Podcast appearances and mentions of Michael C Dorf

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss Chief Justice John Roberts' recent rebuke of President Donald Trump and the proper way to criticize a court's opinion. The Agenda: —Judicial independence and integrity —Orin Kerr and Michael C. Dorf debate —The “confusing” McDonnell Douglas framework —Parental due process rights —Age restrictions on the 2A —Free speech for professors —SCOTUS' lottery system Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Michael C. Dorf for Dorf on Law: “In a Post-Roe World, Can States Prevent Women From Seeking Abortions Out-of-State?” Ruth Graham for The New York Times: “A Pastor and His Congregation Part Ways” Ruth Graham and Elizabeth Dias for The New York Times: “The Growing Religious Fervor in the American Right: ‘This Is a Jesus Movement'” The Great Evangelical Recession: 6 Factors That Will Crash the American Church...and How to Prepare by John Dickerson Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Forbidden City, by Vanessa Hua; A River of Stars by Vanessa Hua; Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy with My Kids, by Scott Hershovitz  John: Invisible Child: Poverty, Survival & Hope in an American City, by Andrea Elliott; Jon Ward for Christianity Today: “Being a Political Journalist Made Me a Better Christian”; The Bob Dylan Center; John Dickerson for CBS This Morning: “Bob Dylan Center: A Window Into the Voice of a Generation” David: Mother Jones: “How Private Equity Looted America”; Our Earth: “Cool Airplane Camera Views on Lufthansa” Listener chatter from Nicholas Gaffney: Alex Hanson for The Valley News: “Croydon Reverses Slashing Of School Budget After Voters Turn Out For Special Meeting” For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment Emily, David, and John discuss the things they do today that would horrify their 25-year-old selves. Tweet us your questions and chatters @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Cheyna Roth. Research and show notes by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Michael C. Dorf for Dorf on Law: “In a Post-Roe World, Can States Prevent Women From Seeking Abortions Out-of-State?” Ruth Graham for The New York Times: “A Pastor and His Congregation Part Ways” Ruth Graham and Elizabeth Dias for The New York Times: “The Growing Religious Fervor in the American Right: ‘This Is a Jesus Movement'” The Great Evangelical Recession: 6 Factors That Will Crash the American Church...and How to Prepare by John Dickerson Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Forbidden City, by Vanessa Hua; A River of Stars by Vanessa Hua; Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy with My Kids, by Scott Hershovitz  John: Invisible Child: Poverty, Survival & Hope in an American City, by Andrea Elliott; Jon Ward for Christianity Today: “Being a Political Journalist Made Me a Better Christian”; The Bob Dylan Center; John Dickerson for CBS This Morning: “Bob Dylan Center: A Window Into the Voice of a Generation” David: Mother Jones: “How Private Equity Looted America”; Our Earth: “Cool Airplane Camera Views on Lufthansa” Listener chatter from Nicholas Gaffney: Alex Hanson for The Valley News: “Croydon Reverses Slashing Of School Budget After Voters Turn Out For Special Meeting” For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment Emily, David, and John discuss the things they do today that would horrify their 25-year-old selves. Tweet us your questions and chatters @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Cheyna Roth. Research and show notes by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether Congress has the power to authorize suits against nonconsenting states pursuant to its constitutional war powers.Date     Proceedings and Orders Nov 02 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 7, 2020)Nov 03 2020 | Waiver of right of respondent Texas Department of Public Safety to respond filed.Nov 17 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/4/2020.Nov 24 2020 | Response Requested. (Due December 28, 2020)Dec 01 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 28, 2020 to January 27, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Dec 02 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 27, 2021.Dec 23 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Jeffrey M. Hirsch filed.Dec 23 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Reserve Organization of America filed.Dec 23 2020 | Brief amici curiae of Philip C. Bobbitt, Michael C. Dorf, and H. Jefferson Powell filed.Jan 27 2021 | Brief of respondent Texas Department of Public Safety in opposition filed.Feb 10 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/26/2021.Feb 10 2021 | Reply of petitioner Le Roy Torres filed. (Distributed)Mar 01 2021 | The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.Nov 09 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.Nov 23 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/10/2021.Nov 23 2021 | Supplemental brief of petitioner Le Roy Torres filed. (Distributed)Dec 15 2021 | Petition GRANTED.Dec 22 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Texas Department of Public SafetyDec 29 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Le Roy TorresDec 30 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Le Roy Torres.Jan 18 2022 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.Jan 26 2022 | Record requested from the Court of Appeals of Texas 13th District.Jan 28 2022 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Tuesday, March 29, 2022.Jan 31 2022 | The record received from the Court of Appeals of Texas 13th District is electronic and located on the Court of Appeals of Texas web site. Also one envelope containing the Notice of Appeal, Clerk's Record, and Reporter's Record.Jan 31 2022 | Brief of petitioner Le Roy Torres filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Scholars of Constitutional Law and The Law of Federal and State Courts filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Jeffrey M. Hirsch filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amici curiae of War Powers Scholars filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Reserve Organization of America filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amici curiae of National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al. filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Philip C. Bobbitt, Michael C. Dorf, and H. Jefferson Powell filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Former Members of Congress filed.Feb 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Bipartisan Members of Congress filed. (Distributed)Feb 11 2022 | CIRCULATEDMar 02 2022 | Brief of respondent Texas Department of Public Safety filed. (Distributed)Mar 03 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.Mar 09 2022 | Brief amici curiae of State of Montana and 14 Other States filed. (Distributed)Mar 09 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Philip A. Pucillo filed. (Distributed)Mar 09 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Separation of Powers Clinic at Antonin Scalia Law School filed. (Distributed)Mar 18 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED.Mar 18 2022 | Reply of petitioner Le Roy Torres filed. (Distributed)Mar 29 2022 | Argued. For petitioner: Andrew T. Tutt, Washington, D. C.; and Christopher G. Michel, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Judd E. Stone, II, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The second day of the conference commenced with a panel asking "Is Originalism Possible? Normative Indeterminacy and the Judicial Role."Featuring:Moderator: Edwin Meese III, The Heritage FoundationProf. Michael C. Dorf, Rutgers University School of LawProf. Richard A. Epstein, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Michael J. Perry, Northwestern University School of LawProf. Steven D. Smith, University of Colorado School of Law

Today's guests: - Edwin Eisendarth, Host on WCPT80 on Saturdays from 1 - 4 pm - David Hochberg, Hochaber Team - Michael Dorf, The Law Offices of Michael C. Dorf

Ryan Piers, NBC News Radio Anchor Matt Matern, Republican for President Michael C. Dorf, Democratic Lawyer Trump impeachment trial vote LIVE Senate Finds President Trump "Not Guilty" on Both Articles of Impeachment Paul Vallas, former CEO of both the School District of Philadelphia and the Chicago Public Schools & Former candidate running for Chicago Mayor Joan Esposito Live, Local, & Progressive Weekdays 2pm-5pm Chicago's Progressive Talk Radio WCPT 820AM wcpt820.com

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the second showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the panel was "Why, or Why Not, Be an Originalist?"There are a variety of arguments for following originalism today, such as justifications rooted in language, positivism, sovereignty, and consequences. This panel would look at many normative positions for and against originalism.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh CircuitProf. Michael C. Dorf, Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell Law SchoolProf. Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Thomas Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the second showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the panel was "Why, or Why Not, Be an Originalist?"There are a variety of arguments for following originalism today, such as justifications rooted in language, positivism, sovereignty, and consequences. This panel would look at many normative positions for and against originalism.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh CircuitProf. Michael C. Dorf, Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell Law SchoolProf. Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Thomas Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency after Congress denied him most of the funding he requested for a border wall. Dorf describes the legal framework that allows the president to do so even in the absence of an emergency and points out that combined actions of Congress, the courts, and the People have created this situation.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the recognition by the United States and some other constitutional democracies of Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s legitimate leader pending new elections. Dorf points out that many countries suffer under incompetent, corrupt, and authoritarian leaders just as Venezuela did under Nicolás Maduro, yet constitutional democracies typically do not rally behind the ouster of those leaders. What makes Maduro’s case different?

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a case arising from the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire—a case the US Supreme Court had on its calendar for oral arguments until late last week, when the federal district judge issued an opinion and enjoined the government from including the question. Despite the original issue presented in the case (a technical one about the scope of discovery) being made moot by the district court opinion, Dorf discusses the remaining and greater issue of how to discern and address illicit government motives.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on Facebook’s global efforts to block hate speech and other offensive content and explains why formula-based policy necessarily makes very little sense. As Dorf explains, accurate determinations of hate speech require cultural understanding and evaluations of cases on an individual basis, but this approach also necessarily injects individual bias into those decisions. Thus, Facebook’s policy, while not ideal, may be but one of a handful of inadequate options.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the recent ruling by a federal district judge in Texas striking down the entirety of the Affordable Care Act and argues that the judge relies on a highly unorthodox (and erroneous) interpretation of the doctrine of “severability.” As Dorf explains, there is a notable lack of judicial consensus as to what courts actually do when they declare laws unconstitutional, despite that the Supreme Court established its power of judicial review over two centuries ago in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the double jeopardy question raised in Gamble v. United States, in which the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week, and explains how the extraordinary nature of the Trump presidency should inform judicial decision making. Building upon a point made in a 1985 Columbia Law Review article by Professor Vincent Blasi, Dorf argues that judges construing the Constitution and other legal texts in perilous times such as these should keep in mind that the rules they adopt will also operate in normal times.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the Department of Education’s recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking rules requiring due process protections for those accused of sexual assault or harassment in Title IX cases. Dorf provides a history of Title IX, explaining how the Obama administration issued guidance and instituted reforms to how institutions should approach addressing allegations of such conduct. He acknowledges the Department of Education's shift in policy under the Trump administration that led to its proposed rulemaking issuance, and argues that the Department only has the authority to permit these additional due process protections in most instances, rather than outright require institutions to adhere to them.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf considers the legality of President Donald Trump’s firing of US Attorney General Jeff Sessions and designating Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General. Dorf points out that while the Constitution does not expressly address acting officers, Trump’s actions certainly violate the spirit of the law and the Constitution.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the announcement that retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor would be withdrawing from public life and explains how, ironically, the exit of President Ronald Reagan’s Supreme Court nominees is giving rise to what could be called the Reagan Court. Dorf describes Reagan’s successes and failures with respect to shaping the Court and explains why only now, with its present composition, the Court may actually be poised to further Reagan’s agenda.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf debunks President Trump’s claim that he has kept his campaign promise to “protect coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions.” Dorf provides three primary reasons that the claim is dishonest: the administration’s position in a pending lawsuit; the GOP’s proposed alternative, which does not require insurance companies to offer policies that actually cover pre-existing conditions, and the claim that Democratic support of Medicare for All is “radical socialism.”

I have grown obsessed with a seemingly simple question: Does the American political system have a remedy if we elect the wrong person to be president? There are clear answers if we elect a criminal or if the president falls into a coma. But what if we just make a hiring mistake, as companies do all the time? What if we elect someone who proves himself or herself unfit for office — impulsive, conspiratorial, undisciplined, destructive, cruel? I’ve spent the past few months reporting out a story on that question — a story that is about Donald Trump, sure, but also about the American political system more broadly — and so today, on the podcast, the tables are turned: Sean Rameswaram, the host of Vox's new, soon-to-be daily explainer podcast, interviewed me about “The case for normalizing impeachment.” The big question here is one that I've been weighing on the podcast in recent months (listen to my second episode with Chris Hayes and you'll hear an early version of it): Are the civic and political consequences of impeachment worse than the consequences of leaving a dangerously unfit president in office? I think I've come to an answer — but it's not the answer I started with. Enjoy! Suggested books on impeachment: Impeachment: A Handbook by Charles Black Jr. Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide by Cass Sunstein Young Radicals: In the War for American Ideals by Jeremy McCarter Constitutional Law Stories edited by Michael C. Dorf Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome back! Today we are going to dive into one of the realities of day-to-day law school life -- reading cases and preparing for class. You'll end up spending much of your day reading and preparing for class. And, yes, there is a “right” way and a “wrong way” to prepare for law school classes. This podcast will give you some valuable tips to make sure you're getting the most out of your study time.   In this episode, we discuss: Why reading cases and preparing for class can seem daunting and difficult How to prepare for class correctly and make the most of your study time The elements of a case opinion you should be able to identify and become familiar with The significance and purpose of a case brief and dos and don’ts of case briefing Appropriate and helpful uses for supplements The struggle is real – really. Struggling with the material is part of the process! Resources: Start Law School Right Course (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/start-law-school-right) Best Practices for Using Supplements (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/best-practices-for-using-supplements/) Podcast Episode 95: Top 1L Questions: Time and Life Management (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-95-top-1l-questions-time-life-management/) Constitutional Law Stories, by Michael C. Dorf (https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Stories-Michael-Dorf/dp/1587785056) Is Handwriting Notes a Good Thing or a Bad Thing? (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/is-handwriting-notes-a-good-thing-or-a-bad-thing/) How to Brief a Case in Law School (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/how-to-brief-a-case-in-law-school/) Episode Transcript: Download the Transcript  (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Episode-102-Reading-Cases-and-Preparing-for-Class.pdf) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on iTunes  (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) (or your listening platform of choice). And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Sherry Colb, J.D., returns to the program with her husband, Michael C. Dorf, J.D., both Cornell law professors, with their important and controversial new book, Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animals Rights. Show opener: Brian L. Patton, “The Sexy Vegan,” cookbook author, podcaster, and vegan foodie and entertainer par excellence.

ConsortiumNews.com editor Robert Parry will join us to reflect on the latest Bush scandal, and how the news media seem eager to help the White House get back on its feet. Parry will tell us about an alternative response to the Bush scandals and share his thoughts on the Lewis Libby indictment from the perspective of a veteran reporter who broke some of the most important Iran Contra scandal stories. Also on the show: With Harriet Miers out of the running, George Bush has put forward a new nominee for the Supreme Court. Judge Samuel Alito is being taken more seriously, but are media asking ALL of the questions about his record and his positions that are relevant for a potential Supreme Court justice? We’ll hear from Columbia law professor Michael C. Dorf. The post Counterspin – November 4, 2005 appeared first on KPFA.