Podcasts about notre dame law

Join host Garrett Snedeker and JWI Programs Director Daniel Osborne for special look inside JWI's Law School Seminar program. Highlighting their trips to Harvard Law and Notre Dame Law, Snedeker and Osborne provide an overview of the seminars JWI hosts on campuses across the country and the impact of these seminars on law students.

This episode could be mistaken for the Three Martini Happy Hour, because this week's episode comes with a tangy twist. John Yoo is away this week, so we brought in a ringer to take his place: Prof. Hadley Arkes! Thus this episode become a Positivism-Free Zone, in which we review the deepest ground of the natural law unencumbered by John's usual alarums, excursions, and errors.The episode comes in three parts: Hadley made some news yesterday, celebrating the retirement of the noted Notre Dame Law professor Gerard V. Bradley, who will be joining Hadley at the James Wilson Institute on Natural Law and the American Founding. From there Hadley proceeds to answering the question that we've been kicking around ever since the Dobbs decision, namely, just how should pro-life politicians break out of their self-imposed muteness about abortion. Hadley has the strategy.Finally, we spend some time toward the end getting down some of Hadley's "origin story" that brought him to Leo Strauss's classroom at the University of Chicago back in the 1960s, and key friendships made along the way—especially our late friend and unsung hero Michael Uhlmann.Note: We had some internet glitches while recording this episode that weren't easily edited or smoothed over, so we ask listeners' indulgence with these hiccups, in return for which we'll present this installment ad-free.

In this episode, Professor Vincent Phillip Muñoz of Notre Dame Law discusses his newest book, Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses. He is joined by Professor Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School to discuss the book, what freedom of religion meant at the founding, and what it means today. They also evaluate the reasoning behind some of the Supreme Court's major religion decisions and how they comport with history and the founders' understandings of religious liberty. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Today's TRP guest is the eminent First Amendment legal scholar, Dr. Vincent Phillip Munoz, Ph.D.. He is the Tocqueville Associate Professor of Political Science (and Law at the Law School) at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana. Dr. Munoz is the author of such books as "God and The Founders: Madison, Washington, and Jefferson" (Cambridge University Press), editor (with my dissertation Chair Ralph Rossum) of "American Constitutional Law vol. 1 The Structure of Government" and "American Constitutional Law vol. 2 The Bill of Rights and Subsequent Amendments" (Routledge), "Religious Liberty and the American Supreme Court" (Roman and Littlefield), and his latest published by the University of Chicago Press, and the subject of our time together, "Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses" . Please support your local bookshop. The Republican Professor is a pro-getting-a-handle-on-the-Bill-of-Rights, pro-understanding-correctly-the-First-Amendment-religion-clauses podcast. Therefore, welcome Dr. Phil Munoz of Notre Dame ! In order to keep this podcast running smoothly, please consider giving generously to support the careful analysis and dissemination of this material. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: The Republican Professor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

* Free admissions course: https://7sage.com/admissions/progress/ * Law school rankings: 7sage.com/admissions/top-law-school-rankings/ * Law school admissions predictor: 7sage.com/admissions/predictor/ * Requirements for top law schools: https://7sage.com/admissions/lesson/application-requirements-for-top-schools/ Please send your comments, questions, and ideas for future episodes to podcast@7sage.com

Today we'll talk about President Donald Trump's announcement to nominate judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. We'll close the hour with an IU Health doctor, discussing how to prevent spread of COVID-19 as the state reopens.

This episode is part two of a two-part discussion focusing on some of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in June and July 2020. My guest is again Prof. Rick Garnett of the University of Notre Dame Law school. ------ Live: www.redeemerradio.com Follow Redeemer Radio on Facebook/Twitter/Instagram: @RedeemerRadio Follow McGrath Institute for Church Life on Facebook/Twitter/Instagram: @McGrathND Subscribe to the Podcast: iTunes | Google Play | SoundCloud

Thomas R. Curtin has been an attorney for 50 years. He is a proud graduate and alumni of the Law School at the University of Notre Dame.  He has represented and been associated with celebrities and sports figures, including Tommy Hilfiger and New York Giants players and coaches.He describes himself as having “Class President Syndrome” and that his elevator pitch is that lawyers help people.  He says that lawyers help people – their families, their communities, and their friends.  And, lawyers solve problems… sometimes for money.He quotes former Notre Dame coach, Lou Holtz, on what people want to know about you: 1.      Can they trust you?2.     Do you care about them?3.     Are you committed to excellence?Tom's involvement with organizations are beyond score keeping…·         Former New Jersey State Bar Association President·         Member and former President of the Notre Dame Law Association·         Member of the Legal Services of New Jersey Board·         Member of the New Jersey Lawyer Assistance Program Board·         Member of the New Jersey Supreme Court Historical Advisory Board ·         And… he is currently the Vice Chair of Autism New Jersey and devotes his extra energy to the cause and his interest in awareness, treating, and curing autism.

At UVA Law’s 31st Sokol Colloquium, Notre Dame Law professor A.J. Bellia and UVA Law professors Paul Stephan and John Harrison discussed international law and the judiciary in a panel moderated by UVA Law professor Saikrishna Prakash. During the colloquium, scholars, jurists and practitioners discussed the American Law Institute’s “The Restatement (Fourth) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States.” (University of Virginia School of Law, Jan. 11, 2019)

Ubuntu Radio, Ep #34--The Brown Liquor Chronicles #1-- Dee: Just A Brotha From North Philly Powering Thru (Part 2 of 3) The Brown Liquor Chronicles has brothas of a certain age wax on everything while drinking good liquor. In this episode Dee talks about Notre Dame Law school and the fallacy of "zero sum"; Passing the bar; Univ of Texas business school; Practicing law in Philly; Why he's no longer practicing law; First year [Black] lawyer during the OJ trial 1994; The genius of Johnny Cochran and his infuence of young Black attorneys; An imperfect criminal justice system; Seeking justice regardless --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Comment on this episode at http://ProLifePodcast.net/193! We're interrupting our series with Steven Ertelt to give you an update on the Supreme Court case, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores. Notre Dame Law grad John Gerardi and Jonathan Keller from California Family Council explain the case and what happened during the oral arguments. Questions: 1: Where are we in this case right now and how did we wind up here? 2: One of the issues in this case is whether or not a corporation should be considered a "person." Many people think it's crazy to call a corporation a person, that it just protects the rich and helps them get richer. What are your views on that? 3: What were some of the highlights from the oral arguments? 4: Is this about religious freedom or is it about the rights of the poor employees against their corporate employer? 5: How do you think the court will rule and why? 6: Where does the religious freedom road lead if Hobby Lobby loses this case?  

Our favorite Notre Dame Law grad John Gerardi joins us again, this time to discuss the Pope's recent confusing comments about abortion. Note from Josh: We recorded this episode in October, 2013. I'm grateful that yesterday (December 9th) Pope Francis made a clear pro-life statement to the Dignitatis Humanae Institute, a pro-life group in Rome.

Footnote discusses Right or Wrong, the impressive new book by Bellarmine Forum Chairman Charles E. Rice, professor of Constitutional Law at Notre Dame Law School. What is Notre Dame’s approach to Church teaching, especially Humanae Vitae? Footnote discusses Right or Wrong, the impressive new book by Bellarmine Forum Chairman Charles E. Rice, professor of Constitutional Law at Notre Dame Law…

Our favorite (nearly graduated) student from Notre Dame Law John Gerardi is back to give us an update on the current status of the different lawsuits against the HHS mandate. We talk about the kinds of entities that are suing and on what grounds, whether it's looking favorable or not and which religious groups have been exempted and why. Listener Questions: Michael from Tulsa, OK: Will Scientologists get an exemption for all medical treatments that go against their religion now that Priests for Life got an exemption?

Notre Dame law student and former Life Report guest John Gerardi joins Josh Brahm and Jonathan Keller in the studio to discuss the Supreme Court's "Obamacare" decision. Josh opens the show by focusing on how this legislation promotes abortion and tramples on religious liberty. This includes a brief explanation of why "ella" should definitively be considered an abortifacient, and not merely a contraceptive. Josh also discourages people from making baseless claims about Chief Justice Roberts' intelligence or intentions. Afterwards, John Gerardi gives a careful analysis of the decision, including what constitutional issues were examined.  The show ends with a discussion of what pro-lifers can do to fix things. Note from Josh: After this episode finished shooting, we stayed on the air for over an hour continuing the discussion and responding to questions from our live stream audience. We will be releasing that footage in sections over the next week or two, so keep checking ProLifePodcast.net for regular updates, or subscribe to our RSS feed.

Last year, law professor Richard Garnett of the Notre Dame Law school co-wrote an amicus brief concerning the constitutional issues in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The gist of that brief was published as an article called “Religious Freedom, Church-State Separation, and the Ministerial Exception.” In that paper, Garnett and his co-authors wrote: “It seems to us that because any worthwhile account of religious freedom would respect the authority of religious communities to select freely their own clergy, ministers, teachers, and doctrines, any such account must include some rule like the ministerial exception. Reasonably constructed and applied, this rule helps civil decisionmakers avoid deciding essentially religious questions. In addition, and more importantly, it protects the fundamental freedom of religious communities to educate their members and form them spiritually and morally. Although the exception may, in some cases, block lawsuits against religious institutions and communities for discrimination, it rests on the overriding and foundational premise that there are some questions the civil courts do not have the power to answer, some wrongs that a constitutional commitment to church–state separation puts beyond the law‘s corrective reach.” In January, shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its decision, Dialogues host Ken Myers talked to Richard Garnett about his interest in the case and its consequences. Their conversation is featured in this issue of Dialogues.