Podcasts about professor fitzpatrick

Sarah sat down with Judge James C. Ho at The Dispatch Summit on November 12 for an in-depth conversation about key legal issues, including the legitimacy of the courts, judicial ethics, and the principles of birthright citizenship. The Agenda: —Cancel culture —Originalism —Elephants in Mouseholes —Court legitimacy —Judicial filibusters —Ethics of gifts —Birthright citizenship —First Amendment —Good judicial qualities Show Notes: —Judge Ho's letter on cancel culture —Essay No. 1 (1787) —Professor Fitzpatrick's reflection on reversals —Justice Alito's flags —Defining "American" Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2003, Professor Brian Fitzpatrick published a piece titled "The Diversity Lie" in which he discussed the recently decided Grutter v. Bollinger case. Twenty years later, the Supreme Court is on the precipice of deciding two important affirmative action cases in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC. How has Professor Fitzpatrick's analysis held up against the test of time? How has the Supreme Court changed? What does the future hold for affirmative action? Can universities install a program of race-neutral affirmative action? Professors Brian Fitzpatrick and Randall Kennedy joined us to consider these questions and more as we reflect on the 20th anniversary of Grutter v. Bollinger.Featuring:--Professor Brian Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt Law School--Professor Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor, Harvard Law School--[Moderator] Ted Frank, Director, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute

Professor Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School and Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness debate Professor Fitzpatrick’s provocative new book, The Conservative Case for Class Actions (University of Chicago Press).

Professor Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School and Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness debate Professor Fitzpatrick’s provocative new book, The Conservative Case for Class Actions (University of Chicago Press).

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Brian Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University and self-proclaimed “life-long Republican”, to discuss class action lawsuits, and specifically, Brian’s recent book on the subject, The Conservative Case for Class Actions.   In his new book, Brian makes the case for class action litigation a conservative’s view point. Arguing that conservatives, and even libertarians, believe that markets need at least some policing to thrive, from laws that enforce contracts, to laws that prevent companies from committing fraud, to laws that prohibit price fixing. Aaron and Brian break down what a class-action is, what the requirements are, and just how important they are to protect consumers from corporate wrongdoing.   Brian illustrates the different types of conservatives he sees and explains that there are only two ways of policing the marketplace: 1) private lawsuits filed by private citizens and their lawyers or 2) more government regulation. He argues that, for the same reasons conservatives prefer other private sector solutions to problems, they should prefer private enforcement of the law as well. Acknowledging that the class action is not perfect, Brian shows, in his book and in today’s episode, that our system is working better than one might expect given all the widespread misunderstanding and misinformation about class action lawsuits.  He also suggests a few tweaks that he hopes will persuade opponents to keep the class action around for the next generation of consumers, employees, and shareholders alike.   Brian Fitzpatrick’s research at Vanderbilt focuses on class action litigation, federal courts, judicial selection and constitutional law. A graduate of Harvard Law, Brian went on to clerk for Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. After his clerkships, Professor Fitzpatrick practiced commercial and appellate litigation for several years at Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C., and served as Special Counsel for the Supreme Court Nominations to U.S. Senator John Cornyn. He joined Vandberbilt’s law faculty in 2007 after serving as the John M. Olin Fellow at New York University School of Law and has received the Hall-Hartman Outstanding Professor Award, which recognizes excellence in classroom teaching, for his Civil Procedure course.       To learn more about Professor Brian Fitzpatrick, please visit his bio page at Vanderbilt here. To check out Professor Fitzpatrick’s book, “The Conservative Case for Class Actions,” please click here.     Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Brian Fitzpatrick     Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Facebook: @GOODLAWBADLAW Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

Bentham IMF Investment Manager and Legal Counsel, Sarah Tsou, talks with Professor Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School about how third-party litigation funding serves as a private sector solution for enforcement of meritorious cases.  We also discuss the application of ethical rules and common misconceptions, and Professor Fitzpatrick makes the “conservative case” for litigation funding and how it provides a market solution for leveling the playing field among litigants and aligning incentives.  

In our first ever episode, we have law professor Brian Fitzpatrick on the show. Brian's never voted for a Democrat in his life. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (not known to be particularly liberally). And he won an award from the Federalist Society. So why did he write a book called “The Conservative Case for Class Actions?” We dive deep into a spirited discussion over whether class actions are good for the country. (Spoiler alert, even Jay thinks that many are not.) Whether you agree or disagree, you will hear a radically new view of the politics behind the class action device and which pieces are working and which ones aren’t.For more about Professor Fitzpatrick, visit his website www.briantfitzpatrick.com.

Welcome to the La Trobe University's Clever Conversations. In this episode from our Ideas and Society program our panellists take you back to the Russian Revolution. Speaking on the centenary of one of the most significant moments in history is Professor Sheila Fitzpatrick, one of the world’s leading historians of the Soviet Union, and based at the University of Sydney. Leading the discussion is Mark Edele – one of Professor Fitzpatrick’s most distinguished former students and now Hansen Chair in History at the University of Melbourne. Together they reflect on the Soviet experience and the momentous global impact of the events of 1917.

Join us in a discussion with our experts, Professor Brian Fitzpatrick and Professor Stephen Ware, as we review The Case for Political Appointment of Judges, a new white paper from Professor Fitzpatrick which argues that political appointment is the best way to select state judges. This paper is a part of a series of papers commissioned by the Federalist Society on the leading methods of state judicial selection. The first paper in the series made the case for partisan judicial elections, and a future paper will make the case for commission-based appointment (the Missouri plan). Featuring:Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolProf. Stephen J. Ware, Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of Law

Join us in a discussion with our experts, Professor Brian Fitzpatrick and Professor Stephen Ware, as we review The Case for Political Appointment of Judges, a new white paper from Professor Fitzpatrick which argues that political appointment is the best way to select state judges. This paper is a part of a series of papers commissioned by the Federalist Society on the leading methods of state judicial selection. The first paper in the series made the case for partisan judicial elections, and a future paper will make the case for commission-based appointment (the Missouri plan). Featuring:Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolProf. Stephen J. Ware, Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of Law

I discuss the differing reasons put forward by academics for the sharp decline between 1911 and 1926 of the Protestant population of the twenty six counties that formed the Irish Free State. Census reports from the 1871-1911 period are used to question theories of long term Protestant natural decline. I argue that, up to 1911, Protestant natural change was either neutral or positive and all Protestant decline was due to emigration. I analyse the detailed information from the 1911 censuses that is now available to cast some new light on the nature of 1911-26 decline and questions some of the conclusions of more recent papers on the subject notably the Methodist membership study of Professor Fitzpatrick, where he argues that infertility was really the main agent of decline. Using data from 1911 census in conjunction with 1926 census reports, cohort depletion analysis is used to demonstrate that most 1911-26 Methodist decline occurred in the younger age groups – a characteristic associated with high emigration rather than low fertility.I contend that there is little or no evidence in the 1911 census of the sort of demographic collapse of child numbers that might have resulted in a chronic decline in Methodist membership numbers during the succeeding 15 years. I conclude that exceptionally high Protestant emigration did occur during this period, most of it in the period 1920-26, indicating that revolutionary violence and regime change might well have influenced the outflow. Declining Catholic emigration during this period suggests high exceptionally high Protestant emigration was not primarily economic driven. The mathematics behind Andrew Bielenberg’s 2013 estimate of between 2000 and 16000 involuntary Protestant emigrants is questioned. Had his methodology been correctly applied, his numbers would have been significantly higher. Donald Wood is an amateur historian who has taken a deep interest in Irish history, particularly the turbulent years surrounding Irish independence. I grew up in a Protestant farming community in West Cork in the decade following World War II. My family emigrated to England in the late 1950s (for economic reasons) and I pursued a career in the IT industry, mostly in the UK. Following my retirement, I have been applying my analytical skills to some of the contested issues surrounding the war of independence in general and, in particular, Protestant population change.

On this episode, we are joined by Professor David Fitzpatrick of Trinity College Dublin. Professor Fitzpatrick has just edited a collection of essays called Terror in Ireland – 1916 to 1923 by the Trinity History Workshop. In the second half of the show we are joined by Dr. Micheál Ó Siochrú of Trinity College Dublin. Dr. Ó Siochrú is a lecturer in Early Modern Irish history.In the interview, Dr. Ó Siochrú talks about the causes of the 1641 rebellion in Ireland.