Podcast appearances and mentions of Michael Morley

SAN ONOFRE-Michael Morley interviú Are you serious, Michael? SAN ONOFRE advertimos de que la música de Michael Morley y The Dead C son como la vida misma y el propio ser humano, siempre tambaleándose al borde del colapso. ¿Cómo no amar a alguien así y a toda la musicaza que hacen? También se dice sobre The Dead C que suenan como un camión de la basura reculando hacia un precipicio. Michael Morley de mi vida, eres ñiño como yo, por eso te quiero tanto y te doy mi corazón. No hay palabras para empezar a describir el genio y el talento artístico de este colosal titán neozelandés. No nos interesa que los músicos sean buenas personas, sino que nos cambien la vida. Todo lo que tú quieras, payo, pero Michael Morley es aún más grande como persona que como artista. Y encima está como las maracas de Machín. ¡Agüíta, yo!

With special guest Michael Morley, the Sheila M. McDevitt Professor of Law at Florida State Law School. Hosted by Scott Dodson.

Much the way Marc Maron is late to the party when it comes to appreciating Seth Putnam's vast oeuvre, I have been late to the party when it comes to contracting you-know-what. I was not, however, about to let omicron ba.2 prevent me from completing episode 102 of this program, and if you think I'm the sort of person who is above milking this scenario in order to ensure a few extra listeners, you clearly don't know me at all (in fact, I think it's fair to say you're not only late for the party but you've arrived after the punishers / things-that-wouldn't leave have up and left).This week's show features new stuff from Blackhaine, Warthog, Michael Morley, Aaron Turner, Devin Brahja Waldman & Hamid Drake, Ale Hop (with Raul Jardin and Sukitoa o Namu) and for the second time in a month includes something from from someone on the Institute family tree (the stump, if you will). That probably won't happen a third time this month but who can really say what the future holds (I could hazard a guess but I'm petty enough to milk the suspense. By any means necessary / whatever it takes in the online radio game.

The first panel of the Federalist Society's Eighth Annual Florida Chapters Conference featured an impressive group of lawyers and professors to discuss redistricting in Florida since the previous decade. Judge Meredith Sasso of Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal moderated the discussion.Featuring:Phillip Gordon, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLCDr. Michael McDonald, Professor of Political Science, University of FloridaProf. Michael Morley, Professor of Law, Florida State University College of LawModerator: Hon. Meredith Sasso, Florida's 5th District Court of Appeal

Only one TV interview with a serial killer has ever been recorded in a British jail and broadcast. This is the exclusive story of that dramatic event, carried out by award-winning documentary maker Mike Morley with Dennis Nilsen, then the country's most prolific murderer. In what became front page news, Morley overcame two eleventh hour government attempts (in the High Court and Court of Appeal) to stop ITV in the UK screening any extracts of the Nilsen interview. Controversially, the court ruled no more than 4 minutes of a four-hour interrogation should ever be shown. The Dennis Nilsen Tapes: In Jail with Britain' s Most Infamous Serial Killer covers those full four hours, plus two days spent face to face with Nilsen in Albany Prison and two years of graphic correspondence and confessions from the infamous Scottish serial killer. With fresh insight from world famous psychological profilers and a leading pathologist, Morley completes almost three decades of investigation into what turned the former chef, policeman and civil servant into one of the world's most notorious murderers and necrophiles.

On May 13, 2020, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a pair of cases concerning the Electoral College.In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the Court will consider the claim of a presidential elector in Colorado who attempted to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won Colorado's popular vote, and was replaced by another elector.In Chiafalo v. Washington, the Court will hear the claims of three presidential electors who were each fined $1000 after they voted for a candidate other than Hillary Clinton in 2016, who also won Washington's popular vote. The cases will examine state power to regulate the actions of presidential electors and could affect how electors behave in the 2020 election. To discuss the cases, we have Michael Morley, Assistant Professor at Florida State University College of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On May 13, 2020, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a pair of cases concerning the Electoral College.In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the Court will consider the claim of a presidential elector in Colorado who attempted to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won Colorado's popular vote, and was replaced by another elector.In Chiafalo v. Washington, the Court will hear the claims of three presidential electors who were each fined $1000 after they voted for a candidate other than Hillary Clinton in 2016, who also won Washington's popular vote. The cases will examine state power to regulate the actions of presidential electors and could affect how electors behave in the 2020 election. To discuss the cases, we have Michael Morley, Assistant Professor at Florida State University College of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Coronavirus has presented difficulties in holding presidential primaries this spring and will continue to pose challenges for the general election. Some states have responded by implementing vote by mail (although those decisions have brought logistical challenges like those that Pennsylvania currently faces) while some that have not are facing lawsuits. The U.S. Supreme Court also recently issued a ruling about voting in Wisconsin in April, RNC. v. DNC, which involved questions about counting absentee ballots amidst the risks that in-person voting might present. This episode explores those cases as well as the latest news surrounding how Americans will vote in the midst of the pandemic, and, broadly, what the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent require. Election law experts Ned Foley and Michael Morley join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Coronavirus has presented difficulties in holding presidential primaries this spring and will continue to pose challenges for the general election. Some states have responded by implementing vote by mail (although those decisions have brought logistical challenges like those that Pennsylvania currently faces) while some that have not are facing lawsuits. The U.S. Supreme Court also recently issued a ruling about voting in Wisconsin in April, RNC. v. DNC, which involved questions about counting absentee ballots amidst the risks that in-person voting might present. This episode explores those cases as well as the latest news surrounding how Americans will vote in the midst of the pandemic, and, broadly, what the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent require. Election law experts Ned Foley and Michael Morley join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In this episode, Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor of Law at Florida State University School of Law, discusses his article "Election Emergencies: Voting in the Wake of Natural Disasters and Terrorist Attacks," which is published in the Emory Law Journal. Morley begins by describing the different legal regimes governing "election emergencies," or unexpected events that affect the administration of elections. He reflects on how elected officials have addressed election emergencies in the past, what worked, and what didn't. And he offers suggestions about how to prepare for election emergencies caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Morley is on Twitter at @michaelmorley11.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

John Kwoka, Northeastern Univ, on the T-Mobile and Sprint merger. Michael Morley of Florida State Univ on 10 years after the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. Martha Cutter, Univ of Connecticut, on the true story of Henry Brown, an enslaved man who mailed himself to freedom. Alexey Root, Univ of Texas at Dallas, on women's chess. Heiko Jansen of Washington State Univ on human hibernation. Chelsea Heveran, Montana State Univ, on concrete that can heal itself.

Heads and punks unite as Dynamite Hemorrhage Radio #147 helps lead the way to a better scene. New stuff abounds this episode from the likes of HEADROOM, SOURSOB, BOB DESAULNIERS, HUEVOS II, SLENDER, DRILL and MICHAEL MORLEY. We're also showcasing other musical acts you're sure to enjoy such as Les Rallizes Denudes (pictured), O-Level, Times New Viking, Captain Beefheart and the Magic Band...and more. Get your download going now and tell a friend the news!Track listing:SLENDER - EclipseHEADROOM - Over EasyLES RALLIZES DENUDES - Field of Artificial FlowerMICHAEL MORLEY - The LivingSOURSOB - Neo-Lib DreamsQQQL - Underground IncelsMOTARDS - Yo Heart Mexico½ JAPANESE - Danger Danger Rachel LangJOHN HOVORKA - 2AYNO-LEVEL - Pseudo Punk/O-LevelHUEVOS II - Our SaturdaysKING ALFRED, MAN OF LEISURE - WishesTIMES NEW VIKING - Teen DramaDRILL - PredatorVICIOUS VISIONS - I Beat YouCAPTAIN BEEFHEART AND THE MAGIC BAND - Dachau Blues (Trout Mask Sessions) CLAW HAMMER - Moonlight On VermontCHILD MOLESTERS - Snake-Eyed Donkey, Fish-Eyed SnakeBOB DESAULNIERS - Rose Water

U.S. Senators have confirmed the appointment of Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Lagoa to the federal appeals court in Atlanta. For those keeping track: That makes two promotions for two Florida judges in two days. Also, on today’s Sunrise: — Three lawmakers from Central Florida are filing bills to create yet another specialty license plate; this one is about solar power. — Florida’s hepatitis A problem is getting bigger — with confirmed cases exceeding 3,000. Gov. Ron DeSantis is asking for more money to deal with the disease. — Third-quarter tourism numbers are out — and they're up — but not by much. — Florida State University law professor Michael Morley explains some of the ramifications of a recent federal court ruling on the Florida ballot. — A pair of Florida man stories featuring iconic elements: A Walmart and a machete.

In this episode, Prof. Michael Morley, Associate Professor of Law at Florida State University College of Law, explains the essentials of election law. This episode is a must listen to for any student of election law and incredibly informative for those who just want to learn a little bit more about our electoral process, our electoral history and the meaning of Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission.Some key takeways are...1. The right to vote is not absolute2. If the burden on the right to vote is too onerous, the right is violated3. Congress can legislate state and local elections under the enforcement clause. About our guest...Professor Morley joined FSU Law in 2018, and teaches and writes in the areas of election law, constitutional law, remedies and the federal courts. Before joining FSU Law, Professor Morley was an associate professor at Barry University School of Law. Prior to his experience in academia, he held numerous positions in both private practice and government, including as special assistant at the Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Army, at the Pentagon, clerk for Judge Gerald B. Tjoflat, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and as an associate at Winston & Strawn, LLP, in Washington, D.C. Professor Morley earned his J.D. from Yale Law School in 2003, where he was a senior editor on the Yale Law Journal, served on the moot court board and received the Thurman Arnold Prize for Best Oralist in the Morris Tyler Moot Court of Appeals.As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know! You can email us at leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet to @lawtofact. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter and Instagram (@lawtofact) and to like us on FaceBook! And finally, your ratings and reviews matter! Please leave us a review on iTunes. If you're currently in law school, interested in attending law school, or simply want to learn more about law school or the legal field, subscribe to Law to Fact. Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact? Join our mailing list by visiting us at www.lawtofact.com. This episode is sponsored by Kaplan Bar Review. Getting ready for the bar exam means you’ll need to choose the study program that’s right for you. Kaplan Bar Review will get you ready to take on test day with confidence by offering $100 off live and on-demand Bar Review with offer code Leslie100. Visit kaplanbarreview.com today to sign up.

Michael Morley is a storied Dunedin musician and visual artist, particularly renowned for his work as Gate and with The Dead C. This year he has released two solo records, and toured the USA and Europe performing works for The Never Quartet. He is currently recording and mixing a number of projects, including The Never Quartet, and works for solo 12 string acoustic and solo 6 string electric guitar. Michael chose two long-form pieces for the show. After that, Martin Zero steps up. Martin is a Miami-based record nerd who has been at it since the late 90s. He is a regular fixture in the underground dance scene in Seoul, as a resident DJ for Clique Records, and founder of the YeoboSeYo? parties. He contributes an all 7" vinyl mix, put together as only he knows how. *Michael Morley* Eliane Radigue - Geelriandre [Important Records, 1979/2019] Gabie Strong - Overhead, A Raven [Crystalline Morphologies, 2018] *Martin Zero* Russ Brown - Gotta Find a Way [10 Records] Don Blackman - Just Can't Stay Away [Melodies International] Ingram - Smoothin Groovin [Mirage] A Certain Ratio - Shack Up [Factory Benelux] Amon Duul II - Archangels Thunderbird [Liberty] Mario Molino - Operazione Beat [Beat Records] Martin Circus - J'T' AI Vu Dans L'Canoe [Barclay] Sympathy Nervous - Polaroid [Vanity Records] Jerry Green - I Finally Found The Love I Need [Woodward One] Chip E - Like This (DDD Dub) 7" Edit [BBE] Robert Palmer - The Silver Gun [Island Records] Potpourri - Ich Bin Durchsichtig [Ahorn] Colourbox - Looks Like We're Shy One Horse [4AD] Serge Gainsbourg et Jean-Claude Vannier - La Horse [Hortensia] Kindred Spirit - Put Your Spirit Up [Human] Felix - You Can't Hold Me Down [Sleeping Bag] James Mason - Free [Chiaroscuro] Marcos Valle - Bicicleta [Som Livre] Manfredo Fest - Jungle Kitten [Tabu]

In this episode, Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor of Law at Florida State University College of Law, discusses his draft article "Federal Elections and State Constitutions." Morley begins by describing the Supreme Court's recent rejection of constitutional challenges to political gerrymandering, and how it led commentators to suggest the use of state constitutional law to regulate political gerrymandering. He introduces the independent state legislature doctrine, which holds that the Elections Clauses of the Constitution delegate the power to regulate elections exclusively to legislatures, not to states as a whole. He reflects on this history of the interpretation of the Elections Clauses, and concludes that the independent states legislature doctrine is the correct interpretation. Morley is on Twitter at @michaelmorley11.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On February 26, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, a case considering whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which imposes a 14-day deadline for appealing from a grant or denial of class-action certification, is subject to equitable tolling. Troy Lambert filed a class action lawsuit against Nutraceutical Corp., a drug manufacturer, alleging violations of U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements and various California consumer protection statutes. The district court initially certified the class action, but following reassignment of the case to a new judge and discovery raising concerns about Lambert’s classwide damages model, Nutraceutical moved to decertify the class and the district court granted the motion on February 20, 2015. Under Rule 23(f), Lambert had fourteen days from the date the motion was granted to seek permission in the Court of Appeals to appeal the order. Lambert indicated on March 2 that he intended to file a motion for reconsideration, but did not do so until March 12, 2015, which fell within a deadline set by the district court but beyond 14-day window specified in Rule 23(f). The district court denied Lambert’s motion, and only then did he seek permission in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appeal the class decertification. Nutraceutical objected that Lambert’s petition was untimely under Rule 23(f). The Court disagreed, reasoning that Rule 23(f) was non-jurisdictional and the deadline could therefore be equitably tolled given Lambert’s general diligence in following the district court’s instructions. Reaching the merits, the Ninth Circuit then reversed the decertification order on the grounds that the district court had abused its discretion. Nutraceutical successfully petitioned for certiorari.In an opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case, holding the Rule 23(f) is not subject to equitable tolling. To the discuss the case, we have Michael Morley, Assistant Professor of Law at Florida State University College of Law.

On February 26, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, a case considering whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which imposes a 14-day deadline for appealing from a grant or denial of class-action certification, is subject to equitable tolling. Troy Lambert filed a class action lawsuit against Nutraceutical Corp., a drug manufacturer, alleging violations of U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements and various California consumer protection statutes. The district court initially certified the class action, but following reassignment of the case to a new judge and discovery raising concerns about Lambert’s classwide damages model, Nutraceutical moved to decertify the class and the district court granted the motion on February 20, 2015. Under Rule 23(f), Lambert had fourteen days from the date the motion was granted to seek permission in the Court of Appeals to appeal the order. Lambert indicated on March 2 that he intended to file a motion for reconsideration, but did not do so until March 12, 2015, which fell within a deadline set by the district court but beyond 14-day window specified in Rule 23(f). The district court denied Lambert’s motion, and only then did he seek permission in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appeal the class decertification. Nutraceutical objected that Lambert’s petition was untimely under Rule 23(f). The Court disagreed, reasoning that Rule 23(f) was non-jurisdictional and the deadline could therefore be equitably tolled given Lambert’s general diligence in following the district court’s instructions. Reaching the merits, the Ninth Circuit then reversed the decertification order on the grounds that the district court had abused its discretion. Nutraceutical successfully petitioned for certiorari.In an opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case, holding the Rule 23(f) is not subject to equitable tolling. To the discuss the case, we have Michael Morley, Assistant Professor of Law at Florida State University College of Law.

What is the proper role of state attorneys general and the courts in litigation in seeking to nullify federal law? Panelists will discuss the difference in approach between Texas during the Obama administration and other state's efforts during the Trump administration with a particular emphasis on the role of state AGs and the role of the courts in issuing nationwide injunctions. Are nationwide injunctions "legally and historically dubious," as Justice Thomas has described them?Featuring:Scott Keller, Baker Botts & Former Solicitor General, TexasProf. Michael Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of LawJordan Smith, Former Deputy Solicitor General of NevadaModerator: Hon. Allison Eid, U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th CircuitIntroduction and Welcome: Lisa Ezell, Vice President & Director, Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society

What is the proper role of state attorneys general and the courts in litigation in seeking to nullify federal law? Panelists will discuss the difference in approach between Texas during the Obama administration and other state's efforts during the Trump administration with a particular emphasis on the role of state AGs and the role of the courts in issuing nationwide injunctions. Are nationwide injunctions "legally and historically dubious," as Justice Thomas has described them?Featuring:Scott Keller, Baker Botts & Former Solicitor General, TexasProf. Michael Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of LawJordan Smith, Former Deputy Solicitor General of NevadaModerator: Hon. Allison Eid, U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th CircuitIntroduction and Welcome: Lisa Ezell, Vice President & Director, Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society

My guest on this episode, Michael Morley is Emeritus Professor of Drama at Flinders University in South Australia, and continues to perform as a pianist and musical director, and contribute as a music and theatre critic for local and international publications.

In this episode, Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor of Law at Florida State University College of Law, discusses his article "Disaggregating Nationwide Injunctions." Morley begins by explaining what an injunction is, why courts grant injunctions, and what people mean when they refer to a "nationwide injunction." He provides a taxonomy of the different kinds of actions that people refer to as "nationwide injunctions" and describes the different policy issues presented by each kind of action. And he makes suggestions about how courts could adjudicate those actions in ways more consistent with broader principles of standing and federalism. Morley is on Twitter at @michaelmorley11 and his scholarship is available on SSRN. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On November 27, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, a case considering whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which imposes a 14-day deadline for appealing from a grant or denial of class-action certification, can be equitably tolled. Troy Lambert bought a dietary supplement that claimed to be an aphrodisiac containing sexual performance-enhancing herbs. He thereafter brought a class action in federal district court against the drug’s manufacturer, Nutraceutical Corp., alleging violations of U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements and various California consumer protection statutes. The district court initially certified the class action, but following reassignment of the case to a new judge and discovery raising concerns about Lambert’s classwide damages model, Nutraceutical moved to decertify the class and the district court granted the motion on February 20, 2015.On March 2, 10 days after the class had been decertified, Lambert informed the court that he intended to file a motion for reconsideration. The district court instructed him to file the motion within 10 days, which was 20 days in total from the original class desertification. Lambert moved for reconsideration on March 12 with further evidence to support his full refund damages model. The district court denied his motion in June. Fourteen days later, Lambert filed a petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) for permission to appeal the district court’s orders granting decertification and denying reconsideration to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit conditionally granted the petition but instructed the parties to address whether it was timely.Under Rule 23(f), a petition for permission to appeal must be filed with the circuit clerk “within 14 days” after the order “granting or denying class-action certification” was entered. Although Lambert’s petition came within 14 days of denial of his motion for reconsideration, it was filed months after the actual order granting decertification. The Ninth Circuit held that Lambert’s petition was nevertheless timely. Rule 23(f) is not jurisdictional, the court determined, and its deadline should equitably tolled by a timely motion for reconsideration such as Lambert’s. Reaching the merits, the Ninth Circuit then reversed and remanded, holding that the district court had abused its discretion in decertifying the class. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, granted certiorari to address whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it held that equitable exceptions apply to mandatory claim-processing rules—such as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)—and can excuse a party’s failure to file timely within the 14-day deadline, in conflict with the decisions of 7 other Circuit Courts of Appeals.To the discuss the case, we have Michael Morley, Assistant Professor of Law at Florida State University College of Law.

On November 27, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, a case considering whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which imposes a 14-day deadline for appealing from a grant or denial of class-action certification, can be equitably tolled. Troy Lambert bought a dietary supplement that claimed to be an aphrodisiac containing sexual performance-enhancing herbs. He thereafter brought a class action in federal district court against the drug’s manufacturer, Nutraceutical Corp., alleging violations of U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements and various California consumer protection statutes. The district court initially certified the class action, but following reassignment of the case to a new judge and discovery raising concerns about Lambert’s classwide damages model, Nutraceutical moved to decertify the class and the district court granted the motion on February 20, 2015.On March 2, 10 days after the class had been decertified, Lambert informed the court that he intended to file a motion for reconsideration. The district court instructed him to file the motion within 10 days, which was 20 days in total from the original class desertification. Lambert moved for reconsideration on March 12 with further evidence to support his full refund damages model. The district court denied his motion in June. Fourteen days later, Lambert filed a petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) for permission to appeal the district court’s orders granting decertification and denying reconsideration to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit conditionally granted the petition but instructed the parties to address whether it was timely.Under Rule 23(f), a petition for permission to appeal must be filed with the circuit clerk “within 14 days” after the order “granting or denying class-action certification” was entered. Although Lambert’s petition came within 14 days of denial of his motion for reconsideration, it was filed months after the actual order granting decertification. The Ninth Circuit held that Lambert’s petition was nevertheless timely. Rule 23(f) is not jurisdictional, the court determined, and its deadline should equitably tolled by a timely motion for reconsideration such as Lambert’s. Reaching the merits, the Ninth Circuit then reversed and remanded, holding that the district court had abused its discretion in decertifying the class. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, granted certiorari to address whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it held that equitable exceptions apply to mandatory claim-processing rules—such as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)—and can excuse a party’s failure to file timely within the 14-day deadline, in conflict with the decisions of 7 other Circuit Courts of Appeals.To the discuss the case, we have Michael Morley, Assistant Professor of Law at Florida State University College of Law.

As Americans prepare to head to the polls next week, We the People partnered with Ballotpedia for a rundown of the election law and voting rights issues most relevant to the 2018 midterms. Ballotpedia’s News Editor Sarah Rosier joins election law scholars Franita Tolson and Michael Morley to break down all sides of the legal arguments surrounding voter ID laws, gerrymandering, “signature matching,” the purging of voter rolls, and felon disenfranchisement. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. 

As Americans prepare to head to the polls next week, We the People partnered with Ballotpedia for a rundown of the election law and voting rights issues most relevant to the 2018 midterms. Ballotpedia’s News Editor Sarah Rosier joins election law scholars Franita Tolson and Michael Morley to break down all sides of the legal arguments surrounding voter ID laws, gerrymandering, “signature matching,” the purging of voter rolls, and felon disenfranchisement. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. 

On January 10, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, a case involving a dispute over the process for removing inactive voters from voter registration lists in the State of Ohio.The National Voters Regulation Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) require that States maintain their lists of registered voters in such a way as to ensure proper removal of individuals no longer eligible to vote for certain reasons, such as a felony conviction. In addition, the State of Ohio has undertaken steps to ensure inactive registrants are still living at the address at which they are registered to vote. The principal way Ohio does this is by comparing names and addresses contained in its own voter registration database to the National Change of Address (NCOA) database generated from U.S. Postal Service data. Ohio’s Secretary of State then provides each county’s Board of Elections (BOE) with a list of registered voters who appear to have moved. The BOE thereafter sends each of these voters a postage-prepaid forwardable notice on which the voter must indicate whether he or she still lives at the address of registration. Recipients of this notice are subsequently removed from the voter registration list if they (1) do not respond to the confirmation notice or update their registration, and, (2) do not subsequently vote during a period of four consecutive years that includes two federal elections. Ohio has also implemented a “Supplemental Process,” however. Under this process each BOE compiles a list of voters who have not engaged in “voter activity” for the past two years (meaning filing a change of address form with a state agency, casting an absentee ballot, voting in person on election day, or casting a provisional ballot). The BOE sends these registrants a confirmation notice similar to the one used in the NCOA process. Voters sent a confirmation notice are removed from the rolls if they subsequently fail to vote for four years and fail either to respond to the confirmation notice or re-register. The A. Philip Randolph Institute and other affiliates sued Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted in federal district court, alleging that Ohio’s Supplemental Process violated the NVRA and HAVA, and seeking an injunction reinstating voters removed from the state registry under the Supplemental Process. Although the Secretary amended the confirmation notice format during the course of the litigation, neither the original version nor the revised version attempts to inform recipients who have moved how properly to register to vote in their new district. The district court denied relief and gave judgment in favor of the Secretary. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, however, reversed that judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to address whether Ohio’s Supplemental Process runs afoul of NVRA and HAVA.To discuss the case, we have Michael Morley, Assistant Professor of Law at Barry University School of Law.

On January 10, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, a case involving a dispute over the process for removing inactive voters from voter registration lists in the State of Ohio.The National Voters Regulation Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) require that States maintain their lists of registered voters in such a way as to ensure proper removal of individuals no longer eligible to vote for certain reasons, such as a felony conviction. In addition, the State of Ohio has undertaken steps to ensure inactive registrants are still living at the address at which they are registered to vote. The principal way Ohio does this is by comparing names and addresses contained in its own voter registration database to the National Change of Address (NCOA) database generated from U.S. Postal Service data. Ohio’s Secretary of State then provides each county’s Board of Elections (BOE) with a list of registered voters who appear to have moved. The BOE thereafter sends each of these voters a postage-prepaid forwardable notice on which the voter must indicate whether he or she still lives at the address of registration. Recipients of this notice are subsequently removed from the voter registration list if they (1) do not respond to the confirmation notice or update their registration, and, (2) do not subsequently vote during a period of four consecutive years that includes two federal elections. Ohio has also implemented a “Supplemental Process,” however. Under this process each BOE compiles a list of voters who have not engaged in “voter activity” for the past two years (meaning filing a change of address form with a state agency, casting an absentee ballot, voting in person on election day, or casting a provisional ballot). The BOE sends these registrants a confirmation notice similar to the one used in the NCOA process. Voters sent a confirmation notice are removed from the rolls if they subsequently fail to vote for four years and fail either to respond to the confirmation notice or re-register. The A. Philip Randolph Institute and other affiliates sued Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted in federal district court, alleging that Ohio’s Supplemental Process violated the NVRA and HAVA, and seeking an injunction reinstating voters removed from the state registry under the Supplemental Process. Although the Secretary amended the confirmation notice format during the course of the litigation, neither the original version nor the revised version attempts to inform recipients who have moved how properly to register to vote in their new district. The district court denied relief and gave judgment in favor of the Secretary. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, however, reversed that judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to address whether Ohio’s Supplemental Process runs afoul of NVRA and HAVA.To discuss the case, we have Michael Morley, Assistant Professor of Law at Barry University School of Law.

Andrew Kent, a professor at Fordham University Law School, discusses the latest victim in special counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election; Alex Van Der Zwann, a former attorney at Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom, was charged Tuesday with making false statements to federal authorities. Plus, Michael Morley, a professor at Barry University, discusses Pennsylvania's news congressional voter map, which was redrawn by the state's Supreme Court after ruling that the old map unfairly benefited republican candidates. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso.

Andrew Kent, a professor at Fordham University Law School, discusses the latest victim in special counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election; Alex Van Der Zwann, a former attorney at Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom, was charged Tuesday with making false statements to federal authorities. Plus, Michael Morley, a professor at Barry University, discusses Pennsylvania's news congressional voter map, which was redrawn by the state's Supreme Court after ruling that the old map unfairly benefited republican candidates. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Tracks from Charles Mingus, Pylon, The Weeds (featuring Michael Morley of the Dead C), Squarepusher, The High Llamas, and Johnny Boy are played and discussed during the final show before Bob goes to Mexico for a week.

Michael Morley and Daniel Tokaji join National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss Supreme Court arguments in a potential landmark case about gerrymandering.

Michael Morley and Daniel Tokaji join National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss Supreme Court arguments in a potential landmark case about gerrymandering.

Rogersville / Chris Bishop and Michael Morley

This panel, The Legacy of Justice Scalia, was held on February 3, 2017, at the 2017 Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's BoardWalk Inn at the Walt Disney World® Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. -- Featuring: Prof. John Baker, Professor Emeritus, LSU Law Center; Rachel Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States; Prof. Michael Morley, Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law, Barry University; and Hon. Jeff Sutton, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Moderator: Hon. Ricky Polston, Justice, Florida Supreme Court. Introduction: Jordan E. Pratt, Deputy Solicitor General, Florida Office of the Attorney General.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos of the University of Chicago and Michael Morley of Barry University discuss a big Wisconsin case that could reach the Supreme Court. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos of the University of Chicago and Michael Morley of Barry University discuss a big Wisconsin case that could reach the Supreme Court. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Zum Podcast Episode 24 - Michael Morley ----------- Exciting to meet up with Mr. Michael Morley of The Dead C, Gate, 2 Foot Flame, and much more. Legendary New Zealand music and art figure, I had a chat with Michael at a Gate show with Ramleh in San Francisco. We touch on his art career, other music projects, daily life in Port Chalmers, and even the recently departed David Bowie. Special thanks to Tim Leanse for assistance with the interview at the Elbo Room. https://gatemm.bandcamp.com/ ------------ HIGH CASTLE - After God - Spirit of the West (Zum) (intro music) THE DEAD C - Sky - Harsh 70s Reality (Siltbreeze) GATE WITH LEE RANALDO & ZEENA PARKINS - MM/LR/ZP - Threadwaxing Space (Zero Hour)

Ep 36 Gabie Strong & Michael Morley: The People On this episode our guests are Gabie Strong & Michael Morley. Gabie Strong is a Los Angeles based artist, noise musician and designer. Michael Morley is an experimental musician and visual artist from New Zealand. During the show we listen to an excerpt from a recent track by The Fuck Chairs or TFC - which is Michael Morley & Morgan Oliver from Dunedin, New Zealand - and the name of the track is Major Blues 001 And we close out the show with an excerpt from a live performance of a piece titled "Peak Experiences," by Gabie Strong recorded at Shangrila, Joshua Tree, California. September 9 2015. The recording was released on the cassette "Mineralism", in January 2016. as a Limited edition of 100 and was Mastered by Mark Wheaton at Catasonic Studios.

Michael Morley and Nick Stephanopoulos join our Jeffrey Rosen to discuss an upcoming Supreme Court case from Arizona that could dramatically shape the future of the legislative redistricting process.

Michael Morley and Nick Stephanopoulos join our Jeffrey Rosen to discuss an upcoming Supreme Court case from Arizona that could dramatically shape the future of the legislative redistricting process.

The view from the top of business. Presented by Evan Davis, The Bottom Line cuts through confusion, statistics and spin to present a clearer view of the business world, through discussion with people running leading and emerging companies. The programme is broadcast first on BBC Radio 4 and later on BBC World Service Radio, BBC World News TV and BBC News Channel TV. As the mood on Europe swings from doom to gloom, Evan Davis asks his executive guests about the outlook for the Euro. What will it take to save the single currency? And what are the prospects for business more generally in 2012? Joining Evan in the studio are Warren East, chief executive of FTSE 100 microchip designer ARM Holdings plc; Dr Carol Bell, energy industry executive with particular expertise in investment and financing in the oil and gas sector and a board member of three energy companies, including Salamander Energy plc; Michael Morley, chief executive of private bank Coutts. Producer: Ben Crighton Editor: Stephen Chilcott.

The view from the top of business. Presented by Evan Davis, The Bottom Line cuts through confusion, statistics and spin to present a clearer view of the business world, through discussion with people running leading and emerging companies. This week Evan's executive guests hail from the worlds of banking, headhunting and advertising. He asks them about loyalty - or rather the seeming lack of it in business. Are companies generally looking for short-term relationships of convenience, with loyalty gone and promiscuity the rule? Evan also asks them how they measure how well they're performing. Evan is joined in the studio by Michael Morley, chief executive of private bank Coutts & Co; Robin Wight, president of communications agency Engine; Alistair Cox, chief executive of global recruitment firm Hays. Producer: Ben Crighton.

Imaginary Hospital Radio mimics and subverts conventional hospital radio and its aim to relieve its listeners/patients through the collaging and dissecting of the visceral and surgical sounds associated with illness and disease. The hospitals unwanted sounds and noise provide an unexpected artistic source, as a kind of sonic tableau an invisible operating theatre in which the sonic/audio auscultation/surgery occurs live to ear. Richard Crow is an inter-disciplinary artist with a strong background in experimental audio work, photo based media, live performance and site-specific installation. He utilises sound and noise in a performative way, for its spatial and subjective qualities and above all for its psycho-physical implications for the listener. Over the past two decades his solo and collaborative site-specific installations and performances have consisted of highly conceptualised interventions into base materiality, investigations of alternative systems of organisation and research into a certain material decadence, most notably with the project The Institution of Rot. Crow has collaborated, performed, and recorded with many leading musicians and sonic artists including Joe Banks, Adam Bohman, The Hafler Trio, Clive Graham, Michael Prime, Dean Roberts, Kaffe Matthews, Michael Morley, Sandoz Lab Techinicians, & dy'na:mo.