Podcasts about Louis Brandeis

Send us a textRabbi Evan Moffic, aka The Carnivore Rabbi, discovered that a meat-based diet enhanced his meditation practice and mental clarity, offering a surprising counterpoint to traditional spiritual dietary wisdom. Rabbi Moffic's transformative journey into a carnivore diet helped him to find relief from struggling with chronic stomach issues and brain fog, and led to him to finding clarity and improved health.As a Reform Rabbi, Evan navigates the interesting intersection between traditional Jewish dietary laws and modern nutrition. Rabbi Moffic graduated with high honors from Stanford University in 2000 with a major in history and a senior thesis on Louis Brandeis and the American Zionist movement.Evan is one of the country's youngest senior rabbis in the Reform Movement, and has been a guest lecturer at numerous Jewish centers and synagogues around the country, also having been invited to speak to a variety of interfaith groups. His scholarly works have been published in a wide range of journals, newspapers and magazines.Find Rabbi Moffic at-YT@- Carnivore RabbiSubstack- Everyone Needs a RabbiFind Boundless Body at- myboundlessbody.com Book a session with us here!

Hello to you listening in Saratoga Springs, New York!Coming to you from Whidbey Island, Washington this is Stories From Women Who Walk with 60 Seconds (and a bit more) for Wednesdays on Whidbey and your host, Diane Wyzga.  Over 100 years ago Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, 'We can have a democratic society or we can have the concentration of great wealth in the hands of the few. We cannot have both.” [Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice from 1916-1939]Here we are again. What to do? We organize and work together. If there's no one to start it, you start it. Find your Ordinary Persons, talk with them, listen, have compassion for each other's views, and join together. Step by step your little group of Ordinary Persons can become an Army of Ordinary Persons, maybe even a movement standing up to oppression, greed, injustice. It starts with someone looking around and saying, “I've had it! Enough is enough! This stops now!”The following poem The Low Road by Marge Piercy demonstrates what happens when we organize and work together:The Low Road, by Marge Piercy"What can they doto you? Whatever they want.They can set you up, they canbust you, they can breakyour fingers, they canburn your brain with electricity,blur you with drugs till youcan't walk, can't remember, they cantake your child, wall upyour lover. They can do anythingyou don't stop themfrom doing. How can you stopthem? Alone, you can fight,you can refuse, you cantake what revenge you canbut they roll over you. But two people fightingback-to-back can cut througha mob, a snake-dancing filecan break a cordon, an armycan meet an army. Two people can keep each othersane, can give support, conviction,love, massage, hope, sex.Three people are a delegation,a committee, a wedge. With fouryou can play bridge and startan organization. With sixyou can rent a whole house,eat pie for dinner with noseconds, and hold a fund raising party.A dozen make a demonstration.A hundred fill a hall.A thousand have solidarity and your own newsletter;ten thousand, power and your own paper;a hundred thousand, your own media;ten million, your own country. It goes on one at a time,it starts when you careto act, it starts when you doit again and they said no,it starts when you say Weand you know who you mean,and each day you mean one more."Click to access The Low Road, by Marge PiercySaturday June 14th is No King Day and Flag Day! Get together with some folks, bash the birthday cake fly your flag because our flag is tied to our Constitution and our Constitution is our democracy and in a democracy it is “We the People” - no king.Thank you for listening!  You're always welcome: "Come for the stories - Stay for the magic!" Speaking of magic, I hope you'll subscribe, share a 5-star rating and nice review on your social media or podcast channel of choice, bring your friends and rellies, and join us! You will have wonderful company as we continue to walk our lives together. Be sure to stop by my Quarter Moon Story Arts website, check out the Communication Services, arrange a no-obligation Discovery Call, and Opt In to stay current with me as "Wyzga on Words" on Substack.Stories From Women Who Walk Production TeamPodcaster: Diane F Wyzga & Quarter Moon Story ArtsMusic: Mer's Waltz from Crossing the Waters by Steve Schuch & Night Heron MusicAll content and image © 2019 to Present Quarter Moon Story Arts. All rights reserved.

Privacy law and technological advancements have a deep and intertwined history that go back to at least the 1890s with Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis's article "The Right to Privacy," which was prompted by camera technology. George Washington University Law Professor Dan Solove has long studied and written about privacy law. He published several well-known books including "Nothing to Hide: The False Trade Off Between Privacy and Security" and co-authored "Privacy Law Fundamentals," which is published by the IAPP. Solove recently published a new book, "On Privacy and Technology." IAPP Editorial Director Jedidiah Bracy caught up with Solove just before the book was published to discuss it and whether the regulation-versus-innovation trade-off is a fallacy, why the notice-and-choice paradigm hasn't worked for consumers, and where the future will take privacy, AI, and cybersecurity law and regulation.

Summary of Chapter 12: The Right to Privacy. Chapter 12 explores the evolving concept of privacy rights in the United States, covering its historical origins, key legal developments, and emerging challenges in the digital age. The chapter is divided into several key sections: 1. Origins and Development of the Right to Privacy. Privacy as a legal concept has deep historical roots, beginning with English common law's recognition of the home as a protected space. In the U.S., privacy rights began to take shape in the 19th century, as industrialization and urbanization raised concerns about personal autonomy and dignity. A seminal moment in privacy law came with Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis' 1890 article, The Right to Privacy, which argued for privacy as an independent legal right. This article became the foundation for the modern understanding of privacy, defined as “the right to be let alone.” The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to privacy, but courts have interpreted various amendments to protect privacy in specific contexts. Landmark Supreme Court cases such as Griswold v Connecticut (1965), Katz v United States (1967), and Roe v Wade (1973) have established privacy as a constitutional right, particularly regarding personal decisions about marriage, reproductive rights, and bodily autonomy. 2. Reproductive Rights. The right to privacy has been particularly significant in the area of reproductive rights. Contraception: The Supreme Court first recognized the right to privacy in reproductive decisions in Griswold v Connecticut, which struck down a law banning contraceptives for married couples. This right was extended to unmarried individuals in Eisenstadt v Baird (1972), establishing reproductive autonomy as a matter of individual privacy. Abortion: In Roe v Wade (1973), the Court recognized a woman's right to choose to have an abortion as part of her privacy rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This right was later modified in Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992), which introduced the "undue burden" test, allowing for state regulation of abortion as long as it does not place an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Current Challenges: Reproductive rights have faced increasing legal challenges, culminating in the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v Wade, returning the authority to regulate abortion to individual states. 3. Right to Marry and Family Autonomy. The right to marry and family autonomy are also protected under the umbrella of privacy rights. The Right to Marry: The Supreme Court has long recognized marriage as a fundamental right. In Loving v Virginia (1967), the Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage, affirming that marriage is a basic civil right. This was further expanded in Obergefell v Hodges (2015), where the Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, grounding this decision in both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Family Autonomy: Privacy rights also protect family autonomy, particularly parents' rights to make decisions about the upbringing and education of their children. In Pierce v Society of Sisters (1925) and Troxel v Granville (2000), the Court ruled that the government cannot interfere with parents' fundamental rights to direct their children's upbringing, unless there is a compelling state interest. 4. Emerging Issues in Privacy Law. As society evolves, so too does the concept of privacy. Emerging issues in privacy law include: Digital Privacy and Technology: The rise of digital platforms has introduced new privacy concerns, particularly regarding the collection, storage, and use of personal data by both governments and private companies. Issues of data privacy and government surveillance, as seen in cases like Carpenter v United States (2018), highlight the need for updated legal protections in the digital age. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 12: The Right to Privacy Chapter 12 explores the evolution and scope of privacy rights in the United States, addressing its origins, key legal developments, and emerging challenges. 1. Origins and Development of the Right to Privacy Privacy rights have historical roots in English common law, particularly the notion that the home should be protected from state intrusion. In the U.S., the modern concept of privacy was significantly shaped by the 1890 article by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, which argued for privacy as an independent legal right. Although privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, courts have recognized it as an implied right through various amendments. Landmark cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Roe v. Wade (1973) established constitutional protections for privacy in areas such as contraception, reproductive rights, and personal autonomy. 2. Reproductive Rights Reproductive rights have been at the center of privacy law: Contraception: Griswold v. Connecticut established the right to use contraception as part of the constitutional right to privacy. This was later extended to unmarried individuals in Eisenstadt v. Baird. Abortion: In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, framing it as part of her right to privacy. This right was later modified in Planned Parenthood v. Casey with the "undue burden" test, and ultimately overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), allowing states to regulate or ban abortion. 3. Right to Marry and Family Autonomy Right to Marry: The Supreme Court has recognized marriage as a fundamental right. In Loving v. Virginia, it struck down bans on interracial marriage, and in Obergefell v. Hodges, it extended the right to marry to same-sex couples, framing marriage as a fundamental aspect of personal liberty and autonomy. Family Autonomy: Parents' rights to raise their children are protected under the right to privacy. Key cases like Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Troxel v. Granville affirm that parents have the right to make decisions about their children's education and upbringing without undue government interference. 4. Emerging Issues in Privacy Law Privacy law faces new challenges in the digital age: Digital Privacy: The collection and use of personal data by companies and government agencies, particularly in the realm of surveillance, have raised significant concerns. Cases like Carpenter v. United States have extended privacy protections to digital data. Genetic Privacy: Advances in biotechnology and genetic testing have introduced concerns about the use of genetic information, leading to laws like the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) to protect against misuse. The Right to Be Forgotten: This concept, prominent in Europe under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), allows individuals to request the removal of personal data from the internet. In the U.S., its potential implementation is debated due to concerns over free speech and access to information. Conclusion Chapter 12 outlines the significant legal protections around privacy in the U.S., tracing its origins and addressing key issues like reproductive rights and family autonomy. It also highlights emerging challenges in privacy law, particularly in the digital age, showing how courts and lawmakers must adapt to new technological and societal changes to protect individual privacy. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Pesach and Doug sit down with the former United States Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, and get his thoughts about Israel, the future of the Abraham accords, and the role of scripture in geopolitics. He also talks about his just-released book, One Jewish State: The Last, Best Hope to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and the importance of thinking outside our conventional boxes to find a solution to the seemingly endless Israel-Arab disputes. Crucially, Ambassador Friedman points out that these ideas are not novel or original, but actually are expressed by God in the Bible. Don't miss this conversation with a thinker whom Ben Shapiro called, "the single most important American-Jewish voice on Israel since Louis Brandeis."

How did the Supreme Court move from its essential job of interpreting the Constitution into the realm of political activism? And why, until recently, has the Supreme Court been so dominated by the Left? This is the story of the transformation of the Supreme Court by three progressive icons: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis Brandeis, and Felix Frankfurter. Holmes Jr. blazed the left-wing trail with his radical new vision of an evolving, “living” Constitution. Brandeis and Frankfurter used their positions as Supreme Court justices to run a secret political activist network that influenced decision-making at the highest levels of both Congress and the White House.   Sponsors Jase Wouldn't it be nice if you lived in a country where you didn't have to constantly worry that your government is lying to you? A country where you could take it for granted that those in charge weren't making decisions based on what they think is in your best interest — and not what you think is? History shows us, unfortunately, that the more bloated a government gets, the more this happens. I don't know about you, but I make it a point to make critical decisions for myself and my family, and you should too. You should get a Jase case. It's a personalized emergency kit that contains essential antibiotics and medications that treat the most common and deadly bacterial infections. It provides five lifesaving antibiotics for emergency use. All you have to do is fill out a simple form online, and you'll have it in case you need it. There are add-on options too, like EpiPens and ivermectin.  Jase Medical encourages you to take your family's health into your own hands. Go to https://jasemedical.com and enter code BECK at checkout for a discount on your order.   Relief Factor It's enough of a struggle just to live our lives and try to keep tyranny at bay day after day without also having to deal with pain on a regular basis. And yet, our bodies don't really give us much of a choice. The biggest cause of our pain is inflammation in our joints; I know, because I used to get it so badly in my hands, I couldn't even always button my shirt in the morning — let alone do so many of the things I love to do, like painting or writing letters by hand. Thank God, I found out about Relief Factor and eventually gave it a try. I got my life back, and you could get your life back too. There's only one way to know.  If you're living with aches and pains, see for yourself how Relief Factor — a daily, drug-free supplement — could help you feel and live better every day. Join the over 1 million people who've turned to Relief Factor, and you could start feeling better in three weeks or fewer. Visit https://www.relieffactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF and save on your first order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For a long time, the Court operated under what was called Legal Formalism. Legal formalism said that the job of any judge or justice was incredibly narrow. It was to basically look at the question of the case in front of them, check that question against any existing laws, and then make a decision. Unlike today, no one was going out of their way to hear what economists or sociologists or historians thought. Judges were just sticking to law books. The rationale for this way of judging was that if you always and only look at clean, dry law the decisions would be completely objective.In the late 19th, early 20th century a movement rose up to challenge legal formalism. They called themselves the legal realists. Fred Schauer, professor of law at University of Virginia. says the Realists felt that the justices weren't actually as objective as they said they were. "Supreme Court justices were often making decisions based on their own political views, their own economic views, and would disguise it in the language of precedence or earlier decisions," says Schauer. The realists said lets just accept that reality and wanted to arm the judges with more information so those judges could make more informed decisions.For a long time the debate between realists and formalists had been mostly theoretical. That is until the arrival of the Brandeis Brief. The Brandeis brief came during a pivotal court case in the early 20th century. And the man at the center of that case was a legal realist and progressive reformer named Louis Brandeis.Fact Checking the Supreme Court 

Show Notes and Transcript Morton Klein, President of the Zionist Organization of America joins Hearts of Oak to emphasize the significance of Zionism and what the term really means.  He delivers the case for the Jewish people's right to their ancestral homeland, discussing historical, legal, and biblical support for Israel, dispelling misconceptions about the region, and addresses ongoing struggles faced by them. The discussion covers ZOA's role in promoting U.S-Israel relations, combating anti-Semitism, and supporting security through education and advocacy efforts. Morton delves into the religious and political aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, critiquing media bias and highlighting support for Israel. He criticizes the current U.S. administration's stance on Israel and emphasizes Israel's efforts to minimize civilian casualties during conflicts. The conversation concludes with reflections on Israel's challenges in international relations and combating terrorism, acknowledging the importance of advocating for truth amid anti-Israel narratives. Morton A. Klein is National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the oldest pro-Israel group in the U.S., founded in 1897. He is a member of the National Council of AIPAC. Mr. Klein is widely regarded as one of the leading Jewish activists in the United States.  The US Department of State has awarded Klein a “Certificate of Appreciation” “in recognition of outstanding contributions to national and international affairs,” after he delivered a major address there. He is a member of the International Board of Governors of the College of Judea and Samaria in Ariel, Israel. He is an economist who served in the Nixon, Ford, and Carter Administrations. He has served as a biostatistician at UCLA School of Public Health and the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine in Palo Alto, California. He has been a lecturer in mathematics and statistics at Temple University. His successful campaigns against anti-Israel bias in leading textbooks, travel guides, universities, churches, and the media, as well as his work on Capitol Hill, were the subject of 30 feature stories both here and in Israel. His scientific research on nutrition and heart disease was cited by Discover Magazine as one of the Top 50 Scientific Studies of 1992. He has been invited to testify before the US Congress, Including the US House International Relations Committee, and the Israeli Knesset. He travelled to Germany and persuaded the publishers of Baedeker's, the world's leading travel guide, to correct the many anti-Israel errors in its guides to Israel and Jerusalem. He launched a campaign to correct dozens of anti-Israel errors in D.C. Heath's “The Enduring Vision,” the most widely used American high school and college history textbook.  More than 300 of his articles and letters have been published in newspapers, magazines, and scientific journals around the world. Klein has appeared on TV and radio. Lines from his speeches appear in the respected volume entitled “Great Jewish Quotations,” He is on the speaker's bureau of UJC, and Israel Bonds. Connect with Morton and ZOA... X                         x.com/MortonAKlein7                            x.com/ZOA_National WEBSITE             zoa.org  Interview recorded 11.4.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE              heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS          heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA    heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                   heartsofoak.org/shop/ *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on X twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin  TRANSCRIPT (Hearts of Oak) And it is wonderful to have Morton Klein with us from the Zionist Organization of America. Morton, thank you so much for your time today. (Morton Klein) It's great to be here during these very extraordinary and important times. They are, and that's probably what makes this conversation even more interesting with what is happening currently over in Israel. People can obviously follow you @MortonAKlein7. That is your Twitter handle. And ZOA, not Z-O-A, like the Americans like to say, ZOA.org, ZionistOrganisationOfAmerica.org. I'd encourage our viewers and listeners to use both of those resources and understand what is happening in the Middle East at the moment. Now, there's lots to talk about. You're obviously president of the Zionist Organization of America. You've got a number of other accolades into your name, but it is this specifically which I'm intrigued and want to have a conversation about. And actually, I saw your name on the back of Robert Spencer's book. We had him on a few weeks ago on the Palestinian delusion. And you were there as an individual promoting the book and endorsing it. So I thought, I need to reach out to Morton. So it's great to have you on. Lots to discuss. And I think probably if we can step back and ask about the term Zionism before we jump into what is happening in the current day Israel. And I certainly call myself a Christian Zionist. And that's from a biblical understanding 3,000 years since Jerusalem was founded as a capital of Israel under King David. And then much further back, the promise given to Abraham. But maybe that's a spiritual understanding of the term, and the term Zionism is not necessarily a spiritual concept. Maybe you can unpack a little bit the term Zionism before we delve into some of the other issues. It's really a very simple term. All it means is that the Jews have a right to their ancient homeland that was given to them, for those who believe in the Bible, and a couple of billion people do, by God. In fact, he gave the Jews the land that Israel controls now, and much more. So this is a fraction of what the Jewish homeland consists of, according to the Bible and what God has promised in the Bible. It is called the promised land because God promised it to the Jewish people. We are the people who God promised the land to. That's why it's called the promised land. But it's not only a biblical right to have a Jewish state, but numerous international legal resolutions also give that right. The League of Nations Covenant, Article 22, the British Mandate for Palestine, the UN Charter, Article 80, the San Remo Resolution, the Lodge-Fist Resolution, the Anglo-American Resolution, and more. Legally, under international law, gave this land to the Jews when it was essentially a wasteland, just a desert. When the Balfour Declaration said this land is going to be given as a mandate in trust for the Jewish people in 1917. And historically, the Jews have lived in this land for thousands of years. This has been the place where Jewish people lived and occupied and lived in for all this time. And so all Zionism means is the Jews have a right to a country, just like the French have a country, the Italians have a country, even the Irish have a country, and the British have a country, and the Jews. There are 56 Muslim countries in the world, 56 or 57, why can't there be one small, little, tiny Jewish country, which is one-eighth of 1% of the landmass of the Middle East? There are 22 Arab countries in the Middle East. Israel is one-eighth of 1% of that land. So Zionism is not a complicated term. It simply means the Jews have a right to a homeland, just like so many other people have it. And this is a homeland, unlike most other countries in the world, where the Jews have lived in for thousands and thousands of years. That's what Zionism means. Nothing more, nothing less. Over the weekend, I actually went to the Churchill war rooms in London. And part of the story on Churchill, obviously, is involvement in the Belfort Declaration. And you see those maps and the discussion of British politicians and their relationship with Israel and whether they were pro-Israel or not. And you realize Israel is tiny. And you expand it out. Now, the Middle East is large and Israel is tiny. And it makes you realize that most people, I think, have forgotten the size of Israel in comparison to the Middle East. And it is really quite small. The Arab countries are 800 times the size of Israel. As I said, it's one-eighth of 1% of the land mass of the Middle East. It is smaller than New Jersey. It is smaller than Rhode Island. It is a tiny, tiny land. With 7 million Jews and 2 million Arabs. It's remarkable. The Arabs have a right to live in Israel, the Muslim Arabs and the Arab Christians as well. They have a right to vote. They're in the parliament, Israel's parliament. They're in the Supreme Court. They're in judges and courts throughout Israel. Their doctors, almost half of the doctors in Hadassah, Israel's major hospital, are Arabs. And yet the world, the Arab world, says the Jews have no right to be there. And it's really a racist, anti-Semitic, hateful disgrace to say that the Jews can't have this little tiny homeland. We talked about the term Zionism, but I want to ask you about the Zionist Organization of America, their role, why it's needed. You've headed up the ZOA away for, what, 28 years now, I think? 31. 31, sorry. I've got my three years. I blame COVID for that. So that three years have disappeared. Do you want to just let us know why it exists and why it's needed? The Zionist Organization of America is the oldest and one of the largest pro-Israel groups in the United States, founded in 1897 for a sole purpose, to reestablish the Jewish state of Israel. That's why it was re-established. Past presidents include Louis Brandeis, a famous Supreme Court justice, Abahel Silver, Stephen Wise. These are famous Jewish leaders. And that's its original purpose. Once Israel was re-established in 1948, ZOA's role has been to fight for strong U.S.-Israel relations and for the safety and security and prosperity of the Jewish state of Israel. And also, by the way, in recent years, fight against the scourge, the ugly scourge of irrational, mindless, anti-Semitism, Jew hatred and Israel bashing. So that's really been our purpose. We have a legal division. We have people on Capitol Hill who are educating members of Congress about these issues. We take young kids to Israel twice a year. We take adults to Israel. We have a trip coming up in June for adults where we go all over Israel, including Judea and Samaria, Hebron, Afrat, Ariel, Maladumim, Eli, those smaller areas in Israel. And we also have a campus department. We're on 80 different campuses bringing in speakers, disseminating literature, telling the truth of the Arab-Islamic war against Israel and the West because that's what it is. It is an Arab-Islamic war against Israel and the West. We now see it in all the rallies on campuses and around the world. They say from the river to the sea, meaning Israel should not exist. They don't say there should be a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, the West Bank and Gaza and half of Jerusalem. They say no Israel. So these are despicable, vicious, ugly human beings that want to destroy this tiny little Jewish state of Israel within any borders. They're not looking for a Palestinian state solution. They're looking for an end of Israel solution. And we're fighting against this with all of our heart and soul. Tell us about, because you mentioned it's the political fight, it's the media fight, you mentioned about on campuses with students. I mean, kind of break those down, because it is about winning hearts and souls and minds over to the position that Israel do have a right to exist like any other nation. And yet there seems to be a lot of pushback, certainly in our media and massively in our universities and educational establishments. It's incredible. After 80 years of re-establishing the state of Israel, remember 2,000 years ago, there was a Jewish state that was destroyed really by the Romans 2,000 years ago. This was the first Holocaust. The Romans murdered 600,000 Jews. And then they renamed this area Judea and Samaria, the Jewish state, Philistinia, translated to Palestine. So this is a Roman word. If this really was an Arab country, which it never was, why would they use a Roman name to name it? Palestine is a Roman name. Moreover, Arabs can't pronounce the letter P. They say Palestine with a B. They can't pronounce it. Would they name their own country with a letter that they can't even pronounce? There was never a Palestine. There were never any Palestinian kings and queens. The only state that ever existed in this area has been a Jewish state. In fact, 99% of the Palestinian Arabs live under their own control. Israel has given away Gaza and 40% of Judea and Samaria, the West Bank. 99% of the Arabs live in those areas under Abbas's rule, the dictator, terrorist, Abbas's rule. They have their own parliament, their own schools, their own textbooks, their own newspapers, their own radio and TV businesses, police force. They run their own lives totally in Gaza under Hamas, the Nazi-like dictatorship, and in Judea and Samaria under Abbas, another terrorist dictator. By the way, I don't know how many of your listeners know this, an ugly fact. Mahmoud Abbas pays Arabs a lifetime pension to murder Jews. If an Arab kills a Jew, They get a lifetime pension at five times the average rate of a salary of a Palestinian. It is very lucrative to murder Jews. They spend $400 million a year to murder Jews. How many people know this? Why would our college kids are defending a regime that pays people to murder Jews? By the way, and Americans, they've murdered Americans in Israel. And the Arab who murders Americans also gets a lifetime pension. And if the Arab was killed murdering a Jew or an American, his or her family gets the lifetime pension. So this is the most heinous regime on the face of the earth. And it is just mind-boggling that people around the world are supporting this regime and supporting Hamas in Israel's existential war. Hamas, Article 7 of their charter calls for the murder of every Jew on earth, every Jew on earth. Article 13 calls for the destruction of Israel. They massacred 1,200 innocent Jews, raped them, mutilated them, tortured them, and then kidnapped 250 mostly Jews. Six Americans, I might add, are left. And now they're saying that out of the 140 left, that they released 100, out of the 140 left, they're saying they don't think they have 40 Jews there. In other words, it's likely that these Hamas monsters have murdered all of the Jewish hostages, murdered them all. The world should wake up and understand this is an Islamic, radical Islamic war against the West and against the Jews. Mahmoud al-Zahar, the co-founder of Hamas, two months ago on the Internet, said, I want the world to understand this. This is the co-founder of Hamas. First, we're going to kill all the Jews, but we're not done after that. Next, we're going to kill all the despicable Christians. And then all the non-Muslims establish a caliphate where Islam rules the world. He said it two months ago. And so you have these non-Muslims supporting Hamas, who wants to kill every one of them. Not to mention, they immediately say every gay person will hang and kill immediately. The gay people, the transgender, they're dead immediately. So how are these left-wing students and left-wing people around the world supporting the most despicable ideology on the face of the earth, the ideology of the Hamas and Abbas regimes. I want to pick up on a few of those, and I would love for the Western liberals to have a pride rally through Gaza or West Bank and see how long that lasts. But that's a whole other issue. Modern-day Israel has been for 75 years, give or take a year, since 1948. And re-establishing that entity, that territory that had been Israel before the Romans removed, basically removed it from the face of the map. But tell us about that, because you obviously look closely at, since 1948, at the establishment, Israel has had to fight for its survival on a nearly daily basis. Israel's military spending is huge compared to other countries, and it must do that because it has to defend itself. I mean, tell us about that, because that 75 years, I see it as a Christian that Israel have the right to exist, have the right to take the land that is theirs, and seem to be a natural, progression from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to actually Israel re-establishing that in that vacuum. And yet many critique and mock and attack Israel simply for the right of existing in their land, which should be a given, really. Those who oppose the Jewish state's right to exist are mocking God Almighty from the Christian and Jewish Bibles, are mocking the United Nations resolutions and England's resolutions who controlled this legally, this land legally, since 1917. And it's nothing less than overt Jew hatred that's all it is. It's pure Jew hatred and Israel has offered a Palestinian state to the Arabs four times in the last 20 years, four times. Ehud Olmert was the most recent one, where Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, offered 97% of Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, 3% of Israel proper to make up for the 3% he couldn't give away because there's a half a million Jews living there. So Olmert offered virtually all of the West Bank, half of Jerusalem, billions of dollars in aid, and Mahmoud Abbas said, said, no. I called up the prime minister. How could he not turn down? This is not a compromise. You've given them every single part of the disputed territories and half of Jerusalem. And Olmert said to me, Abbas said to me, you must eliminate three clauses in the agreement. One, you must eliminate the clause that says we accept Israel as a Jewish state. Abbas said, I'll never accept Israel as a Jewish state. Two, you must eliminate the clause that says you must limit the number of Arabs we bring into Israel proper to 150,000. I want to bring in millions if I went into Israel. I will not accept a limitation on the number of Arabs I bring into Israel proper. And three, you must eliminate the clause that says no further claims. And the Olmert says, but that's the deal. We're giving you everything, virtually everything. It ends all the claims. It's done. Peace. And Abbas said, I won't sign it until you get rid of those three clauses. So they've been offered a state four times, turned it down every time in the last 20 years. In the last 80 years, they've been offered a state eight times, starting with the Peel Commission in 1937, where they offered 95% of the rest of Palestine, 80% of original Palestine mandate went to Jordan. There's only 20% left of the original Palestine mandate. The Peel Commission offered 95% of the rest of Palestine to the Arabs, not 5% of the Jews, the Arabs said no. In other words, they say no. They don't want a state. They want Israel destroyed. They won't accept a Jewish state. That's the deal. Because from 1948 to 1967, the Arabs controlled all of the West Bank, all of Gaza, half of Jerusalem. They had it. Did they establish a state when they personally controlled it? No. Because the goal is not a Palestinian state. It's Israel's destruction. It's Israel's destruction. Let me show you a picture if you can see this. This is the Palestinian Authority's official emblem that they commissioned. This is their official emblem. You notice it's the shape of all of Israel with a keffiyeh over all of it, not just the West Bank and Gaza and Eastern Jerusalem, all of it. Arafat, the arch terrorist in the centre, and a Kalashnikov rifle. So their official emblem is all of Israel is ours. What more proof do you need that they have no interest in a Palestinian state solution? They have in an end of Israel solution. That's what they're interested in. And by the way, I can show you another thing. It's quite interesting. Every Arab that murders a Jew gets a poster. This is one of the Arabs who murdered a Jew. This is on all the high school walls, all the university walls, calling him a martyr and a hero. This is just one of hundreds of posters honouring Jews. And when a terrorist who killed Jews dies, they have a parade and they honour him. What a great man or woman he was. And they hand out candy and sweets to each other, praising murder. They glorify murder. They glorified massacres. They glorify rape. They glorify terrorism. This is a vicious, Nazi-like, despicable regime. And the world has to wake up because the radical Muslims are coming after everyone that's not Muslim, not just the Jews. People better start to understand this and start supporting Israel, who's fighting a war against Hamas, to protect the entire world from radical Islam, not just Israel. Is part of the problem that, I know on the Jewish side, you've got a weird mix of those who support Israel and Israel's right to exist from a biblical point of view, from a spiritual point of view, and those who support it from probably a social, historical, cultural point of view. So you've got that weird mix in Judaism, which always confuses me. But then on the other side, you've also got the world refusing to recognize that this is a clash between Islam and Judaism. And the West thinks that you can come up with a solution which is a land-based solution. And if you've got one side wanting to destroy the other, actually, you've got a problem. And the world doesn't seem to want to wake up to the reality that this is not simply a land issue, that the Islamic nations will not be happy until Israel doesn't exist. Am I correct in my assumption or am I completely off? The proof of what you just said is the fact they've been offered a state, the Palestinian Arabs, eight times in the last 80 years, four times in the last 20 years. They've said no. When they controlled all this land themselves for 19 years, 48 to 67, they didn't establish a state. They still were committing terrorist acts. This is a religious war. war. The radical Muslims believe that the Jews or the Christians have no right to any land in the Middle East that is all theirs. Lebanon was a Christian country. The radical Muslims destroyed Lebanon. It is now a Muslim country. They massacred hundreds of thousands of Christians until Hezbollah. Now Hezbollah has taken control of Lebanon. So this is a religious war, and that's why it has nothing to do with land. Land for peace is nonsense. It's been offered repeatedly. They say no. It's a religious war. The issue is they don't want Israel in their midst. They don't want a Christian country in their midst. They don't want non-Muslims in their midst. I've met with many Christians who live in various parts of the Arab world. They're scared to death for their lives. Their lives are made miserable and dangerous by their fellow Muslims. This is a reality, so yes land for peace has been offered repeatedly, turned down every single time, it's a religious war. The radical Arabs will not be satisfied until Israel doesn't exist, just like they weren't satisfied until Lebanon was no longer a Christian country. Tell us I'm curious the ZOA obviously exists in the US in America and America, I think was Truman was one of the first leaders to actually recognize the state of Israel uh back in, just after the creation of Israel in 48 and there is that close link between America and Israel. Do you want to just expand on that a little bit? Because geopolitically, that's a fascinating relationship. And maybe then we can get up later into where it now sits at the moment between that maybe being more fractured than it has been. But yeah, America and Israel have always been strong allies, starting with that Truman Declaration of Israel's right to exist in 1948. Harry Truman, as president of the United States in 1948, was the first country in the vote at the United Nations to recognize the state of Israel. Or maybe they cast the deciding vote, I'm not sure. But they certainly cast the vote to support Israel. But the polls at that time in America showed Americans supported Israel by 80% of Americans supported the right of the Jewish people to have a state. So this was overwhelming support in the United States. The chief of staff to White House counsel to Truman was begging Truman to recognize it. Quoting from the Bible, he repeatedly quoted the lines from the Bible saying, this land was given to the Jews, Mr. President, you must recognize it. And by the way, many presidents since then have publicly stated there should be an Israel before there was an Israel. John Adams, Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, and many others have in their speeches, I've said, we hope and pray that a Jewish state is re-established. So there's been a love affair with the leaders of America and the American people and the Jewish state since America was created. George Washington was a supporter. In fact, this is an interesting story. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and I believe John Adams, I think. Proposed that the seal of the United States, which is now an eagle holding out its wings, they proposed the seal should be Moses splitting the sea as the pharaoh and the military Egyptians were coming across the sea to come and kill all the Jews who had just escaped. All the Israelis, the Hebrews who had just escaped, and the sea splits and swallows up all the military while the Jews are watching in the scene beforehand and cheering. That's the seal that Franklin Jefferson and Adams wanted as a seal of America. That's the kind of connection America's had to the Jewish people. It was barely voted down, barely voted. It almost became the seal. So to this day, in a recent poll, who do you support in this war in America, Hamas or Israel? I'm shocked. It's only 82 percent should be 100 percent. But it's 82% say Israel should be fighting against this vicious regime of Hamas. So there's overwhelming support in America. There's even overwhelming support in Congress. It has weakened. There are now a number of congressmen who are speaking out inappropriately in a hostile way toward Israel. But nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of the Congress is supportive of Israel. And that's been true really since Israel was – America was established in 1776. There's been support for the re-establishment of a state and now for the state itself. Well let me throw in some other kind of facts on that, I think the US is Israel's largest trading partner, I think I read is about 50 billion trade back and forward and of course you got the military aid that goes to Israel every year of billions and you mentioned the beginning about the U.S. backing Israel in the U.N. And the U.S. has used a veto dozens and dozens of times in the U.N. Supporting Israel, backing Israel. And, of course, President Trump moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem despite all the pushback, despite the debate over that. But all of that is actually Israel is shoulder to shoulder. And there have been a time where maybe Britain was shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel. That is still there in relation to Europe, but actually it is the U.S. that seems to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel. Well, let me first tell you about, you mentioned the aid, billions of dollars in aid. Let me tell something that I'm sure most of your viewers do not know. Israel was getting half a billion dollars in aid, 500 million, until the late 70s. Then Carter was pushing the deal with Israel to give away the entire Sinai which was five times the size of Israel. Israel when they controlled the Sinai developed four major oil wells themselves in the Sinai these oil wells gave Israel two and a half billion dollars in income in 1978. And Menachem Begin, the prime minister, then said, we cannot give away the Sinai because we will lose two and a half billion dollars of oil wells we found, we developed ourselves. And we can't do it. Carter said, I will make up the difference. I'll give you the extra two and a half billion. So it went from 500 million to three billion. But this is not really America's money per se. Israel gave up two and a half billion. So $2.5 billion of the aid Israel gets is the fact that they gave up the oil wells. And do you know, Peter, how much income today those four oil wells would be delivering to Israel? $10 billion because oil prices have gone up dramatically. So they've given up a tremendous amount. And people forget. Do you know how much aid Egypt gets from America? It's never mentioned. $2.5 billion. $2.5 billion for Egypt. Jordan, $1 billion. The Palestinian Authority, a terrorist dictatorship, gets almost $1 billion in aid right now. So people forget about the aid others get. And with Israel, 97% of the aid they get is spent in America, buying equipment here in America. So it comes right back to America in any event. And you mentioned that Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem. I was intimately involved in that issue with Senator John Kyle, who's a hero that no one even remembers. He's the one who really pushed this issue more than anyone else. And the vote to move the embassy in 1995 was 93 to 5 in the Senate, 93 to 5, 347 to 37 in the House. In other words, over 95% of Congress voted to move the embassy. Bill Clinton was against it. Now, he couldn't veto it because it would be overridden because it was such an overwhelming support. So he ignored it. If you ignore a law, if a president ignores a law, it automatically becomes law in 30 days. and it became law. And then Senator Dianne Feinstein had put in what's known as a poison pill. She said, any president can say, I'm not moving it if there's a security issue. And each president for 18 years said there's a security issue and never moved it. But people, of course, predicted if you move it, there'll be violence all over the place. Of course, it turned out to be completely false. There was no violence. But let me tell you something else that I'm sure most of your viewers do not know. Of course, they want to move the embassy to Jerusalem because Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Jerusalem has been the holiest state to the Jewish people since time immemorial. But the Arabs say this is their holy city. Well, is it? Is Jerusalem holy to Muslims? Jerusalem was the capital only of Israel throughout history, never of any other country. When the Palestinians conquered Palestine in 716, they made Ramleh their capital, not Jerusalem. It's called the Temple Mount, not the Mosque Mount because the Jewish temple was on this area. The majority of people living in Jerusalem since 1850, the first census, have been Jews. The overwhelming majority of people living there since 1850 have been Jews. The Jewish holy books mention the word Jerusalem 700 times. How many times is the word Jerusalem in the Koran? How many times is the word Jerusalem, if it's so holy to Muslims, this is their holy book, how many times is it mentioned? Zero. Not a single time. How can it be so holy to them if it's not in their holy book? So they say, Muhammad went from Jerusalem to heaven. But that's not what the Koran says. Read the Koran. It says that Muhammad went from the furthest mosque to heaven. It didn't say Jerusalem. And they say, well, the furthest mosque was in Jerusalem. Well, when the Koran was written, there was not a single mosque in all of Jerusalem. So if Muhammad went from the furthest mosque, it couldn't be in Jerusalem. There were no mosques there. So the truth is that Jerusalem is not holy to Muslims. In fact, from 48 to 67, when they controlled Jerusalem, When they captured that war, they captured it. They allowed it. The Jordan and the Arabs allowed it to become a slum. There was virtually no water, electricity or plumbing. There were 58 synagogues in Jerusalem that they captured. They destroyed all 58 of them to eliminate proof that Jews, this was a holy place to them. So that's another thing that most people don't understand. Jerusalem is minimally holy to Muslims at most. It is a holy to Jews and possibly Christians. I'm not a Christian, so I don't know the Bible so well, the Christian Bible, that may be holy to Christians, but it is not holy to Muslims. Yeah, well, I think the holiness to Christians is simply because of the biblical story. And without Judaism, there'd be no Christianity. Without Judaism, there'd be no Jesus. But I love the way Muslims can claim hold of a city because Muhammad flew there on a winged donkey in his dreams. So if we could all actually take our dreams and claim to hold, we could be in paradise more. We could be anywhere. But again there was no, it wasn't from Jerusalem it's from the furthest mosque, no mosque in Jerusalem, it can't be Jerusalem and by the way this is interesting, not a single Arab leader except from Jordan ever visited Jerusalem when the when the Arabs controlled it. It meant nothing to them, Mecca and Medina are the holy cities for Muslims, not Jerusalem, it's high time we make that publicly clear. No 100 % and Muhammad probably never went to Jerusalem if Muhammad did exist, but that's a whole other conversation I'll take up with Robert Spencer. Can I ask you, because the support for Israel comes from different sections of society, and certainly there is a strong support from churches, from Christianity, not across the board, certainly, but there is. Can you tell us, where does the support, the backing, individuals, organizations standing up for Israel's right to exist, where does that come from? I mean, have you been surprised maybe with some of the areas it's come from that you weren't expecting? The strongest support in America for the Jewish state and the Jewish people comes from the 80 million evangelical Christians. Why are they so supportive of Israel as a Jewish state? Because it's in the Bible. Because God gave the land to the Jews. When I speak at churches, they say it's in the Bible. This land was given to Jews by God. End of discussion. So and the Jewish people are not nearly as strong Bible believers as the Christians. So you have stronger support for Israel among the Christian evangelicals than you do, frankly, among the Jews. So for most Christians, it's simply a matter of religion and God. For others who are not religious, they recognize that this land was given to Israel under international law. In 1917, the Balfour Declaration and many UN resolutions after it, and they accept the fact that that's right. Plus, they see it's reasonable. Why should there be 56 Muslim states and not a single Jewish state where the Jews can practice their religion in the way they're supposed to? So I think it's just a rational support for what's right, for what's moral, for what's decent, for what's just, that most non-religious people support the right of the Jews to have the state. It's a tiny little state. There's over 200 million Muslims in the Middle East. There's only 7 million Jews. Imagine if there were – there's 22 Arab states. Imagine if there were 22 Jewish states and one tiny little Arab state the size of Israel. And the Jews would be saying, we want a 23rd Jewish state carved out of this tiny Arab state. The world would say, this is ridiculous. The Arabs have nothing, this little tiny state. Leave them alone. But that's the situation we have. 22 Arab states, 99.5% of the land mass, and they still want to make Israel even smaller in order to make it easier to destroy. That's the basis. It's a religious war to destroy the Jewish state. It has nothing to do with land per se. It has nothing to do with the Palestinian state. Nothing. Because they could have had it eight times in the last 80 years. They said no every single time. Can I finish just with the current situation, which we'll not give justice to in our time, but just to touch on it. And I am perplexed at how Israel seemed to be so bad at the PR war, at the publicity war, the media war. But I've been intrigued watching kind of different countries holding with Israel and then pulling back in the media conversation. And what is it like, maybe for our viewers, I mean, our viewers are 50-50, US, UK and Europe. Maybe just give us your thoughts on where the media and the government is in terms of support for Israel over the last six months. You mean the US government? Yeah, yeah. This government in America under Joe Biden and Barack Hussein Obama, Obama never left Washington. Every president, when they're finished their term or terms, they go back home. Obama stayed in Washington. Obama is running the show behind the scenes. How do I know this? Because almost every person that Biden has appointed that affects Israel is a friend of Obama's, virtually every one, and is hostile to Israel. This government of Biden, Obama, Blinken is the most hostile to Israel we've ever had in America, I'm sorry to say. So, and when the war started, Biden did come to Israel two days after the Hamas massacre. And he said he has total support for Israel. But in that speech, the original speech on the tarmac, Biden said we need to establish a Palestinian state. Now, that is his first speech two days after the massacre of 1,200 innocent Jews. What's he bringing up a state for? It shows the hostility he has toward Israel. And now he's pushing for a state relentlessly. He condemns Israel for killing too many civilians. Let me tell you something. The record is this is the smallest number of civilians per capita ever killed in any war in history. And the reason for that is Israel drops leaflets before they hit a building to tell the Arabs to get out of the building. They put knock bombs where they knock on the top of the roof as a signal, get out of here. They call on cell phones, get out of here. They protect civilians to the detriment of their own soldiers. And when Hamas says 32,000 civilians were killed, first of all, Hamas is a terrorist Nazi-like monster group. Who believes them anyway? But the fact is 15,000 of the alleged 30,000 or so have been terrorists. These are combatants. And the other 15,000, a number of distinguished statisticians have studied the data from Hamas and say these are grotesquely exaggerated. It is only a few thousand that have been killed. And moreover, they say, look at what they say every day, Hamas' division telling you how many civilians died. The same number of civilians die every single day according to the data of Hamas. That's not possible. This showed you how fraudulent the data is. So we have to really thank Israel for being extraordinarily humane in protecting civilians And let me tell you, in any war, innocent civilians die. You can't have war without civilians dying. If you say to yourself, I won't go to war unless I can assure no civilians will die, the tyrants will win. Hitler will win. Hamas will win. Because civilians naturally will die in a war. It's tragic. And now when Biden went crazy, when Israel mistakenly killed seven aid workers, in wars, these types of tragic mistakes happen all the time. In America's wars, we have killed many civilians' envoys, mistaking them for terrorists. In Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, I can list them. I won't. We've hit wedding parties by mistake, killing 50 people attending a wedding, including the bride. So this happens in war. So the fact that Biden is making a major deal out of this tragic mistake just shows he is trying to find anything to put enormous pressure on Israel to set up a Palestinian terrorist state. And remember, Israel gave away all of Gaza. And what did they get in return? They got a Hamas regime and 30,000 rockets aimed at civilians, 30,000 since 2005 when the regime was established. Why is it wise to give them even more land, the West Bank and Gaza, headed by who, Hamas, by Abbas, by another terrorist? It'll give them more power to endanger Israel. And this state would be on Israel's longest border, directly adjacent to 70% of Israel's population. It would be a tragic mistake to establish a state. That's why the Israeli people, 80% and more say we cannot have it, it's too dangerous. Biden has become enormously hostile to Israel, despite the fact that overwhelming numbers of Americans support Israel, and we are devastated by this. We're terribly disappointed by this. But outside of this regime and Obama's first regime, the American governments have been extraordinarily supportive of Israel throughout the establishment of Israel and throughout America's own establishment in 1776. You know, well we'll finish it up, there my criticism of Israel is they were for 13 years, they were far too patient with Hamas whenever they pulled out in 2010 to actually going in 2023 and it wasn't of their own accord, they went in actually, it was because of that attack on 7th October, so Israel had been remarkably reserved I think in how how they've dealt with them, and maybe they should have been a heck of a lot stronger. But that's another conversation. Morton, I really appreciate you coming along. I do thoroughly love and admire the work that ZOA do there. I know people go on the website, they can find not only your work on campuses, they can find news articles, they can donate, and there's many ways they can support you on ZOA.org. So thank you so much for your time today. Peter, thank you for your holy and important work to give a podium to people who are telling the truth of the Arab-Islamic war against Israel and the West. Very holy work you do. Thank you.

In this episode, Robert Post, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law School, delves into his newly released and highly anticipated volumes from the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court, The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921–1930. Post explores the history of the Taft Court and the contrasting constitutional approaches among its justices, including Chief Justice Taft, Louis Brandeis, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and the infamous James McReynolds. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was originally streamed live as part of our America's Town Hall series on December 11, 2023.   Resources:  Robert Post, The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921–1930  Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)  Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Ind. Relations, 262 U.S. 522 (1923)  Whitney v. California (1927)  Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)  Gitlow v. New York (1925)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.     Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Robert Post, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law School, delves into the highly anticipated volumes from the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court, The Taft Court Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921–1930. Post explores the history of the Taft Court and the contrasting constitutional approaches among its justices, including Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., among others. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Additional Resources Robert Post, The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921–1930 Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Ind. Relations, 262 U.S. 522 (1923) Whitney v. California (1927) Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Gitlow v. New York (1925) Stay Connected and Learn More Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app.

As Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis said, “America has a choice. We can either have great wealth in the hands of a few, or we can have democracy, but we can't have both.” There's a shift happening in the American consciousness right now. Where the idea we all bought into, that idea that if we just work hard enough we'll make it, is starting to feel like a bit of a scam. This concept of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” is beginning to look like a cruel joke and the conceit that the struggles so many Americans face just to make ends meet is somehow a result of our own actions or shortcomings, rather than acknowledging we're actually living in an oppressive system rigged against us is really starting to chafe. Join me and the illustrious Robert Reich as we discuss the economy, the American dream, and what we, the American public, can do to make it. As always, if you enjoy what we do, please consider SUBSCRIBING to PoliticsGirl Premium. You'll get this podcast ad free, along with a bunch of other perks, including the knowledge that you're allowing us to keep bringing you the best content possible. If that interests you, please go to https://www.politicsgirl.com/premium and subscribe today!! Thanks so much! xoPG Guest social:  https://robertreich.org/ Substack: http://robertreich.substack.com Inequality Media LinkTree: https://linktr.ee/inequalitymedia Twitter: @RBReich @InequalityMedia MERCH STORE NOW OPEN: Check it out at: https://www.politicsgirl.com/store As always, please RATE and SUBSCRIBE so we can grow the show, open the dialogue, and inspire change moving forward!   All show links here!: https://linktr.ee/politicsgirl This episode is sponsored by… http://aeropress.com/politicsgirl https://trymiracle.com/politicsgirl Code: PoliticsGirl http://reelpaper.com/politicsgirl Code: PoliticsGirl http://rocketmoney.com/politicsgirl  http://honeylove.com/politicsgirl

Louis Brandeis, an American lawyer and Supreme Court Justice, famously said, “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” In the October 2023 HedgeD, With A Capital “D” webinar, Mark Yusko and Cory Lester explain why higher interest rates can be seen as the financial market's sunlight, and why they believe the higher (i.e., brighter) they get, the better the operating environment for long/short equity managers may be. Please reach out if you would like to receive a copy of the presentation that Mark and Cory reference or visit the webinar version of the replay via the link in the show notes below. We hope you enjoy the conversation.  You can @ us on Twitter @HedgeD_Podcast or email us directly at HedgeD@morgancreekcap.com   Visit us on the web at https://www.morgancreekcap.com/opportunistic-equity/  Join our almost monthly HedgeD, With A Capital “D” webinar series by emailing HedgeD@morgancreekcap.com  And subscribe to our YouTube channel by visiting https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8RssLKui3GNrxlOtYk6jRQ

On this day in legal history, October 5, 1941, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis died at the age of 84. Louis Brandeis was born on November 13, 1856, in Louisville, Kentucky. He graduated from Harvard Law School at the age of 20 with the highest grade point average in the school's history. In 1890, he gained recognition for developing the "right to privacy" concept through an article in the Harvard Law Review. Brandeis was a prominent figure in the antitrust movement and was known for his resistance to monopolies, particularly in the New England railroad sector. He also advised Woodrow Wilson and was critical of large banks and powerful corporations in his writings.Brandeis became active in the Zionist movement, viewing it as a solution to antisemitism in Europe and Russia. He was often referred to as the "People's Lawyer" and took cases without pay to focus on broader issues. He set a new precedent in evidence presentation with the "Brandeis brief," which utilized expert testimony from various professions. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court, making him the first Jewish member. His nomination was met with significant opposition but was eventually confirmed by the Senate.During his tenure on the Supreme Court from 1916 to 1939, Brandeis became one of the most influential justices in history. He was known for his strong defenses of freedom of speech and the right to privacy. However, he has been criticized for not addressing issues related to African-Americans and for supporting racial segregation in some cases. Brandeis retired from the Supreme Court on February 13, 1939, and passed away on October 5, 1941, in Washington, D.C.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is set to hear a case concerning Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Facebook, and its alleged preference for hiring workers on H-1B visas. The case, brought by appellant Purushothaman Rajaram, questions whether U.S. citizens are a protected class under Section 1981 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act. A federal district court previously dismissed the case, stating that the act does not cover "reverse discrimination" claims. Rajaram's lawyers argue that Section 1981 should be broadly interpreted to include U.S. citizens, while Meta contends that the law has traditionally been applied narrowly to race or alien status.The case also brings into focus Meta's hiring practices. The company was one of the top H-1B employers in fiscal year 2022, with over 1,500 approved petitions for new workers. Rajaram, a naturalized U.S. citizen, claims that Meta's hiring policies favor workers on H-1B visas over equally or more qualified U.S. citizens. If Rajaram wins, it could discourage companies from prioritizing H-1B workers over U.S. citizens.The Department of Justice and the Department of Labor have previously scrutinized Meta's H-1B hiring practices. The company settled those claims by paying over $14 million in civil penalties without admitting any wrongdoing. Rajaram's lawsuit aims to address citizenship discrimination in hiring more broadly, not just positions earmarked for visa workers.Experts note that the structure of the H-1B program itself may contribute to competition between visa holders and U.S. workers. Companies have little incentive to pay H-1B workers more than the prevailing wage, leading them to file as many petitions as possible for minimally qualified candidates. The case began with oral arguments yesterday. Meta's H-1B Hiring Spurs Ninth Circuit Look at Citizenship BiasA federal judge has ordered the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to withdraw a Trump-era rule concerning copay assistance programs. The rule had been challenged by patient advocacy groups, including the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute and the Diabetes Leadership Council, who claimed it allowed health plans to increase out-of-pocket prescription drug costs. Judge John D. Bates stated that the rule conflicted with the Affordable Care Act's definition of "cost-sharing" and must be set aside.The 2020 rule had stated that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), who manage prescription drug benefits for insurers, were not required to count drugmaker copay assistance toward patients' out-of-pocket costs. The patient groups argued that this allowed PBMs and health plans to collect funds from both patients and drugmakers without using the money to ease the financial burden on patients.The ruling is seen as a victory for these patient advocacy groups, who filed the lawsuit in August 2022. Carl Schmid, the executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, expressed satisfaction with the court's decision and called on the Biden administration to enforce it immediately.The advocacy groups are backed by pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Abbott Laboratories, Eli Lilly & Co., and Merck & Co. While these companies can offer assistance to patients in commercial plans, such programs are prohibited in government-funded health insurance due to the Anti-Kickback Statute.The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had previously argued that manufacturer coupons could add long-term costs to the healthcare system, outweighing the short-term benefits. Both the Department of Justice, representing CMS and HHS, and a CMS spokesperson declined to comment on the ruling. The case is titled HIV & Hepatitis Policy Inst. v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. and was filed on September 29, 2023.Judge Strikes Down Trump-Era Medicare Copay Assistance Rule (1)The trial of Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of the collapsed FTX cryptocurrency exchange, has begun with both sides presenting differing views on the reasons behind the company's failure. Bankman-Fried is accused of using FTX customer funds to support his hedge fund, Alameda Research, as well as for personal expenditures like luxury real estate and political donations. He has pleaded not guilty to these charges. His defense lawyer, Mark Cohen, portrayed him as a "math nerd" from MIT who may have overlooked risk management but did not engage in theft.Prosecutor Thane Rehn, however, argued that Bankman-Fried took more than $10 billion from FTX customers and used the funds to build his empire through fraudulent means. Rehn stated that the defendant "doubled down" on risky investments when Alameda began losing money. The prosecution plans to call three former associates of Bankman-Fried, all of whom have pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate, to testify against him.The defense suggested that these witnesses might retrospectively portray Bankman-Fried's decisions as deceitful, even though they had agreed with those decisions at the time. The jury for the trial includes a diverse group of individuals, including a retired investment banker, a school librarian, and a train conductor. Bankman-Fried has been in detention since August 11 for likely tampering with witnesses.The trial comes nearly a year after the collapse of FTX, which had a significant impact on financial markets and damaged Bankman-Fried's reputation. It promises to offer an inside look into the operations of a cryptocurrency exchange and the legal boundaries within which such businesses operate.Sam Bankman-Fried trial jurors hear competing explanations for FTX collapse | ReutersJudge Arthur Engoron, overseeing Donald Trump's civil fraud trial in New York, expressed frustration with Trump's legal team for what he termed as "ridiculous" and redundant questioning of a witness. The trial is centered on allegations by the New York attorney general's office that Trump inflated his net worth by billions to secure better loan and insurance terms. Engoron, who is the sole decider of the case's outcome, has already disciplined Trump's lawyers for making "frivolous" arguments.Earlier, Engoron had imposed a gag order on public comments about court staff after Trump criticized the judge's top law clerk on social media. Trump, who has been present in court, has consistently attacked both the judge and New York Attorney General Letitia James, labeling them as "corrupt" and the case as a "sham."Last week, Engoron ruled that Trump, his two adult sons, and 10 of his companies had committed fraud. He revoked the business certificates for key assets, including Trump Tower and 40 Wall Street, and said he would appoint receivers for their dissolution. Trump's lawyers have appealed this decision.The trial mainly concerns the assessment of damages, with James seeking at least $250 million in fines and various bans against Trump and his sons from conducting business in New York. The trial is expected to continue until mid-December. Trump also faces other legal challenges, including four criminal indictments and a civil damages trial scheduled for January. He has denied wrongdoing in all cases.Judge chides Donald Trump lawyer's 'ridiculous' questioning in civil fraud trial | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this episode of Free Range Podcast, host Mike Livermore is joined by Sabeel Rahman, a professor at Cornell Law School with substantial public policy experience, including as president of the think tank Demos and as senior counselor and then later as the acting Administrator in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Biden administration. Rahman is also the author of the book “Democracy Against Domination” amongst other works. Livermore and Rahman begin by placing his book within recent historical context, from the 2008 financial crisis that renewed attention to economic inequality, to the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump, which substantially emphasized attacks on the regulatory estate. For Rahman, he argues that the technocratic, managerial approach to governance that was promoted by many liberals in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis lack the moral resources to truly respond to the political moment, creating an opportunity for Donald Trump to propose an alternative. Rahman also discusses his view that the challenge of the modern economy is not income inequality, but rather that problem of power and domination. (0:48-10:51) In his book, Rahman is also interested in emphasizing historical ideas that have lost currency, including by thinkers such as Louis Brandeis and John Dewey, that focused on how to construct a democratic system in light of economic power. These ideas have been picked up by modern scholars and policy makers such as Lina Khan and Jed Purdy. The book also discusses how norms of democratic governance interact with the administrative state. (10:51-23:40) The conversation turns to questions related to expertise, the role of interest group bargaining in the administrative process, and the potential for broader participation. (23:40-36.49) They discuss participatory mechanisms such as citizen assemblies, lottocracy, and existing cooperative federalist approaches. (36.49-40:10) The final segment of the podcast focuses on Rahman's time at Demos and in the Biden administration. (40:10-1:07) Rahman discusses the role of the civil service in a robust democracy, the need for civil society, and some steps that the Biden administration has taken to facilitate community participation in federal decision making. The conversation ends with a discussion of the complex interplay between deliberation, participation, and the necessary exercise of political power in the real world.

Finalist #8 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] There is widespread agreement among philosophers, political commentators, and the general public that transparency in government is an unalloyed good. Louis Brandeis famously articulates the common wisdom: “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman” (page 1). Support for transparency is bipartisan. On his first day in office, Barack Obama said “My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.” (page 1). On the Republican National Committee's website, one reads “Republicans believe that transparency is essential for good governance. Elected officials should be held accountable for their actions in Washington, D.C.” (page 2) And so it is. Legislators' votes are published and stored in public online databases, their deliberations are televised, and their every action is extensively documented.  https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-secret-government  

EPISODE 1495: In this KEEN ON show, Andrew talks to the author of AND NONE SHALL MAKE THEM AFRAID, Rick Richman, about why he believes "Americanism" and "Zionism" , represented by figures as diverse as Benjamin Netanyahu and Louis Brandeis, are the most successfully "isms" of the 20th century RICK RICHMAN graduated with honors from Harvard College and NYU Law School. He has written for Commentary, The Jewish Press, Mosaic Magazine, The New York Sun, PJ Media, The Tower Magazine, and his own blog, Jewish Current Issues, created in 2003. He wrote the chapter on Louis Brandeis in What America Owes the Jews, What Jews Owe America (Mosaic Books: 2016) and appeared in the documentary film, “Body and Soul: The State of the Jewish Nation” (DocEmet Productions: 2014). He is a member of the Board of Directors of American Jewish University in Los Angeles and in 2016 received Sinai Temple's Burning Bush Award for leadership and service to the Jewish community in America and Israel. Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

India Policy Watch #1: What Do Successive Defence Budgets Reveal?Insights on burning policy issues in India— Pranay Kotasthane(An edited version of this article was published in Hindustan Times on 13th Feb)Another defence budget zoomed past us on Feb 1. Since then, analyses have focused on how the defence spending for the coming year departs from the last year. Some have waved a red flag as defence spending has fallen below 2 per cent of GDP for the first time in many years. On the other hand, the defence ministry's post-budget press release emphasised a 44 per cent increase in operational spending, which is expected to “close critical gaps in the combat capabilities and equip the Forces in terms of ammunition, sustenance of weapons & assets, military reserves etc.” The ministry also highlighted that the capital outlay for modernisation and infrastructure development has risen by a seemingly handsome 57 per cent over the last five years. How, then, do we make sense of these conflicting narratives?Comparing allocations with those in the previous year gives us a confusing picture. Every interest group can pull up a number from the budget to suit their pre-formed narrative. Taking a step back from these narratives, this article will show that this was another run-of-the-mill defence budget, just like the previous one was. Nothing in it indicates any significant change in the defence posture. Unlike Japan, which has announced a doubling of its military spending in the next five years, India's approach is about gradually improving the operational efficiency of the armed forces.Looking under the hoodThis article looks at the defence expenditure over the last six budgets to make sense of the numbers. To put numbers into context, let's use an earlier year (FY16). FY16 is a useful reference point as it predates two major developments: China's visibly aggressive posture on the border and the budgetary commitments arising from the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme. Three observations follow from such an analysis.One, not only has defence spending fallen as a proportion of GDP, but it has also fallen as a percentage of government expenditure. In other words, defence has slipped in priority relative to non-defence functions (Figure 1). Two, the China challenge hasn't led to any spectacular change in the composition of defence expenditure. Defence spending can be divided into four major components: salaries, pensions, capital outlay, and others. As Figure 2 shows, capital outlay was being squeezed by rising pension expenditure over the last few years. For two consecutive years (FY19 and FY20), more money was spent on pensions than on capital acquisition and modernisation. The balance has now been marginally restored since FY21, after the Galwan crisis flared up.Crucially, the rises in pension and capital expenditures have come at the cost of operational and maintenance expenditures, including ammunition stores (under the Others category). It is hence not surprising that the latest budget is trying to arrest this decline in combat capabilities.Three, this period has been relatively better for the Indian Navy in terms of capital expenditure. Since the procurement of new platforms happens over multiple years, a temporal view is useful in analysing how capital outlay is split between the three armed forces. Figure 3 suggests that the big change in the last four years is in the capital outlay for the Indian Navy, with the FY24 figure having doubled in absolute terms since FY20.The Big PictureBy connecting these dots over the last five years, the picture that emerges is this: the government seems confident that China can be handled without a substantial rise in defence expenditure. The latest budget serves as a bellwether indicator for this claim. It was the first budget of the post-pandemic period, at a time when the economic prospects for India had improved considerably. The government achieved better-than-expected buoyancy in income taxes and GST in the current financial year, while the cooling of global fertilizer prices has led to a decline in the projected subsidy bill. Consequently, the government, for the first time in many years, had some fiscal room to play with. It has used that space to increase the overall capital outlay to Rs 10 lakh crore, almost three times the outlay in 2019-20. Despite this increase in the overall capital outlay, the defence budget resembles the middle overs of a one-day cricket match.From a financial savings perspective, there have been just two important changes over this period in the defence domain. The first was the announcement of the Agnipath scheme. It might reduce the pension burden, but these savings will reflect only after a decade-and-a-half. Other proposals, such as theatre commands, haven't come to fruition yet. The proposal to create a non-lapsable fund for modernisation — a proposal the union government gave an in-principle agreement way back in Feb 2021, still hasn't found a mention in the latest budget.Probably, the defence budget is the wrong place to infer India's strategic posture against China. Perhaps, the government considers other tools of statecraft—diplomatic, economic, or non-conventional—more suitable for the purpose. This point needs deeper reflection. The discussions over the roles of these tools of statecraft currently operate under mistaken assumptions. Attempts at getting India into an anti-China alliance are spurned at the altar of “strategic autonomy”. The opponents seem to assume that India only needs to equip its armed forces with greater firepower. For too long, many parliamentary standing committees and defence organisations have gone hoarse trying to convince the government that defence expenditure should be raised to 3 per cent of GDP. If anything, the change is in the opposite direction.The defence budget trends are a reminder that the government does not prefer using the military instrument to outflank China. At best, it wants to equip the armed forces such that China's incursions can be matched or repulsed. Given that there's no significant increase in allocations for the Navy and the Air Force, it also means that the government is not considering an increased presence in the South China Sea. So, the military is being equipped to plug a vulnerability and not to gain an asymmetric political advantage over China. This line of thinking probably makes sense. There's no point in matching China's defence spending dollar-for-dollar. After all, the Indian armed forces are more adept at fighting at high altitudes. But this line of thinking should also make it apparent that India must develop capabilities in domains other than those involving force to inflict pain on China. The government should build a political consensus that closer relations with China's adversaries are not a matter of choice but an imperative. That we need to double down on economic growth and technological upgrading if we are to constrain China's hand in other domains. It also means that we shouldn't be indiscriminately banning China's investments in India; a better approach would be to make their companies in non-strategic domains more dependent on the Indian market. We will then have more tools in our kit to deploy if the situation on the border worsens. Each of these posture changes needs an updating of our priors and payoffs. For that to happen, it is necessary that the government comes clean about China's incursions. Pretending that all's well might give us false comfort, but they will also dissuade the strategic establishment from confronting the tough trade-offs in non-military domains. Without this pivot, we would merely rely on hope as a strategy. India Policy Watch #2: Through The Looking GlassInsights on burning policy issues in India— RSJWe talk about the arbitrary powers of the state on these pages often. Now, we cannot grudge the state's sovereignty because we have voluntarily handed it that power. One argument that follows from this is that such power is often prone to be used arbitrarily. And that's a problem for the citizens. The typical solution we have offered on these pages over time is to restrict the domain of the state to a narrow set where it can make the maximum impact or to design its incentives in a way that makes the state act with accountability. Now, these are good design principles. We could use them to create structures and institutions that are strong and independent that could hold their own against any arbitrary use of power. But are these enough? A natural question that should follow is how do we know things are working in practice like they were meant to? How do we get authentic information about how the state is conducting itself? How do we confirm that it is not subverting the institutional design that is in place to control its powers? These questions lead us to the other pillar of a well-functioning democracy - transparency. It is a topic we haven't discussed enough on these pages. Transparency is a moral good, and it is vital for a healthy democracy. Darkness stunts democracy. It needs light to thrive. In the early part of the 20th century, the US Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis famously remarked, “sunlight is the best disinfectant” while making a case for a transparency imperative. Or, if we were to go further back, Bentham, often credited to have done the most original thinking on transparency, summed it up with - the more strictly we are watched, the better we behave - a principle he put at the heart of his advocacy for an open government. So, what has triggered my early morning ruminations on transparency? Well, there are two reasons. Here's one. The Indian Express reports:“The Supreme Court said it did not want to accept in a “sealed cover” the Centre's suggestions on who could be the members of a committee the court had proposed to assess the market regulatory framework and recommend measures, if any, to strengthen it in the wake of the Adani-Hindenburg affair. It refused to accept any suggestions on names from the petitioners as well.Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who headed a three-judge bench hearing a clutch of petitions on the Hindenburg Research report and its aftermath, told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the court wanted to maintain “full transparency”. The court would appoint a committee of its own that will promote a sense of confidence in the process, he said.”CJI Chandrachud said, “We would rather not accept the sealed cover suggestions from you for this reason; in constituting a committee which we want to do, we want to maintain full transparency. The moment we accept a set of suggestions from you in a sealed cover, it means the other side is not seeing them. Even if we don't accept your suggestions, they will not know which of your suggestions we have accepted and which we have not. Then there may be an impression that well, this is a government-appointed committee which the Supreme Court has accepted even if we have not accepted your suggestions. So, we want to maintain the fullest transparency in the interest of protecting the investors.”Bravo. The Chief Justice was almost channelling Bentham there, who famously wrote, “secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought never to be the system of a regular government.” I mean, what even is a sealed cover in a matter that concerns millions of ordinary investors? Why should there be secrecy in the name of experts and their recommendations? A sealed cover is a strange invention. It gives the sheen of a fair and independent process to what is essentially a subversion of a democratic principle. It ranks up there among one of the great Indian coinages. The top spot, of course, is forever occupied by ‘mild lathicharge'. And now, onto the other reason for all this talk on transparency. This was the headline-grabbing news of this week in India - “Weeks after its documentary taken off, BBC gets I-T knock”. Here's the Indian Express reporting on this with many quotes from “unnamed government sources”:“The Income-Tax Department surveys at the premises of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in Delhi and Mumbai on Tuesday (February 14) were conducted in view of the BBC's “deliberate non-compliance with the transfer pricing rules” and its “vast diversion of profits”, government sources said.The surveys were looking into “manipulation of prices for unauthorized benefits, including tax advantages”, sources said.The BBC has been “persistently and deliberately violative of transfer pricing rules, it has “deliberately diverted a significant amount of the profits”, and has not followed the “arm's length arrangement” in the allocation of profit, the sources said.”A very garrulous source there with a lot of information. I don't want to ascribe motives to the tax raids yet. There's enough in the timing of these ‘surveys' to raise suspicions. The I-T department has been used to settle political and other scores for decades. It speaks poorly of our institutional strength and independence. But that's not the issue we are discussing today. The question is about transparency. Does anyone know why the surveys were carried out? The sources have cleverly given some reasons, but what stops the department from giving an official reason for them? Is it because it is likely that if they give the official reason, there will be further questions on the arbitrary nature of the actions? So, it is best to share nothing officially, selectively leak information to the media to paint the BBC in poor light and get away with harassment that then sends a message across to other foreign media outlets. Because even based on the merits of what the sources have said, it is difficult to justify a two-day survey. To quote the same news report:“Transfer pricing issues are very common for foreign companies but survey/search actions against them are not common. Assessment is usually opted for but is not the only route through which such cases can be approached. If tax officers want to do a survey/search, then transfer pricing issues can get covered.However, it is an approval-driven process with prior approvals required within the tax department before carrying out survey action. They would be having some information against the company and there might be a history of non-compliance too,” a Delhi-based tax expert said.  A notice preferably is issued to a company in an assessment exercise by the tax authorities flouting transfer pricing rules before undertaking any such action, experts said."It shouldn't surprise anyone that political actors don't like transparency. It adds to their burden of accountability and increases the political costs of any missteps, deliberate or otherwise. So, how should the citizens keep up the demand for transparency in a democratic setup? After all, for the citizens to be involved in the governance process, they must have access to the government's information, plans and intentions. Also, there is a line beyond which too much transparency could be counterproductive. Too much information, too early in the process, could mean stalling the plan as interest groups jump in and skew the decision-making process. I have outlined three frames that one could use to think about transparency in a democracy.First, it is in the long-term interest of political parties to seek transparency in a democratic setup. For those in the opposition, it is about making the incumbent party in power more accountable. For the incumbent, too, there's always the uncertainty about the future when they might not be in power. In such a scenario, it is better for them to have stronger laws on transparency for their own access to government information, which they can use to hold others accountable. A lack of certainty about future electoral prospects for any party is a feature of a good democracy. It is in this environment most transparency laws are made. In India, too, the RTI came about because of grassroots activism and a broad consensus among the political class led by the party in power then. However, it is important to note that the Overton window was right during that time when getting re-elected was an exception. It meant the political actors were keen to have access to information in future. In that sense, any period when transparency is suppressed in a democracy is a good surrogate for the power of the party in power. In India, the RTI laws allow for access to a significant amount of government information. The problem is that there is a gradual erosion of its ambit as the dominant political class comes to view it as an irritant. The only way to counter this is for the citizenry to continue using the RTI tool to its fullest extent. The more people know the tool's power, the harder it will be to blunt it. Second, it is important to devolve transparency to state and local governments. This is where the political uncertainty is still high in India, which means there's an incentive for political actors to support transparency moves to guarantee their own access to information in future. This is also the space where petty corruption is still rampant. One of the challenges of RTI in India is that most of the activism here is focused on big-ticket issues. The opportunity to bring sunlight as a disinfectant and its payoffs are the highest at the local level of governance. Separately, there are also specific areas in the private sector that could do with improved transparency. This is tricky territory, and let me be very specific about this. There's a significant amount of information that's collected, often without explicit consent, from the citizens by the private sector, which is then monetised in various ways. The mechanism by which their information is used and the extent to which the private sector, especially the social media platforms,  benefits from it are not transparent to the citizens who are the customers. If your attention is being monetised through multiple trackers and personalised ads, it is only fair you must know the rules of the game and agree to play it. This is still a white space of policymaking in India.   Lastly, the oft-cited risk of policy waters being muddied because of transparency, where various interest groups will lobby for their positions and slow down the decision-making process, is a bit misplaced. Those in favour of transparency do not argue for the innards of policymaking being put out for display. That process requires stakeholder mapping and seeking inputs in a way that's been documented by various policy thinkers. We have written about the eight-step process of policymaking on these pages on multiple occasions. The issue of transparency is important in two areas. First, the implementation and measurement of a policy proposal. How did a policy fare compared to its promise? Were the public resources and efforts prudently used? Was there a clear understanding of why something failed? Access to this information is important for the public and experts outside the government to hold the government accountable and improve future decisions. Second, the size of the state in India often means it is the biggest, often the sole, customer in multiple sectors and its decision on setting the rules of games in these sectors, awarding contracts and its performance in managing its budget should be available for public scrutiny. Again, this doesn't mean the government should vet its decisions at each stage with prevailing public opinion. Rather it must be able to explain its process and the rationale for decisions openly and transparently. The practice of sealed covers or I-T surveys and raids without a clear reason isn't new to India. What's new is the somewhat strange support for these actions by the mainstream media that are being fed by the ever-bizarre theories cooked by the partisans on social media. BBC isn't doing a documentary on Gujarat because China is now funding it. Nor is there a leftist cabal that's busy bringing Adani down one week and using BBC the next to show the government in a bad light. This playbook is reminiscent of the Indira era of the mid-70s, where in the name of national interest, we buried transparency and accountability. It took us decades to get out of that mire. Learning from history is free, but most of us fail the eventual test.PolicyWTF: Casually Banning Films Committee, RepriseThis section looks at egregious public policies. Policies that make you go: WTF, Did that really happen?— Pranay Kotasthane Last week, I came across an excellent report by Aroon Deep in The Hindu that explains how the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC) is going way beyond its usual stance of “demanding” cuts of scenes showing sexual content, violence, or abusive language. Instead, the CBFC now also has a perspective on dietary preferences (demanding that mention of “beef” be struck off), foreign policy (demanding that references to ex-KGB officers, China, and Pakistan be removed), and even corruption (how can a filmmaker dare depict a police officer accepting a bribe?). Seriously, what an omniscient body.Despite its activism, the Censor Board hasn't impressed the extremists. One Hindu group leader has called for creating a ‘Dharma Censor Board' “to review Bollywood films and keep a check on any anti-religious content or distortion of facts about Sanatan Dharma.” In his words:“Our experts will see a film when it is released and if we find it suitable for people belonging to Sanatan Dharma, we will issue a certificate. At present, films passed by the censor board set up by the government have been found carrying scenes that hurt the sentiments of people. We have repeatedly asked for a religious person to be included in the censor board but this demand has not been accepted. This is why we had to constitute our own board.”While it sounds absolutely absurd at face value, there is a liberal way out to assimilate this conservative critique. We covered it in edition #122, and I want to re-emphasise those points.In 2016, my former colleagues Madhav, Adhip, Shikha, Siddarth, Devika and Guru wrote an interesting paper in which they recommended that film certification should be privatised.Deploying the Banishing Bureaucracy framework, they wrote:The CBFC be renamed the Indian Movie Authority (IMA) and that the primary purpose of the IMA would be to license and regulate private organisations called Independent Certifying Authorities (ICAs) which will then certify films.So, the Hindu group can very well have its own ICA, which will rate the movie on its Sanatana Dharma compliance score. But…The certificate granted by ICA will only restrict what age groups the film is appropriate for. This is the only form of pre-censorship that is necessary in today's age as all other restrictions on film exhibition should be applied retrospectively. The choice of ICAs available for producers to approach will render the question of subjectivity moot as the producer can switch to another ICA if unsatisfied with the certificate. The IMA will set the guidelines for the ICAs to follow and will be the first point of appeal.In other words, this solution reimagines the CBFC as a body that grants licenses to independent and private certification organisations called ICAs. These ICAs must adhere to certain threshold criteria set by the CBFC. Beyond these criteria, some ICAs may specialise themselves as being the sanskaari ones trigger-happy to award an “A” certification, while others may adopt a more liberal approach. In the authors' words:This will allow the marketplace of ideas to draw the lines of what kind of content is fit for what kind of audience with the government still being capable of stepping in to curb prurient sensibilities.This solution has the added benefit of levelling the playing field between OTT content and films. Currently, the CBFC has no capacity to certify the content being churned out on tens of streaming services. By delegating this function to private ICAs, the government can ensure adherence to certification norms.In essence, just as governments can often plug market failures, markets too can sometimes plug government failures. Reforming our ‘Censor Board' requires giving markets a chance.There's much more detail in the paper about grievance redressal, certification guidelines, and appeals procedure. Read it here.HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters* [Podcast] Over at Puliyabaazi, we discuss technology geopolitics with Anirudh Suri, author of The Great Tech Game.* [Paper] Laxman Kumar Behera's take on the defence budget.* [Paper] This paper has a fantastic framework for understanding policy failures and successes. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com

Melissa Sampson McMorrow chairs the Tax Department at the law firm of Nutter McClennen & Fish and co-chairs Nutter's Nonprofit and Social Impact Practice Group. In this episode we talk about models of governance structures for Impact Philanthropy Enterprises - ranging from Newman's Own to Patagonia. We also discuss Massachusetts guidelines for diversity, equity, and inclusion on the boards of Massachusetts charities.    Thanks for listening! We love our listeners! Drop us a line or give us guest suggestions here.   Links: Melissa Sampson-McMorrow Bio Nutter McClennen and Fish New York Times Article about Patagonia   Big Ideas/Thoughts/Quotes: About Nutter - Nutter McClennen & Fish is a Boston-based law firm that was founded over 150 years ago by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.  The firm carries on his legacy today by providing high-quality legal counsel to industry-leading companies, entrepreneurs, institutions, foundations, and families across the country. Changing landscape of Impact Philanthropy - As the world has become more complicated and as the profile of donors has evolved, you see more engagement from donors, and you see donors drawing on different tools and approaches to accomplish their charitable objectives. Donors want to give more than money - .. What you're really seeing is donors, many of whom are successful entrepreneurs, really wanting to use those skills and know-how and apply it in world of philanthropy where they can really make an impact, not just giving money, but with aligning with their goals. Newman's Own Model - Newman's Own was Paul Newman's company and anyone who walked down the salad dressing aisle of a grocery store knows that Paul Newman gave some percentage of the profits that his for-profit company made to charity every year. Fast forward to his death, how does he keep this going after he's gone? Well, what he did was he, bin very simple terms, gave his company to his charitable foundation... A wise mentor of mine once said to me, if you don't like the law, change it, and that's what they did. They lobbied Congress and they changed the law, and so they were able to end up with a structure that is available to everyone, not just Newman's Own, that would allow a foundation to continue to operate a for-profit business. How the Patagonia Model is Different – There are a few aspects that distinguish what at first blush might seem like a similar arrangement to the Newman's Own arrangement, with few key distinctions. The first distinction of the Patagonia example is that the family is able to maintain control of the business. They don't own it or have an economic ownership interest in it, but there is a control element that is not present in the Newman's Own situation. Massachusetts Guidelines on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for Non-Profits -Massachusetts has had a guidebook for nonprofit organizations, particularly charitable organizations, for a long time. It was most recently updated in 2022, and I think it's really interesting where they chose to put the focus in their updates. Really, it's on first, education, second paying attention to the financial workings of the organization and then third -and arguably most important -, paying attention to how you build your board and how that board carries out its duty in executing the organization's mission. Louis Brandeis on Progress - If you'll permit me a quote by the founder of our firm, Louis Brandeis, our DEI strategic plan is guided by a quote of his as follows, "In differentiation, not in uniformity, lies the path of progress," and I think that rings true today as well.

In a pre-taped conversation, Sam's joined by Eric Alterman, Professor of English and Journalism at Brooklyn College, writer of the "Altercation" newsletter at The American Prospect, to discuss his recent book We Are Not One: A History of America's Fight Over Israel. Then, Emma speaks with Javier Puente, Associate Professor of Latin American and Latino/a Studies at Smith College, to discuss the recent civil unrest in Peru after former President Pedro Castillo threatened to dissolve the country's legislature and rule by decree before being removed from office.  First, Emma runs through updates on the Fed's newest interest rate hike, the House pouring more money into American policing, the return of free by-mail covid tests, Pulse Nightclub survivor Brandon Wolf's statements on Florida's transphobia, and the continued response to the Respect for Marriage Act. Then Sam and Eric Alterman join to tackle the history of American Jews and Zionism, first jumping back to the start of the 20th Century and the desire of the American Jewery to build America into their homeland, before shifting to the campaigning of Louis Brandeis in the 1920s for American Jews to push for the rights of their European brethren to colonize Palestine and return to Israel. Next, Professor Alterman and Sam tackle the mass shift in the American Jewish perspective on Zionism in the wake of the revelations of the Holocaust, particularly as it came after an era where the US (and its German-Jewish citizens) pushed against the immigration of Eastern European Jews. Moving to the wake of the Holocaust, Sam, and Eric explore the evacuation of the British from Israel leaving a colonial vacuum, and why the US saw it as an opportunity to build their power in the region, even with some conservative pushback from US politicians, before tackling the impact of the Six-Day War in bolstering the support for Israel among US Jews. They wrap up the interview by tackling the growing stratification between an increasingly conservative Israeli youth movement, and a more and more liberal American Jewish constituency, and where the future of Israel lies in US politics. Then Emma is joined by Javier Puente as attempts to contextualize the last week in Peruvian politics for us, from Pedro Castillo's coup attempt on the 7th to Dina Boluarte replacing him through similarly undemocratic means, before tackling why the hell he attempted the coup in the first place, and where the motivations of the protesters largely stand, feeling both betrayed by Castillo and wanting to push against a return for a far-right Peru. And in the Fun Half: Emma is joined by Brandon Sutton and Matt Binder as they explore Donald Trump's late arrival to the NFT game (and even later to the trading card one), discuss the Washington Posts' failed employee town hall, and take on Elon taking stock of his tanking stocks. They also dive into the continued fallout from Sam Bankman-Fried's fall from grace and FTX's massive collapse, plus, your calls and IMs!   Check out Eric's book here: https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/eric-alterman/we-are-not-one/9780465096312/   Check out Javier on Democracy Now: https://www.democracynow.org/2022/12/8/peru_political_crisis Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Should everyone have privacy in their personal lives? Can privacy exist in a public place? Is there a right to be left alone, even in the United States? The battle between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know has been fought for centuries. You may be surprised to realize that the original framers were sensitive to the importance of privacy interests relating to sexuality and intimate life, but mostly just for the powerful and the privileged. The founders demanded privacy for all the wrong press-quashing reasons. Supreme Court jus­tice Louis Brandeis famously promoted First Amend­ment freedoms but argued strongly for privacy too; and presidents from Thomas Jefferson through Don­ald Trump confidently hid behind privacy despite the public interest in their lives. Today privacy seems simultaneously under siege and surging. And that's doubly dangerous, as author Amy Gajda argues. Too little privacy leaves ordinary people vulnerable to those who deal in and publish soul-crushing secrets. Too much means the famous and infamous can cloak themselves in secrecy and dodge accountability. Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy (Viking, 2022) carries us from the very start, when privacy concepts first entered American law and society, to now, when the law al­lows a Silicon Valley titan to destroy a media site like Gawker out of spite. Muckraker Upton Sinclair, like Nellie Bly before him, pushed the envelope of privacy and propriety and then became a privacy advocate when journalists used the same techniques against him. By the early 2000s we were on our way to today's full-blown crisis in the digital age, worrying that smartphones, webcams, basement publishers, and the forever internet had erased privacy completely. Renee Garfinkel, Ph.D. is a psychologist, writer, Middle East television commentator and host of The New Books Network's Van Leer Jerusalem Series on Ideas. Write her at reneeg@vanleer.org.il. She's on Twitter @embracingwisdom. She blogs here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Should everyone have privacy in their personal lives? Can privacy exist in a public place? Is there a right to be left alone, even in the United States? The battle between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know has been fought for centuries. You may be surprised to realize that the original framers were sensitive to the importance of privacy interests relating to sexuality and intimate life, but mostly just for the powerful and the privileged. The founders demanded privacy for all the wrong press-quashing reasons. Supreme Court jus­tice Louis Brandeis famously promoted First Amend­ment freedoms but argued strongly for privacy too; and presidents from Thomas Jefferson through Don­ald Trump confidently hid behind privacy despite the public interest in their lives. Today privacy seems simultaneously under siege and surging. And that's doubly dangerous, as author Amy Gajda argues. Too little privacy leaves ordinary people vulnerable to those who deal in and publish soul-crushing secrets. Too much means the famous and infamous can cloak themselves in secrecy and dodge accountability. Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy (Viking, 2022) carries us from the very start, when privacy concepts first entered American law and society, to now, when the law al­lows a Silicon Valley titan to destroy a media site like Gawker out of spite. Muckraker Upton Sinclair, like Nellie Bly before him, pushed the envelope of privacy and propriety and then became a privacy advocate when journalists used the same techniques against him. By the early 2000s we were on our way to today's full-blown crisis in the digital age, worrying that smartphones, webcams, basement publishers, and the forever internet had erased privacy completely. Renee Garfinkel, Ph.D. is a psychologist, writer, Middle East television commentator and host of The New Books Network's Van Leer Jerusalem Series on Ideas. Write her at reneeg@vanleer.org.il. She's on Twitter @embracingwisdom. She blogs here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Should everyone have privacy in their personal lives? Can privacy exist in a public place? Is there a right to be left alone, even in the United States? The battle between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know has been fought for centuries. You may be surprised to realize that the original framers were sensitive to the importance of privacy interests relating to sexuality and intimate life, but mostly just for the powerful and the privileged. The founders demanded privacy for all the wrong press-quashing reasons. Supreme Court jus­tice Louis Brandeis famously promoted First Amend­ment freedoms but argued strongly for privacy too; and presidents from Thomas Jefferson through Don­ald Trump confidently hid behind privacy despite the public interest in their lives. Today privacy seems simultaneously under siege and surging. And that's doubly dangerous, as author Amy Gajda argues. Too little privacy leaves ordinary people vulnerable to those who deal in and publish soul-crushing secrets. Too much means the famous and infamous can cloak themselves in secrecy and dodge accountability. Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy (Viking, 2022) carries us from the very start, when privacy concepts first entered American law and society, to now, when the law al­lows a Silicon Valley titan to destroy a media site like Gawker out of spite. Muckraker Upton Sinclair, like Nellie Bly before him, pushed the envelope of privacy and propriety and then became a privacy advocate when journalists used the same techniques against him. By the early 2000s we were on our way to today's full-blown crisis in the digital age, worrying that smartphones, webcams, basement publishers, and the forever internet had erased privacy completely. Renee Garfinkel, Ph.D. is a psychologist, writer, Middle East television commentator and host of The New Books Network's Van Leer Jerusalem Series on Ideas. Write her at reneeg@vanleer.org.il. She's on Twitter @embracingwisdom. She blogs here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Should everyone have privacy in their personal lives? Can privacy exist in a public place? Is there a right to be left alone, even in the United States? The battle between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know has been fought for centuries. You may be surprised to realize that the original framers were sensitive to the importance of privacy interests relating to sexuality and intimate life, but mostly just for the powerful and the privileged. The founders demanded privacy for all the wrong press-quashing reasons. Supreme Court jus­tice Louis Brandeis famously promoted First Amend­ment freedoms but argued strongly for privacy too; and presidents from Thomas Jefferson through Don­ald Trump confidently hid behind privacy despite the public interest in their lives. Today privacy seems simultaneously under siege and surging. And that's doubly dangerous, as author Amy Gajda argues. Too little privacy leaves ordinary people vulnerable to those who deal in and publish soul-crushing secrets. Too much means the famous and infamous can cloak themselves in secrecy and dodge accountability. Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy (Viking, 2022) carries us from the very start, when privacy concepts first entered American law and society, to now, when the law al­lows a Silicon Valley titan to destroy a media site like Gawker out of spite. Muckraker Upton Sinclair, like Nellie Bly before him, pushed the envelope of privacy and propriety and then became a privacy advocate when journalists used the same techniques against him. By the early 2000s we were on our way to today's full-blown crisis in the digital age, worrying that smartphones, webcams, basement publishers, and the forever internet had erased privacy completely. Renee Garfinkel, Ph.D. is a psychologist, writer, Middle East television commentator and host of The New Books Network's Van Leer Jerusalem Series on Ideas. Write her at reneeg@vanleer.org.il. She's on Twitter @embracingwisdom. She blogs here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Should everyone have privacy in their personal lives? Can privacy exist in a public place? Is there a right to be left alone, even in the United States? The battle between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know has been fought for centuries. You may be surprised to realize that the original framers were sensitive to the importance of privacy interests relating to sexuality and intimate life, but mostly just for the powerful and the privileged. The founders demanded privacy for all the wrong press-quashing reasons. Supreme Court jus­tice Louis Brandeis famously promoted First Amend­ment freedoms but argued strongly for privacy too; and presidents from Thomas Jefferson through Don­ald Trump confidently hid behind privacy despite the public interest in their lives. Today privacy seems simultaneously under siege and surging. And that's doubly dangerous, as author Amy Gajda argues. Too little privacy leaves ordinary people vulnerable to those who deal in and publish soul-crushing secrets. Too much means the famous and infamous can cloak themselves in secrecy and dodge accountability. Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy (Viking, 2022) carries us from the very start, when privacy concepts first entered American law and society, to now, when the law al­lows a Silicon Valley titan to destroy a media site like Gawker out of spite. Muckraker Upton Sinclair, like Nellie Bly before him, pushed the envelope of privacy and propriety and then became a privacy advocate when journalists used the same techniques against him. By the early 2000s we were on our way to today's full-blown crisis in the digital age, worrying that smartphones, webcams, basement publishers, and the forever internet had erased privacy completely. Renee Garfinkel, Ph.D. is a psychologist, writer, Middle East television commentator and host of The New Books Network's Van Leer Jerusalem Series on Ideas. Write her at reneeg@vanleer.org.il. She's on Twitter @embracingwisdom. She blogs here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Should everyone have privacy in their personal lives? Can privacy exist in a public place? Is there a right to be left alone, even in the United States? The battle between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know has been fought for centuries. You may be surprised to realize that the original framers were sensitive to the importance of privacy interests relating to sexuality and intimate life, but mostly just for the powerful and the privileged. The founders demanded privacy for all the wrong press-quashing reasons. Supreme Court jus­tice Louis Brandeis famously promoted First Amend­ment freedoms but argued strongly for privacy too; and presidents from Thomas Jefferson through Don­ald Trump confidently hid behind privacy despite the public interest in their lives. Today privacy seems simultaneously under siege and surging. And that's doubly dangerous, as author Amy Gajda argues. Too little privacy leaves ordinary people vulnerable to those who deal in and publish soul-crushing secrets. Too much means the famous and infamous can cloak themselves in secrecy and dodge accountability. Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy (Viking, 2022) carries us from the very start, when privacy concepts first entered American law and society, to now, when the law al­lows a Silicon Valley titan to destroy a media site like Gawker out of spite. Muckraker Upton Sinclair, like Nellie Bly before him, pushed the envelope of privacy and propriety and then became a privacy advocate when journalists used the same techniques against him. By the early 2000s we were on our way to today's full-blown crisis in the digital age, worrying that smartphones, webcams, basement publishers, and the forever internet had erased privacy completely. Renee Garfinkel, Ph.D. is a psychologist, writer, Middle East television commentator and host of The New Books Network's Van Leer Jerusalem Series on Ideas. Write her at reneeg@vanleer.org.il. She's on Twitter @embracingwisdom. She blogs here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Should everyone have privacy in their personal lives? Can privacy exist in a public place? Is there a right to be left alone, even in the United States? The battle between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know has been fought for centuries. You may be surprised to realize that the original framers were sensitive to the importance of privacy interests relating to sexuality and intimate life, but mostly just for the powerful and the privileged. The founders demanded privacy for all the wrong press-quashing reasons. Supreme Court jus­tice Louis Brandeis famously promoted First Amend­ment freedoms but argued strongly for privacy too; and presidents from Thomas Jefferson through Don­ald Trump confidently hid behind privacy despite the public interest in their lives. Today privacy seems simultaneously under siege and surging. And that's doubly dangerous, as author Amy Gajda argues. Too little privacy leaves ordinary people vulnerable to those who deal in and publish soul-crushing secrets. Too much means the famous and infamous can cloak themselves in secrecy and dodge accountability. Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy (Viking, 2022) carries us from the very start, when privacy concepts first entered American law and society, to now, when the law al­lows a Silicon Valley titan to destroy a media site like Gawker out of spite. Muckraker Upton Sinclair, like Nellie Bly before him, pushed the envelope of privacy and propriety and then became a privacy advocate when journalists used the same techniques against him. By the early 2000s we were on our way to today's full-blown crisis in the digital age, worrying that smartphones, webcams, basement publishers, and the forever internet had erased privacy completely. Renee Garfinkel, Ph.D. is a psychologist, writer, Middle East television commentator and host of The New Books Network's Van Leer Jerusalem Series on Ideas. Write her at reneeg@vanleer.org.il. She's on Twitter @embracingwisdom. She blogs here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/van-leer-institute

Should everyone have privacy in their personal lives? Can privacy exist in a public place? Is there a right to be left alone, even in the United States? The battle between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know has been fought for centuries. You may be surprised to realize that the original framers were sensitive to the importance of privacy interests relating to sexuality and intimate life, but mostly just for the powerful and the privileged. The founders demanded privacy for all the wrong press-quashing reasons. Supreme Court jus­tice Louis Brandeis famously promoted First Amend­ment freedoms but argued strongly for privacy too; and presidents from Thomas Jefferson through Don­ald Trump confidently hid behind privacy despite the public interest in their lives. Today privacy seems simultaneously under siege and surging. And that's doubly dangerous, as author Amy Gajda argues. Too little privacy leaves ordinary people vulnerable to those who deal in and publish soul-crushing secrets. Too much means the famous and infamous can cloak themselves in secrecy and dodge accountability. Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy (Viking, 2022) carries us from the very start, when privacy concepts first entered American law and society, to now, when the law al­lows a Silicon Valley titan to destroy a media site like Gawker out of spite. Muckraker Upton Sinclair, like Nellie Bly before him, pushed the envelope of privacy and propriety and then became a privacy advocate when journalists used the same techniques against him. By the early 2000s we were on our way to today's full-blown crisis in the digital age, worrying that smartphones, webcams, basement publishers, and the forever internet had erased privacy completely. Renee Garfinkel, Ph.D. is a psychologist, writer, Middle East television commentator and host of The New Books Network's Van Leer Jerusalem Series on Ideas. Write her at reneeg@vanleer.org.il. She's on Twitter @embracingwisdom. She blogs here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Though relatively short, the 2022 book The Prophet of Harvard Law: James Bradley Thayer and His Legal Legacy (UP of Kansas, 2022) by Andrew Porwancher, Austin Coffey, Taylor Jipp, and Jake Mazeitis, is jam-packed with information about late 19th and early 20th Century legal history and the professionalization of American legal education. This is a moving tale of a professor whose acolytes included some of the giants of American jurisprudence (e.g., the judges and justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Learned Hand and the legal scholars John Henry Wigmore and Roscoe Pound). Even those not directly taught by Thayer, such as Felix Frankfurter, lauded him as an intellectual influence. You may be thinking, “Why should I take the time to read a book about a long-dead Harvard law professor?” Well, because many of the issues that James Bradley Thayer (1831-1902) and his students grappled with have shaped almost every encounter Americans have with the law and affect our rights from the workplace to the schoolroom to the courtroom. Thayer and Wigmore, for example, did pioneering work on the laws of evidence. Hand did the same on the topic of expert testimony. Holmes and Thayer thrashed out the meaning of the word “presumption” as it was used in trials. And on a grander scale, Holmes, Brandeis, and Hand were trained as thinkers on Constitutional law by Thayer. We could all do with a primer on what “living constitutionalism” is, for example. The book is also valuable for its contributions to the field of the history of education and will benefit those researching the development of professional associations and the transformation of universities like Harvard from small liberal arts institutions into major research universities. This is social history at its best. We read about how Thayer attracted bright young men from across the country who applied what they learned under their beloved mentor once they left Harvard and took up posts elsewhere (as Wigmore did as dean at Northwestern Law School) and/or played key roles in major legal cases in the Progressive Era and beyond. Economics. Labor Law. Free speech. They're all here. And “beloved” is not too strong a word for the way these titans of American law regarded Thayer. Early career academics in any field who need a role model of a dedicated teacher could do worse than study the life of James Bradley Thayer. He was the subject of admiration and gratitude decades later by influential men who credited him with providing moral support and practical help when they were first starting out and for setting a standard of learning and hard work that they applied in their judicial and academic careers. Thayer was a networker and mentor par excellence. The book is interesting in itself apart from its subject in that it is a joint work by a professor (Andrew Porwancher) and three of his former students. That is a project worthy of note and something Thayer would almost certainly have endorsed, given how closely he worked with his students when they were at Harvard and, in many cases, for years afterward. It is no exaggeration to say that our lives today were affected by the active law-related personal correspondence between Thayer and his men. Let's hear from Professor Porwancher about what might be called the Thayer Effect and what co-authorship with students entails. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Though relatively short, the 2022 book The Prophet of Harvard Law: James Bradley Thayer and His Legal Legacy (UP of Kansas, 2022) by Andrew Porwancher, Austin Coffey, Taylor Jipp, and Jake Mazeitis, is jam-packed with information about late 19th and early 20th Century legal history and the professionalization of American legal education. This is a moving tale of a professor whose acolytes included some of the giants of American jurisprudence (e.g., the judges and justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Learned Hand and the legal scholars John Henry Wigmore and Roscoe Pound). Even those not directly taught by Thayer, such as Felix Frankfurter, lauded him as an intellectual influence. You may be thinking, “Why should I take the time to read a book about a long-dead Harvard law professor?” Well, because many of the issues that James Bradley Thayer (1831-1902) and his students grappled with have shaped almost every encounter Americans have with the law and affect our rights from the workplace to the schoolroom to the courtroom. Thayer and Wigmore, for example, did pioneering work on the laws of evidence. Hand did the same on the topic of expert testimony. Holmes and Thayer thrashed out the meaning of the word “presumption” as it was used in trials. And on a grander scale, Holmes, Brandeis, and Hand were trained as thinkers on Constitutional law by Thayer. We could all do with a primer on what “living constitutionalism” is, for example. The book is also valuable for its contributions to the field of the history of education and will benefit those researching the development of professional associations and the transformation of universities like Harvard from small liberal arts institutions into major research universities. This is social history at its best. We read about how Thayer attracted bright young men from across the country who applied what they learned under their beloved mentor once they left Harvard and took up posts elsewhere (as Wigmore did as dean at Northwestern Law School) and/or played key roles in major legal cases in the Progressive Era and beyond. Economics. Labor Law. Free speech. They're all here. And “beloved” is not too strong a word for the way these titans of American law regarded Thayer. Early career academics in any field who need a role model of a dedicated teacher could do worse than study the life of James Bradley Thayer. He was the subject of admiration and gratitude decades later by influential men who credited him with providing moral support and practical help when they were first starting out and for setting a standard of learning and hard work that they applied in their judicial and academic careers. Thayer was a networker and mentor par excellence. The book is interesting in itself apart from its subject in that it is a joint work by a professor (Andrew Porwancher) and three of his former students. That is a project worthy of note and something Thayer would almost certainly have endorsed, given how closely he worked with his students when they were at Harvard and, in many cases, for years afterward. It is no exaggeration to say that our lives today were affected by the active law-related personal correspondence between Thayer and his men. Let's hear from Professor Porwancher about what might be called the Thayer Effect and what co-authorship with students entails. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Though relatively short, the 2022 book The Prophet of Harvard Law: James Bradley Thayer and His Legal Legacy (UP of Kansas, 2022) by Andrew Porwancher, Austin Coffey, Taylor Jipp, and Jake Mazeitis, is jam-packed with information about late 19th and early 20th Century legal history and the professionalization of American legal education. This is a moving tale of a professor whose acolytes included some of the giants of American jurisprudence (e.g., the judges and justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Learned Hand and the legal scholars John Henry Wigmore and Roscoe Pound). Even those not directly taught by Thayer, such as Felix Frankfurter, lauded him as an intellectual influence. You may be thinking, “Why should I take the time to read a book about a long-dead Harvard law professor?” Well, because many of the issues that James Bradley Thayer (1831-1902) and his students grappled with have shaped almost every encounter Americans have with the law and affect our rights from the workplace to the schoolroom to the courtroom. Thayer and Wigmore, for example, did pioneering work on the laws of evidence. Hand did the same on the topic of expert testimony. Holmes and Thayer thrashed out the meaning of the word “presumption” as it was used in trials. And on a grander scale, Holmes, Brandeis, and Hand were trained as thinkers on Constitutional law by Thayer. We could all do with a primer on what “living constitutionalism” is, for example. The book is also valuable for its contributions to the field of the history of education and will benefit those researching the development of professional associations and the transformation of universities like Harvard from small liberal arts institutions into major research universities. This is social history at its best. We read about how Thayer attracted bright young men from across the country who applied what they learned under their beloved mentor once they left Harvard and took up posts elsewhere (as Wigmore did as dean at Northwestern Law School) and/or played key roles in major legal cases in the Progressive Era and beyond. Economics. Labor Law. Free speech. They're all here. And “beloved” is not too strong a word for the way these titans of American law regarded Thayer. Early career academics in any field who need a role model of a dedicated teacher could do worse than study the life of James Bradley Thayer. He was the subject of admiration and gratitude decades later by influential men who credited him with providing moral support and practical help when they were first starting out and for setting a standard of learning and hard work that they applied in their judicial and academic careers. Thayer was a networker and mentor par excellence. The book is interesting in itself apart from its subject in that it is a joint work by a professor (Andrew Porwancher) and three of his former students. That is a project worthy of note and something Thayer would almost certainly have endorsed, given how closely he worked with his students when they were at Harvard and, in many cases, for years afterward. It is no exaggeration to say that our lives today were affected by the active law-related personal correspondence between Thayer and his men. Let's hear from Professor Porwancher about what might be called the Thayer Effect and what co-authorship with students entails. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

Though relatively short, the 2022 book The Prophet of Harvard Law: James Bradley Thayer and His Legal Legacy (UP of Kansas, 2022) by Andrew Porwancher, Austin Coffey, Taylor Jipp, and Jake Mazeitis, is jam-packed with information about late 19th and early 20th Century legal history and the professionalization of American legal education. This is a moving tale of a professor whose acolytes included some of the giants of American jurisprudence (e.g., the judges and justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Learned Hand and the legal scholars John Henry Wigmore and Roscoe Pound). Even those not directly taught by Thayer, such as Felix Frankfurter, lauded him as an intellectual influence. You may be thinking, “Why should I take the time to read a book about a long-dead Harvard law professor?” Well, because many of the issues that James Bradley Thayer (1831-1902) and his students grappled with have shaped almost every encounter Americans have with the law and affect our rights from the workplace to the schoolroom to the courtroom. Thayer and Wigmore, for example, did pioneering work on the laws of evidence. Hand did the same on the topic of expert testimony. Holmes and Thayer thrashed out the meaning of the word “presumption” as it was used in trials. And on a grander scale, Holmes, Brandeis, and Hand were trained as thinkers on Constitutional law by Thayer. We could all do with a primer on what “living constitutionalism” is, for example. The book is also valuable for its contributions to the field of the history of education and will benefit those researching the development of professional associations and the transformation of universities like Harvard from small liberal arts institutions into major research universities. This is social history at its best. We read about how Thayer attracted bright young men from across the country who applied what they learned under their beloved mentor once they left Harvard and took up posts elsewhere (as Wigmore did as dean at Northwestern Law School) and/or played key roles in major legal cases in the Progressive Era and beyond. Economics. Labor Law. Free speech. They're all here. And “beloved” is not too strong a word for the way these titans of American law regarded Thayer. Early career academics in any field who need a role model of a dedicated teacher could do worse than study the life of James Bradley Thayer. He was the subject of admiration and gratitude decades later by influential men who credited him with providing moral support and practical help when they were first starting out and for setting a standard of learning and hard work that they applied in their judicial and academic careers. Thayer was a networker and mentor par excellence. The book is interesting in itself apart from its subject in that it is a joint work by a professor (Andrew Porwancher) and three of his former students. That is a project worthy of note and something Thayer would almost certainly have endorsed, given how closely he worked with his students when they were at Harvard and, in many cases, for years afterward. It is no exaggeration to say that our lives today were affected by the active law-related personal correspondence between Thayer and his men. Let's hear from Professor Porwancher about what might be called the Thayer Effect and what co-authorship with students entails. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Though relatively short, the 2022 book The Prophet of Harvard Law: James Bradley Thayer and His Legal Legacy (UP of Kansas, 2022) by Andrew Porwancher, Austin Coffey, Taylor Jipp, and Jake Mazeitis, is jam-packed with information about late 19th and early 20th Century legal history and the professionalization of American legal education. This is a moving tale of a professor whose acolytes included some of the giants of American jurisprudence (e.g., the judges and justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Learned Hand and the legal scholars John Henry Wigmore and Roscoe Pound). Even those not directly taught by Thayer, such as Felix Frankfurter, lauded him as an intellectual influence. You may be thinking, “Why should I take the time to read a book about a long-dead Harvard law professor?” Well, because many of the issues that James Bradley Thayer (1831-1902) and his students grappled with have shaped almost every encounter Americans have with the law and affect our rights from the workplace to the schoolroom to the courtroom. Thayer and Wigmore, for example, did pioneering work on the laws of evidence. Hand did the same on the topic of expert testimony. Holmes and Thayer thrashed out the meaning of the word “presumption” as it was used in trials. And on a grander scale, Holmes, Brandeis, and Hand were trained as thinkers on Constitutional law by Thayer. We could all do with a primer on what “living constitutionalism” is, for example. The book is also valuable for its contributions to the field of the history of education and will benefit those researching the development of professional associations and the transformation of universities like Harvard from small liberal arts institutions into major research universities. This is social history at its best. We read about how Thayer attracted bright young men from across the country who applied what they learned under their beloved mentor once they left Harvard and took up posts elsewhere (as Wigmore did as dean at Northwestern Law School) and/or played key roles in major legal cases in the Progressive Era and beyond. Economics. Labor Law. Free speech. They're all here. And “beloved” is not too strong a word for the way these titans of American law regarded Thayer. Early career academics in any field who need a role model of a dedicated teacher could do worse than study the life of James Bradley Thayer. He was the subject of admiration and gratitude decades later by influential men who credited him with providing moral support and practical help when they were first starting out and for setting a standard of learning and hard work that they applied in their judicial and academic careers. Thayer was a networker and mentor par excellence. The book is interesting in itself apart from its subject in that it is a joint work by a professor (Andrew Porwancher) and three of his former students. That is a project worthy of note and something Thayer would almost certainly have endorsed, given how closely he worked with his students when they were at Harvard and, in many cases, for years afterward. It is no exaggeration to say that our lives today were affected by the active law-related personal correspondence between Thayer and his men. Let's hear from Professor Porwancher about what might be called the Thayer Effect and what co-authorship with students entails. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Though relatively short, the 2022 book The Prophet of Harvard Law: James Bradley Thayer and His Legal Legacy (UP of Kansas, 2022) by Andrew Porwancher, Austin Coffey, Taylor Jipp, and Jake Mazeitis, is jam-packed with information about late 19th and early 20th Century legal history and the professionalization of American legal education. This is a moving tale of a professor whose acolytes included some of the giants of American jurisprudence (e.g., the judges and justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Learned Hand and the legal scholars John Henry Wigmore and Roscoe Pound). Even those not directly taught by Thayer, such as Felix Frankfurter, lauded him as an intellectual influence. You may be thinking, “Why should I take the time to read a book about a long-dead Harvard law professor?” Well, because many of the issues that James Bradley Thayer (1831-1902) and his students grappled with have shaped almost every encounter Americans have with the law and affect our rights from the workplace to the schoolroom to the courtroom. Thayer and Wigmore, for example, did pioneering work on the laws of evidence. Hand did the same on the topic of expert testimony. Holmes and Thayer thrashed out the meaning of the word “presumption” as it was used in trials. And on a grander scale, Holmes, Brandeis, and Hand were trained as thinkers on Constitutional law by Thayer. We could all do with a primer on what “living constitutionalism” is, for example. The book is also valuable for its contributions to the field of the history of education and will benefit those researching the development of professional associations and the transformation of universities like Harvard from small liberal arts institutions into major research universities. This is social history at its best. We read about how Thayer attracted bright young men from across the country who applied what they learned under their beloved mentor once they left Harvard and took up posts elsewhere (as Wigmore did as dean at Northwestern Law School) and/or played key roles in major legal cases in the Progressive Era and beyond. Economics. Labor Law. Free speech. They're all here. And “beloved” is not too strong a word for the way these titans of American law regarded Thayer. Early career academics in any field who need a role model of a dedicated teacher could do worse than study the life of James Bradley Thayer. He was the subject of admiration and gratitude decades later by influential men who credited him with providing moral support and practical help when they were first starting out and for setting a standard of learning and hard work that they applied in their judicial and academic careers. Thayer was a networker and mentor par excellence. The book is interesting in itself apart from its subject in that it is a joint work by a professor (Andrew Porwancher) and three of his former students. That is a project worthy of note and something Thayer would almost certainly have endorsed, given how closely he worked with his students when they were at Harvard and, in many cases, for years afterward. It is no exaggeration to say that our lives today were affected by the active law-related personal correspondence between Thayer and his men. Let's hear from Professor Porwancher about what might be called the Thayer Effect and what co-authorship with students entails. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Though relatively short, the 2022 book The Prophet of Harvard Law: James Bradley Thayer and His Legal Legacy (UP of Kansas, 2022) by Andrew Porwancher, Austin Coffey, Taylor Jipp, and Jake Mazeitis, is jam-packed with information about late 19th and early 20th Century legal history and the professionalization of American legal education. This is a moving tale of a professor whose acolytes included some of the giants of American jurisprudence (e.g., the judges and justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Learned Hand and the legal scholars John Henry Wigmore and Roscoe Pound). Even those not directly taught by Thayer, such as Felix Frankfurter, lauded him as an intellectual influence. You may be thinking, “Why should I take the time to read a book about a long-dead Harvard law professor?” Well, because many of the issues that James Bradley Thayer (1831-1902) and his students grappled with have shaped almost every encounter Americans have with the law and affect our rights from the workplace to the schoolroom to the courtroom. Thayer and Wigmore, for example, did pioneering work on the laws of evidence. Hand did the same on the topic of expert testimony. Holmes and Thayer thrashed out the meaning of the word “presumption” as it was used in trials. And on a grander scale, Holmes, Brandeis, and Hand were trained as thinkers on Constitutional law by Thayer. We could all do with a primer on what “living constitutionalism” is, for example. The book is also valuable for its contributions to the field of the history of education and will benefit those researching the development of professional associations and the transformation of universities like Harvard from small liberal arts institutions into major research universities. This is social history at its best. We read about how Thayer attracted bright young men from across the country who applied what they learned under their beloved mentor once they left Harvard and took up posts elsewhere (as Wigmore did as dean at Northwestern Law School) and/or played key roles in major legal cases in the Progressive Era and beyond. Economics. Labor Law. Free speech. They're all here. And “beloved” is not too strong a word for the way these titans of American law regarded Thayer. Early career academics in any field who need a role model of a dedicated teacher could do worse than study the life of James Bradley Thayer. He was the subject of admiration and gratitude decades later by influential men who credited him with providing moral support and practical help when they were first starting out and for setting a standard of learning and hard work that they applied in their judicial and academic careers. Thayer was a networker and mentor par excellence. The book is interesting in itself apart from its subject in that it is a joint work by a professor (Andrew Porwancher) and three of his former students. That is a project worthy of note and something Thayer would almost certainly have endorsed, given how closely he worked with his students when they were at Harvard and, in many cases, for years afterward. It is no exaggeration to say that our lives today were affected by the active law-related personal correspondence between Thayer and his men. Let's hear from Professor Porwancher about what might be called the Thayer Effect and what co-authorship with students entails. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Sam and Emma host Jake Grumbach, professor at the University of Washington, to discuss his recent book Laboratories Against Democracy: How National Parties Transformed State Politics. First, Emma and Sam tackle the successful passing of Biden's Build-Back-a-Bit, filled to the brim with goodies for the fossil fuel industry as a ransom tradeoff for even thinking about a green transition, and run through the punitive damages ordered against Alex Jones in the wake of his libel trial. Then, they're joined by Professor Jacob Grumbach as he dives right into his book the inspiration he took from Louis Brandeis' concept of federalism as “Laboratories of Democracy,” bringing it into a modern assessment of the relationship between US Federalism and Democracy. Next, he walks Sam and Emma back to the formation of US Federalism in the wake of the US Revolution as a compromise between a political structure that emphasizes national unity for strength and one centered around preventing tyranny through state autonomy (aka allowing for the continuation of the industry of slavery), leading up to Brandeis' arrival on the Supreme Court in 1916 and his assessment of the ideal of federalism. They then work through what changed over the fifty years since 1970, with the nationalization (and centralization) of everything from corporate and social media (including the disappearance of local news) to political fundraising and interest groups, all while the national parties coalesced around their corporate leaders, unifying internally while polarization grew. This gave birth to a radicalism pipeline for the Right, starting with mass messaging on the level of national media and the party apparatus and trickling down to the footsoldiers of state implementation (as seen, particularly, with the recent fights over CRT). Next, Professor Grumbach walks through the various crises of 2020 that brought to the forefront the failures of our federalist system, including the COVID pandemic, the backlash (and backlash to the backlash) to the murder of George Floyd, and the wider crisis of democracy, discussing how it shined a light on the inefficiency of a decentralized public health system, the paradox of Governor and Mayoral power being trumped by their police departments, and more. They wrap up the interview by tackling the anomalies of Brandeis' post-war era, in terms of economic compression and political de-polarization, and diving into the necessary importance of large-scale organizations in helping us situate ourselves within these massive political systems, and how the right already capitalizes on it. And in the Fun Half: Emma and Sam dive into Brett Kavanaugh's expertise in avoiding accountability, from his severe debt that just happened to disappear in the run-up to his nomination to the recent revelation that Trump's White House covered up over 4,000 tips on Kavanaugh's sexual assault allegations. JR from Philly helps us parse through where the hell Alex Jones' money came flowing in from, Rick Scott is pressed on support for Masters and Walker, and Kim Crockett asks if we can just eliminate voting for disabled folks as a treat. Aaron Rodgers can't take a jab – physical or comedic – Kowalski from Nebraska talks climate change and labor, Spencer from Minnesota gives some primary previews, and Robert from Rochester discusses the Right giving up the game with their “wage-driven inflation” rhetoric. Mike from Rhode Island talks midterms, plus, your calls, and IMs! Check out Jake's book here: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691218458/laboratories-against-democracy Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: ZBiotics: Go to https://thld.co/zbiotics_majority_0722 and get 15% off your first order of ZBiotics Pre-Alcohol Probiotic by using my code MAJORITY at checkout. Thanks to ZBiotics for sponsoring today's video! Ritual: We deserve to know what we're putting in our bodies and why. Ritual's clean, vegan-friendly multivitamin is formulated with high-quality nutrients in bioavailable forms your body can actually use. Get key nutrients without the B.S. Ritual is offering my listeners ten percent off during your first three months. Visit https://ritual.com/?utm_source=arm&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=majority to start your Ritual today. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

This bonus episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast is an interview with Amy Gajda, author of “Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy.” Her book is an accessible history of the often obscure and sometimes “curlicued” interaction between the individual right to privacy and the public's (or at least the press's) right to know. Gajda, a former journalist, turns what could have been a dry exegesis on two centuries of legal precedent into a lively series of stories behind the case law. All the familiar legal titans of press and privacy—Louis Brandeis, Samuel Warren, Oliver Wendell Holmes—are there, but Gajda's research shows that they weren't always on the side they're most famous for defending.  This interview is just a taste of what Gajda's book offers, but lawyers who are used to a summary of argument at the start of everything they read should listen to this episode first if they want to know up front where all the book's stories are taking them.

This bonus episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast is an interview with Amy Gajda, author of “Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy.” Her book is an accessible history of the often obscure and sometimes “curlicued” interaction between the individual right to privacy and the public's (or at least the press's) right to know. Gajda, a former journalist, turns what could have been a dry exegesis on two centuries of legal precedent into a lively series of stories behind the case law. All the familiar legal titans of press and privacy—Louis Brandeis, Samuel Warren, Oliver Wendell Holmes—are there, but Gajda's research shows that they weren't always on the side they're most famous for defending.  This interview is just a taste of what Gajda's book offers, but lawyers who are used to a summary of argument at the start of everything they read should listen to this episode first if they want to know up front where all the book's stories are taking them.

Today's pages of Talmud, Yevamot 90, 91, and 92, deliver one of the most poetic evocations of justice in all of Judaism, instructing us that the law must always pierce the mountain, meaning that we should never abandon our inquiry into what is right in an effort to fashion a more perfect world. One hundred and six years ago this week, Louis Brandeis became the first Jew appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Twelve years and one day later, he wrote what would become one of the most famous dissents in court history, arguing that the government had no right to use advanced technology to invade the privacy of its citizens. It's as rousing a defense of the Talmudic principles of justice as has ever been written, and one that is painfully and acutely relevant today, when all of us are constantly surveilled by the government and corporations alike, often without our knowledge and consent. We reproduce Justice Brandeis's opinion nearly in full here. How can we defend the Constitution against pernicious new technologies? Listen and find out. Like the show? Send us a note at takeone@tabletmag.com. Follow us on Twitter at @takeonedafyomi and join the conversation in the Take One Facebook group. Take One is a Tablet Studios production. The show is hosted by Liel Leibovitz, and is produced and edited by Darone Ruskay and Quinn Waller. Our team also includes Stephanie Butnick, Josh Kross, Mark Oppenheimer, Sara Fredman Aeder, Robert Scaramuccia, and Tanya Singer.  Check out all of Tablet's podcasts at tabletmag.com/podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Press Freedom vs. Privacy—Newsworthiness in a Self-Publishing Era (Part 2)An interview with Prof. Amy GajdaThe First Amendment provides broad but not absolute freedom of press protections. Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren first famously articulated the right to privacy in 1890, a “right to be let alone” from undue prying by the press in private matters. While historically the press has enjoyed considerable latitude in determining what is newsworthy and publishable, there have been recent movements in the courts to constrict press freedoms and broaden individual privacy rights. Professor Amy Gajda of Tulane Law School examines how the concept of newsworthiness has evolved and what happens to press freedoms when “quasi-journalists,” self-publishers, bloggers and the like who don't abide by traditional ethics codes overstep the editorial line.

Press Freedom vs. Privacy—Newsworthiness in a Self-Publishing Era (Part 2)An interview with Prof. Amy GajdaThe First Amendment provides broad but not absolute freedom of press protections. Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren first famously articulated the right to privacy in 1890, a “right to be let alone” from undue prying by the press in private matters. While historically the press has enjoyed considerable latitude in determining what is newsworthy and publishable, there have been recent movements in the courts to constrict press freedoms and broaden individual privacy rights. Professor Amy Gajda of Tulane Law School examines how the concept of newsworthiness has evolved and what happens to press freedoms when “quasi-journalists,” self-publishers, bloggers and the like who don't abide by traditional ethics codes overstep the editorial line.

The First Amendment provides broad but not absolute freedom of press protections. Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren first famously articulated the right to privacy in 1890, a “right to be let alone” from undue prying by the press in private matters. While historically the press has enjoyed considerable latitude in determining what is newsworthy and publishable, there have been recent movements in the courts to constrict press freedoms and broaden individual privacy rights. Professor Amy Gajda of Tulane Law School examines how the concept of newsworthiness has evolved and what happens to press freedoms when “quasi-journalists,” self-publishers, bloggers and the like who don't abide by traditional ethics codes overstep the editorial line.

The First Amendment provides broad but not absolute freedom of press protections. Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren first famously articulated the right to privacy in 1890, a “right to be let alone” from undue prying by the press in private matters. While historically the press has enjoyed considerable latitude in determining what is newsworthy and publishable, there have been recent movements in the courts to constrict press freedoms and broaden individual privacy rights. Professor Amy Gajda of Tulane Law School examines how the concept of newsworthiness has evolved and what happens to press freedoms when “quasi-journalists,” self-publishers, bloggers and the like who don't abide by traditional ethics codes overstep the editorial line.

Louis Brandeis famously wrote that “a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory” for government reform. Today we see many states becoming laboratories for the reform of administrative law. Last year, the Gray Center hosted a roundtable to discuss new research on administrative law in the states. Those papers were recently released as Gray Center Working Papers... Source