Podcast appearances and mentions of mark tushnet

Harry talks with Mark Tushnet, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School, and one of the country's leading constitutional scholars. After a brief discussion about his new book, “Who Am I To Judge,” the two dive in to the law and politics of the Trump administration assault on elite universities, in particular Harvard and Columbia. Tushnet explains why he thinks that the Administrations' broad-gauged demands are unconstitutional on several grounds, including a somewhat underdeveloped principle in the law of fit between Government objection and proposed remedy, i.e. here that the administration is stating concerns about antisemitism to justify an extremely broad range of demanded changes. Tushnet describes the fervent opposition on campus and in the Harvard alumni community to the Administration's demands, and lays out Harvard's overall strategic thinking in the short, medium, and long terms. The two then turn to the very different response from Columbia, including discussion of the Administration's apparent consideration of a very novel approach to continuing supervision of the university under the model previous Departments of Justice have employed for corrupt police departments.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Kathryn Rubino chats with Harvard Law's Prof. Mark Tushnet, exploring his new book, “Who Am I to Judge?” Tushnet critiques the Supreme Court's originalism and questions the narrow experience of justices. A must-listen to rethink judicial norms and hear Tushnet's engaging perspectives on ideal court nominations and even the question of favorite books! Highlights The genesis of a legal career: from political science to law school. Critique of judicial review's evolution since the 1970s. Democrats rely on courts against the Trump administration. Background of the book “Who Am I to Judge?” Insight on Supreme Court composition change over generations. Judges' uniformity influencing mediocre decisions. Originalism in academic vs judicial contexts. Evaluating Supreme Court nominees on broader life experiences. Predictions for Trump's potential future nominees.   Episode Sponsored By  https://www.lexisnexis.com/lexisplus  Links and Resources https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300277029/who-am-i-to-judge/   Subscribe, Share and Review To get the next episode subscribe with your favorite podcast player. Subscribe with Apple Podcasts Follow on Spotify Leave a review on Apple Podcasts

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

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

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

What is constitutional theory and do judges actually need one? Mark Tushnet joins Christopher Wright Durocher to discuss his new book, Who Am I to Judge? Judicial Craft Versus Constitutional Theory, and how reasoned judgment can lead the way forward.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Christopher Wright Durocher, Vice President of Policy and ProgramGuest: Mark Tushnet, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Emeritus, Harvard Law SchoolLink: Who Am I to Judge? Judicial Craft Versus Constitutional Theory, by Mark Tushnet Link: Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law, by Mark Tushnet Link: How to Interpret the Constitution Using a "New Pragmatism," by Mark KendeVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law PodcastEmail the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.orgFollow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube-----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.-----------------Production House: Flint Stone MediaCopyright of American Constitution Society 2025.-----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2024.

Una de mis partes favoritas de hacer este podcast es que he tenido la oportunidad de conocer y platicar con los autores de los libros que he leido a lo largo de mi formación académica en la abogacía. En Upstanders, buscamos que todas las personas tengan acceso a las ideas y personas más importantes en el gremio jurídico mexicano, estadounidense y ahora, de América Latina. Roberto Gargarella es abogado y sociólogo de la Universidad de Buenos Aires y Doctor en Derecho de la misma universidad y de la Universidad de Chicago Para darnos una idea del pensamiento de Gargarella, les cuento que él fue alumno de Carlos Santiago Nino. Otros autores que han influido en él han sido Cass Sunstein, Jeremy Waldrom, Mark Tushnet y Owen Fiss. En esta ocasión, conversamos sobre el papel que juegan las y los jueces en democracias constitucionales y las tensiones que existen entre democracia y constitucionalismo y es curioso porque este es un tema que nos ha acompañado a lo largo de varias temporadas en el podcast, pero es que esta pregunta que le hecho a ministras, periodistas y académicos partió de haber leído su libro El derecho como una conversación entre iguales. El profesor Gargarella también nos dio su perspectiva sobre la posibilidad de elegir a los jueces de manera democrática.

In this week's episode, Jeremi and Zachary are joined by Sanford Levinson to discuss the 2000 election, the Supreme Court decision that finalized it, and how this decision has had ramifications throughout modern history. Zachary sets the scene with his poem entitled, "The Court Has Stopped the Count" Sanford Levinson, who holds the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, joined the University of Texas Law School in 1980. Previously a member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, he is also a Professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas. Levinson is the author of approximately 400 articles, book reviews, or commentaries in professional and popular journals--and a regular contributor to the popular blog Balkinization. He has also written six books: Constitutional Faith (1988, winner of the Scribes Award, 2d edition 2011); Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (1998); Wrestling With Diversity (2003); Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It)(2006); Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (2012); An Argument Open to All: Reading the Federalist in the 21st Century (2015); and, with Cynthia Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and teh Flaws that Affect Us Today (forthcoming, September 2017). Edited or co-edited books include a leading constitutional law casebook, Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking (6th ed. 2015, with Paul Brest, Jack Balkin, Akhil Amar, and Reva Siegel); Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (2016); Reading Law and Literature: A Hermeneutic Reader (1988, with Steven Mallioux); Responding to Imperfection: The Theory and Practice of Constitutional Amendment (1995); Constitutional Stupidities, Constitutional Tragedies (1998, with William Eskridge); Legal Canons (2000, with Jack Balkin); The Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion (2005, with Batholomew Sparrow); Torture: A Collection (2004, revised paperback edition, 2006); and The Oxford Handbook on the United States Constitution (with Mark Tushnet and Mark Graber, 2015). He received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Law and Courts Section of the American Political Science Association in 2010. He has been a visiting faculty member of the Boston University, Georgetown, Harvard, New York University, and Yale law schools in the United States and has taught abroad in programs of law in London; Paris; Jerusalem; Auckland, New Zealand; and Melbourne, Australia. He was a Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton in 1985-86 and a Member of the Ethics in the Professions Program at Harvard in 1991-92. He is also affiliated with the Shalom Hartman Institute of Jewish Philosophy in Jerusalem. A member of the American Law Institute, Levinson was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001. He is married to Cynthia Y. Levinson, a writer of children's literature, and has two daughters and four grandchildren.

Hello, my name is Oliver Garner. I'm the editor of the Rule of Law section of the C EU Democracy Institute's Live Platform, The Review of Democracy. These are my top five Rule of Law books of 2023. My first choice is the abuse of constitutional identity in the European Union by Julian Scholtes, published by Oxford University Press. This year, I had the pleasure of interviewing Julian about his work in autumn for RevDem. His book impressively categorizes the manners in which constitutional identity may be abused by a liberal actor into generative substantive and relational aspects. This work can provide a rejoinder to claims that constitutional identity is an unmitigated danger to liberal democracy. And instead, it may help us to preserve a concept that can usefully delimit the spheres of sovereign autonomy within our globalized world. My second choice is the book Against Constitutionalism by Martin Loughlin, published by Harvard University Press in 2022. The polemic title sets out the author's stall as an academic who is always willing to challenge the prevailing consensus within a field. Our fellow RevDem editor Kasia Krzyzanowska' interview with Professor Loughlin this year teased out the heart of his argument as one that seeks to privilege the power of politics to change society over what he perceives to be the ideology of constitutionalism that may ossify progress through rarely legality. My third choice is the book European Disunion, Democracy, Sovereignty, and The Politics of Emergency by Stefan Auer, published by Hurst in 2022. This monograph provides another challenge to one of the prevailing notions in liberal Western academia that the empty seat of power in supranational integration within Europe is a desirable feature of modernity. Instead, such over bureaucratization may be a causative factor in the democratic irritations of populism and the liberalism. As Auer argues in this book, a full symposium on the monograph with contributions from Peter J. Verovšek, Gábor Halmai, and Petr Agha is available on RevDem. My fourth choice is the book, The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict in the European Union by Anna Bobek, published by Oxford University Press in 2022. The legal face of the liberal challenge to supranational integration may be regarded as the constitutional conflicts between national apex courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Anna Bobek's book provides a rigorous academic treatise on these phenomena from the perspective of an insider within the court of justice. Her development of categories of constructive and destructive constitutional conflict in the European Union may marry well with Scholtz's notions of abusive and genuine constitutional identity claims and both can be very useful tools in the future for such conflicts. My final choice is the research handbook on the politics of constitutional law, edited by Mark Tushnet and the Lead researcher for the rule of law workgroup, Dmitry Kochenov. And this book was published by Edward Elgar in 2023. This, will I believe be an authoritative tone on the interaction between core concepts such as democracy and the rule of law within constitutional systems. The handbook is divided into contributions on foundations, structure rights and futures, which allows both a systematic look into the origins of constitutional politics and valuable reflections upon its development by a wide array of greatvoices within the field. I hope that you have also enjoyed these books if you've also managed to read them this year and I hope you've also enjoyed the content we've put out on RevDem on the rule of law section and our book review section on themes covered in these works and similar. I hope that you will join us again in 2024 when we continue to deliver podcasts and op-eds considering these arguments that are relevant for democracy in Europe.

Email Us:dbahnsen@thebahnsengroup.comwill@calpolicycenter.orgFollow Us:@DavidBahnsen@WillSwaim@TheRadioFreeCAShow notes:The wild story of triumph and tragedy behind Tony Bennett's ‘I Left My Heart in San Francisco'‘Come on Barbie, let's go govern.' California politicians jump on the ‘Barbie' bandwagon Newsom on Barbie‘Barbie' Review: Beyond her KenConservatives are getting Barbie wrongCalifornia Exodus: Once growing rapidly, state population projected to remain the same through 2060Kamala Harris is brazenly lying about Florida's slavery curriculumVice President Kamala Harris uses Chicago appearance to call for Latinos to act against extremistsState Super of Public Instruction escorted out of heated school board meeting on gender policy Bonta's letter to Chino ValleyAttorney Laura Powell's response to BontaTemecula Valley School District reverses curriculum decision due to pending lawsuitHarvard's Mark Tushnet wants Joe Biden to become a dictatorAn Open Letter to the Biden Administration on Popular ConstitutionalismHuffPo on Aaron BelkinHarvard's Mark Tushnet wants Joe Biden to become a dictatorBiden to keep Julie Su on indefinitely as Labor chief despite lack of Senate votesBiden's Labor nominee ‘Embodies the Spirit of California,' and that's the problemCalifornia bill proposes considering race in criminal sentencingSystemic racism? Make them prove itIn-N-Out Burger to require doctor's note for employees to wear masksChris Micheli:@ChrisMicheliAprea & Micheli

In their "An Open Letter to the Biden Administration on Popular Constitutionalism," Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin offer a response to Biden's characterization of the court as "not a normal court" in the wake of prominent cases. The authors emphasize the need for President Biden to proactively address what they perceive as misguided interpretations of the Constitution by MAGA justices. They urge the administration to assert its own constitutional interpretations and to vocalize its commitment to safeguarding our core principles whenever such rulings arise.  

This week, Eric, Noah, and Emily are joined by Christine Rosen, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of the cover story in the Summer 2023 issue of RELIGION & LIBERTY entitled “The Death of Conservatism Is Greatly Exaggerated.” Why have there been so many attempts to declare American conservatism dead? Why do so many of them, and in particular a recent piece from Jon Askonas in Compact magazine, ignore the fact that so many of the criticisms the current “New Right” levels at conservatism and American life are not all that new? How should we grapple with the effects of technology on American life? And what is our politics supposed to be for, as opposed to what we're using it for now? Next, they discuss an open letter primarily written by Harvard Law School professor Mark Tushnet calling for President Joe Biden to ignore Supreme Court rulings he doesn't like. Does the left have a comprehensible legal philosophy? How much was the rise of the New Right derailed by the success of the Federalist Society and the Dobbs decision? And is this just a mirror version of what Harvard Law professor Adrian Vermeule is calling for? And finally, three members of our four-person panel have seen Oppenheimer. Was dropping the bomb on Japan the right decision? Subscribe to our podcasts The Death of Conservatism Is Greatly Exaggerated | Christine Rosen, RELIGION & LIBERTY Subscribe to RELIGION & LIBERTY Harvard's Mark Tushnet Wants Joe Biden to Become a Dictator | Charles C.W. Cooke, National Review Oppenheimer and the Last Great America | Titus Techera, Acton Institute

Mark Tushnet – the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School – joins Tavis for a conversation about the legitimacy of Courts and the Supreme Court, how he views the impact of partisan politics on recent rulings, the role of public opinion and perception in determining the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and more.

In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment was being “so wantonly and so freakishly imposed” that it was “cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual.” But just four years later, the Court reversed course---ruling that with new procedures in place, states could continue executions without running afoul of the Eighth Amendment. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote an impassioned dissent arguing that the death penalty is cruel and unusual under any circumstances. After hearing his experiences as a defense attorney in the South, it's easy to understand why.Thanks to our guests John Stinneford and Mark Tushnet.Follow us on Twitter @anastasia_esq @ehslattery @pacificlegal #DissedPod See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Professor Mark Tushnet stops by Supreme Myths to discuss legal realism, SCOTUS, Court balancing/packing, and his great new book on the Hughes Court from 1930-1941.

The idea of “court-packing,”⸺that is, adding seats to the court for political purposes⸺has recently gained steam for the first time in nearly 100 years. The last time we heard about court-packing, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's plan to add more justices was supposedly staved off by the infamous “switch in time that saved nine.” As the story goes, Justice Roberts (no, not THAT Roberts) strategically cast his vote in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish in way that subdued popular support for FDR's proposal. But a closer look into that case reveals that not everything is as it seems, as well as the perils that come with trying to pack the Court.Thanks to our guests Mark Tushnet, Barry Cushman, and Ilya Shapiro, and to singer Jenni Kim-Etimos for her jazzy rendition of our court-packing ballad.Follow us on Twitter @anastasia_esq @ehslattery @pacificlegal #DissedPod See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The American media has been focused on the Supreme Court's upcoming abortion cases but a decision in a critical Second Amendment case could overturn public safety laws for 25% of Americans. Next week, the Court will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a challenge to a 1911 New York State law that limits carrying guns outside the home. New York is a “may issue” state in which applications for concealed carry are not automatically granted but reviewed to determine if the person has “proper cause” to conceal a gun. We've not seen a Second Amendment case since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 -- and this case will be heard by a Court that now has 3 conservative appointments made by former President Donald Trump. Two Second Amendment scholars join the podcast to go wide and deep on the astonishing implications for our laws. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored Free Speech Beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment (NYU, 2017) with Mark Tushnet and Alan K. Chen and The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). His recent “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) with Reva Siegel interrogates the impact of gun rights on free speech. Jacob D. Charles, the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and his public-facing scholarship includes work with CNN, NPR, Politifact, NewsWeek, and Mother Jones. “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

The American media has been focused on the Supreme Court's upcoming abortion cases but a decision in a critical Second Amendment case could overturn public safety laws for 25% of Americans. Next week, the Court will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a challenge to a 1911 New York State law that limits carrying guns outside the home. New York is a “may issue” state in which applications for concealed carry are not automatically granted but reviewed to determine if the person has “proper cause” to conceal a gun. We've not seen a Second Amendment case since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 -- and this case will be heard by a Court that now has 3 conservative appointments made by former President Donald Trump. Two Second Amendment scholars join the podcast to go wide and deep on the astonishing implications for our laws. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored Free Speech Beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment (NYU, 2017) with Mark Tushnet and Alan K. Chen and The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). His recent “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) with Reva Siegel interrogates the impact of gun rights on free speech. Jacob D. Charles, the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and his public-facing scholarship includes work with CNN, NPR, Politifact, NewsWeek, and Mother Jones. “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. 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 American media has been focused on the Supreme Court's upcoming abortion cases but a decision in a critical Second Amendment case could overturn public safety laws for 25% of Americans. Next week, the Court will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a challenge to a 1911 New York State law that limits carrying guns outside the home. New York is a “may issue” state in which applications for concealed carry are not automatically granted but reviewed to determine if the person has “proper cause” to conceal a gun. We've not seen a Second Amendment case since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 -- and this case will be heard by a Court that now has 3 conservative appointments made by former President Donald Trump. Two Second Amendment scholars join the podcast to go wide and deep on the astonishing implications for our laws. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored Free Speech Beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment (NYU, 2017) with Mark Tushnet and Alan K. Chen and The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). His recent “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) with Reva Siegel interrogates the impact of gun rights on free speech. Jacob D. Charles, the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and his public-facing scholarship includes work with CNN, NPR, Politifact, NewsWeek, and Mother Jones. “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. 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 American media has been focused on the Supreme Court's upcoming abortion cases but a decision in a critical Second Amendment case could overturn public safety laws for 25% of Americans. Next week, the Court will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a challenge to a 1911 New York State law that limits carrying guns outside the home. New York is a “may issue” state in which applications for concealed carry are not automatically granted but reviewed to determine if the person has “proper cause” to conceal a gun. We've not seen a Second Amendment case since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 -- and this case will be heard by a Court that now has 3 conservative appointments made by former President Donald Trump. Two Second Amendment scholars join the podcast to go wide and deep on the astonishing implications for our laws. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored Free Speech Beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment (NYU, 2017) with Mark Tushnet and Alan K. Chen and The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). His recent “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) with Reva Siegel interrogates the impact of gun rights on free speech. Jacob D. Charles, the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and his public-facing scholarship includes work with CNN, NPR, Politifact, NewsWeek, and Mother Jones. “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. 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

Do populists pose a threat to constitutional democracy? Are populists always the villains in our tales about democracy? Bojan Bugarič answers these questions in a conversation with Kasia Krzyżanowska. He also talks about his recent book on the relationship between constitutionalism and populism, co-authored with Mark Tushnet.

Today, Fabio talks to Bojan Bugaric, a public law professor at the University of Sheffield Law School, in the UK. Mark Tushnet, Bojan just launched a book entitled “Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism”. Fabio and Bojan discuss different kinds of populism, how they may affect law and democracy, and why it is worth investigating not only the consequences but also the causes of what Bojan calls "authoritarian populism"

Co-hosts Larry Bernstein and Rick Banks. Guests include Eric Kaufmann, Doug Massey, Andrew Gelman, W. Joseph Campbell, Larry Kramer, Mark Tushnet and Ganesh Sitaraman.

In this episode, I discuss the congressional politics of the court vacancy. Here are the relevant links from each point. Point #1- There’s no chance a Justice won’t be confirmed if there are 50 votes for the justice. You almost certainly can’t stop this procedurally if you are the Democrats. James Wallner discussing the procedures for confirming a judicial nomination. My tweetstorm on the Senate rules regarding the requirement of holding an impeachment trial. My tweetstorm on the problems with denying a quorum. My tweetstorm on shaping understandings rather than preventing actions. Point #2 – And there’s almost certainly going to be 50 votes. Electorally vulnerable Senators just aren’t going to break with the party here. My old post on how opinion polls about policy don’t translate to votes. Point #3 – Parties don’t simply have a goal of maximizing their seats in Congress. Anthony Downs’ theory of party competition. Point #4 – Hardball politics is both new and not new. Josh Chafetz’s on unprecedented things in judicial nominations. Me on hardball politics and what’s new and not new. Mark Tushnet on Constitutional hardball. Francis Lee on insecure majorities and party competition. Matt Green on hardball politics in Congress, then and now. The Washington Post […]

Professor Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law School is our guest.  Professor Tushnet talks with Dan Hunter about the changes that he's seen in US legal education over his long and illustrious career, and offers some suggestions regarding how US law schools need to change to respond to the challenges ahead. 

On this episode Heidi talks to Mark Tushnet, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. In the interview, Professor Tushnet talks about the role of critical legal studies in political activism and the need for those seeking progressive goals to develop a double consciousness as part of their practice. In the second half Heidi talks to producer and New American Husband David Slavick about the recent Elsa (from Frozen) arrest controversy. We ask the question “Can cops ever be funny?” and break down the deep dark underbelly of Elsa fantasies. **Show Notes** *Part 1* Professor Mark Tushnet Faculty Page – Harvard Law School https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10906/Tushnet Mark Tushnet, The Critique of Rights, 47 SMU L. Rev. 23 (1994) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol47/iss1/6 *Part 2* Elsa from "Frozen" arrested - Album on Imgur, original photoshoot, February 2015. http://bit.ly/2URDier Illinois police department shares photos of Frozen's Elsa "under arrest" for bringing polar vortex, CBS News, Sophie Lewis, January 29 2019 https://cbsn.ws/2GxHj3Q McLean Police Department - Home | Facebook http://bit.ly/2I1zqWC Police officers in the US were charged with more than 400 rapes over a 9-year period - CNN https://cnn.it/2DpCJS2 What makes YouTube’s surreal kids’ videos so creepy? - The Verge http://bit.ly/2HVocTo

Today's episode features a little more about Corey Robin, including the argument addressed on the show that criticisms of Clarence Thomas's competence are a racist echo of similar claims made against Thurgood Marshall.  Find out why Andrew made the mistake he did in Episode 242, and also why Andrew still stands behind his answer to that question. We begin with Robin, winding our way from his blog posts to the jurisprudence of two of Andrew's heroes, Laurence Tribe and Ronald Dworkin!  Ultimately, you'll learn why Andrew continues to defend the proposition that attacks on Thomas's competence are not inherently racist. After that, it's time for some behind-the-scenes news about Attorney General nominee William Barr just in time for his confirmation hearings.  What company does he keep when it comes to interpreting the Founding Fathers?  Listen and find out!  (Hint:  this isn't good.) Finally, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #108 regarding real property.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We first discussed Robin in Episode 242 as part of a listener question.  You can click here to read his Tweet criticizing us for engaging in "tribalism" and playing identity politics. We discuss two Robin blog posts in depth:  (a) "Everything is in the Hands of Heaven Except the Fear of Heaven", and (b) "The Scandal of Democracy" It was, in fact, Elena Kagan who said "we're all textualists now" in 2015. Click here to check out Tribe's 2008 book, The Invisible Constitution, which openly contests originalism (and directly engages Scalia in particular). You should also check out the Ronald Dworkin speech that was turned into an article in the Fordham Law Review. This is the 2001 Keith Whittington law review article that credits Robin with an assist.  This is Whittington's page at the Federalist Society. We engage with this tweet from Robin listing four supposed examples of intellectual laziness leveled against Thurgood Marshall. Some Thurgood Marshall links:  (a) his confirmation as reported by the New York Times; and (b) this lovely retrospective on Thomas's career penned by Juan Williams for the Washington Post. Finally, you can read some more stuff on Clarence Thomas:  (a) the 2014 rates of agreement among Supreme Court justices; and (b) this anecdote reported by attorney Matt Howell. If you have HeinOnline, you can read the Mark Tushnet law review article in the Georgetown Law Review we discuss on the show.  (Otherwise, you're stuck reading the first page only.) Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

President Trump and congressional Democrats remain at an impasse over a White House proposal to fund the construction of a southern border wall. The president has said that if Congress decides not to appropriate the funds, then he will “probably” declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress and build the wall. On this episode of We the People, we ask: what would happen if the president decided to declare a national emergency and divert military funds to build the wall? What statutes could he rely on? And would such an action be constitutional? Host Jeffrey Rosen and constitutional law experts Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law and Sai Prakash of University of Virginia Law explore the constitutional clauses, cases, and laws at issue in this hotly contested debate, including the Take Care, Appropriations, and Takings Clauses of the Constitution, the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case, and the National Emergencies Act of 1976 and related statutes.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

President Trump and congressional Democrats remain at an impasse over a White House proposal to fund the construction of a southern border wall. The president has said that if Congress decides not to appropriate the funds, then he will “probably” declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress and build the wall. On this episode of We the People, we ask: what would happen if the president decided to declare a national emergency and divert military funds to build the wall? What statutes could he rely on? And would such an action be constitutional? Host Jeffrey Rosen and constitutional law experts Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law and Sai Prakash of University of Virginia Law explore the constitutional clauses, cases, and laws at issue in this hotly contested debate, including the Take Care, Appropriations, and Takings Clauses of the Constitution, the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case, and the National Emergencies Act of 1976 and related statutes.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Anything Goes Fourth of July Week continues with Congressman Mark Pocan taking your calls. Also, Prof. Mark Tushnet talks about judicial review. George Monbiot joins us to discuss his new book Out of the Wreckage: A New Politics for an Age of Crisis. And finally, Dr. "Barry" Reeves comes on to discuss the dire situation in Honduras.

Session II New York Times v. Sullivan Around the World

Joe is at the airport for a special pre-roll segment. Then we say hello to Lisa Heinzerling, administrative law expert (5:23). After a substantive and goofy discussion of legislation and regulation courses (6:29), we discuss the development of what Lisa calls “the power canons” resulting from recent decisions of the Supreme Court (10:39). If you’re Congress, how do you write a statute meant to solve problems that might evolve in type or degree? Do you have the power to do so, or are you limited to speaking to the here and now? Does the Supreme Court have the power to limit legislative and regulatory power in this way? This show’s links: Lisa Heinzerling’s faculty profile (including links to all her scholarship) Lisa Heinzerling and Mark Tushnet, The Regulatory and Administrative State (a legislation and regulation casebook) Lisa Heinzerling, The Power Canons Oral Argument 23: Rex Sunstein? (guest Ethan Leib) City of Arlington v. FCC (C.J. Roberts in dissent: “It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’ but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”) NCTA v. Brand X Richard Posner, The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA King v. Burwell Michigan v. EPA Lisa Heinzerling, Inside EPA: A Former Insider's Reflections on the Relationship Between the Obama EPA and the Obama White House Oral Argument 28: A Wonderful Catastrophe (our Erie show) Special Guest: Lisa Heinzerling.

Agradecemos a la Facultad de Derecho de la UNAM y en especial a la Dra. María Leoba Castañeda Rivas por su apoyo en la realización de este programa. Desde la Universidad de Harvard nos entrevistamos con el Dr. Mark Tushnet quien nos comparte sobre el constitucionalismo popular y el progresista, además abordamos diversos aspectos de los estudios críticos dentro del Derecho.

We dive into the legal nature of the regulatory state with Ethan Leib of Fordham Law School. In what sense is the making of regulatory policy, whether on the environment or on net neutrality, a legal process? Should regulatory agencies adhere to precedent or otherwise be bound by law-like doctrines? We learn about the White House’s influence over rulemaking through OIRA and question how OIRA should function and what legal principles should govern it. This show’s links: Ethan Leib’s faculty profile and articles This Week in Law 263: More Bodies on Blackacre, on which Joe and Christian were guests Nestor Davidson and Ethan Leib, Regleprudence - at OIRA and Beyond Mark Tushnet, Legislative and Executive Stare Decisis The nuclear option About OIRA, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and its resource page The major executive orders concerning federal regulation and the role of OIRA The repository of OIRA return letters Cass Sunstein, The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: Myths and Realities Catherine Sharkey, State Farm 'with Teeth': Heightened Judicial Review in the Absence of Executive Oversight Julius Cohen, Towards Realism in Legisprudence and Legisprudence: Problems and Agenda Lon Fuller, The Morality of Law Carol Rose, New Models for Local Land Use Decisions Cass Sunstein’s memorandum for agency heads, Disclosure and Simplification as Regulatory Tools Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4 Public comments on the Obama administration’s proposal to revise the basic regulatory executive order (including comments from Martha Nussbaum, Eric Posner, Gillian Metzler, Richard Revesz, Michael Livermore, and Peter Strauss) Ethan Leib and David Ponet, Fiduciary Representation and Deliberative Engagement with Children Evan Criddle, Fiduciary Administration: Rethinking Popular Representation in Agency Rulemaking Special Guest: Ethan Leib.

Back in the days of the former Soviet Union, we use to look to any public clue to try and understand what went on behind those Kremlin walls.  It gave rise to a whole group of people who were referred to as Kremlinologist.Today, it seems we look at the Supreme Court in much the same way.  At a time when the other branches of government talk about transparency and are exposed by leaks, when we often know too much about Members of Congress and the White House, the court often remains that enigma wrapped in a mystery.Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet helps us shed some light on the current court with, In the Balance: Law and Politics on the Roberts Court.My conversation with Mark Tushnet: