Podcasts about originalist

Send your questions or provocations to Adam or Budi here!Robert Barry Fleming is the Executive Artistic Director of Actors Theatre of Louisville, KY. They have a varied portfolio and a wealth of experience as an artistic leader/administrator, producer, director, choreographer, performing artist, teacher and coach. Their directing/choreography credits include Laura Kaminsky's transgender journey contemporary opera As One (KY Opera); the world premiere of Jonathan Norton's I Am Delivered't (Dallas Theatre Center/Actors Theatre of Louisville co-production); the world premiere of Grace, a new musical by Nolan Williams, Jr., and Pulitzer Prize nominee Nikkole Salter (Ford's Theatre) which was honored as a Broadway World Winner for Best Direction of a Musical and Best Choreography of a Play or Musical; the Humana Festival of New American Plays Professional Training Company's production of Vivian Barnes, Jonathan Norton and Gab Reisman's Are You There? Robert's original ballet suite Hydra for Program 4 mixed repertory (Louisville Ballet); The world premiere of Idris Goodwin's Ali Summit (Actors Theatre of Louisville), Once On This Island (Actors/Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park co-production), Native Gardens (Cleveland Play House), NEXT TO NORMAL (Tantrum Theater), The Royale (CPH), Destiny of Desire (OSF), Caroline Or Change (Tantrum Theater), and Between Riverside And Crazy (CPH). Robert formerly served as Director of Artistic Programming at Arena Stage and Associate Artistic Director at Cleveland Play House. Arena Stage world-premieres commissioned, developed and/or championed under their watch include the 2017 Best Musical Tony-winner, Dear Evan Hansen, Mary Kathryn Nagle's Sovereignty, John Strand's The Originalist, Katori Hall's Blood Quilt, Karen Zacarías' Destiny of Desire and the 2017 Pulitzer Prize winner, Sweat by Lynn Nottage.  Robert was an Associate Producer for the Off-Broadway premiere of The Two Character Play by Tennessee Williams, starring Amanda Plummer and Brad Dourif. Robert is a proud member of the Professional Non-Profit Theatre Coalition (PNTC) planning committee endeavoring to evolve our relationship with governmental support for the arts as well as, our SDC, AEA, and TCG collectives working in solidarity for an equitable and sustainable praxis for our arts ecosystem. Support the showIf you enjoyed this week´s podcast, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts. To submit a question: Voice- http://www.speakpipe.com/theatreofothers Email- podcast@theatreofothers.com Show Credits Co-Hosts: Adam Marple & Budi MillerProducer: Jack BurmeisterMusic: https://www.purple-planet.comAdditional compositions by @jack_burmeister

Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett has played an integral role in the rise of originalism—the movement to identify, restore, and defend the original meaning of the Constitution. But Barnett's path to becoming an influential professor of constitutional law was not an easy one. Starting from a working-class childhood in Calumet City, Illinois, Barnett's unusual resume has included stints as an ice cream truck driver, newspaper ad salesman, prosecutor, libertarian theorist, contract law professor, and Supreme Court advocate. In his new autobiography, A Life for Liberty, Barnett tells the complete story of his personal and professional journey.Barnett's life story is a model for how libertarians can put their ideas into practice and help change the world. As a young Harvard law student, Barnett had living room debates with Murray Rothbard and served on the board of a libertarian institution with Leonard Liggio and other notable thinkers. Barnett's focus on individual rights prepared him for the turning point in his career, when he was the only person on a high-profile panel willing to argue that the Ninth Amendment protects “unenumerated rights” from government infringement.After establishing himself as “Mr. Ninth Amendment,” Barnett eventually pivoted his career to constitutional law. His mission to restore “the lost Constitution” took him from the schoolhouse to the courthouse, where he argued the medical marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich in the Supreme Court—a case now taught to every law student. Later, he devised and spearheaded the constitutional challenge to Obamacare. Today, thanks in part to his efforts, a majority of sitting Supreme Court justices self-identify as originalists.In this book forum, Professor Barnett will discuss his life story, the lessons he's learned, and the ways in which his thinking continues to evolve. Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School will offer commentary on the book, drawing from his own perspective as a fellow legal academic. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Edward Gero joins the CONVERSATION during a break in rehearsals for The Lehman Trilogy at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Gero's performance is another highlight in a distinguished, award-winning career spanning forty-seven years with upwards to one hundred fifty roles and counting including The Originalist at Court Theatre in Chicago, Angels in America at Arena Stage and earlier this year, in the critically-acclaimed production of The Lehman Trilogy at the Shakespeare Theatre Company that has now transferred to the Guthrie and opens September 19, 2024. Stefano Massini's epic multi-generational story, adapted by Ben Power and directed by Arin Arbus, chronicles the true-to-life rise of three Jewish immigrant brothers who built their own version of the American Dream from a small fabric business in 1844 to the international financial firm whose spectacular collapse in 2008 sent global markets spiraling out of control. The Guthrie Theater production includes Gero, Mark Nelson and William Sturdivant in the cast of three who play the Lehman brothers and recreate all of the over fifty other roles. 7 Episode 3 Originally posted September 4, 2024

In this episode we sit down with A.J. Jacobs, a journalist who noticed some striking similarities between Biblical fundamentalism and constitutional originalism, and since he once wrote a NYT bestselling book about titled The Year of Living Biblically in which he tried to live for a year as a fundamentalist, he tried to do something similar by living for a year following the Constitution's original meaning as if he were an originalist and then writing a book about it. He soon learned that donning a tricorne hat and marching around Manhattan with a 1700s musket, though fully within one's constitutional rights, will quickly lead to some difficult encounters and altogether strange circumstances.The Year of Living ConstitutionallyAJ Jacobs' WebsiteAJ Jacobs' TwitterHow Minds ChangeDavid McRaney's TwitterYANSS TwitterKitted ShopThe Story of KittedShow NotesNewsletterPatreon

AJ Jacobs is a writer and humorist known for his immersive dedication to a variety of subjects.  He spent a year attempting to follow EVERY rule in the Bible and wrote a NY TIMES best-seller, The Year of Living Biblically; and his latest book The Year of Living Constitutionally follows his journey through the lens of the 18th century.  Join Dawn and AJ as they discuss what in the constitution they think is worth keeping, what could use some changes - and why 'cherry picking' isn't such a bad concept after all...  SILF's (Sources I'd Like to F*ck)THE YEAR OF LIVING CONSTITUTIONALLY: *The audiobook is a joy to listen to!So you want to bake an election cake!Watch AJ on The Daily ShowWatch AJ on CBS Sunday MorningRead the Constitution. (Go on... I dare ya!)--- LILF's (Link's I'd Like to F*ck) See Dawn on THE HISTORY CHANNEL!Crazy Rich AncientsHistories Greatest Mysteries (multiple seasons)HILF is now on Patreon!Buy Me a Coffee---NEXT NEW EPISODE: Mount Rushmore with Christine Blackburn, Wednesday, August 21st, 2024---WANNA TALK? Find us on Instagram or email us hilfpodcast@gmail.comTheme song: Composed and performed by Kat Perkins.

Esteemed constitutional scholar and gifted law professor Randy Barnett joins the Anchoring Truths Podcast for a discussion of his new memoir A Life for Liberty: the Making of an American Originalist (Encounter). Prof. Barnett shares vignettes spanning his entire life from his deeply personal memoir on scholarship and practice, mentorship, his reconciling libertarianism and Natural Law, and his fights against anti-semitism. Randy Barnett is the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at the Georgetown University Law Center where he directs the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. After graduating from Northwestern University and Harvard Law School, he tried many felony cases as a prosecutor in the Cook County States' Attorney's Office in Chicago. A recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship in Constitutional Studies and the Bradley Prize, Professor Barnett has been a visiting professor at Penn, Northwestern and Harvard Law School. His publications includes thirteen books and countless scholarly articles, book reviews, and op-eds. In 2004, he argued the medical marijuana case of Gonzalez v. Raich before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2012, he represented the National Federation of Independent Business in its constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v. Sebelius.  Leaern more about and purchase the book here.

Many decisions impacting the lives of Americans today adhere to a set of rules established over 200 years ago. The Constitution is in the news more than ever as politicians and Supreme Court justices battle over how literally it should be taken.  Did the framers intend for Americans to follow their instructions as written for eternity?  Or did they want to offer a set of guidelines that would evolve as time marched on?  These are the questions today's guest, A.J. Jacobs, author of the Year of Living Constitutionally, set out to answer.For one year, he committed to living as the original originalist, expressing his constitutional rights using the tools, lifestyle and mindset of when they were written in 1787. He bore muskets. He wrote pamphlets with a goose quill by candlelight. He quartered soldiers. He tried to pay for goods and services with gold. He applied for a letter of marque from Congress, which would make him a legal pirate (a practice that the U.S. government sanctioned during the Revolutionary War). He gave his friends the same gift that George Washington did: a lock of his own hair. This year-long project was Jacobs' humble attempt to figure out how to interpret the Constitution and whether we can improve the American experiment.

Three of our favorite segments from the week, in case you missed them:The Complicated Reality of Egg Freezing  (First) - Luis Miranda's 'Latino Spirit' (28:00) - A.J. Jacobs Lives Originalism  (58:00) If you don't subscribe to the Brian Lehrer Show on iTunes, you can do that here.

Adam White and Jace Lington chat with Law Professor Michael D. Ramsey about how originalists can defend the major questions doctrine as a substantive canon of interpretation. He examines post-ratification court practice and other substantive canons designed by judges to minimize the harms of judicial error when interpreting ambiguous statutes. Ramsey recently presented a paper […]

Adam White and Jace Lington chat with Law Professor Michael D. Ramsey about how originalists can defend the major questions doctrine as a substantive canon of interpretation. He examines post-ratification court practice and other substantive canons designed by judges to minimize the harms of judicial error when interpreting ambiguous statutes. Ramsey recently presented a paper on this subject at a Gray Center research roundtable.Notes:An Originalist Defense of the Major Questions Doctrine, Michael D. Ramsey The Major Questions Doctrine: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Remedy, Thomas W. Merrill The Ghosts of Chevron Present and Future, Gary S. Lawson Biden v. Nebraska: The New State Standing and the (Old) Purposive Major Questions Doctrine, Jed Handelsman Shugerman The Major Answers Doctrine, Lisa Heinzerling The New Purpose and Intent in Major Questions Cases, Anita S. Krishnakumar The Major Questions Doctrine: Unfounded, Unbounded, and Confounded, Ronald M. Levin The Minor Questions Doctrine, Aaron L. Nielson The Major Questions Doctrine Outside Chevron‘s Domain, Adam R.F. Gustafson

Understanding The Significance Of Ketanji Brown Jackson And Progressive Originalism Episode #61 Today on Legalese we will be discussing the judicial philosophy of Progressive Originalism. What is it, what isn't it, how does it work and to what ends? Plus how does it compare with the other more common forms of Originalist judicial interpretation such as original public meaning or textualism? Also we will be talking about the first Progressive Originalist on the Supreme Court. That is of course the Junior Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. I will be discussing some likely surprising reasons Ketanji Brown Jackson has the potential to become one of the most influential justices on the high court and why that's not necessarily a bad thing! Follow and Support Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it's articles, podcasts or videos! Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more! Follow Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Support PayPal.me  Venmo Locals Contact Me BUY MY NEW BOOKConstitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture.Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Meet Zackey Rahimi, someone who apparently has never met a situation he didn't try to shoot his way out of, including family, random drivers, and Whataburger.Jess and Imani are back to break down last week's Supreme Court oral arguments in his case, United States v. Rahimi, which boils down to originalism on steroids. As Jess says Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar's oral arguments showed, "If you believe in originalism like, really believe in it with your whole chest, then you also really believe in Christian patriarchy that includes men having dominion over women and children the same way that God has dominion over his creations. That's how you enshrine that kind of dominionist religious belief into legal code. That idea of dominion as a philosophy is the basis of property law—and now it might become the basis of Second Amendment law."Rewire News Group is a nonprofit media organization, which means Boom! Lawyered is only made possible with the support of listeners like you! If you can, please join our team by donating here.

Meet Zackey Rahimi, someone who apparently has never met a situation he didn't try to shoot his way out of, including family, random drivers, and Whataburger.Jess and Imani are back to break down last week's Supreme Court oral arguments in his case, United States v. Rahimi, which boils down to originalism on steroids. As Jess says Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar's oral arguments showed, "If you believe in originalism like, really believe in it with your whole chest, then you also really believe in Christian patriarchy that includes men having dominion over women and children the same way that God has dominion over his creations. That's how you enshrine that kind of dominionist religious belief into legal code. That idea of dominion as a philosophy is the basis of property law—and now it might become the basis of Second Amendment law."Rewire News Group is a nonprofit media organization, which means Boom! Lawyered is only made possible with the support of listeners like you! If you can, please join our team by donating here.

Article III of the Constitution vests the “judicial Power” in “one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Our founding document recognizes that the Supreme Court stands apart from the rest of the federal judiciary. Yet, Congress has long regulated several aspects of the high court, including its appellate jurisdiction, rules for establishing a quorum, and standards for recusal. Some critics argue that Congress should go further to regulate ethics on the Supreme Court. Some proposals would require the Justices to adopt an ethics code. Other proposals would impose one on the Justices. This panel will explore originalist perspectives on ethics and the Supreme Court, in particular considering these questions: When it comes to establishing or even enforcing ethical standards for Supreme Court justices, is there a role under the Constitution for Congress? Is it true that Congress has the power (or even without that explicit power) regulate the high court's quorum and recusal standards? And, as a matter of prudence, should Congress take these steps? In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton described the judiciary as the “least dangerous branch.” While the Executive holds the sword” and the Legislature “commands the purse,” the courts have “merely judgment.” But can the courts faithfully exercise that judgment when threatened by the sword and pinched by the purse?Featuring:Mr. David Lat, Founder, Original JurisdictionHon. Jay Mitchell, Associate Justice, Alabama Supreme CourtMrs. Carrie C. Severino, President, Judicial Crisis NetworkModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals. Eighth Circuit

Featuring:Hon. Stewart Baker, Of Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson LLPHon. Beth A. Williams, Board Member, United States Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight BoardMr. Gene C. Schaerr, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLPProf. John Yoo, Emanuel Heller Professor of Law, University of California Berkeley School of LawModerator: Hon. Paul Matey, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Featuring:Prof. J. Joel Alicea, Co-Director, Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, Assistant Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of AmericaProf. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Founding Director, Georgetown Center for the ConstitutionProf. Richard H. Fallon, Story Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Stephen E. Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

The one in which we look in to some of the secrets of this society that is working (somewhat successfully) to take us back to a time we can never return to. 

Sam Alito might be citing witchhunters from the 1600s as authority on the meaning of the Constitution, but the Fifth Circuit is taking it a step further and fighting over how the Bible might interpret a statute governing class action lawsuits. The MyPillow guy lost his composure in a video deposition for all the world to see. Probably had a bad night's sleep on some lumpy pillows. And it was quite the worrying summer for law students. Summer associates don't trust that they're going to get full-time employment and exploding offers have proliferated throughout the industry. At least one firm with a low retention rate this year still found the time to take everyone to the club.

Sam Alito might be citing witchhunters from the 1600s as authority on the meaning of the Constitution, but the Fifth Circuit is taking it a step further and fighting over how the Bible might interpret a statute governing class action lawsuits. The MyPillow guy lost his composure in a video deposition for all the world to see. Probably had a bad night's sleep on some lumpy pillows. And it was quite the worrying summer for law students. Summer associates don't trust that they're going to get full-time employment and exploding offers have proliferated throughout the industry. At least one firm with a low retention rate this year still found the time to take everyone to the club.

John Yoo is a nonresident senior fellow at AEI, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. He has worked in all three branches of government, notably as an official in the US Department of Justice. He also served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and US Court of Appeals Judge Laurence Silberman. John joins Nikhil Agarwal from Claremont McKenna College to discuss the Fourteenth Amendment and well as The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court, John's recent book he co-authored with Robert Delahunty.To learn more about AEI's work on college campuses, visit our website.

Professor Bradley Rebeiro joins Sarah and David to examine Frederick Douglass and the political theories that influenced his thinking. But, before the interview, the two go through a docket of trending political topics, including: -DC's picky protest arrests -A 96-year-old judge's continued tenure -Hunter Biden: Deal or no deal? -Trump's Georgia troubles, revisited (already) Show Notes: -Bradley Rebeiro, Frederick Douglass and the Original Originalists -Bradley Rebeiro's profile at BYU Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Leah and Kate talk to Jessica Valenti, writer of the Substack newsletter “Abortion, Every Day,” which documents the rapidly changing landscape of abortion rights in the U.S. after Dobbs. Plus, they highlight a federal court opinion that would allow people facing domestic violence orders to possess guns, and President Biden's (brief) State of the Union comment about vetoing any national abortion ban legislation. Listen to "How SCOTUS gutted our gun laws," about the Supreme Court's recent ruling that the constitutional right to carry a gun extends beyond the homeListen to "What the Fight After Roe Actually Looks Like," which recapped the first two months of a post-Dobbs worldListen to "Roe is dead. Now what?," which captured our immediate reaction to the Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

In the United States, the term 'originalists' refers to those who believe that the US constitution should be interpreted today with the same conviction as it was followed when written hundreds of years ago. But how can the ideas and laws from over 200 years ago possibly just simply be accepted today, when we live in a totally different world? So what exactly is originalism? And how has it affected the Supreme Court in terms of decisions related to guns, abortion rights, and other domains? Professor Eric Segall joins the podcast. Twitter @espinsegallCheck out Eric's book, 'Originalism as Faith', at https://www.amazon.ca/Originalism-as-Faith-Eric-Segall/dp/1316640469

With fall in the air and the changing of colors happening all around us, it's also about time for a new season of local Catholic theater! Our friends at Open Window Theatre have an exciting feature this fall: The Originalist is running now through October 30, so here to fill us in on season 9 of Open Window Theatre is Jeremy Stanbary, Executive Artistic Director.

Episode discussion topics The Supreme Court of the United States of America is no longer bound by precedence when it so decides. No reasoning needs to apply, nor any applicable law, a justice may simply rely on their own personal beliefs. The rest of us be damned. And so, as the court turns precedence be damned. Something more comparable to a lifetime role like that of the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah) in Iran than the stabilizing component it was envisioned to be. The case for illegitimacy is strong. Two seats on the court were essentially stolen by historical precedence in the Senate. A party gerrymandered the seats into their pocket effectively stealing them from the opposition. They violated the rules of the game to win at the risk of the league's legitimacy or the stability of our republic in this case. One appointment was stolen from President Barrack Obama. Namely Merrick Garland, who was nominated but the nominating body, the U.S. Senate, decided not to hold any confirmation hearings. Punting the seat to the next guy. They said they punted because it was too late in the president's term, a fictional rule made up for the moment. The fact is, that it was an abandonment of duty for party-serving reasons. The second steal was a reversal of the prior scenario. Where the same rule violaters confirmed a President Donald Trump nominee when it should have been too late in the executive's term to do so, as in the previous case. They didn't even honor their own rule. They only honor the rules that serve them before all else. "Precedence be damned" may have begun in the Senate in this way. Religion is starting to run amok. The most extreme and insane religious groups in the United States have an enormously outsized hand on the wheel of our republic these days. Moreso than in the past because our system was born of the enlightenment, based on reason and rule of law. Here is the case MVP mentioned about public funds for religious schools, a case from Maine: Carson v. Makin. One of the last descents from retired Justice Stephen Breyer makes for a good synopsis, "The First Amendment begins by forbidding the government from “mak[ing] [any] law respecting an establishment of religion.” It next forbids them to make any law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Court today pays almost no attention to the words in the first Clause while giving almost exclusive attention to the words in the second." The aptly-called shadow docket of the Supreme Court (article by the Brennen Center for Justice). It is both figuratively and literally in a sense shadowy, as covered in the linked article. It is not the hilarious and unreal happenings of something like the "What We Do in the Shadows" streaming series. Rather, quite the opposite. Removing or reserving rights to privacy, a core component of liberty, to a wealthy minority. More religiosity coming our way with the latest affront to precedence that has no basis in reason. The reversal of Rowe v. Wade was insane and based on one of the most selective readings of the Constitution possible. "Originalist" must mean the most original new interpretation a justice can make based on the narrowest text. This is much the same as one might pick and choose from a bible. The Constitution says that we the people have rights regardless of whether or not they are enumerated in the document, see Amendment 9. Calls to Action: Implement term limits of something like 18 years, as has been suggested to enable presidents the opportunity to appoint on average at least one in each of their terms. Yes, we would need to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Article 3 of the Constitution states that these judges, “hold their office during good behavior,” which means they have a lifetime appointment. Expand the court to include more voices for the record. Citizens on large experience a huge plurality of life conditions, given the hundreds of millions of us there are. Having more perspectives from honorable people will help make legal precedence reflect the will of the people. In this episode, we proposed, "Setting the bar for impeachment based on a clear code of conduct." However, congress already has the power to impeach and convict even Supreme Court Justices, although that has yet to happen. If citizens elect enough representatives willing to impeach and convict, then the court can be remade. Amend the constitution to make the laws clear so as to not allow the abridgment of any citizen's liberty. Unambiguous laws make it harder for the courts to intervene. Vote early and often! The power to make change rests in our votes and casting them for change makers to represent us in congress and all elected offices. Your hosts: Michael V. Piscitelli and Raymond Wong Jr. More info Note: MVP misspoke mid-episode about which amendment religion belongs to, that is the first one and not the second. We have transcripts located at the end of each podcast episode's  page on our site. Check it out, but know this: It's all AI and not us. So thank you in advance for forgiving any and all errors. Please feel free to share your thoughts through our Contact Us page or like us on Facebook. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed on this podcast are for listener consideration and are not necessarily those of the show or its sponsors. Learn more and reach out Head to Citizens Prerogative for additional information and log in or sign up to leave a comment. Don't forget to join our free newsletter and get 10% off at our shop! Go the extra mile by supporting us through Patreon. Please contact us with any questions or suggestions. Special thanks Our ongoing supporters, thank you! Our sponsor CitizenDoGood.com. Graphic design by SergeShop.com. Intro music sampled from “Okay Class” by Ozzy Jock under creative commons license through freemusicarchive.org. Other music provided royalty-free through Fesliyan Studios Inc. 

Today InPerspective with Dr. Harry Reeder September 1, 2022

Jose and Kenny discuss current White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain's excellent interview. Jose tells the moving story of Sergeant Major (a fish). We spend too much (or too little?) time on Stark Trek and Battle Star Galactica, and for our Big Block of Cheese Kenny Borks Jose into talking about Constitutional Originalism.   Links On Not Being "Not an Originalist" (stthomas.edu) The Supreme Court on Throughline podcast

Roe v. Wade, that infamous case which created out of thin air a constitutional right for abortion, was in fact unconstitutional. As the Wall Street Journal described Roe, it was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1973 which was nothing more than a LEGAL INVENTION. It was politically driven, the legal product of a very liberal Supreme Court under the influence of Chief Justice Warren, the decision in Roe written by Justice Harry Blackmun. Even liberal scholars at the time, scholars who supported abortion, many of them agreed that there was no constitutional basis for the decision in Roe v. Wade (5–4). The current Supreme Court, as we know, has overturned this constitutional disaster and along with it the decision in the Casey case, in the now famous decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a case appealed to the Supreme Court by the state of Mississippi. The decision, which had been essentially leaked before formal announcement by the Supreme Court (the preliminary draft of that decision) occurred weeks ago, leaked by a radical progressive whoever he or she may be in order to produce liberal citizen RAGE upon the Supreme Court for the TAKING AWAY of so–called constitutional women's rights to abortion. It did just that. Liberal rage was everywhere, starting with the illustrious president Joe Biden who told the country that this conservative Supreme Court, the Roberts' court, was out of control, dangerous, and on a mission to destroy much of the legal liberal gains in the past several decades. Senator Chuck Schumer from New York actually threatened Justice Kavanaugh with harm by telling him that, if he voted for the overturn of Roe, he would, Kavanaugh would:“PAY THE PRICE.”A radical then went on a mission to assassinate Kavanaugh, but of course, Schumer, a democrat, a liberal and even a radical from New York got away with it. The RAGE promised started at the very top of the political process. Even Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who knows little or nothing about the Constitution, reminded her following that it was time for action. Then came JANE'S REVENGE, a liberal action group which began firebombing pregnancy centers and, the violence was on. Summer has a long way to go, and the violence promised will only increase, even as protection for all nine Supreme Court Justices has and will be increased. Roe v. Wade was justified, rationalized by the Supreme Court 1973 essentially on the basis of the 14th Amendment and the so–called DUE–PROCESS CLAUSE. But there was no rational connection between the result reached (the so–called abortion right) and anything written, expressed or implied in the 14th Amendment. A women's right to privacy was also used but there is no right to privacy for anyone, male or female, anywhere in the Constitution. It was a legal stretch, a legal invention, a social and cultural decision made by liberal Justices without any firm foundation or basis in the Constitution. It was ripe for a right–thinking constitutionally–minded court, perhaps ORIGINALIST in thinking and belief, to overturn this Constitutional disaster. Dobbs v. Jackson did just that by a vote of 6–3, along political lines, six so–called conservative Justices for overturn and three liberal–radical against it. Let, said Jane's Revenge and by implication Biden and Schumer, the:SUMMER OF RAGE BEGIN!Abortion is murder. It is the killing of a human–being in vitro, in the womb. It is done intentionally, and maliciously with no concern for the human–being to be utterly destroyed. It is therefore first–degree murder, abortion is, of a live, feeling human–being and there is every justification for the conviction of that killer under first–degree murder charges. But it goes on none–the–less. Many think that Dobbs may put an end to the brutal, satanic practice of abortion. Unfortunately, it will not. Under the excellent system of federalism which our Constitution fully supports, the issue of abortion is now no longer a federal matter but one for the states. Each of the fifty states must deal with the issue of abortion its own way, by the democratic process, the vote at work by the people of the state and laws for or against abortion will be passed by each. It is estimated that some 26 states will eliminate the right to abortion altogether or seriously curtail the practice. BUT, some 24 states will permit abortion in some fashion and that sometime in the nine–month pregnancy period, whether at the very beginning of conception or even up to the point where the baby–human–being is born or about to be born. First–degree murder, and killing will go on in America in at least 24 states. The Founding Fathers sought to limit the power of the federal government. The Constitution clearly protects states rights. In fact, it states in the 10th Amendment and even the 9th Amendment of the Constitution that the powers:NOT SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATEDGranted to the federal government are absolutely reserved to the states and the people. The federal government cannot infringe on that sacred legal territory, nor can it go about the business of legal invention, treat the Constitution as an organic document to produce the results wished, and must legally stay out of the business of the states. The Supreme Court has no power or authority, constitutionally or otherwise, to usurp all such rights and powers which the Constitution expressly grants to the states, all 50 of them. If the people of the United States want things to work differently, wish to change the Constitution, or further amend it, they should follow the legal process, call into effect a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION and with three quarters of the states agreeing, change the Constitution. But the mobs who wish the disastrous SUMMER OF RAGE will not wait, will not follow DUE–PROCESS and they will act with violence, whoever they are, to get what they want, the rule of law be damned. You should read, my fellow Americans, the Constitution, but you should especially read and know:THE 9TH AND 10TH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.They are short, clear, easy to understand and you should remember that the federal government, the Biden–Schumer–Pelosi politicos have no right, power or authority to change the Constitution, NONE WHATSOEVER! But they will try, and as Schumer and Biden have threatened, they will try by any means necessary to get what they want.If a woman wants an abortion, it will unfortunately be available in America and readily so. We the People, all of us may no longer have to pay for these abortions through medical insurance, but states can offer access and money to any woman who wishes an abortion, even helping with transportation costs to travel from a state that prohibits it to one that endorses it and the brutal killing of God's creations goes on. This message can be heard in the once great states of New York and California, and the states of Colorado and Wyoming, and the great state of Alabama and the very great state of Michigan. We can only hope and pray that the citizens of those states, especially the Christian voters, will do their very best to persuade their state legislators to do away with or at least severely limit the practice of abortion and urge them to:STOP THE KILLING OF INNOCENT BABIES!That we feel is the moral duty of any Christian, any Christian citizen of this great Country. Please become politically active in your state, if nothing more than writing (email) to your state legislators, house and senate, and your governor and urge them to pass legislation which STOPS THE KILLING. Email addresses are readily available. Do not allow liberal, progressive, radical lawmakers to allow the satanic practice of abortion to continue in your state. YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Your simple email can make a difference. It is a golden opportunity for your to be heard so:SPEAK UP!Hear clearly the loud voice of crying, pleading, painful BABIES IN THE WOMB who prayerfully ask you to protect them, champion them, to be one of millions who rises up and says to your state and our nation:STOP THE KILLING!

In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that abortion had to be allowed in all the States of the Union. The argument was that, although the Constitution doesn't speak about it, the spirit of the Constitution was in line with forbidding each State having its own legislation in this topic. The decision opened the door to impose legislation at federal level using the Supreme Court. At the same time, this created the Originalist movement: a group of judges and lawyers that considered that the Constitution must be read and applied according to its text, and not following anachronic analysis of what it should say today. For changes -they argue- the legislative and executive power should use the Amendments and not reinterpret in a partisan way the original text. In 2016 Donald J. Trump promised in his electoral campaign to propose candidates to the Supreme Court from the Originalist movement. A promise that he kept as President. This has changed the political environment that ruled America since 1973. This is the ignoto world we visit today by the hand of professor Markku Ruotsila. Welcome to Terra Ignota. ---o--- En 1973 el Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos de América dictaminó que el aborto tenía que estar permitido en todos los Estados de la Unión. El argumento era que, aunque la Constitución no habla de ello, el espíritu de la misma iba en la línea de prohibir que cada Estado tuviera su propia legislación en este tema. La decisión abrió la puerta a imponer legislación a nivel federal utilizando el Tribunal Supremo. Al mismo tiempo, esto creó el movimiento originalista: un grupo de jueces y abogados que consideraban que la Constitución debe ser leída y aplicada según su texto, y no siguiendo un análisis anacrónico de lo que debería decir hoy. Según esta visión jurídica el poder legislativo y ejecutivo debe utilizar las enmiendas y no reinterpretar de forma partidista el texto original. En 2016 Donald J. Trump prometió en su campaña electoral proponer candidatos al Tribunal Supremo procedentes del movimiento originalista. Una promesa que cumplió como presidente. Esto ha cambiado el ambiente político que regía en Estados Unidos desde 1973. Éste es el mundo ignoto que visitamos hoy de la mano del profesor Markku Ruotsila. Bienvenidos a Terra Ignota. Emitido originalmente en Youtube, y disponible con subtítulos en español, el 13 de julio de 2022: https://youtu.be/DCdYOF7ES6Y _________________________________________________________________ Recuerda darle a suscribirse para no perderte futuros contenidos. Y si te gusta, te animamos a compartirlo con tus amigos y conocidos. Puedes acceder a todas las plataformas de Terra Ignota desde https://linktr.ee/TerraIgnota (iVoox, Spotify, Discord y mucho más). Para adquirir productos del podcast: https://tienda.mundoignoto.es

Hub Dialogues (part of The Hub, Canada's daily information source for public policy – https://www.thehub.ca) are in-depth conversations about big ideas from the worlds of business, economics, geopolitics, public policy, and technology.The Hub Dialogues feature The Hub's editor-at-large, Sean Speer, in conversation with leading entrepreneurs, policymakers, scholars, and thinkers on the issues and challenges that will shape Canada's future at home and abroad.This episode features Sean Speer in conversation with Canadian lawyer and legal thinker Asher Honickman about the state of judicial thought in Canada including the influence of the so-called "Living Tree" doctrine, Canada's Originalist tradition, and the policy and political consequences of these two judicial approaches.If you like what you are hearing on Hub Dialogues consider subscribing to The Hub's daily email newsletter featuring our insights and analysis on public policy issues. Subscription is free. Simply sign up here: https://newsletter.thehub.ca/.The Hub is Canada's leading information source for public policy. Stridently non-partisan, The Hub is committed to delivering to Canadians the latest analysis and cutting-edge perspectives into the debates that are shaping our collective future.Visit The Hub now at https://www.thehub.ca. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

The most recent term of the newly appointed Supreme Court has come to an end, including the Trump additions of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett and boy did it end with a bang. Colin and Russ break down new cases overturning Roe v. Wade, extending gun rights, and expanding the right to pray on public school property. Why did they rule the way they did, what is an Originalist, and if you don't like the way the Supreme Court wind is blowing, what can you do about it? All this and a new DCOTW for your listening pleasure!

Justice Scalia claimed to be an Originalist: did he mean only propertied white Christian men have rights? Perhaps the actual intent is still consent of all the governed. In the 21st century, are we not all entitled to participate in The post Today’s Supreme Court: Not All May Participate in Democracy appeared first on Keeping Democracy Alive.

New Time! On today's show, 1:06pm CT, 2:06pm ET: Hey Joe: Americans, according to a new poll, believe policies enacted by the Biden administration over the last six months are hurting them - Biden ships U.S. Oil Reserves to foreign countries - Are widespread layoffs coming? - How the pandemic has changed employers' recession strategy - we'll examine. Run For The Border: Several county officials in Texas sounded off on the high costs their communities are bearing from illegal immigration - Art Del Cueto Border Patrol Rep. says Biden admin is overseeing 'catch and release' program that's failing - we'll analyze. Plus, why are Originalist justices dismantling 'imperial presidency' case by case. And, why all confidence in US institutions at record low according to recent polls. https://www.spreaker.com/show/christian-talk-that-rocks https://christiantalkthatrocks.net or http://christiantalkthatrocks.com

Today by special request, we have a great episode that asks How can Substantive Due Process rights be transferred to the privileges and immunities clause. We look at the history of "Privileges & Immunities" from its common law and colonial American beginning, to the Articles Of Confederation, Article 4, Corfield v Coryell and reconstruction era civil rights legislation to inform us of what the Privileges or Immunities clause was understood to mean by those who gave it legal force. We also discuss a general framework under which enumerated and unenumerated rights protected under the due process clause could be transferred to the privileges or immunities clause. Case Briefs and Legal Resources Dobbs v Jackson Whole Women's Health McDonald v. Chicago Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) Slaughterhouse Cases :: 83 U.S. 36 (1872) United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) McDonald v Chicago Amicus Briefs Clarence Thomas McDonald v Chicago Opinion (Edit) Past Episodes Referenced In This Video: Clarence Thomas Is Right Roe v Wade (1973) Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. Tags: supreme Court, scotus, due process clause, privileges or immunities clause, 14th amendment, civil rights, clarence thomas, Dobbs, jackson, abortion, originalism, textualism, articles of confederation, article IV, Corfield v Coryell, roe v wade, planned parenthood v casey --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Carrie Severino, attorney and president of the Judicial Crisis Network, discussed the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. The event was recorded at the 2022 DC Intern Summit held in Washington DC in June.

Legal scholar Garrett Epps calls originalism a "fallacy." Why? Because it does not net the results he wants to see from the federal courts, namely an extra legislative branch of government. https://mcclanahanacademy.com https://brionmcclanahan.com/support http://learntruehistory.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/support

With the Supreme Court reportedly poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, James Keys and Tunde Ogunlana discuss how the decades long effort which brought us here and consider what types of circumstances justify, and do not justify, the government dictating personal healthcare decisions (01:40).  The guys also take a look at recent research which establishes that modern humans were around much earlier than previously believed (34:35). Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows (Politico)How the Supreme Court went from cementing abortion rights in Roe v. Wade to drafting their demise (CNBC)Where Americans Stand On Abortion, In 5 Charts (538)What Is Jacobson v. Massachusetts? How Supreme Court Ruled on Vaccine Mandate in 1905 (Newsweek)Oldest remains of modern humans are much older than thought, researchers say (USA Today)There used to be nine species of human. What happened to them? (National Post)What if other human species hadn't died out (BBC)

Is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson an originalist? Of course not. In no possible universe will we get a Justice Jackson who turns out to be a closet moderate or even conservative. The last Democratic Supreme Court pick who moved to the right was Byron White, appointed by President Kennedy. But for some reason she felt […]

Is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson an originalist? Of course not. In no possible universe will we get a Justice Jackson who turns out to be a closet moderate or even conservative. The last Democratic Supreme Court pick who moved to the right was Byron White, appointed by President Kennedy. But for some reason she felt compelled to say this in her confirmation hearing: “I believe that the Constitution is fixed in its meaning. . . I believe that it's appropriate to look at the original intent, original public meaning, of the words when one is trying to assess because, again, that's a limitation on my authority to import my own policy.” When Robert Bork talked this way in 1987, the media and the liberal establishment (but we repeat ourselves) rushed to declare that this “exotic” and “out of the mainstream” view disqualified him for the Supreme Court. Now originalism is the mainstream, such that progressive jurists must lie about it. There are many difficulties with originalism, or the different versions of it, which Lucretia and Steve have discussed at length in the past, but in this episode we simply marvel at the spectacle of Judge Jackson’s tergiversations from the old party line.

Is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson an originalist? Of course not. In no possible universe will we get a Justice Jackson who turns out to be a closet moderate or even conservative. The last Democratic Supreme Court pick who moved to the right was Byron White, appointed by President Kennedy. But for some reason she felt compelled to say this in her confirmation hearing: “I believe that the Constitution... Source

One establishment historian argues that Jefferson was an "anti-originalist". His evidence? Jefferson suggested that the Constitution needed to expire every 19 years. This doesn't make him an anti-originalist. In fact, I'm not sure if this dope knows what "originalism" means. https://mcclanahanacademy.com https://brionmcclanahan.com/support http://learntruehistory.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/support

Episode 350: #1 Bluegrass Songwriter Reed JonesReed Jones is a musician, a multi-instrumentalist, a singer and songwriter, faith journeyman,  a husband, a fathera teacher and so much more. Heavily influenced by bluegrass legend Tony Rice, Jones has played with bands like Unlimited Tradition, Joe Mullins and the Radio Ramblers, Cumberland Gap, and the acclaimed international bluegrass act Audie Blaylock and Redline.  With Redline, Jones helped record I'm Going Back to Old Kentucky, which boasted several charting singles, including the number one “Cry, Cry, Darlin'.”  Jones also wrote and recorded “The Road That Winds,” the title track off Redline's 2016 release that was featured as the theme song for The Travel Channel series Backroad Gold.   Redline's most recent release, 2019's Originalist, contains four songs that Jones write or co-wrote. 2 of those songs, “The Gate Called Beautiful (Acts 3)” and “Love is an Awful Thing” have both reached number one on the Bluegrass charts, with the latter holding that spot for three weeks. Reed Jones is here with me today to share some coffee, some conversation, and some live music.  Buy The Album: https://amzn.to/2OVjsgV Buy The Album: https://amzn.to/2L8mflH Audie Blaylock and Redline Official Web Site: http://www.audieblaylock.net/ Someday Morning Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/somedaymorningmusic/ Hemisphere Coffee Redline Roast: https://www.hemispherecoffeeroasters.com/products/redline-roast?_pos=1&_sid=9165d966a&_ss=r  ----more----As Always...Thank You For Listening  About Your Host: Rick Lee JamesOfficial Web Site: www.RickLeeJames.comGet Rick Lee James Latest Album: https://fanlink.to/RLJThunderFor Booking Inquiries  Click Hereor contact Gary StriplingBy Phone: 904.745.9151By Email: gary@themanagementagency.comManagement General Office Hours:Monday – 11Am – 5PMTuesday – 11Am – 5PMWednesday – Office closedThursday – 11Am – 5PMFriday – 11AM – 5PMSaturday – 11AM – 5PM This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rickleejames.substack.com/subscribe

Eric Metaxas asks Myron Magnet about his book, “Clarence Thomas and the Lost Constitution,” and why Thomas may be the most faithful originalist on the U.S. Supreme Court today.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

From Hotspur to Antonin Scalia, actor Edward Gero can (and does) play all manner of parts. An actor's actor, he is a shining light in Washington DC's theater community. He began his career as a classical actor playing some 60 roles for over 26 years at the Shakespeare Theatre Company. But he made the transition to contemporary work seamlessly. Bringing an authenticity and precision to roles as disparate as Mark Rothko in Red, Harry Brock in a revival of Born Yesterday, Scrooge in A Christmas Carol, and Antonin Scalia in The Originalist a role that was created for him. In this podcast, Gero talks about playing Shakespeare, his move to contemporary work, how Washington DC is a distinctive theater-town, and the power and wonder of theater. He is smart, funny and generous—a true bon vivant. Enjoy!

Any of these nominees would be superb and the court secured in its originalist leanings until the next vacancy...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The United States Senate returns to work this week and it’s time to talk about President Trump’s nominations again—especially those to the federal courts. With the recent death of “Liberal Lion” Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 9th Circuit has eight vacancies, but only two nominees. There are more than 150 vacancies across the federal courts as the White House nomination process, the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Democrats as a group have all worked at a snail’s pace. Where are the nominees? It would take a week to fill out the list and send the names forward—if there was resolve and a sense of urgency. It’s time for Senate Republicans to work as hard as ordinary Americans, especially when deadlines draw close. It’s time to act as though governing really is as important as senators campaigning for election say it is. Let’s see some nominees.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Stephen Reinhardt, who was called the “liberal lion” of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, passed away on March 29th in Los Angeles. During his almost 40 years on the appeals court bench, Reinhardt wrote opinions that struck down the constitutionality of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and overturned Proposition 8, California’s initiative defining marriage as a male-female union. Reinhardt’s death means that there are now seven vacancies on the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. President Trump has an historic opportunity to remake the Ninth Circuit—and the entire federal judiciary. The vast majority of his judicial nominees thus far have been stellar. They will adhere to the rule of law and interpret the Constitution based on the words in it, not the ideas they want to be in it. The President should continue his good work in this arena. Doing so will remake federal jurisprudence for decades to come.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.