Podcast appearances and mentions of Michael J Nelson

Author & Podcaster Libby Cudmore (O.S.T. Party, Christmas Creeps) returns to highlight another Book Club themed episode.    Highlighting the written works of MST3k and RiffTrax head comedian Michael J. Nelson proves to be a hoot but how huge are the laughs? Tune in and let us entertain your eardrums!                 MAIN LINKS:  LinkTree: https://linktr.ee/JURSPodcast Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/JackedUpReviewShow/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2452329545040913 Twitter: https://twitter.com/JackedUpReview  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jacked_up_podcast/  Blind Knowledge Podcast Network: https://www.blindknowledge.com/       SHOW LINKS: YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCIyMawFPgvOpOUhKcQo4eQQ   iHeartRadio: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-jacked-up-review-show-59422651/   Podbean: https://jackedupreviewshow.podbean.com   Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7Eg8w0DNympD6SQXSj1X3M   Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-jacked-up-review-show-podcast/id1494236218   RadioPublic: https://radiopublic.com/the-jacked-up-review-show-We4VjE   Overcast: https://overcast.fm/itunes1494236218/the-jacked-up-review-show-podcast   Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy9hNDYyOTdjL3BvZGNhc3QvcnNz   Anchor:  https://anchor.fm/s/a46297c/podcast/rss   PocketCasts: https://pca.st/0ncd5qp4   CastBox:  https://castbox.fm/channel/The-Jacked-Up-Review-Show-Podcast-id2591222   Discord:  https://discord.com/channels/796154005914779678/796154006358851586         #MovieReview #FilmTwitter #PodFamily #PodcastersOfInstagram #Movies #Film #Cinema #Music #Reviews #Retrospect #Podcasts #MutantFam #MutantFamily #actionmystery #bmovies #scifihorror #truecrime #historydramas #warmovies #podcastcollabs #hottakes #edgy #cultmovies #nsfw #HorrorFam #badass 

Special Intro: Kevin Murphy - from MST3K and Rifftrax   Film at 11: Anyone But You (2023)  Book IT: The Naked Clone (2023) by Conor Lastowka, Michael J. Nelson, Kevin Murphy, Bill Corbett, and Sean Thomason  Scroll with it: We have a full week of celestial celebrations and basketball. Make your plans to see the solar eclipse on April 8, 2024. Don't miss it!!  Show Notes: https://bit.ly/tms4224

Soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality have been documented by social scientists – but the public conversation and scholarship on inequality has not examined the role of state law and state courts in establishing policies that significantly affect inequality. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson analyze their original database of nearly 6,000 decisions made by over 900 judges on 50 state supreme courts over a quarter century to demonstrate how state high courts craft policy. The fifty state supreme courts shape American inequality in two ways: through substantive policy decisions that fail to advance equality and by rulings favoring more privileged litigants (typically known as "upperdogs").  The book focuses on court-made public policy on issues including educational equity and adequacy, LGBTQ+ rights, and worker's rights. The conventional wisdom assumes that courts protect underdogs from majorities but Gibson and Nelson demonstrate that judges most often favor dominant political elites and coalitions. As such, courts are unlikely to serve as an independent force against the rise of inequality in the United States. James Gibson is the Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government at Washington University in Saint Louis. His research interests are in Law and Politics, Comparative Politics, and American Politics. Michael Nelson is a Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics and U.S. state politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Michael was a guest on the New Books Network for the The Elevator Effect, a book he co-wrote with Morgan Hazelton and Rachael K. Hinkle in 2023. In the podcast, we mention Dr. Gibson's brand new article regarding the Dobbs abortion case: “Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory” from the American Journal of Political Science. Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a 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

Soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality have been documented by social scientists – but the public conversation and scholarship on inequality has not examined the role of state law and state courts in establishing policies that significantly affect inequality. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson analyze their original database of nearly 6,000 decisions made by over 900 judges on 50 state supreme courts over a quarter century to demonstrate how state high courts craft policy. The fifty state supreme courts shape American inequality in two ways: through substantive policy decisions that fail to advance equality and by rulings favoring more privileged litigants (typically known as "upperdogs").  The book focuses on court-made public policy on issues including educational equity and adequacy, LGBTQ+ rights, and worker's rights. The conventional wisdom assumes that courts protect underdogs from majorities but Gibson and Nelson demonstrate that judges most often favor dominant political elites and coalitions. As such, courts are unlikely to serve as an independent force against the rise of inequality in the United States. James Gibson is the Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government at Washington University in Saint Louis. His research interests are in Law and Politics, Comparative Politics, and American Politics. Michael Nelson is a Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics and U.S. state politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Michael was a guest on the New Books Network for the The Elevator Effect, a book he co-wrote with Morgan Hazelton and Rachael K. Hinkle in 2023. In the podcast, we mention Dr. Gibson's brand new article regarding the Dobbs abortion case: “Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory” from the American Journal of Political Science. Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a 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

Soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality have been documented by social scientists – but the public conversation and scholarship on inequality has not examined the role of state law and state courts in establishing policies that significantly affect inequality. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson analyze their original database of nearly 6,000 decisions made by over 900 judges on 50 state supreme courts over a quarter century to demonstrate how state high courts craft policy. The fifty state supreme courts shape American inequality in two ways: through substantive policy decisions that fail to advance equality and by rulings favoring more privileged litigants (typically known as "upperdogs").  The book focuses on court-made public policy on issues including educational equity and adequacy, LGBTQ+ rights, and worker's rights. The conventional wisdom assumes that courts protect underdogs from majorities but Gibson and Nelson demonstrate that judges most often favor dominant political elites and coalitions. As such, courts are unlikely to serve as an independent force against the rise of inequality in the United States. James Gibson is the Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government at Washington University in Saint Louis. His research interests are in Law and Politics, Comparative Politics, and American Politics. Michael Nelson is a Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics and U.S. state politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Michael was a guest on the New Books Network for the The Elevator Effect, a book he co-wrote with Morgan Hazelton and Rachael K. Hinkle in 2023. In the podcast, we mention Dr. Gibson's brand new article regarding the Dobbs abortion case: “Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory” from the American Journal of Political Science. Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a 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/critical-theory

Soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality have been documented by social scientists – but the public conversation and scholarship on inequality has not examined the role of state law and state courts in establishing policies that significantly affect inequality. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson analyze their original database of nearly 6,000 decisions made by over 900 judges on 50 state supreme courts over a quarter century to demonstrate how state high courts craft policy. The fifty state supreme courts shape American inequality in two ways: through substantive policy decisions that fail to advance equality and by rulings favoring more privileged litigants (typically known as "upperdogs").  The book focuses on court-made public policy on issues including educational equity and adequacy, LGBTQ+ rights, and worker's rights. The conventional wisdom assumes that courts protect underdogs from majorities but Gibson and Nelson demonstrate that judges most often favor dominant political elites and coalitions. As such, courts are unlikely to serve as an independent force against the rise of inequality in the United States. James Gibson is the Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government at Washington University in Saint Louis. His research interests are in Law and Politics, Comparative Politics, and American Politics. Michael Nelson is a Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics and U.S. state politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Michael was a guest on the New Books Network for the The Elevator Effect, a book he co-wrote with Morgan Hazelton and Rachael K. Hinkle in 2023. In the podcast, we mention Dr. Gibson's brand new article regarding the Dobbs abortion case: “Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory” from the American Journal of Political Science. Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a 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

Soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality have been documented by social scientists – but the public conversation and scholarship on inequality has not examined the role of state law and state courts in establishing policies that significantly affect inequality. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson analyze their original database of nearly 6,000 decisions made by over 900 judges on 50 state supreme courts over a quarter century to demonstrate how state high courts craft policy. The fifty state supreme courts shape American inequality in two ways: through substantive policy decisions that fail to advance equality and by rulings favoring more privileged litigants (typically known as "upperdogs").  The book focuses on court-made public policy on issues including educational equity and adequacy, LGBTQ+ rights, and worker's rights. The conventional wisdom assumes that courts protect underdogs from majorities but Gibson and Nelson demonstrate that judges most often favor dominant political elites and coalitions. As such, courts are unlikely to serve as an independent force against the rise of inequality in the United States. James Gibson is the Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government at Washington University in Saint Louis. His research interests are in Law and Politics, Comparative Politics, and American Politics. Michael Nelson is a Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics and U.S. state politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Michael was a guest on the New Books Network for the The Elevator Effect, a book he co-wrote with Morgan Hazelton and Rachael K. Hinkle in 2023. In the podcast, we mention Dr. Gibson's brand new article regarding the Dobbs abortion case: “Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory” from the American Journal of Political Science. Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a 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/public-policy

Soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality have been documented by social scientists – but the public conversation and scholarship on inequality has not examined the role of state law and state courts in establishing policies that significantly affect inequality. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson analyze their original database of nearly 6,000 decisions made by over 900 judges on 50 state supreme courts over a quarter century to demonstrate how state high courts craft policy. The fifty state supreme courts shape American inequality in two ways: through substantive policy decisions that fail to advance equality and by rulings favoring more privileged litigants (typically known as "upperdogs").  The book focuses on court-made public policy on issues including educational equity and adequacy, LGBTQ+ rights, and worker's rights. The conventional wisdom assumes that courts protect underdogs from majorities but Gibson and Nelson demonstrate that judges most often favor dominant political elites and coalitions. As such, courts are unlikely to serve as an independent force against the rise of inequality in the United States. James Gibson is the Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government at Washington University in Saint Louis. His research interests are in Law and Politics, Comparative Politics, and American Politics. Michael Nelson is a Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics and U.S. state politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Michael was a guest on the New Books Network for the The Elevator Effect, a book he co-wrote with Morgan Hazelton and Rachael K. Hinkle in 2023. In the podcast, we mention Dr. Gibson's brand new article regarding the Dobbs abortion case: “Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory” from the American Journal of Political Science. Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a 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

Soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality have been documented by social scientists – but the public conversation and scholarship on inequality has not examined the role of state law and state courts in establishing policies that significantly affect inequality. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson analyze their original database of nearly 6,000 decisions made by over 900 judges on 50 state supreme courts over a quarter century to demonstrate how state high courts craft policy. The fifty state supreme courts shape American inequality in two ways: through substantive policy decisions that fail to advance equality and by rulings favoring more privileged litigants (typically known as "upperdogs").  The book focuses on court-made public policy on issues including educational equity and adequacy, LGBTQ+ rights, and worker's rights. The conventional wisdom assumes that courts protect underdogs from majorities but Gibson and Nelson demonstrate that judges most often favor dominant political elites and coalitions. As such, courts are unlikely to serve as an independent force against the rise of inequality in the United States. James Gibson is the Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government at Washington University in Saint Louis. His research interests are in Law and Politics, Comparative Politics, and American Politics. Michael Nelson is a Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics and U.S. state politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Michael was a guest on the New Books Network for the The Elevator Effect, a book he co-wrote with Morgan Hazelton and Rachael K. Hinkle in 2023. In the podcast, we mention Dr. Gibson's brand new article regarding the Dobbs abortion case: “Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory” from the American Journal of Political Science. Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Does it matter if judges are nice to each other? The Elevator Effect: Contact and Collegiality in the American Judiciary (Oxford UP, 2023)argues that how judges interact with each other has an important effect at every stage of their judicial process. Previously, scholars have explained judicial behavior in terms of the law, the ideological attitudes of the judges, external and internal constraints, and the background characteristics of the judges, such as gender, race, or prior professional experiences. The Elevator Effect builds on previous research in political science, political psychology, and linguistics to present the first comprehensive examination of the importance of interpersonal relationships among the judges for judicial decision-making and legal development. Hazelton, Hinkle, and Nelson argue that collegiality affects nearly every aspect of judicial behavior. More frequent interpersonal contact among judges diminishes the role of ideology to the point where it is both “substantively and statistically imperceptible.” The book also shows that collegiality affects both the language judges use when they disagree with each other and the precedents that they choose to support their arguments. The podcast covers the rich findings of the book – and also provides some interesting insights for graduate students who are thinking about collaborative research Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Michael J. Nelson, PhD, is a professor of Political Science at Penn State University. Michael Nelson is Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Susan Liebell is a 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

Does it matter if judges are nice to each other? The Elevator Effect: Contact and Collegiality in the American Judiciary (Oxford UP, 2023)argues that how judges interact with each other has an important effect at every stage of their judicial process. Previously, scholars have explained judicial behavior in terms of the law, the ideological attitudes of the judges, external and internal constraints, and the background characteristics of the judges, such as gender, race, or prior professional experiences. The Elevator Effect builds on previous research in political science, political psychology, and linguistics to present the first comprehensive examination of the importance of interpersonal relationships among the judges for judicial decision-making and legal development. Hazelton, Hinkle, and Nelson argue that collegiality affects nearly every aspect of judicial behavior. More frequent interpersonal contact among judges diminishes the role of ideology to the point where it is both “substantively and statistically imperceptible.” The book also shows that collegiality affects both the language judges use when they disagree with each other and the precedents that they choose to support their arguments. The podcast covers the rich findings of the book – and also provides some interesting insights for graduate students who are thinking about collaborative research Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Michael J. Nelson, PhD, is a professor of Political Science at Penn State University. Michael Nelson is Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Susan Liebell is a 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

Does it matter if judges are nice to each other? The Elevator Effect: Contact and Collegiality in the American Judiciary (Oxford UP, 2023)argues that how judges interact with each other has an important effect at every stage of their judicial process. Previously, scholars have explained judicial behavior in terms of the law, the ideological attitudes of the judges, external and internal constraints, and the background characteristics of the judges, such as gender, race, or prior professional experiences. The Elevator Effect builds on previous research in political science, political psychology, and linguistics to present the first comprehensive examination of the importance of interpersonal relationships among the judges for judicial decision-making and legal development. Hazelton, Hinkle, and Nelson argue that collegiality affects nearly every aspect of judicial behavior. More frequent interpersonal contact among judges diminishes the role of ideology to the point where it is both “substantively and statistically imperceptible.” The book also shows that collegiality affects both the language judges use when they disagree with each other and the precedents that they choose to support their arguments. The podcast covers the rich findings of the book – and also provides some interesting insights for graduate students who are thinking about collaborative research Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Michael J. Nelson, PhD, is a professor of Political Science at Penn State University. Michael Nelson is Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Susan Liebell is a 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/sociology

Does it matter if judges are nice to each other? The Elevator Effect: Contact and Collegiality in the American Judiciary (Oxford UP, 2023)argues that how judges interact with each other has an important effect at every stage of their judicial process. Previously, scholars have explained judicial behavior in terms of the law, the ideological attitudes of the judges, external and internal constraints, and the background characteristics of the judges, such as gender, race, or prior professional experiences. The Elevator Effect builds on previous research in political science, political psychology, and linguistics to present the first comprehensive examination of the importance of interpersonal relationships among the judges for judicial decision-making and legal development. Hazelton, Hinkle, and Nelson argue that collegiality affects nearly every aspect of judicial behavior. More frequent interpersonal contact among judges diminishes the role of ideology to the point where it is both “substantively and statistically imperceptible.” The book also shows that collegiality affects both the language judges use when they disagree with each other and the precedents that they choose to support their arguments. The podcast covers the rich findings of the book – and also provides some interesting insights for graduate students who are thinking about collaborative research Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Michael J. Nelson, PhD, is a professor of Political Science at Penn State University. Michael Nelson is Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Susan Liebell is a 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

Does it matter if judges are nice to each other? The Elevator Effect: Contact and Collegiality in the American Judiciary (Oxford UP, 2023)argues that how judges interact with each other has an important effect at every stage of their judicial process. Previously, scholars have explained judicial behavior in terms of the law, the ideological attitudes of the judges, external and internal constraints, and the background characteristics of the judges, such as gender, race, or prior professional experiences. The Elevator Effect builds on previous research in political science, political psychology, and linguistics to present the first comprehensive examination of the importance of interpersonal relationships among the judges for judicial decision-making and legal development. Hazelton, Hinkle, and Nelson argue that collegiality affects nearly every aspect of judicial behavior. More frequent interpersonal contact among judges diminishes the role of ideology to the point where it is both “substantively and statistically imperceptible.” The book also shows that collegiality affects both the language judges use when they disagree with each other and the precedents that they choose to support their arguments. The podcast covers the rich findings of the book – and also provides some interesting insights for graduate students who are thinking about collaborative research Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Michael J. Nelson, PhD, is a professor of Political Science at Penn State University. Michael Nelson is Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Susan Liebell is a 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

Does it matter if judges are nice to each other? The Elevator Effect: Contact and Collegiality in the American Judiciary (Oxford UP, 2023)argues that how judges interact with each other has an important effect at every stage of their judicial process. Previously, scholars have explained judicial behavior in terms of the law, the ideological attitudes of the judges, external and internal constraints, and the background characteristics of the judges, such as gender, race, or prior professional experiences. The Elevator Effect builds on previous research in political science, political psychology, and linguistics to present the first comprehensive examination of the importance of interpersonal relationships among the judges for judicial decision-making and legal development. Hazelton, Hinkle, and Nelson argue that collegiality affects nearly every aspect of judicial behavior. More frequent interpersonal contact among judges diminishes the role of ideology to the point where it is both “substantively and statistically imperceptible.” The book also shows that collegiality affects both the language judges use when they disagree with each other and the precedents that they choose to support their arguments. The podcast covers the rich findings of the book – and also provides some interesting insights for graduate students who are thinking about collaborative research Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Michael J. Nelson, PhD, is a professor of Political Science at Penn State University. Michael Nelson is Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Does it matter if judges are nice to each other? The Elevator Effect: Contact and Collegiality in the American Judiciary (Oxford UP, 2023)argues that how judges interact with each other has an important effect at every stage of their judicial process. Previously, scholars have explained judicial behavior in terms of the law, the ideological attitudes of the judges, external and internal constraints, and the background characteristics of the judges, such as gender, race, or prior professional experiences. The Elevator Effect builds on previous research in political science, political psychology, and linguistics to present the first comprehensive examination of the importance of interpersonal relationships among the judges for judicial decision-making and legal development. Hazelton, Hinkle, and Nelson argue that collegiality affects nearly every aspect of judicial behavior. More frequent interpersonal contact among judges diminishes the role of ideology to the point where it is both “substantively and statistically imperceptible.” The book also shows that collegiality affects both the language judges use when they disagree with each other and the precedents that they choose to support their arguments. The podcast covers the rich findings of the book – and also provides some interesting insights for graduate students who are thinking about collaborative research Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Michael J. Nelson, PhD, is a professor of Political Science at Penn State University. Michael Nelson is Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia.

Each June in the United States, scholars, journalists, law makers, law enforcers, lawyers, and members of the public wait for the announcement of major decisions from the Supreme Court. Justices often read a summary of their decision from the bench dressed in their robes. Paper copies are available in a special office – and more recently on the Supreme Court website. This year, the Supreme Court opinions have shaped policy on affirmative action, public accommodation for LGBTQ+ people, voting rights, student loans, and the power of states to control election procedure. Before these cases are decided, the parties, outside individuals, and interest groups invest an estimated $25 to $50 million dollars a year to produce roughly one thousand amicus briefs. These briefs strategically provide information to the justices to convince them to vote in a particular way. How are these briefs produced? Who pays for their research and writing? What impact do they have on the ultimate decisions of the Supreme Court? In Persuading the Supreme Court: The Significance of Briefs in Judicial Decision-Making (UP of Kansas, 2022), Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle draw on political science research on the effects of information on policy making, their original dataset of more than 25,000 party and amicus briefs filed between 1984 and 2015, their interviews with former Supreme Court clerks and attorneys, and the text of the related court opinions to argue that the briefs matter – and they matter more when parties hire experienced attorneys known to the justices to craft excellent information-rich briefs. Hazelton and Hinkle interrogate both the causes and the consequences of providing that information to the justices. They demonstrate how that information operates differently in terms of influencing who wins and what policy is announced. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. In the podcast, Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle mention their piece in their Monkey Cage on predicting the outcome in the 2023 Voting Rights Case and their new collaboration with Dr. Michael J. Nelson, The Elevator Effect. Their data set is available to the public and can be found on either of their websites (linked above). 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

Each June in the United States, scholars, journalists, law makers, law enforcers, lawyers, and members of the public wait for the announcement of major decisions from the Supreme Court. Justices often read a summary of their decision from the bench dressed in their robes. Paper copies are available in a special office – and more recently on the Supreme Court website. This year, the Supreme Court opinions have shaped policy on affirmative action, public accommodation for LGBTQ+ people, voting rights, student loans, and the power of states to control election procedure. Before these cases are decided, the parties, outside individuals, and interest groups invest an estimated $25 to $50 million dollars a year to produce roughly one thousand amicus briefs. These briefs strategically provide information to the justices to convince them to vote in a particular way. How are these briefs produced? Who pays for their research and writing? What impact do they have on the ultimate decisions of the Supreme Court? In Persuading the Supreme Court: The Significance of Briefs in Judicial Decision-Making (UP of Kansas, 2022), Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle draw on political science research on the effects of information on policy making, their original dataset of more than 25,000 party and amicus briefs filed between 1984 and 2015, their interviews with former Supreme Court clerks and attorneys, and the text of the related court opinions to argue that the briefs matter – and they matter more when parties hire experienced attorneys known to the justices to craft excellent information-rich briefs. Hazelton and Hinkle interrogate both the causes and the consequences of providing that information to the justices. They demonstrate how that information operates differently in terms of influencing who wins and what policy is announced. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. In the podcast, Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle mention their piece in their Monkey Cage on predicting the outcome in the 2023 Voting Rights Case and their new collaboration with Dr. Michael J. Nelson, The Elevator Effect. Their data set is available to the public and can be found on either of their websites (linked above). 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

Each June in the United States, scholars, journalists, law makers, law enforcers, lawyers, and members of the public wait for the announcement of major decisions from the Supreme Court. Justices often read a summary of their decision from the bench dressed in their robes. Paper copies are available in a special office – and more recently on the Supreme Court website. This year, the Supreme Court opinions have shaped policy on affirmative action, public accommodation for LGBTQ+ people, voting rights, student loans, and the power of states to control election procedure. Before these cases are decided, the parties, outside individuals, and interest groups invest an estimated $25 to $50 million dollars a year to produce roughly one thousand amicus briefs. These briefs strategically provide information to the justices to convince them to vote in a particular way. How are these briefs produced? Who pays for their research and writing? What impact do they have on the ultimate decisions of the Supreme Court? In Persuading the Supreme Court: The Significance of Briefs in Judicial Decision-Making (UP of Kansas, 2022), Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle draw on political science research on the effects of information on policy making, their original dataset of more than 25,000 party and amicus briefs filed between 1984 and 2015, their interviews with former Supreme Court clerks and attorneys, and the text of the related court opinions to argue that the briefs matter – and they matter more when parties hire experienced attorneys known to the justices to craft excellent information-rich briefs. Hazelton and Hinkle interrogate both the causes and the consequences of providing that information to the justices. They demonstrate how that information operates differently in terms of influencing who wins and what policy is announced. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. In the podcast, Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle mention their piece in their Monkey Cage on predicting the outcome in the 2023 Voting Rights Case and their new collaboration with Dr. Michael J. Nelson, The Elevator Effect. Their data set is available to the public and can be found on either of their websites (linked above). 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

Each June in the United States, scholars, journalists, law makers, law enforcers, lawyers, and members of the public wait for the announcement of major decisions from the Supreme Court. Justices often read a summary of their decision from the bench dressed in their robes. Paper copies are available in a special office – and more recently on the Supreme Court website. This year, the Supreme Court opinions have shaped policy on affirmative action, public accommodation for LGBTQ+ people, voting rights, student loans, and the power of states to control election procedure. Before these cases are decided, the parties, outside individuals, and interest groups invest an estimated $25 to $50 million dollars a year to produce roughly one thousand amicus briefs. These briefs strategically provide information to the justices to convince them to vote in a particular way. How are these briefs produced? Who pays for their research and writing? What impact do they have on the ultimate decisions of the Supreme Court? In Persuading the Supreme Court: The Significance of Briefs in Judicial Decision-Making (UP of Kansas, 2022), Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle draw on political science research on the effects of information on policy making, their original dataset of more than 25,000 party and amicus briefs filed between 1984 and 2015, their interviews with former Supreme Court clerks and attorneys, and the text of the related court opinions to argue that the briefs matter – and they matter more when parties hire experienced attorneys known to the justices to craft excellent information-rich briefs. Hazelton and Hinkle interrogate both the causes and the consequences of providing that information to the justices. They demonstrate how that information operates differently in terms of influencing who wins and what policy is announced. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. In the podcast, Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle mention their piece in their Monkey Cage on predicting the outcome in the 2023 Voting Rights Case and their new collaboration with Dr. Michael J. Nelson, The Elevator Effect. Their data set is available to the public and can be found on either of their websites (linked above). 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/public-policy

Each June in the United States, scholars, journalists, law makers, law enforcers, lawyers, and members of the public wait for the announcement of major decisions from the Supreme Court. Justices often read a summary of their decision from the bench dressed in their robes. Paper copies are available in a special office – and more recently on the Supreme Court website. This year, the Supreme Court opinions have shaped policy on affirmative action, public accommodation for LGBTQ+ people, voting rights, student loans, and the power of states to control election procedure. Before these cases are decided, the parties, outside individuals, and interest groups invest an estimated $25 to $50 million dollars a year to produce roughly one thousand amicus briefs. These briefs strategically provide information to the justices to convince them to vote in a particular way. How are these briefs produced? Who pays for their research and writing? What impact do they have on the ultimate decisions of the Supreme Court? In Persuading the Supreme Court: The Significance of Briefs in Judicial Decision-Making (UP of Kansas, 2022), Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle draw on political science research on the effects of information on policy making, their original dataset of more than 25,000 party and amicus briefs filed between 1984 and 2015, their interviews with former Supreme Court clerks and attorneys, and the text of the related court opinions to argue that the briefs matter – and they matter more when parties hire experienced attorneys known to the justices to craft excellent information-rich briefs. Hazelton and Hinkle interrogate both the causes and the consequences of providing that information to the justices. They demonstrate how that information operates differently in terms of influencing who wins and what policy is announced. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. In the podcast, Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle mention their piece in their Monkey Cage on predicting the outcome in the 2023 Voting Rights Case and their new collaboration with Dr. Michael J. Nelson, The Elevator Effect. Their data set is available to the public and can be found on either of their websites (linked above). 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

Each June in the United States, scholars, journalists, law makers, law enforcers, lawyers, and members of the public wait for the announcement of major decisions from the Supreme Court. Justices often read a summary of their decision from the bench dressed in their robes. Paper copies are available in a special office – and more recently on the Supreme Court website. This year, the Supreme Court opinions have shaped policy on affirmative action, public accommodation for LGBTQ+ people, voting rights, student loans, and the power of states to control election procedure. Before these cases are decided, the parties, outside individuals, and interest groups invest an estimated $25 to $50 million dollars a year to produce roughly one thousand amicus briefs. These briefs strategically provide information to the justices to convince them to vote in a particular way. How are these briefs produced? Who pays for their research and writing? What impact do they have on the ultimate decisions of the Supreme Court? In Persuading the Supreme Court: The Significance of Briefs in Judicial Decision-Making (UP of Kansas, 2022), Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle draw on political science research on the effects of information on policy making, their original dataset of more than 25,000 party and amicus briefs filed between 1984 and 2015, their interviews with former Supreme Court clerks and attorneys, and the text of the related court opinions to argue that the briefs matter – and they matter more when parties hire experienced attorneys known to the justices to craft excellent information-rich briefs. Hazelton and Hinkle interrogate both the causes and the consequences of providing that information to the justices. They demonstrate how that information operates differently in terms of influencing who wins and what policy is announced. Dr. Rachael K. Hinkle, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo. Her research agenda focuses on judicial politics with particular attention to gleaning insights into legal development from the content of judicial opinions through the use of computational text analytic techniques. Dr. Morgan L.W. Hazelton, J.D. and Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and School of Law (by courtesy) at Saint Louis University. She studies how features of court systems influence the decisions that both litigants and judges make. In the podcast, Drs. Hazelton and Hinkle mention their piece in their Monkey Cage on predicting the outcome in the 2023 Voting Rights Case and their new collaboration with Dr. Michael J. Nelson, The Elevator Effect. Their data set is available to the public and can be found on either of their websites (linked above). 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

Michael J. Nelson's biohttps://www.rifftrax.com/riffer/mike-nelsonMichael J. Nelson's current project:https://www.rifftrax.comHave questions or comments? Send me an email!LeeHardinComedy@gmail.commailto:LeeHardincomedy.comBook Lee Hardin:http://leehardincomedy.comLee Hardin's DryBar Comedy specialhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bb_RGhTwU4&t=2sTheme music by Francy Goudreault:https://open.spotify.com/artist/4pLj1MzY9yfjuImfRml6pY?si=BrUv3F7UQGKB7T4d8tvHkQhttps://open.spotify.com/artist/5d2zHG7UZeisXxJxRDYh4x?si=WbqVNYO7SOGGFW967oboWw

Alex Schmidt is joined by comedy writers/podcasters Conor Lastowka and Michael J. Nelson (Rifftrax, '372 Pages We'll Never Get Back' podcast) for a look at why bricks are secretly incredibly fascinating. Visit http://sifpod.fun/ for research sources, handy links, and this week's bonus episode.

Most of the spotlights are on the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to legal cases that impact civil rights. But state supreme courts are the final arbiters of what each state's own constitution dictates. They can have enormous influence on Americans' civil rights and daily lives—and there isn't nearly as much scholarship available on them, particularly when it comes to civil rather than criminal cases. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson hope to change this with their new book, Judging Inequality: State Supreme Courts and the Inequality Crisis. When Gibson and Nelson set themselves the task of analyzing civil cases and the court makeups of all 50 state supreme courts, they realized without additional manpower it would be a daunting one, they tell Lee Rawles in this episode of the Modern Law Library podcast. With the help of students, they created a database to track the outcomes of seven kinds of civil cases that would come before each court, and looked to see which courts tended to support the "haves" against the "have nots." They also analyzed the backgrounds of each justice, to the best of their ability. One of their most important findings? It's not as facile as a red state/blue state divide. In this episode, Gibson and Nelson discuss the work that went into their study, the results they found most surprising, and what they as political scientists think that the legal profession should be discussing when it comes to the highest courts in each state.

Most of the spotlights are on the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to legal cases that impact civil rights. But state supreme courts are the final arbiters of what each state's own constitution dictates. They can have enormous influence on Americans' civil rights and daily lives—and there isn't nearly as much scholarship available on them, particularly when it comes to civil rather than criminal cases. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson hope to change this with their new book, Judging Inequality: State Supreme Courts and the Inequality Crisis. When Gibson and Nelson set themselves the task of analyzing civil cases and the court makeups of all 50 state supreme courts, they realized without additional manpower it would be a daunting one, they tell Lee Rawles in this episode of the Modern Law Library podcast. With the help of students, they created a database to track the outcomes of seven kinds of civil cases that would come before each court, and looked to see which courts tended to support the "haves" against the "have nots." They also analyzed the backgrounds of each justice, to the best of their ability. One of their most important findings? It's not as facile as a red state/blue state divide. In this episode, Gibson and Nelson discuss the work that went into their study, the results they found most surprising, and what they as political scientists think that the legal profession should be discussing when it comes to the highest courts in each state.

Most of the spotlights are on the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to legal cases that impact civil rights. But state supreme courts are the final arbiters of what each state's own constitution dictates. They can have enormous influence on Americans' civil rights and daily lives—and there isn't nearly as much scholarship available on them, particularly when it comes to civil rather than criminal cases. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson hope to change this with their new book, Judging Inequality: State Supreme Courts and the Inequality Crisis. When Gibson and Nelson set themselves the task of analyzing civil cases and the court makeups of all 50 state supreme courts, they realized without additional manpower it would be a daunting one, they tell Lee Rawles in this episode of the Modern Law Library podcast. With the help of students, they created a database to track the outcomes of seven kinds of civil cases that would come before each court, and looked to see which courts tended to support the "haves" against the "have nots." They also analyzed the backgrounds of each justice, to the best of their ability. One of their most important findings? It's not as facile as a red state/blue state divide. In this episode, Gibson and Nelson discuss the work that went into their study, the results they found most surprising, and what they as political scientists think that the legal profession should be discussing when it comes to the highest courts in each state.

Lets get real about what costumes and candies are all time classics vs giants duds.  Join the Clark Brothers as we explore the wild world of Trick R' Treat.Talk Abouts:Ben Cooper Costumes Most popular Costumes Quizzes:Least Popular Halloween Candies This one goes to eleven candy editionTop Tv Fictional Characters - Zack Baggins and Michael J. Nelson 

In this episode, Brian Auten and Chad Gross answer the mailbag and then review the past 14 episodes and the interview guests, sharing insights and things learned.0:29 - News from the world of Gozer4:39 - Mailbag feedback12:10 - The Stephen C. Meyer interview15:58 - The Ken Samples episodes19:17 - Katy Faust and Them Before Us24:11 - The Michael J. Nelson interview29:40 - The Ted Wright archaeology interview31:45 - The rhetoric interview with Jim Beitler33:32 - Apologetics for parents with Michael D'Virgilio36:58 - The Molinism interview with Tim Stratton38:41 - The Christian Enneagram with Marcia Montenegro41:23 - Spiritual warfare reading (Karl Payne book)45:27 - The Miracles interview with Craig KeenerWe appreciate your feedback.If you have a question or comment for the podcast, record it and send it our way using www.speakpipe.com/Apologetics315 or you can email us at podcast@apologetics315.com

In this episode, Brian Auten and Chad Gross interview comedian Michael J. Nelson about his work in comedy, his apologetics podcast, sharing the faith and what he's learned from watching the worst movies of all time.0:56 - Intro to a unique interview with Michael J. Nelson2:30 - Who is Mike Nelson and what is Mystery Science Theater 3000?4:05 - How did MST3K come about?5:00 - How Mike became a Christian and what inspired him to make an apologetics podcast? (Like Trees Walking)7:20 - Did apologetics play a big role in Mike's life?9:30 - The role of apologetics with interactions with friends and family relationships12:19 - Biggest apologetic influences13:34 - What does “Like Trees Walking” mean as a podcast title?16:13 - How to be a Christian in the entertainment industry18:12 - Rifftrax - and does making that kind of content get old?20:34 - Navigating the ins and outs of humor and Hollywood content23:38 - Profound wisdom learned from watching culture's garbage24:52 - Mike's take on “Christian movies” and entertainment27:15 - The worst movie of all time28:10 - The most over-rated movie franchise of all time30:20 - Favorite argument for the existence of God31:45 - Mike's worst stand-up comedy bomb ever35:05 - Trapped in an elevator with Richard Dawkins36:44 - “Do you like movies about gladiators?”38:05 - What persuades you most the Christianity is true?42:16 - What is the most quotable movie?45:10 - Mike's sound rig setup, and a story of 8 billion pennies46:50 - Where to find all Mike's stuffLike Trees Walking (Apologetics podcast)liketreeswalkingpod.comRifftrax.comCommentaries for B-movie oddities and Hollywood blockbusters.372 Pages We'll Never Get Backhttp://372pages.com/If you have a question for the podcast, record it and send it our way using www.speakpipe.com/Apologetics315 or you can email us at podcast@apologetics315.com

I saddle up with MST3k fans Will Nexii and Elizabeth Meredith on the other best roles that Mike portrayed on the show Mystery Science Theater 3000. An altogether fun yet quick surprise episode. We pick the following roles: Toblerone, Megaweapon, as the host of 372 Pages We’ll Never Get Back, Hugh Beaumont, Janeway, his wigged role for Werewolf ep, Morrissey, Valeria,  Goosio and Torgo Afterwards, we tease and promote future potential episodes to do episodes on. #JackedUpReviewShow #Podcast #GoryMovies #BMovies #SoBadTheyreGoodMovies #BadMovies #CheesyMovies #Tolberone #Podcasts #MichaelJNelson #MST3k #MysteryScienceTheater3000 #Pearl #Forrester #DrF #JoelHodgson #TVsFrank #MSTies #StarTrek #Cyberpunk #372PagesWellNeverGetBack #FrankConniff #PaulChaplin #Bots #CrowTRobot #TomServo #Italian #Wigs #HammyActing #AntonioSabato #PostApocalyptic #WarriorOfTheLostWorld #Megaweapon #PaperchaseGuy #StarWars #EasterEggs #VoiceOverRoles #SpaceMutiny #372Pages  #MovieSignWithTheMads #Casablanca #ReadyPlayerOne #ConorLastowka #HungerGames #PunchLines #Authors #Werewolf #TVShowWriters #Books #Literature #AttentionSpan #WilliamShatner #TekWar #Babylon5 #HumanDuplicators #HughBeaumont #Singing #Dancing #Drag #ComedicWriters #Genius #Ingenious #Awesome #Incredible #Manos #Torgo #LiveRiffing #Riffers #TVShows #Elvira #RiffTraxLive #WhoseLine #StandUpComedians #MadTV #JonahRay #TVShowHosts   

Bill interviews RiffTrax and MST3K partner Michael J. "Mike' Nelson: the man, the legend, the guy Bill sees every other day! They chat about Mike's early days growing up in the boonies, his love of classical music, tennis, cooking, and other things that make Mike a cultured man and Bill... not so much. And also comedy! Plus a full extra half-hour over on Patreon discussing our movie obsessions during MST3K and RiffTrax. Warning: includes Gandalf impressions.

That's a wrap on 40 episodes of the Cross Cutting Concerns podcast for season 2. I'm going to take a break from recording over the holiday season, and resume posting new episodes in February 2018. If you want to be a guest next season, you can! Just: Click Here to Sign up to be on my Podcast! Instead of sitting at your computer and hitting F5 waiting for a new episode, why don't you check out some other podcasts? Below are some recommendations. These aren't tech podcasts (though EconTalk does occasionally venture in this area), they are just for funsies: EconTalk from Russ Roberts Retronauts with hosts Bob Mackey and Jeremy Parish Dr. Gameshow with hosts Jo Firestone and Manola Moreno. Ohhhh yeah. 372 Pages We'll Never Get Back with hosts Michael J. Nelson and Conor Lastowka Movie Sign With the Mads with Hosts Frank Conniff, Trace Beaulieu, and the tremendously patient and upbeat Carolina Hidalgo The background music for this episode is God Rest Ye Merry gentlemen by New Aging Sons.  

This week, Joe welcomes Jef Burnham back to the show after a long hiatus of Jef teaching, taking classes, and writing. In celebration of William Shakespeare’s birthday, the guys decide to discuss the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode lampooning a German dubbed TV adaptation of Hamlet (S10E09). The guys cover their initial dislike for each other, why Joe doesn’t like Hamlet, dream Shakespeare roles they’d like to play, other plays that are better than Hamlet, favorite riffs, critics of riffing, pest control, and Joe premieres a new segment: High Five! Support the podcast with 5 star ratings and positive reviews on iTunes, donate money at www.patreon.com/wordsalad, and tell your friends about us. We appreciate it! Email us: QuoteUnquoteGuilty@gmail.com Check out our facebook page: www.facebook.com/quoteunquoteguilty Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/QuoteGuilty Follow Joe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Play_Architect Follow Jef on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Cadaver_Cast Follow Michael J. Nelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MichaelJNelson (I think) Follow Kevin Murphy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/KWMurphy (I think) Follow Bill Corbett on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BillCorbett Follow Joel Hodgson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JoelGHodgson Watch a taste of David Tennant’s Hamlet here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8VOZLjQbvQ Check out a bunch of pictures of Reb Brown for no reason: https://www.google.com/search?q=reb+brown&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS734US734&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN38n1rqTTAhWq7IMKHcTWADoQ_AUICCgB Opening theme composed by Andrew Kroepel (www.twitter.com/VGComposer) Cover Art created by Justin Gibson (www.twitter.com/justingibson) Episode edited by Joe Sanders © 2016-2017 Joe Sanders

I'm apologizing up-front for this one--it was recorded in my vehicle on my iPhone mic, so it takes a step back in sound quality, at least to my ear, and apart from the opening, there aren't any of the usual assortment of snarky clips.  It's been a crazy couple of months, so I'm (as usual!) behind schedule on Episode 9...I'm hoping to have it ready to drop in January...Anyway, in this Short Take, I offer my thoughts on the upcoming release of Rogue One in theaters (although I know at this point some have already seen it), some nerdy observations on the vehicles in this film (at least as we understand them at this point) and ruminations about the impact they could have had in the Original Trilogy, then I switch into MSTie mode with thoughts on the Shout! Factory box sets as opposed to the good old days of Circulating The Tapes, and finish with a defense of the original Gamera series.  Enjoy!Peace,RDNShort Takes #2 - In the Not-Too-Distant Future, in a Galaxy Far, Far Away...Music:"Battle of the Heroes/Imperial March" - John Williams, performed by Epica"Mighty Science Theater 3000 (MST3K End Theme Accordion Cover)" - Charlie Erickson and Joel Hodgson, performed by Jackson Parodi (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js8ETMwPTWo)"Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie Main Title" - Billy Barber"Gamera Theme" - I don't have the foggiest clue..."Tibby, Oh Tibby" - Written and arranged by Michael J. Nelsonhttp://archive.org/download/ASTShortTakes2/AST_Short_Takes_2.mp3

iTalk movies is a long-form interview series featuring leading members of the film community. In this episode, our host Christian Bladt interviews Kevin Murphy in studio about his time on Mystery Science Theatre 3000 (MST3K) and Rifftrax as well as the upcoming reunion featuring both casts on the Popcorn Talk Network.   Kevin Wagner Murphy (born November 3, 1956) is an American actor and writer best known as the voice and puppeteer of Tom Servo on the Peabody Award-winning comedy series Mystery Science Theater 3000. Murphy also records audio commentary tracks with Michael J. Nelson and Bill Corbett for Nelson's RiffTrax website. Murphy was educated at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where he studied stage, film and television directing and earned a Master of Arts degree. After graduation he worked on the staff of Madison PBS affiliate WHA-TV. Murphy's production work on Jim Mallon's 1987 horror film, Blood Hook, led to Murphy following Mallon --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week's featured guest is Michael J. Nelson, formerly of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and currently from Rifftrax. Follow Michael on Twitter @Michaeljnelson.

He's chatted with Cena, caused chaos with Korra, and caught'em all with Ketchum, but the next installment of The Dennis Daniel Show will take him to a place he's never been before.....THE NOT TO DISTANT FUTURE (This Monday A.D.)  Next time on The Dennis Daniel Show, we welcome actor/comedian and one of the stars of the iconic movie riffing series, "Mystery Science Theater 3000," Michael J. Nelson.  Michael is best known as one of the hosts of the popular movie-riffing television series and known for her other roles on the series, including  Jack Perkons and most noted, Torgo.  Join Dennis as he talks with Mike about working on the iconic TV series, his new works with the popular "Rifftrax" series, and his latest project, "Total Riff," which airs on the National Geographic Channel THIS MONDAY.  Join us for a special Christmas edition of The Dennis Daniel Show, and to all our viewers, "Just repeat to yourself "It's Just A Show, I Should Really Just Relax." "  MONDAY, DECEMBER 15TH at 11AM EST on BlogTalkRadio.  http://www.blogtalkradio.com/alltasteexplosion/2014/12/15/michael-j-nelson--dennis-daniel-show--121514 GOT A QUESTION FOR MIKE?  LEAVE IT IN A COMMENT BELOW

“In the not too distant future…” How many times have you thought to  yourself, “Man, this old B movie is terrible! I wish I had someone to  watch it with me and make sarcastic and snide remarks during the  viewing…”? Well now you can with Mystery Science Theater 3000: the Movie! Our  pick this episode wasn't exactly a hit across the board with our hosts.  With all of the different “riffing” groups that exist now, it's nice to  see how it all got started. No matter if you're a fan of the original  MST3K show, I still think this cult classic will be talked about for  awhile, and is a nice entry for the TV show if you're a newbie to it  all. Our Hosts Ricky Glore Eric M Hunter  Nick Prince Mystery Science Theater 3000: the Movie (1996) Synopsis Mike Nelson and his robot companions watch and give their comments about “This Island Earth”. Director: Jim Mallon Writers: Joel Hodgson (television series Mystery Science Theater 3000), Michael J. Nelson Stars: Trace Beaulieu, Michael J. Nelson, Jim Mallon Please leave a comment below about your experiences, positive or negative, of MST3K and the episode.

WHOA! MST3k and Rifftrax genius Michael J. Nelson is on this episode! We ask him about Bat Affleck, Seagull Lady, Nashville, MST3k, and of course RIFFTRAX! All in anticipation of RiffTrax LIVE: Night of the Living Dead. October 24 in theaters nationwide! Don't miss it! New Movie review from Carson: RushClassic Movie review from Murphy: Red DawnWe also talk about my new internet real estate, movie references, The Crow, dance instruction videos, Dealey Plaza, we reboot The Goonies with a famous family AND MORE! Tweet the show @IHeardThatWasGd or leave a comment right here. We want to hear what you think! We're ready to BELIEVE you.

A very special episode of the 'cast featuring KEVIN MURPHY! Aka Tom Servo from Mystery Science Theater 3000 and 1/3 of the Rifftrax crew with Bill Corbett and Michael J. Nelson. Make sure you head to Rifftrax Live! on August 15th when the guys tackle Starship Troopers! Three new movie reviews! Elysium, The Way Way Back and Only God Forgives. I liked 2/3rds of them. I had a celebrity run-in in Nashville, we consider comedy peer pressure, relatable underdogs, the Walk of Fame, more Batman casting news AND MORE! Pre-reviews of this week's movies Kick Ass 2, Jobs, Paranoia and The Butler. Two incredible trailers to review: Captain Phillips and The Monuments Men Interact with the show by tweeting to us @IHeardThatWasGd or leave a comment right here!

On this episode of the “The ProGuide“, we hang with Michael J Nelson of RiffTrax and Mystery Science Theater 3000 fame. We talk about the business of riffing horrible films, what makes a good movie, and what the team is up to now.

This week on the show: Rats with fists and a good message to share, Loki is attacking, but do we care? We're all playing with Lego, because that's how we role. Marvel, Avengers, and Ratfist, too! NEWS Loki's Army Revealed LINK REVIEWS Stephen Avengers LEGO sets RODRIGO COURTNEY CRUMRIN #1 Writer/Artist: Ted Naifeh Colorist: Warren Wucinich Format: Standard, Full Color Page Count: 32 Price: $3.99 Genre: Fantasy / Adventure Age Rating: Y – All Audiences Courtney Crumrin returns in her first ever, full color series! Welcome to a world where magic and Night Things lurk behind every corner and nothing is as it seems. This is the world introduced to Courtney by her dear Uncle Aloysius--a master mage of unknown age and even more mysterious motivations. What started the Crumrin clan down the dark path, and is Courtney strong enough to follow it all the way down? Matthew Secret #1 Writer: Jonathan Hickman Artist: Ryan Bodenhelm Publisher: Image Comics A man gets shot in London, a law firm gets broken into in Washington, an accountant gives away the password to his computer, and something put to sleep 20 years ago awakens. What is the unsavory relationship all these things share, and how could it bring down two of the largest governments in the history of the world? It's SECRET, a brand new, ongoing, monthly comic from the creators of A RED MASS FOR MARS. Brought to you by award-winning writer JONATHAN HICKMAN and break-out talent, RYAN BODENHEIM, SECRET is an espionage thriller that takes a deep look into the shadow world existing between the government and private security firms. Major Spoilers Poll of the Week Magic Edition The use of magic in the comic book world is always interesting. Sometimes it is played for laughs, and sometimes it is played straight, and can often turn to the horrifying. This week, we are asking you an important question about two casters of spells. LINK Discussion: Ratfist Earthworm Jim creator Doug Tennapel is publishing his Webcomic Ratfist, a vigilante-in-tights that satirizes comics, politics, philosophy, and even Tennapel himself! Featuring a forward written by MST3K/RiffTraxx”s Michael J. Nelson, and pin-ups by Ryan Ottley, Scott Kurtz, Christopher Hastings, and Ethan Nicolle. Contact us at podcast@majorspoilers.com Call the Major Spoilers Hotline at (785) 727-1939. A big Thank You goes out to everyone who downloads, subscribes, listens, and supports this show. We really appreciate you taking the time to listen to our ramblings each week. Tell your friends about the podcast, get them to subscribe and, be sure to visit the Major Spoilers site and forums.

This week on the show: Rats with fists and a good message to share, Loki is attacking, but do we care? We're all playing with Lego, because that's how we role. Marvel, Avengers, and Ratfist, too! NEWS Loki's Army Revealed LINK REVIEWS Stephen Avengers LEGO sets RODRIGO COURTNEY CRUMRIN #1 Writer/Artist: Ted Naifeh Colorist: Warren Wucinich Format: Standard, Full Color Page Count: 32 Price: $3.99 Genre: Fantasy / Adventure Age Rating: Y – All Audiences Courtney Crumrin returns in her first ever, full color series! Welcome to a world where magic and Night Things lurk behind every corner and nothing is as it seems. This is the world introduced to Courtney by her dear Uncle Aloysius--a master mage of unknown age and even more mysterious motivations. What started the Crumrin clan down the dark path, and is Courtney strong enough to follow it all the way down? Matthew Secret #1 Writer: Jonathan Hickman Artist: Ryan Bodenhelm Publisher: Image Comics A man gets shot in London, a law firm gets broken into in Washington, an accountant gives away the password to his computer, and something put to sleep 20 years ago awakens. What is the unsavory relationship all these things share, and how could it bring down two of the largest governments in the history of the world? It's SECRET, a brand new, ongoing, monthly comic from the creators of A RED MASS FOR MARS. Brought to you by award-winning writer JONATHAN HICKMAN and break-out talent, RYAN BODENHEIM, SECRET is an espionage thriller that takes a deep look into the shadow world existing between the government and private security firms. Major Spoilers Poll of the Week Magic Edition The use of magic in the comic book world is always interesting. Sometimes it is played for laughs, and sometimes it is played straight, and can often turn to the horrifying. This week, we are asking you an important question about two casters of spells. LINK Discussion: Ratfist Earthworm Jim creator Doug Tennapel is publishing his Webcomic Ratfist, a vigilante-in-tights that satirizes comics, politics, philosophy, and even Tennapel himself! Featuring a forward written by MST3K/RiffTraxx”s Michael J. Nelson, and pin-ups by Ryan Ottley, Scott Kurtz, Christopher Hastings, and Ethan Nicolle. Contact us at podcast@majorspoilers.com Call the Major Spoilers Hotline at (785) 727-1939. A big Thank You goes out to everyone who downloads, subscribes, listens, and supports this show. We really appreciate you taking the time to listen to our ramblings each week. Tell your friends about the podcast, get them to subscribe and, be sure to visit the Major Spoilers site and forums.

Cole, Vanessa and movie riffing royalty Michael J. Nelson, Kevin Murphy and Bill Corbett ("Mystery Science Theater 3000," RiffTrax.com) talk The Dark Knight, slave Leias, casting The Hulk, helicopter flicks, Tom Waits and Shania Twain mashups, the demise of Blockbuster, favorite Road House lines, unusual Halloween costumes, Fat Mama, spirit gum, Tron guy, sad vuvuzelas, [...]