer Nation: The Past, Present and Future of the American Legal Profession. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brescia tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the efforts in the late 19th and early 20th century to exclude people from the legal profession who were not part of the dominant social class, and how access-to-justice issues persist today as a result of some of those measures. The early American Bar Association is one of the organizations he names as a participant in the exclusionary efforts through its law school accreditation program, and he and Rawles discuss the ABA's current efforts to increase diversity, equity and inclusion. As someone who has worked in academia, the non-profit world, legal aid organizations and as a clerk at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, he says he's come across many people who care deeply and want the justice system to function better. But without fundamental changes to the ways legal services are delivered, he does not think the access-to-justice issues can be solved. A large part of Brescia's concern that he expresses in Lawyer Nation is for legal professionals themselves. Brescia says the mental illness and substance-use levels within the profession demonstrate that greater care has to be shown for lawyers' well-being and work-life balance. He shares his advice for making the profession more sustainable for the incoming generation. He also discusses how law schools and legal education can change.

This lecture was given on June 21st, 2023, at Stonyhust College. For more information on upcoming events, visit us at thomisticinstitute.org/upcoming-events Prof. Joshua Hochschild (Mount St. Mary's University) is Professor of Philosophy and Director of Philosophy, Politics and Economics. He also served six years as the inaugural Dean of the College of Liberal Arts. His primary research is in medieval logic, metaphysics, and ethics, with broad interest in liberal education and the continuing relevance of the Catholic intellectual tradition. He is the author of The Semantics of Analogy: Rereading Cajetan's De Nominum Analogia (2010), translator of Claude Panaccio's Mental Language: From Plato to William of Ockham (2017), and co-author of A Mind at Peace: Reclaiming an Ordered Soul in the Age of Distraction (2017). His writing has appeared in First Things, Commonweal, Modern Age and the Wall Street Journal. For 2020-21 he served as President of the American Catholic Philosophical Association.

2/5/24:  Northampton Mayor G.L. Sciarra's on Opioid Settlement funds & school budget deficits. Senator Jo Comerford explains the financial burden on school districts. WNEU Law Prof Bruce Miller on TX Gov Abbott's usurpation of the federal authority on the border. Megan Zinn & Anne Pinkerton, local author of Were You Close?; a sister's quest to know the brother she lost.

Two weeks ago the Federal Court determined the Trudeau government's invoking of the Emergencies Act violated Canadians' protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. - Then questions were asked about the so-called COUTTS 4 who have remained held in pre-trial custody and without bail since February 13/14, 2022, after being arrested and charged at the Coutts, Alberta - U.S. border crossing, as truckers and farmers blocked the border while protesting federal Covid-19 mandates.  The four men face charges of conspiracy to commit murder (police officers), possession of a weapon for dangerous purpose and mischief over $5,000.  Lawyers have questioned whether the men's constitutional rights to engage in a fulsome defence of the charges against them have been violated. They had been scheduled to stand trial last June.  This week, an Ontario Superior Court overturned and earlier court acquittal on a mischief charge against Allen Remley, a Freedom Convoy protester in Ottawa. Mr. Remley had been accused by police of operating a "mobile gas station," a children's wagon filled with jerry cans. He had also parked his truck illegally. There is a publication ban in place on goings-on in court concerning the Coutts 4. Second guest this half hour will address this issue. First guest: Betty Carbert, mother of one of the Coutts 4, Chris Carbert. A mother's experience as her son remains imprisoned for almost 2 years without bail.  Second Guest: Doug King, criminal law professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary. We talk about being just days away from two years of pre-trial custody without bail for the Coutts 4, the constitutional right to a timely trial, absence of bail and what may lie ahead for these four men. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig joins Matt to discuss the Trump ballot disqualification case and how the Supreme Court will handle it, plus Matt discusses a bizarre murder case posted in a YouTube video, Ilhan Omar and Cori Bush's latest controversies, and much more.

1/8/24: Holyoke Mayor Joshua Garcia: school receivership, the police & snow. UMass. Prof Amilcar Shabazz: MLK & the holiday. Constitutional law prof. Bruce Miller: the Trump disqualification case at SCOTUS. Megan Zinn & Lisa Prolman, Ass't Dir., Greenfield Public Library: why libraries matter.

Daniel Markel and Wendi Adelson date for a couple years, then the young, well educated couple  marry. Daniel Markel is already a a professor at Florida State University School of Law and Wendi Adelson is a third-year law student at the University of Miami.  The couple have two children, but then Dan Markel comes home from a business trip to find the house nearly empty. His wife and two boys as well as most to the furniture is gone. There are  divorce papers on the bed. For the next six weeks, Dan Markel doesn't know where his children are much less his soon to be ex-wife.  Their divorce is finalized and  the order is for them to share joint custody of their children, but Wendi Adelson tries to move with the boys to Miami, Dan Markel heads to court and files an order to keep them from moving. Dan wins that battle, but a custody battle continues.   Markel, now a Florida State University criminal law professor, pulls into his driveway and is talking on his cell phone when he was fatally shot.  The killer was waiting for Markel outside his home then followed him into the garage, shooting him in the side of the head, through the window of his car.  Who planned the murder for hire? Joining Nancy Grace Today: Tamara Demko, DrPH, JD, RN - Harvard Law School classmate and friend of Dan Markel.   Facebook: Justice For Dan, www.justicefordan.com   Dave Aronberg - Palm Beach County State Attorney, Friend of Dan, http://www.sa15.org, X: @aronberg, Facebook/TikTok/Instagram: @ davearonberg, YouTube:  @davearonbergFL  Caryn L. Stark - Psychologist, renowned TV and Radio trauma expert and consultant, www.carynstark.com, Instagram: carynpsych, FB: Caryn Stark Private Practice Robert Crispin - Private Investigator, Former Federal Task Force Officer for United States Department of Justice, DEA and Miami Field Division, Former Homicide and Crimes Against Children Investigator, “Crispin Special Investigations” CrispinInvestigations.com, Facebook: Crispin Special Investigations, Inc Dr. Jan Gorniak -  Board Certified Forensic Pathologist, Fmr. Medical examiner for Clark County  NV Joel Waldmen- (Miami, FL) Host of ‘Surviving the Survivor' Podcast, Twitter: @PodcastSTS, Instagram: @SurvivingTheSurvivor, survivingTheSurvivor.com.     See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Brown v. United States (November 27) - Criminal Law; Whether the definition of “serious drug offense” in the Armed Career Criminal Act incorporates the federal drug schedules that were in effect when the individual committed the firearm offense, or instead the schedules that were in effect at the time of the state drug offense. McElrath v. Georgia (November 28) - Criminal Law, Double Jeopardy; A challenge by a Georgia man who was found not guilty by reason of insanity on one charge arising from the stabbing death of his mother and guilty but mentally ill on another charge to the state’s ability to try him again on the charge on which he was acquitted. Wilkinson v. Garland (November 28) - Immigration; Whether federal courts have the power to review an agency’s determination that a noncitizen did not meet the “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship requirement to cancel deportation. Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Jarkesy (November 29) - Administrative Law, Financial Services; A challenge to the SEC’s use of in-house judges. Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, L.P (December 4) - Whether the Bankruptcy Code gives a court the power to approve a release that extinguishes claims against third parties, without the consent of the individuals or entities holding the claims. Moore v. United States (December 5) Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether a federal “mandatory repatriation tax” violates the 16th Amendment. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri (December 6) - What protections does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provide to employees who contend they were the victim of a discriminatory transfer? Featuring: Justin Aimonetti, Attorney, Dechert LLP Adi Dynar, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation Prof. Jennifer Jenkins, Associate Professor of Law, Ave Maria School of Law Prof. Lindsey Simon, Associate Professor of Law, Emory University Law School Moderator: Stephanie Maloney, Chief of Staff and Associate Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center

Welcome to What Matters Now, a weekly podcast exploration into one key issue shaping Israel and the Jewish World — right now. It's July, just after the end of Shabbat and about 100 people have gathered in the Likud-majority West Bank city of Ma'ale Adumim. Hebrew University law Prof. Benjamin (Benny) Porat, a resident of the city, is addressing the crowd. During his 10-minute speech, Porat — standing next to the police headquarters in Maaleh Adumim — said statements such as, “The Israeli majority has risen up and will no longer be silent” — even as a few of the West Bank city's residents attempted to drown him out. Porat is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the director of the Matz Institute for Jewish Law. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute. He is also a settler who is vocally in opposition to the coalition's judicial overhaul. The Times of Israel sat with Porat in his home this week to discuss Tuesday's long-awaited and explosive High Court hearing over the first piece of the judicial overhaul legislation. We also talk about how Jewish legal tradition may help solve parts of this clash of the titans crisis. What Matters Now podcasts are available for download on iTunes, TuneIn, Pocket Casts, Stitcher, PlayerFM or wherever you get your podcasts. IMAGE: Hebrew University Prof. Benny Porat (Israel Democracy Institute)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this day, June 28th, in legal history, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down their decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and ruled that quota systems could not be used in college admissions, but programs that incentivize accepting minority applicants are permissible. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was a landmark Supreme Court case decided on June 28th, 1978. The Court ruled that a university's admissions criteria, which used race as the sole basis for admission decisions, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case revolved around Allan Bakke, a white male applicant who was rejected from medical school at the University of California at Davis due to a racial quota system. The Court determined that the quota system was unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights laws. They applied strict scrutiny, stating that the government must have a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means to justify race-based actions. The Court acknowledged that race could be considered as a factor in admissions, but rejected the use of a quota system that excluded candidates based solely on race.The Supreme Court has upheld a Pennsylvania law in a narrow 5-4 decision that requires companies to face lawsuits within the state when they register to do business there. The ruling leaves room for a potential future challenge to the law on different constitutional grounds. Opponents of the law expressed concern that it could lead to other states adopting similar registration requirements. The case involved a former employee of Norfolk Southern Railway Co. who wanted to bring a lawsuit against the company in Pennsylvania, even though it is not based there. Justice Samuel Alito, while ruling in favor of the plaintiff in this case, suggested that the law could be challenged under the commerce clause in the future. The court's decision was based on a precedent set in a 1917 case involving a similar law in Missouri. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh, dissented, arguing that the ruling infringed upon the authority of other states to adjudicate disputes involving their citizens.State Registration Law Feared by Business Upheld by Justices (1)The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a tax case regarding foreign earnings, raising concerns about the extent of Congress' taxing powers. The case revolves around internal revenue code Section 965, which aimed to prevent foreign earnings from permanently evading US taxation during a transition to a new international tax regime. The plaintiffs, Charles and Kathleen Moore, are seeking a refund of $14,729 through their challenge to the tax. However, the case has broader implications, as the government estimates the tax will generate $340 billion over a decade. The Moores and other groups argue that allowing the tax would provide Congress with the authority to pursue new revenue streams, such as a federal wealth tax. The Moores' representatives argue that the tax is not authorized under the federal government's power to tax income as defined by the Sixteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously dismissed the suit, ruling that taxable income doesn't have to be realized. The Moores argue that only realized income is taxable under the Sixteenth Amendment, and the tax violates the constitutional requirement for direct taxes to be proportionally applied to each state's population. The case has garnered interest from organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the Cato Institute, which submitted briefs urging the Supreme Court to take up the case. The outcome of the case will have implications for Congress' taxing powers and the interpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment.Galvanizing International Tax Case Accepted by Supreme Court (2)(ORDER LIST: 599 U.S.) MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2023 CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS 21-1596 ARDOIN, LA SEC. OF STATE, ET AL. V. ROBIThe US Supreme Court has rejected a legal theory that would grant state legislatures unchecked power over elections. In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled against Republican state legislators in a case involving North Carolina's House of Representatives districts. The legislators sought to embrace the "independent state legislature" doctrine, which would remove the role of state courts and state constitutions in regulating federal elections. Critics argue that the doctrine poses a threat to democratic norms and could lead to further voter restrictions and extreme partisan gerrymandering. The Supreme Court's ruling still allows federal courts to review certain election-related cases and potentially challenge state court decisions. The decision does not establish a clear legal test for determining when state courts have overstepped their bounds in election matters. The issue is expected to resurface in future cases when state courts reject legislatively drawn maps and take it upon themselves to draw districts.US Supreme Court rejects bid to give lawmakers unchecked power over elections | ReutersA law professor at the University of Colorado, Paul Campos, has filed a lawsuit against the university and its law school dean, Lolita Buckner Inniss, alleging pay discrimination and retaliation. Campos, who is the only Latino faculty member, claims that he is paid less than his white colleagues. He also accuses Inniss of retaliating against him for raising concerns about his compensation and for taking parental leave. According to a 2021 pay study conducted by the university, Campos earned nearly $14,000 less per year than white law faculty. In addition, Campos alleges that he received a low faculty rating, which he believes was influenced by racial bias and retaliation for taking paternity leave. He claims that Inniss further retaliated against him by removing him from the law school's faculty evaluations committee and preventing him from teaching a course. Campos argues that the university has failed to provide evidence of offensive and biased language, as alleged.Law professor sues University of Colorado over discrimination claims | ReutersSam Bankman-Fried, the founder of FTX cryptocurrency exchange, has lost his bid to dismiss most of the criminal charges brought against him by the U.S. government. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan denied Bankman-Fried's request, clearing the way for his trial scheduled for October 2. Bankman-Fried is accused of orchestrating a multibillion-dollar fraud by stealing funds from FTX customers to cover losses at his hedge fund, Alameda Research. Prosecutors also allege that he misled investors and made illegal contributions to U.S. political campaigns in the names of his colleagues. Bankman-Fried has pleaded not guilty and denied stealing funds but admitted to inadequate risk management at FTX. The judge ruled that the charges against Bankman-Fried were valid and that the alleged misappropriated funds constituted property. Bankman-Fried had also argued that some charges were improperly brought without consent from the Bahamas, where he was arrested and extradited. A second trial is scheduled for March 11 on charges brought after his extradition.Bankman-Fried loses bid to toss criminal charges over FTX's collapse | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz—Author of “Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process and Our Constitutional Rule of Law”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his latest Wall Street Journal editorial, “A Strong Trump Indictment—But Is It Strong Enough?” Professor Dershowitz writes, “[w]hen an incumbent administration prosecutes the leading candidate against the president, it should have a case that is so compelling that it attracts the kind of bipartisan support that forced Nixon to resign. No such support is currently apparent.” Professor Alan Dershowitz represented Donald Trump during the president's 2020 impeachment trial. You can read the full editorial here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-strong-indictment-but-is-it-strong-enough-jack-smith-classified-docs-public-opinion-trump-80cd7480?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

On March 23, 2023, the Center for Constitutional Design at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and the Federalist Society's Arizona State University Student Chapter and Article I Initiative co-hosted a debate about whether the legislative power can be delegated.The debate featured Professor James Stoner and Professor Michael Rappaport, and was moderated by Arizona State Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick.Featuring:- Prof. Michael Rappaport, Hugh & Hazel Darling Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law- Prof. James Stoner, Hermann Moyse, Jr., Professor and Director, Eric Voegelin Institute, Department of Political Science, Louisiana State University- [Moderator] Hon. Clint Bolick, Justice, Arizona Supreme Court- [Introduction] Prof. Stephanie Lindquist, Foundation Professor of Law and Political Science and Director, Center for Constitutional Design, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University

The University of Richmond chapter of the Federalist Society hosted this panel discussion on "The Major Questions Doctrine, Chevron Deference & the Future of the Regulatory State" on Tuesday, March 21, 2023.Featuring:- Prof. Joel B. Eisen, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law- Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School- Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute

Now, it's Midday on the Law.  Joining Tom is David Jaros. He's a professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Center for Criminal Justice Reform. Professor Jaros discusses the case of Adnan Syed, who was convicted in 1999 of murdering his high school girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, and sentenced to life in prison. His case was controversial, and became the focus of journalist Sarah Koenig's award-winning investigative podcast series, "Serial." After serving 23 years of his sentence, Syed was released from prison last November when his conviction was overturned in light of new evidence in the case. But just four months later, his case was back in the headlines after a Baltimore appellate judge on Tuesday (March 28) reinstated Syed's conviction because of a procedural technicality, and ordered a new hearing on the motion to vacate the conviction. Meanwhile, Syed's lawyer is appealing the reinstatement. Professor David Jaros join us with his analysis of the case.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this edition, we're joined by former U.S. Attorney, Co-host of the wonderful podcast #SistersInLaw and Legal Analyst for NBC News, Barbara McQuade. We, of course, discussed prominent legal cases such as Dominion Voting's defamation case against Fox News; Moore vs. Harper, the North Carolina case pertaining to voting law that tests the "independent state legislature theory"; the numerous cases against Donald Trump and which ones should concern him the most.   We also discussed what it's like being sworn in as U.S. Attorney on the very day the infamous "underwear bomber" attempted to blow up a plane in her jurisdiction; the importance of humanizing the victims as well as the accused as an attorney; how Barb was mentored by Jennifer Granholm who was a U.S. Attorney, then Governor of Michigan and is now the Secretary of Energy in the Biden Admin.; how the Conservative Legal Movement is distinct from Trumpism; the damage that was done to our institutions, specifically the Dept. of Justice, during the Trump Admin; whether Barb is optimistic or pessimistic about the future of our country; and much more!   Barbara McQuade is a law professor at the University of Michigan, where she teaches criminal law, criminal procedure and national security law.  She is also a legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC and a co-host of the excellent podcast #SistersInLaw. From 2010 to 2017, Barbara served as the U.S Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. She was appointed by President Barack Obama, and was the first woman to serve in that position. Barbara also served as vice chair of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee and co-chaired the Terrorism and National Security Subcommittee. Before becoming U.S. Attorney, she was an Assistant U.S. Attorney, practiced law in Detroit from 1993 to 1998, and served as a law clerk on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Professor McQuade graduated from the University of Michigan, then from the University of Michigan Law School and was born not too far away in Detroit, Michigan.   Talkin' Politics & Religion Without Killin' Each Other is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it.    Be sure to check out Top of Mind with Julie Rose: www.byuradio.org/topofmind   www.politicon.com/podcast-title/sisters-in-law/   twitter.com/BarbMcQuade   www.democracygroup.org/shows/talkin-politics-religion   twitter.com/coreysnathan

Today we will be diving - yet again - into the current political turmoil in Israel, sparked by the proposed judicial reforms by the new Netanyahu government. For those who have been living on a different planet, massive demonstrations and an immense campaign throughout mainstream media against the reforms have led to a complete backlash, tearing apart Israeli society. The place where these reforms are being prepared is the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, and more specifically the Law and Constitution Committee, led by MK Simcha Rotman, who was our guest on episode 275. Today, we have the privilege of speaking with one of the advisors for the head of the committee, Prof. Talia Einhorn, who just arrived from Jerusalem and even today took part in the committee. Prof. Einhorn is an accomplished law professor, with countless articles and studies on important topics revolving around Israeli and international law, including a major treatise on Israeli private international law - the third edition of which was just released in 2022. She is a titular member of the International Academy of Comparative Law and has been serving as a member of the Advisory Committee for the Appointment of Senior Civil Service Officials. Join us as we discuss the current state of affairs in Israel and gain insight into the proposed judicial reforms from an expert in the field.

Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act instructs courts to "set aside" agency action that is unlawful. These two words—"set aside"—have sparked much debate among lawyers, jurists, and scholars. In particular, administrative law enthusiasts disagree about whether the "set aside" language means that courts must enter universal injunctions against unlawful regulations. Some suggest that "set aside" contemplates wholesale invalidation of regulations. Others take the position that the scope of the "set aside" remedy is more limited. In United States v. Texas, which is before the Supreme Court this term, the Court is set to decide whether the "set aside" language requires universal vacatur of regulations.In advance of the Court's ruling, this teleforum panel discussed this difficult question. Featuring:--Hon. Beth A. Williams, Member, United States Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Professorial Lecturer in Law at the George Washington University Law School, and former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice--Prof. John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law and Thomas F. Bergin Teaching Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law--Prof. Ron Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law at the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law--[Moderator] Judge Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Massimo Coccia is founding partner of Coccia De Angelis & Associati law firm. He holds a J.D. degree cum laude from the Law School of the University of Rome Sapienza (1981) and a Master of Laws degree (LL.M.) from the University of Michigan Law School (1984), which he attended with a Fulbright fellowship. It is universally recognized that Mr. Coccia has an extensive experience of, and is an authority in, sports law and in commercial arbitration at international and national level, both as an arbitrator and as a counsel. He has been involved in almost 400 arbitration proceedings (mostly international). He also has been frequently involved in regulatory matters such as antitrust and energy, as well as in entertainment law issues. He is frequently retained as legal advisor or counsel by international and national federations, leagues, clubs, teams, agents and athletes of various sports. Within football, in particular, Mr. Coccia was appointed as the Interim Vice-Commissioner of the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) in 2006-2007, in the wake of a match-fixing scandal and authored important reforms of the rules and governance of FIGC. Since 1995, Massimo Coccia has been an arbitrator at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where he is regarded as one of the most experienced arbitrators, having sat in about 300 cases and drafted many prominent awards, having also been a CAS arbitrator at the Olympic Games of Salt Lake City 2002, Turin 2006 and London 2012. Massimo Coccia is also a tenured law professor, teaching International Law at the Tuscia University of Viterbo as well as European Competition Law at the University of Rome Sapienza. Massimo also frequently teaches in graduate courses and seminars on international and national sports law. He has published extensively on issues of sports law, international arbitration, international trade law and EU law, and is often invited to speak at symposia on those subjects. The host is Sean Cottrell (@spcott), founder and CEO of LawInSport. For more sports law news, commentary and analysis go to LawInSport.com Upcoming Events: www.lawinsport.com/sports-law-events LawInSport Recruitment: www.lawinsport.com/careers/recruitment-services. LawInSport Academy Mentoring Scheme: www.lawinsport.com/announcements Follow us on Twitter @LawInSport and Sean at @spcott. Listen to podcast on: Soundcloud: @lawinsport iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/lawl…rts-law-podcast Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/7zNCAlkXxL2…knQeSAKSdXKUL2kA

Justin Fenton from our partner news organization, The Baltimore Banner, reported late yesterday that former Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby's defense team has asked to withdraw from her case. In their motion to withdraw, the attorneys say that Ms. Mosby has consented to having the federal public defender's office take over her defense. Mosby is charged with two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements on a mortgage application. Her trial is set to begin in March. David Jaros is on the faculty of the University of Baltimore School of Law, where he is the faculty director of the Center for Criminal Justice Reform. Professor Jaros joins us on Zoom with analysis of yesterday's legal developments.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Justice Department recently announced the issuance of a revised internal policy for charging cases brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), our nation's main computer crime statute. This revised policy was issued in the wake of the Supreme Court case of United States v. Van Buren, which held that the CFAA's “exceeds authorized access” provision does not cover those who have improper motives for obtaining information that is otherwise available to them. Additionally, the new DOJ policy for the first time directs federal prosecutors that good-faith security research should not be charged under the CFAA, but also acknowledges that claiming to be conducting security research is not a free pass for those acting in bad faith.Does the new DOJ charging policy strike a reasonable balance between privacy and law enforcement interests? Do its protections for security research go far enough, or do they extend too far? In the wake of Van Buren and this policy, does the federal government have adequate tools to address insider threats, especially where such threats are focused on invasions of privacy and confidentiality instead of being motivated by financial gain?Join us as our panel of experts break down these questions.Featuring:--Prof. Orin Kerr, Willam G. Simon Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law --Prof. Michael Levy, Adjunct Professor of Law, Penn Carey Law, University of Pennsylvania --[Moderator] John Richter, Partner, King & Spalding

As we round out 2022, digital technology is further embedding itself into our daily lives. Beyond the smartphone's ubiquity, wearable sensors proliferate and are found everywhere from the gym to the bedroom. Intimate relationships are formed through dating apps more than ever before. We're tracked in our cars, in retail establishments and online. At no time in history has data collection been as prevalent as it is now, and it's only increasing. But what does that mean for the development of our identities and relationships, particularly for those who are most vulnerable? University of Virginia School of Law Prof. Danielle Citron has long explored these issues, which she's presented in her new book, “The Fight for Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity and Love in the Digital Age.” I recently caught up with Prof. Citron to discuss her work, and how law – particularly civil rights law – society and privacy pros can all play a role in protecting what makes us human.

James and Al highlight the need for Democrats to maintain solidarity in the primaries to protect democracy and the importance of the Dobbs referendum coming up in Kansas. Then, they're joined by Emory Law School Professor Morgan Cloud for an in depth discussion of RICO laws and how federal statutes differ from those in Georgia.  Will GA be more successful in prosecuting Trump's actions after the election results came out?   Email your questions to James and Al at politicswarroom@gmail.com or tweet them to @politicon.   Make sure to include your city, we love to hear where you're from! Get More From This Week's Guests: Professor Morgan Cloud: Emory University School of Law | SSRN Articles 

This week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Gerard Robinson and Cara Candal talk with Richard Epstein, the inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, and author of The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government. He describes the influence of 17th and 18th-century English ideas on our Founding Fathers' views of ordered liberty and self-government. […]

This week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Gerard Robinson and Cara Candal talk with Richard Epstein, the inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, and author of The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government. He describes the influence of 17th and 18th-century English ideas on our Founding Fathers' views of ordered liberty and self... Source

Guatemalan child offender in Columbus! Diversity lawyers lecture us on safety in America! Starbucks, Twitter, and CNN support societal decline!  The Hake Report, Thursday, July 14, 2022 AD: Pro-choicers like Sleepy Joe promote 10-yo pregnant alleged victim of "undocumented" Gershon Fuentes. // Media says Berkeley Law's black lady Khiara Bridges "schooled" based(?) Josh Hawley on "Trans" victimhood. // Starbucks closes 16 liberal city locations where they supported crime, "racism," and drug use. // Who's a friend to America: CIA or Wikileaks? First black SDNY US Attorney Damian Williams, photogenic model lawyer, condemns Vault 7 leaker Joshua Schulte. // Truth Social: Trump "truths" Elon Musk on far-left Twitter deal, tags Jack! // The media (including CNN) loves and spreads mass tragedy and misery! //  JUST ONE CALLER Art in Ohio talks about temperance in all things, pro-choice mess, and the 10-yo victim and her perp. //  MUSIC  "Clowne Towne" - Xiu Xiu - Fabulous Muscles (2003, 5 Rue Christine) // "California Wind" - Bruno E. - YouTube Audio Library (Nick or Hassan selection) //  TIME STAMPS 0:00:00 Thu, Jul 14, 2022 0:02:09 Hey, guys! Get a Job tee 0:05:36 YouTube plays mama 0:09:09 Gershon Fuentes, Ohio man 0:27:19 ART, OH: Moderation, Profiling, Choice 0:35:13 Supers: 'Alternate,' Sunburn, Tooth File 0:39:39 Law Prof schools Josh Hawley 0:55:42 "Clowne Towne" - Xiu Xiu 0:58:13 Reading chat during music 1:01:04 Supers: Starbucks in Ferguson? 1:04:10 Joshua Schulte, spy; Damian Williams, lawyer 1:21:09 Starbucks closes locations amid crime 1:37:37 Trump Truth Social vs. Elon Musk, Twitter 1:47:24 Media loves and spreads tragedy 1:55:41 "California Wind" - Bruno E. Also see Hake News from JLP.  HAKE LINKS VIDEO: Facebook | Twitter | NO YouTube (CENSORED!)* | LIVE Odysee | DLive | Twitch* | ARCHIVE Odysee | BitChute | Rumble  PODCAST: Apple | Spotify* | Podplayer | Castbox | TuneIn | Stitcher | Google | iHeart | Amazon | PodBean  SUPER CHAT: Streamlabs | Odysee | EXCLUSIVE SUPPORT: SubscribeStar | Teespring  CALL-IN: 888-775-3773, LIVE M-F 9-11 AM PT (Los Angeles) thehakereport.com/show  *NOTE: Liberal platforms commonly censor Hake's content.  BLOG POST https://www.thehakereport.com/blog/2022/7/14/ohio-man-haha-lawyers-save-usa-not-thu-7-14-22 

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 800 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more As President of Brady, Kris Brown combines a lifelong background in policy, law, and grassroots activism with considerable strategic management expertise to help forge the direction of the organization's programs and ensure the successful impact of its national and field assets. A veteran of gun violence prevention work, Ms. Brown started her career on Capitol Hill working for Rep. Jim Moran, advocating for the bill that would eventually become the groundbreaking Brady Bill requiring background checks on federally licensed gun sales. Ms. Brown has also served as the Chief Legal Officer to a publicly traded company based in Switzerland and as a lawyer practicing at the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges. She lives in Arlington, VA, with her two teenage daughters.  At Brady, she has helped shape the conversation on gun violence as a national health care crisis, launched the organization's groundbreaking safe storage campaign to End Family Fire, and formed Brady's Team Enough youth initiative after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre in Parkland, FL. A noted speaker and media commentator, Ms. Brown was featured in the November 2018 TIME magazine cover article, “Guns in America,” in which she noted that Brady is working to move the discussion of gun violence beyond the polarizing politics in American life. “There's a huge amount of common ground on this issue in this country and I hope we're finally at a tipping point where we can move forward with legislation and [programs] that actually protect people, and are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.”  Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27  and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Check out all things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page  

This week on “The Learning Curve,” co-hosts Cara Candal and Gerard Robinson talk with Cass Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School, and the author of The New York Times best-selling book, The World According to Star Wars. He shares what drew him to this topic, and why, after 45 years, these movies have become a $70 billion multimedia franchise and […]

This week on “The Learning Curve,” as the nation prepares for the likely confirmation of its first Black female U.S. Supreme Court justice, Cara Candal and Gerard Robinson talk with Dr. G. Edward White, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, and author of the three-volume book, Law in […]