Podcast appearances and mentions of lori ringhand

Fulton County was reprimanded for double-counted ballots in the 2020 election. Prof. Lori Ringhand, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Georgia School of Law, joins guest host Ian Hoch to explain what that means.

This hour, guest host Ian Hoch speaks with Prof. Lori Ringhand, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Georgia School of Law, about the double-counted ballots from the 2020 election in Fulton County. 

Professor Lori Ringhand stops by Supreme Myths to discuss the Supreme Court's confirmation process. She is quite simply the leading national expert on the subject.

Friday on Political Rewind: The Supreme Court heard arguments in two important cases this past week. The court will decide if a Colorado woman has a right to refuse web design services to a same-sex couple planning a wedding. It will also decide how much power state legislatures hold in federal elections. The panel Anthony Michael Kreis, @AnthonyMKreis, professor of law, Georgia State University Fred Smith, @fredosmithjr, professor of law, Emory University Jim Galloway, @JimJournalist, former political columnist, Atlanta Journal-Constitution Lori Ringhand, professor of law, University of Georgia TIMESTAMPS 0:00 - Introductions 3:00 - The 11th Circuit's decision 7:00 - Respect for marriage act 12:00 - The Supreme Court hears case of a web designer who doesn't want to work on same-sex weddings 34:00 - Supreme Court hears North Carolina redistricting case 46:00 - Politicization of the federal courts Please be sure to download our newsletter: www.gpb.org/newsletters. And subscribe, follow and rate this show wherever podcasts are found.

FULBRIGHT LECTUREGovernment officials in the UK and the USA have struggled to find effective ways to regulate political spending on the internet. The question of appropriate regulation is challenging - both in practice and principle. Professor Ringhand discusses how officials in the United Kingdom and the United States have approached the problem, and how they have faced surprisingly similar challenges despite the different underlying approaches to political campaign financing taken by each nation.A lecture by Lori Ringhand, University of Georgia and University of Aberdeen 2 April 2019The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/political-spending-internetGresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 2,000 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollege Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

On The Gist, let’s face it: A.I. and robots are going to take jobs from us humans. Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination has restarted the debate on how we vet candidates and whether the Supreme Court is too easy to game. Lori Ringhand, a professor of law at the University of Georgia and an expert on the Supreme Court, explains how much the court has actually changed, or not, in our lifetime. In the Spiel, three theories on how this whole Mueller investigation thing is going to end. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On The Gist, let’s face it: A.I. and robots are going to take jobs from us humans. Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination has restarted the debate on how we vet candidates and whether the Supreme Court is too easy to game. Lori Ringhand, a professor of law at the University of Georgia and an expert on the Supreme Court, explains how much the court has actually changed, or not, in our lifetime. In the Spiel, three theories on how this whole Mueller investigation thing is going to end. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 1985, eight men were convicted of the grisly murder of a Washington D.C. woman. After spending decades in prison, they learned from an article in the Washington Post that prosecutors had withheld evidence from trial that could have exculpated them. This week, the Supreme Court delved back into the details of the 30-plus year old murder case and considered whether the case should be reopened. Former defense lawyer Thomas Dybdahl is writing a book about the murder and its aftermath, and joins us to discuss Turner v. USand Overton v. US. We also speak with legal scholar Lori Ringhand, who literally wrote the book on Supreme Court confirmation hearings. She reflects on some of the ways the process has evolved over the years, whether the so-called “Ginsburg rule” is appropriately named, and what purpose these hearings actually serve.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.  Podcast production by Tony Field. Our intern is Camille Mott.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 1985, eight men were convicted of the grisly murder of a Washington D.C. woman. After spending decades in prison, they learned from an article in the Washington Post that prosecutors had withheld evidence from trial that could have exculpated them. This week, the Supreme Court delved back into the details of the 30-plus year old murder case and considered whether the case should be reopened. Former defense lawyer Thomas Dybdahl is writing a book about the murder and its aftermath, and joins us to discuss Turner v. USand Overton v. US. We also speak with legal scholar Lori Ringhand, who literally wrote the book on Supreme Court confirmation hearings. She reflects on some of the ways the process has evolved over the years, whether the so-called “Ginsburg rule” is appropriately named, and what purpose these hearings actually serve.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.  Podcast production by Tony Field. Our intern is Camille Mott.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In our remote recording location and with returning election-law expert Lori Ringhand, we talk about the election. The electoral college, the moral and legal roles of electors, disputed elections in the House, crises, civil wars. Oh my. (Back in OA World Headquarters for next week’s show.) This show’s links: Lori Ringhand’s faculty profile (http://www.law.uga.edu/profile/lori-ringhand) and writing (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=332414) The Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#12) (including a link to some superseding language of the Twentieth Amendment) Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 68 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp) Rick Hasen’s link to California’s brief against unbinding California’s Electors (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89979) Geoffrey Stone, Electors Against Trump Are Faithful Not Faithless (http://time.com/4597387/faithless-electors-donald-trump/) Lawrence Lessig, The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-constitution-lets-the-electoral-college-choose-the-winner-they-should-choose-clinton/2016/11/24/0f431828-b0f7-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.a63723e54c11); Orin Kerr, The Electoral College Shouldn’t Choose Clinton: A Response to Lessig (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/25/the-electoral-college-shouldnt-choose-clinton-a-response-to-lessig/?utm_term=.e20924ee8ab4); Lawrence Lessig, A Response to Professor Kerr (https://medium.com/equal-citizens/a-response-to-professor-kerr-657e3d9147d2#.320laj58w); Orin Kerr, A Reply to Professor Lessig on the Electoral College (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/01/a-reply-to-professor-lessig-on-the-electoral-college/?utm_term=.3016b02fb393) Rick Hasen, Lessig Urges Faithless Electors Vote for Clinton, Pointing to Popular Vote in a Contest Not Based on Popular Vote (https://electionlawblog.org/?p=89486); Lawrence Lessig, Rick Hasen: “But Not to Ignore It…”: What Is “It”? (https://medium.com/equal-citizens/rick-hasen-but-not-to-ignore-it-what-is-it-59aaf4f0f0a3#.fxivalmbe); Mike Parsons, On “Hamilton Electors” and the Lessig/Hasen Debate (https://moderndemocracyblog.com/2016/12/03/on-hamilton-electors-and-the-lessighasen-debate/) Lawrence Lessig, The Equal Protection Argument Against “Winner Take All” in the Electoral College (http://billmoyers.com/story/equal-protection-argument-winner-take-electoral-college/); Lawrence Lessig, On the Equal Protect Clause Argument and the National Popular Vote Project (https://medium.com/equal-citizens/on-the-equal-protect-clause-argument-and-the-national-popular-vote-project-f4d75901151b#.kzkrq46f4) Dahlia Lithwick and David Cohen, Buck Up, Democrats, and Fight Like Republicans (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/opinion/buck-up-democrats-and-fight-like-republicans.html) David Corn, A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump) John Broich, How US Journalists Normalized the Rise of Hitler and Mussolini (http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-12-13/how-us-journalists-normalized-rise-hitler-and-mussolini-0) (citing Dorothy Thompson’s 1935 observation: “No people ever recognize their dictator in advance.”) Special Guest: Lori Ringhand.

Feedback on “the Cyberloquium,” theme music, affirmative action, oral arguments, podcast apps, Scalia’s opinion announcement in Glossip, the parliamentary system and complexity, postal banking, killer robots, villains and angels in history, and whether philosophy matters much in law. This show’s links: Oral Argument 0: Who Is Your Hero? Amicus podcast: 2015 Term Preview SCOTUSblog’s page for Fisher v. UT Austin Oral Argument 27: My Favorite Case The Oyez page for Glossip v. Gross, containing Breyer’s announcement and Scalia’s response (linked at Part 4) Overcast Oral Argument 56: Cracking and Packing (guest Lori Ringhand) Mehrsa Baradaran, How the Other Half Banks; Nancy Folbre’s review for the NY Times; Oral Argument 9: Torches and Pitchforks Oral Argument 75: Air Gap (guest Mary Ellen O’Connell) Oral Argument 76: Brutality (guest Al Brophy) Oral Argument 77: Jackasses Are People Too (guest Adam Kolber)

We open the burgeoning mailbag. And oh what a bounty! Side A: 1. Georgia’s assertion of copyright over its annotated statutes. 2. Law school application, rankings, and preparation. 3. The utility for law of having a Ph.D. 4. Substantive due process and Lochner. 5. Would law school be better without the study of the Supreme Court or constitutional law? Side B: 6. Voting rights and proportional representation. 7. Whether we’ve had a fair discussion of the death penalty. 8. What makes legal writing good or bad? 9. Other podcasts. 10. Race and the law. 11. The utilitarian case for manual override of driverless cars. 12. Facebook’s ability to create “bad” desires and preferences. Drugs and entertainment. 13. The rogue Kentucky clerk and the difference between civil disobedience and sabotage or revolution. This show’s links: Oral Argument on Twitter and on Facebook About Carl Malamud Georgia Accuses Public Records Activist of Information “Terrorism” Episode 68: Listen to My Full Point and Episode 12: Heart of Darkness Episode 62: Viewer Mail Episode 30: A Filled Milk Caste Episode 66: You’re Never Going to Get It All Done (guest Kareem Creighton) and Kareem Creighton’s tweet to us about this question Chris Elmendorf, Making Sense of Section 2: Of Biased Votes, Unconstitutional Elections, and Common Law Statutes Episode 56: Cracking and Packing (guest Lori Ringhand) Episode 67: Monstrous Acts (guest Josh Lee) Callins v. Collins (Scalia’s concurrence citing the brutality of a murder in a case in which the defendant was later proved innocent) Danielle Allen, Our Declaration; Robert Cover, Violence and the Word ; Jedediah Purdy, After Nature: A Politics for the Anthropocene Undisclosed: The State v. Adnan Syed, a podcast recommended to us Episode 69: Contaminated Evidence (guest Brandon Garrett); see also Episode 45: Sacrifice, Episode 64: Protect and Serve (guest Seth Stoughton) The Our National Conversation about Conversations about Race podcast Episode 70: No Drones in the Park (guest Frank Pasquale) Episode 72: The Guinea Pig Problem (guest Michelle Meyer) A youtube of David Foster Wallace talking about drugs and entertainment in Infinite Jest (2m23s) Anthony Kreis’s tweet about civil disobedience

Big week. Let’s just call this one our second annual Supreme Court round-up, where, naturally, we focus on only two cases: gay marriage and Obamacare II. It’s made awesome by our special guest, Steve Vladeck. This show’s links: Steve Vladeck’s faculty profile and writing Oral Argument 22: Nine Brains in a Vat (guest Dahlia Lithwick) Obergefell v. Hodges Oral Argument 40: The Split Has Occurred (about Judge Sutton’s gay marriage opinion) and Oral Argument 32: Go Figure (guest Lori Ringhand) (about Judge Posner’s gay marriage opinion), both episodes containing ample links concerning the issue San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez Oral Argument 30: A Filled Milk Caste, containing discussion and links concerning United States v. Carolene Products Co. Brown v. Board of Education; see also What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said (Jack Balkin, ed.) Town of Greece v. Galloway; Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment Reed v. Reed Boumediene v. Bush Lochner v. New York; Dred Scott v. Sanford King v. Burwell City of Arlington v. FCC, Roberts’ dissenting regarding the application of Chevron v. NRDC Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1309 v. Laidlaw Transit Services, one of the cases about “not less than seven days” Adam Zimmerman, Chevron after King v. Burwell (the comments to which feature thoughts from listener Asher) Shelby County v. Holder Steward Machine Co. v. Davis Special Guest: Steve Vladeck.

When you have election law and constitutional law scholar Lori Ringhand on your show, you start, of course, by talking about the problem with email, the uses of texting, and apps like Periscope. Lori thinks Christian should read more novels. Fueled by listener Bunny’s small-batch, home-roasted, fine coffee, we move on to the much easier topics of race, voting, and gerrymandering. What do you do when the Supreme Court’s color-blindness understanding of the Equal Protection Clause collides with the Voting Rights Act? And why do geographic voting districts with single winners make sense anyway? Voting’s hard to make fair amirite? This show’s links: Lori Ringhand’s faculty profile and writing Periscope About Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake Lori’s last appearance on the show The SCOTUSblog page for Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (which includes links to briefs and oral argument) Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama About the Voting Rights Act, including a brief outline of its major provisions Shelby County v. Holder About cracking, packing, and other redistricting shenanigans; see also more on this in ProPublica’s Devil’s Dictionary About multiple-winner voting methods and single-winner voting methods (which distinction roughly tracks some of the issues we raised) Shaw v. Reno, which was followed by Miller v. Johnson Partisan gerrymandering cases: Davis v. Bandemer (1986), Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004), League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006) Christopher Elmendorf, Representation Reinforcement through Advisory Commissions: The Case of Election Law Links to the oral argument in the Arizona case Smiley v. Holm and Bush v. Gore (and it was Justice Rehnquist’s concurrence) Special Guest: Lori Ringhand.

We’re back with knees and gay marriage. And constitutional scholar Lori Ringhand. In the battle between recliners and knee defenders, Joe tells us the real enemy is the airline who has sold the same space twice. Somehow nose-punching, rapid window shade flipping, and the high arctic figure into the discussion. Turning to Judge Posner’s smackdown of midwestern marriage bans, we start with style: is there such a thing as too much smack? Then we turn to the really interesting bit, Posner’s reimagining of judicial scrutiny of discrimination. Also: speed traps. This show’s links: Lori Ringhand’s faculty profile, books, and articles Episode 31: Knee Defender, in which we first spoke of the airplane seat reclining controversy Neil Buchanan, Airplane Seatbacks, the Coase Theorem, and Simplistic Solutions to Difficult Questions Josh Barro, Don’t Want Me to Recline My Airline Seat? You Can Pay Me Katia Hetter, Seat Recline Fight Diverts Another Flight Baskin v. Bogan, Judge Posner’s opinion for the Seventh Circuit striking down marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin Robicheaux v. Caldwell, Judge Feldman’s opinion upholding Louisiana’s marriage ban Mark Joseph Stern, Judge Posner’s Gay Marriage Opinion Is a Witty, Deeply Moral Masterpiece Christian Turner, 404: Argument Not Found Brown v. Board of Education What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said, Jack Balkin ed. Episode 30: A Filled Milk Caste, in which we discuss United States v. Carolene Products Windsor v. United States (the Second Circuit opinion that led to the Supreme Court case) and SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories (a Ninth Circuit case), each deciding to apply heightened scrutiny to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation Romer v. Evans, nominally using the deferential rational basis standard to strike down a state’s constitutional prohibition on any governmental efforts to protect gays from discrimination Special Guest: Lori Ringhand.