Podcasts about scalia

Christopher J. Scalia is a senior fellow in the Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies department at the American Enterprise Institute. A former English professor, Dr. Scalia specialized in 18th-century and early 19th- century British literature. BOOK: 13 Novels Conservatives Will Love (but Probably Haven't Read)

 Let's stop the cycle of contempt and learn to disagree better! In this video, we discuss how to fix our broken conversations and bridge the divide in our nation.Are we really more divided than ever—or just worse at disagreeing?In this episode of An Ounce, we explore how contempt has crept into every corner of modern life—from relationships and work meetings to dinner tables and online comment sections—and why it's killing our ability to communicate. You'll hear insights from Stoic philosophers, historical figures like Lincoln and Mandela, and even modern research on what actually ends relationships (hint: it's not yelling).________________________________________⏱️ Chapters00:00 – Intro01:16 – Conversation That Broke Down02:41 – The Real Enemy03:49 – In the Living Room – Relationships04:40 – The Family Table – Political Polarization at Home05:31 – At Work06:27 – Online: Public Contempt Preformed for Audience07:33 – The Temptation of Contempt08:33 – Why Civility Isn't Enough09:16 – The Better Way10:43 – How Grace Stops Contempt11:25 – Challenge12:32 – An Ounce________________________________________

In this conversation, Christopher Scalia discusses his book '13 Novels Conservatives Will Love But Probably Haven't Read' and the importance of expanding the conservative literary canon. He emphasizes the value of fiction in understanding human nature and the wisdom it offers, especially in a distracted world. Scalia expresses concerns about a post-literate culture and shares insights on encouraging reading in children. The Karol Markowicz Show is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Wednesday & Friday. BUY CHRIS' NEW BOOK HERESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We continue our journey through the swirly twirly gumdrops of the Unitary Executive, our study of Justice Scalia's great dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and what it teaches us about Separation of Powers as established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Part 6, going through Roman numeral four (IV), entire. The Republican Professor is a pro-Separation-of-Powers-rightly-understood-executive-power-correctly-contemplated podcast. Therefore, welcome Justice Antonin Scalia to the podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. To support the podcast, support it. 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: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

This Day in Legal History: Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.On April 18, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., a significant decision reinforcing the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The case arose after Congress enacted legislation requiring federal courts to reopen certain final judgments in securities fraud cases that had been dismissed under an earlier statute of limitations ruling. The plaintiffs, whose claims had already been dismissed with finality, sought to revive their lawsuits under this new provision.In a 7–2 decision, the Court struck down the law, holding that Congress cannot force Article III courts to reopen final judgments. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia stressed the importance of finality in judicial decisions and warned against legislative interference with core judicial functions. He argued that once a case is decided, it becomes law of the case and should not be revisited at Congress's whim.The ruling underscored the judiciary's independence from political pressure and reaffirmed that each branch of government must respect the constitutional boundaries of the others. Scalia noted that permitting Congress to override final court decisions would blur the lines between legislative and judicial authority, threatening the rule of law.This decision was not just a technical interpretation of procedural law; it was a firm statement about institutional integrity. Plaut became a cornerstone case for understanding the limits of congressional power over the courts. It continues to be cited in debates over judicial independence and the sanctity of final judgments.A federal appeals court rejected an emergency attempt by the Trump administration to block a judge's order requiring the government to aid in the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man deported to El Salvador despite a 2019 court ruling barring his removal. The court condemned the Justice Department's actions, with Judge Harvie Wilkinson calling them a violation of fundamental liberties and due process. He criticized the administration for acting as though it could abandon individuals in foreign prisons without legal recourse.The Supreme Court previously upheld a similar directive from District Judge Paula Xinis, requiring the administration to work toward bringing Abrego Garcia back from Salvadoran custody. The government claims Garcia is affiliated with the MS-13 gang and lacks the right to remain in the U.S., arguing that Xinis overstepped by involving herself in foreign affairs. However, Wilkinson stressed that due process rights apply regardless of alleged affiliations and warned that ignoring court orders could lead to broader abuses of power, including the potential deportation of U.S. citizens.Abrego Garcia, who has no criminal record in either country, was deported alongside 250 alleged gang members to El Salvador's high-security prison. His 2019 immigration court ruling protected him from deportation due to threats of gang-based extortion.Trump Loses Emergency Appeal to Halt Maryland Deportation CaseThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on May 15 regarding President Donald Trump's attempt to limit birthright citizenship, a constitutional principle rooted in the 14th Amendment. Although the case won't directly determine the legality of Trump's executive order, it will address whether lower court rulings that blocked the policy nationwide should be scaled back to apply only to specific plaintiffs or jurisdictions.Trump's order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to babies born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident. It directs federal agencies to withhold documents like Social Security cards and passports from newborns who don't meet that criterion. Critics argue this violates well-established legal interpretations of the 14th Amendment, which affirms citizenship for nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.The Justice Department argues that nationwide injunctions—orders that block policies across the country—exceed judicial authority and should be narrowed. The administration also questions whether the states and groups suing have legal standing. Despite these claims, lower courts have uniformly refused to allow the executive order to take effect.Opponents, including 22 Democratic-led states and immigration advocacy groups, argue that Trump's effort seeks to strip citizenship from thousands of children and overturn long-standing legal precedent. Trump maintains that birthright citizenship was originally intended only for formerly enslaved people, not for the children of non-citizens.US Birthright Citizenship: Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Case - BloombergUS Supreme Court to hear Trump bid to enforce birthright citizenship order | ReutersFifth Circuit Judge James Ho sharply criticized the power of trial-level judges in a recent opinion, focusing on what he sees as overreach in politically sensitive cases. Ho issued a writ of mandamus instructing a district judge in Louisiana to vacate her order reopening a death penalty case years after it had been dismissed. He was joined by fellow Trump appointee Judge Andrew Oldham, while Judge Catharina Haynes dissented, arguing the appellate process should proceed normally.In his concurring opinion, Ho warned against what he called the misuse of judicial power to obstruct democratic outcomes. He connected the Louisiana case to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that reversed a nationwide order from Chief Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., which had blocked the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. The Supreme Court said the Venezuelan plaintiffs should have filed their suit in Texas, where they were detained, effectively transferring jurisdiction and narrowing Boasberg's reach.Ho used that ruling to reinforce his argument that appellate courts must intervene swiftly when district judges exceed their authority. He accused some judges of rushing to block policies they oppose politically, calling it a threat to the electorate's choices and governmental efficiency. He argued that deferring to the standard appeals timeline enables what he called “district judge supremacy.”Judge Haynes pushed back in dissent, criticizing the majority's allegation that the district court manipulated legal processes, especially since neither party in the case had challenged the judge's integrity. She maintained the threshold for a mandamus was not met and objected to the majority's tone and assumptions.James Ho Knocks Trial Judge Who Blocked Venezuelan DeportationsThis week's closing theme is The Moldau by Bedřich Smetana, a defining work in Czech Romantic nationalism and one of the most evocative tone poems in classical music. Smetana, born in 1824 in what is now the Czech Republic, was a pioneering composer who sought to express the identity, history, and natural beauty of his homeland through music. A contemporary of Liszt and Wagner, he was deeply influenced by the idea of programmatic music—compositions that tell a story or paint a picture without the use of words.The Moldau (or Vltava, in Czech) is the second and most famous piece from Smetana's larger symphonic cycle Má vlast(My Homeland), composed between 1874 and 1879. The piece traces the course of the Vltava River from its source in the Bohemian forest, through the countryside, past villages and castles, and ultimately to its merger with the Elbe River. Through rich orchestration and shifting textures, Smetana portrays everything from bubbling springs and flowing currents to a peasant wedding and moonlit night dances by water nymphs.Composed while Smetana was going completely deaf, The Moldau is as much a feat of imagination as it is of musical skill. The main theme, introduced by the flutes and then carried through the orchestra, is one of the most recognizable and emotionally stirring in classical music. It serves not just as a musical depiction of a river but as a symbol of Czech identity, resilience, and natural beauty.Closing with The Moldau offers a moment to reflect on continuity, movement, and national spirit—fitting themes for a week shaped by legal currents and constitutional debate.Without further ado, The Moldau, by Bedřich Smetana – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

We continue our journey through the swirly twirly gumdrops of the Unitary Executive, our study of Justice Scalia's great dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and what it teaches us about Separation of Powers as established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Part 5, going through Roman numeral three, entire. The Republican Professor is a pro-Separation-of-Powers-rightly-understood-executive-power-correctly-contemplated podcast. Therefore, welcome Justice Antonin Scalia to the podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. To support the podcast, support it. 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: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

VINCENZO SCALIA - CRIMINI E CAPORALI - presentato da Massimo Alberti

Una cavalcata lunga dieci anni ha portato alla Relife di oggi una realtà da 500 milioni di fatturato e più di 1200 collaboratori, partendo da Benfante, una storica impresa di famiglia genovese che fatturava una quindicina di milioni di euro.Grazie al coinvolgimento di Xenon prima e F2i poi, l'azienda è potuta crescere grazie ad una campagna mirata che dal recupero della carta nel territorio genovese e alessandrino ha sviluppato un gruppo di rilevanza nazionale con un modello di economia circolare fondato su 4 divisioni: Recycling, per il recupero dei rifiuti solidi urbani e industriali, Paper Mill, per la produzione di cartone da materia prima secondaria proveniente dalla divisione Recycling, Paper Packaging, con tre scatolifici integrati e infine Plastic Packaging con il riciclo della plastica.Ma non è stata certo una cavalcata facile, ci sono state le sfide dell'integrazione tra società e famiglie imprenditoriali, tra dimensione finanziaria e industriale, tra imprenditori e manager.Avremo modo di ascoltare Marco Benfante, l'imprenditore che con il fratello Paolo guidava l'impresa da cui tutto è nato ed Enzo Scalia, il manager che dopo aver lavorato in grandi realtà del settore ha condiviso l'idea e l'impegno per lo sviluppo del gruppo. Il sito di Relifehttps://relifegroup.com/Il profilo LinkedIn di Enzo Scaliahttps://www.linkedin.com/in/enzo-scalia-8a32103/

There are pleasantly surprising lessons about Second Amendment jurisprudence throughout this section as we continue our study of Justice Scalia's great dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and what it teaches us about Separation of Powers as established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Part 4, going through Roman numeral two, the second half. We'll finish Roman numeral two. Pay attention to the criticism of interest balancing tests in adjudicating Constitutionally vested powers and rights in this episode, connecting the issue in this case to the Second Amendment . The Republican Professor is a pro-Separation-of-Powers-rightly-understood-executive-power-correctly-contemplated podcast. Therefore, welcome Justice Antonin Scalia to the podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. To support the podcast, support it. 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: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Mark Scalia host of Radio Irregardless is our guest in the Acement this week. Not only is he the host of a successful online radio show, Mark has had an amazing career as a comedian and actor. Mark also established the Salem Comedy Festival in 2016. We covered a lot of territory in this conversation, including Mark's very own Funny Bad Gig story. Check out Mark at https://www.facebook.com/MarkScaliapersonalCheck out Wicked Hot Pickles at https://www.facebook.com/wickedhotpickles

We continue our study of Justice Scalia's great dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and what it teaches us about Separation of Powers as established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Part 3, going through Roman numeral two, the first half. We'll finish Roman numeral two next time. Pay attention to the criticism of interest balancing tests in adjudicating Constitutionally vested powers and rights in this episode, connecting the issue in this case to the Second Amendment . The Republican Professor is a pro-Separation-of-Powers-rightly-understood-executive-power-correctly-contemplated podcast. Therefore, welcome Justice Antonin Scalia to the podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. To support the podcast, support it. 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: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

We continue our study of Justice Scalia's great dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and what it teaches us about Separation of Powers as established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Part 2, going through Roman numeral one. Next time, we get to Roman numeral two and beyond. The Republican Professor is a pro-Separation-of-Powers-rightly-understood-executive-power-correctly-contemplated podcast. Therefore, welcome Justice Antonin Scalia to the podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. To support the podcast, support it. 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: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Inez Stepman of the Independent Women's Forum fills in for Jim on the 3 Martini Lunch podcast. Join Inez and Greg as they discuss Sen. Mitch McConnell announcing he won't run again, the latest unspeakable atrocities committed by Hamas, and how federal agencies are making DOGE-related budget cuts painful for the public.First, they analyze Mitch McConnell's decision to retire after 42 years in the Senate and 18 years as GOP leader, and they assess his performance. They credit McConnell for defending free speech, blocking left-wing policies, and confirming conservative judicial nominees. However, they criticize his failure to address federal spending and his lack of progress on conservative priorities during Republican control of the Senate.Next, Inez and Greg express their outrage over the latest atrocities perpetrated by Hamas, including a gruesome ceremony involving the return of hostages' remains and reports detailing how the two young brothers who were brutally murdered. In addition,  the remains of their mother, Shiri Bibas, were excluded from the return to Israel. With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowing reprisals, Inez and Greg reflect on the critical details of the Bibas family's abduction and the role of the Red Cross in facilitating the spectacle we saw this week.Inez and Greg discuss government-run sites making DOGE-related budget cuts as painful as possible for visitors. They highlight three instances of "malicious compliance" and recall past government shutdown tactics used by Democrats to needlessly inconvenience the public. 

We begin our study of Justice Scalia's great dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and what it teaches us about Separation of Powers as established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Part 1. Next time, we get to Roman numeral one and beyond. The Republican Professor is a pro-Separation-of-Powers-rightly-understood-executive-power-correctly-contemplated podcast. Therefore, welcome Justice Antonin Scalia to the podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. To support the podcast, support it. 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: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Vince speaks with James Rosen, Chief White House Correspondent for Newsmax and Author of “Scalia” about Joe Biden’s appearance at last night’s press conference which included a cut and a bruise on his face. For more coverage on the issues that matter to you visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 3-6pm. To join the conversation, check us out on social media: @WMAL @VinceCoglianese. Executive Producer: Corey Inganamort @TheBirdWords See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

1/2/24 Hour 2 Vince speaks with James Rosen, Chief White House Correspondent for Newsmax and Author of “Scalia” about Joe Biden’s appearance at last night’s press conference which included a cut and a bruise on his face. Vince speaks with Philip Wegmann, White House Correspondent for Real Clear Politics, about how the Speakers race is shaping up before tomorrow’s vote. For more coverage on the issues that matter to you visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 3-6pm. To join the conversation, check us out on social media: @WMAL @VinceCoglianese. Executive Producer: Corey Inganamort @TheBirdWords See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this week's episode of ‘The Katie Phang Show': As the year closes, Congress suits up for a turbulent year ahead that could see Speaker Johnson facing a tough battle to keep his Speakership. Rep. Becca Balint joins to share her thoughts on how Democrats plan to keep Congress functional. Plus, a new report from Senate Judiciary Democrats is laying out the specifics of the Supreme Court's ethics concerns. Slate's Mark Joseph Stern joins to discuss the report, as well as the status of any potential legislative reforms. All that and more on ‘The Katie Phang Show'.

All'anagrafe è Giovanna Guarrasi, per tutti è Vanina, per lettrici e lettori è la protagonista seriale dei romanzi di Cristina Cassar Scalia che ha ispirato anche una serie tv. La -vicequestora era comparsa per la prima volta nel 2018 in "Sabbia nera" e ora è protagonista di "Il castagno dei cento cavalli" (Einaudi). Vanina deve indagare sull'omicidio di una donna sui 60 anni: il suo corpo è stato trovato sotto il cosiddetto Castagno dei cento cavalli, ai piedi dell'Etna (un albero straordinario che esiste realmente ed è patrimonio dell'Unesco). La donna è stata strangolata e poi le hanno amputato mani e piedi. Stavolta ci sono pochi elementi dalla scientifica e Vanina, supportata dal commisario in pensione Patanè, deve procedere secondo i metodi di indagine vecchio stile. Nella seconda parte un po' di consigli di lettura per il periodo delle feste. -"La vegetariana" di Han Kang, Nobel per la letteratura 2024 (Adelphi - traduz. Milena Zemira Ciccimarra) -"Settembre nero" di Sandro Veronesi (La nave di Teseo) -"L'ultimo pinguino delle langhe" di Orso Tosco (Rizzoli), Premio Scerbanenco 2024 -"Il tatuatore innamorato" di Fulvio Ervas (Marcos y Marcos) -"Risplendo non brucio" di Ilaria Tuti (Longanesi) -"Sul corpo del diavolo" di Fernando Coratelli (OvePossibile)-"Silenzio - Le sette vite di Diana Karenne" di Melania Mazzucco (Einaudi) -"Visus - Storie del volto dall'antichità al selfie" di Riccardo Falcinelli (Einaudi) -"Lontano dalla vita degli altri" di Giovanna Canzi e Gabriella Giandelli (Marinoni Books) -"116 film da vedere prima dei 16 anni" di Manlio Castagna (Mondadori) -"Le caramelle magiche" e "Come di fanno le caramelle magiche" di Heena Baek (Terre di mezzo)

Karen Falasca was the last person to see her sister Denise alive before she was murdered in 1969. Haunted by the tragedy, Karen spoke to podcaster Anthony Scalia about her five decade search for Denise's unidentified killer. Scalia retraced Karen's investigation into likely suspects. But the sister remained skeptical of the police's findings. And as a terminal illness threatened to take her life, Karen made one request of Scalia: finish her work and learn the truth behind Denise's murder.In the podcast “Denise Didn't Come Home” from truth.media and Sony Music Entertainment, Scalia repeats Karen's investigation and questions the person the cops say strangled the 15-year-old all those years ago. He also recounts Karen's life story, their blossoming friendship, and explores whether her memories of that day hold up.OUR SPOILER-FREE REVIEWS OF "DENISE DIDN'T COME HOME" BEGIN IN THE FINAL TEN MINUTES OF THE EPISODE. For exclusive podcasts and more, sign up at Patreon.Sign up for our newsletter at crimewriterson.com.

THIS IS NOT WHAT RECESS APPOINTMENTS ARE FOR When I heard yesterday that Trump wanted the Senate to come to order and then recess so he could make recess appointments for his Cabinet, especially with Matt Gaetz, I got mad. This is NOT what recess appointment power is supposed to be used for. Obama got his hand slapped by the Supreme Court when he appointed a bunch of people to the National Labor Relations Board in this fashion and the more conservative justices all joined an opinion by the late great Antonin Scalia in which he said: As Scalia explained in a lengthy statement from the bench that followed Breyer's summary of the Court's decision, he and his three colleagues would have held that the president's recess appointments power is substantially more limited than the Court ruled today. For example, they would have ruled that the president can only make recess appointments during inter-session recesses, and only then to fill vacancies that are created during that recess. And the majority did not escape Scalia's trademark incisive remarks, as he criticized it for relying on an “adverse-possession theory of executive authority: “Presidents have long claimed the powers in question, and the Senate has not disputed those claims with sufficient vigor, so the Court should not ‘upset the compromises and working arrangements that the elected branches of Government themselves have reached.'”Three of the justices who joined this opinion are still on the bench and have been joined by even more conservative justices so I would expect Trump to have his nominations invalidated too. By the way, Gaetz already resigned from Congress. None of the other appointees have. You know why he resigned? Because the House Ethics investigation was due to release their findings,which now won't happen because he isn't a member of Congress. How convenient. I've got Daily Caller News Foundation reporter Katelynn Richardson on at 2:30 to discuss.

Episode replay from the first season. Today's guest is Fr. Paul Scalia, the Vicar General of the Diocese of Arlington. Fr. Scalia shares his testimony and a bit about growing up with his father, Antonin Scalia. He talks about his calling into the priesthood and what it's like to be a priest for such a young diocese. We discuss the state of men today and how in today's society, men have been deprived of heroes and the role of providing and protecting. Additionally, we talk about the need for fraternity, specifically in seminaries and the priesthood, and for fatherhood in the family and the Church.   Subscribe/Rate Never miss out on an episode by subscribing to the podcast on whatever platform you are listening on. Help other people find the show by sharing this episode on your social media. Thanks!   Connect with Brett: Website: https://brettpowell.org Twitter/X: @BrettPowellorg https://twitter.com/BrettPowellorg Coaching: https://buildmylifecompass.com/coaching   Music "Southern Gothic" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/   Editing by ForteCatholic (https://www.fortecatholic.com)

Send us a textTodd Zwicky, professor at George Mason's Scalia Law School, challenges some conventional legal doctrine, taking up the views of Bruno Leone and Friedrich Hayek. What if the legal world has underestimated the power of spontaneous order? Todd's intellectual journey sheds light on how these groundbreaking ideas contrast sharply with the dominant constructivist views shaping contemporary legal thought. Todd offers perspectives on the role of intuition and reasonableness in the courtroom, inspired by the legacies of Leone and Hayek. Uncover the hidden parallels between market dynamics and legal systems, emphasizing the fluidity of Roman law as a process of discovery. Links:Todd Zywicki's Faculty PageZywicki's published work on Leoni, and the Common LawThe Rise and Fall of Efficiency in the Common Law: A Supply-Side Analysis, 97 NORTHWESTERN L. REV. 1551 (2003). Common Law and Economic Efficiency (with Edward Stringham), in 7 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW AND ECONOMICS: THE PRODUCTION OF LEGAL RULES (2d ed., Francesco Parisi, ed., 2012). Bruno Leoni's Legacy and Continued Relevance, 30(1) J. OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE 131-41 (2015).Austrian Law and Economics and Efficiency in the Common Law (with Edward Stringham), in RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON AUSTRIAN LAW AND ECONOMICS 192 (Todd J. Zywicki and Peter J. Boettke, eds. 2017). The Loper Bright SCOTUS Decision (And the Gorsuch concurrence!)If you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com ! You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz

Jill Barton spent the first decade of her career working as a journalist, with the Associated Press Stylebook always at hand to determine word usage and punctuation choices. But when she became an attorney, she says, she realized that there was no single equivalent style guide when it came to legal writing—and she had to adjust to using the Oxford comma. As a professor of legal writing at the University of Miami, she also began to notice a contrast between the classic 19th and 20th century court opinions her students were being given to read and the style of writing coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 21st century. Standards were changing at the highest court of the land, but the wider legal community wasn't necessarily aware of it. Barton spent five years analyzing more than 10,000 pages from Supreme Court opinions, and The Supreme Guide to Writing is the result. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Barton and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss her findings, and what some of the bigger surprises were. One of her biggest takeaways is that the justices are not a conservative bunch when it comes to writing style. For example, during most of Justice Antonin Scalia's tenure on the court, he was a strident opponent of contractions—can't, don't, shouldn't were always cannot, do not, should not. But in his final years, Scalia did sprinkle in a few contractions, and his replacement, Justice Neil Gorsuch, is “King of the Contractions,” Barton says. The justices were willing to depart from grammar rules if adhering to them caused stilted writing, Barton found. Chief Justice John Roberts uses commas based on cadence rather than simply following strict English grammar guidance. All the justices showed a marked preference for active verbs and shorter, simpler phrases. They have adapted to using pronouns that match litigants' gender identities, and to using the singular “they” rather than “he or she.”  The Supreme Guide to Writing notes when the court shows unanimity in a usage rule, and when there is disagreement. While each justice shows internal consistency with how they show a possessive when a singular noun ends in “s,” there is no group consensus on apostrophe-s versus a single apostrophe. Barton discusses her research process, offers more insight into the way legal language is evolving, and shares how practitioners can use her book to modernize their own writing.

Jill Barton spent the first decade of her career working as a journalist, with the Associated Press Stylebook always at hand to determine word usage and punctuation choices. But when she became an attorney, she says, she realized that there was no single equivalent style guide when it came to legal writing—and she had to adjust to using the Oxford comma. As a professor of legal writing at the University of Miami, she also began to notice a contrast between the classic 19th and 20th century court opinions her students were being given to read and the style of writing coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 21st century. Standards were changing at the highest court of the land, but the wider legal community wasn't necessarily aware of it. Barton spent five years analyzing more than 10,000 pages from Supreme Court opinions, and The Supreme Guide to Writing is the result. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Barton and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss her findings, and what some of the bigger surprises were. One of her biggest takeaways is that the justices are not a conservative bunch when it comes to writing style. For example, during most of Justice Antonin Scalia's tenure on the court, he was a strident opponent of contractions—can't, don't, shouldn't were always cannot, do not, should not. But in his final years, Scalia did sprinkle in a few contractions, and his replacement, Justice Neil Gorsuch, is “King of the Contractions,” Barton says. The justices were willing to depart from grammar rules if adhering to them caused stilted writing, Barton found. Chief Justice John Roberts uses commas based on cadence rather than simply following strict English grammar guidance. All the justices showed a marked preference for active verbs and shorter, simpler phrases. They have adapted to using pronouns that match litigants' gender identities, and to using the singular “they” rather than “he or she.”  The Supreme Guide to Writing notes when the court shows unanimity in a usage rule, and when there is disagreement. While each justice shows internal consistency with how they show a possessive when a singular noun ends in “s,” there is no group consensus on apostrophe-s versus a single apostrophe. Barton discusses her research process, offers more insight into the way legal language is evolving, and shares how practitioners can use her book to modernize their own writing.

Jill Barton spent the first decade of her career working as a journalist, with the Associated Press Stylebook always at hand to determine word usage and punctuation choices. But when she became an attorney, she says, she realized that there was no single equivalent style guide when it came to legal writing—and she had to adjust to using the Oxford comma. As a professor of legal writing at the University of Miami, she also began to notice a contrast between the classic 19th and 20th century court opinions her students were being given to read and the style of writing coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 21st century. Standards were changing at the highest court of the land, but the wider legal community wasn't necessarily aware of it. Barton spent five years analyzing more than 10,000 pages from Supreme Court opinions, and The Supreme Guide to Writing is the result. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Barton and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss her findings, and what some of the bigger surprises were. One of her biggest takeaways is that the justices are not a conservative bunch when it comes to writing style. For example, during most of Justice Antonin Scalia's tenure on the court, he was a strident opponent of contractions—can't, don't, shouldn't were always cannot, do not, should not. But in his final years, Scalia did sprinkle in a few contractions, and his replacement, Justice Neil Gorsuch, is “King of the Contractions,” Barton says. The justices were willing to depart from grammar rules if adhering to them caused stilted writing, Barton found. Chief Justice John Roberts uses commas based on cadence rather than simply following strict English grammar guidance. All the justices showed a marked preference for active verbs and shorter, simpler phrases. They have adapted to using pronouns that match litigants' gender identities, and to using the singular “they” rather than “he or she.”  The Supreme Guide to Writing notes when the court shows unanimity in a usage rule, and when there is disagreement. While each justice shows internal consistency with how they show a possessive when a singular noun ends in “s,” there is no group consensus on apostrophe-s versus a single apostrophe. Barton discusses her research process, offers more insight into the way legal language is evolving, and shares how practitioners can use her book to modernize their own writing.

In this episode, we welcome Dr. Joseph Scalia, a dentist and entrepreneur with over a decade of experience. Dr. Scalia shares his unique perspective on the vital connection between oral hygiene and overall wellness, discussing how proper dental care not only affects heart health and digestion but also supports a radiant, healthy lifestyle.  We debunk common myths about oral hygiene, explore daily habits that can transform your oral health, and discuss how advancements in technology are shaping the future of dentistry.  LINKS:  Discover all things Boutique Skin Envie here.

THE TIM JONES AND CHRIS ARPS SHOW 0:00 SEG 1 Yesterday pagers blew up and today walkie-talkies blew up 16:16 SEG 2 Tom Jipping, Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, talks about Hillary Clinton telling MSNBC yesterday that people should be punished – even criminally – for posting “misinformation” online. | Selling Tik-Tok | The Judicial-Confirmation Standings as the Senate Returns to Work | Constitution Day and working for Scalia back in 1986https://twitter.com/TomJipping https://www.heritage.org/staff/thomas-jipping 35:00 SEG 3 Chris' Corner is about Kamala's easy interview with the black press https://www.jeffersoncountyportauthority.com/ https://newstalkstl.com/  FOLLOW TIM - https://twitter.com/SpeakerTimJones    FOLLOW CHRIS - https://twitter.com/chris_arps    24/7 LIVESTREAM - http://bit.ly/NEWSTALKSTLSTREAMS  RUMBLE - https://rumble.com/NewsTalkSTL   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

THE TIM JONES AND CHRIS ARPS SHOW 0:00 SEG 1 Yesterday pagers blew up and today walkie-talkies blew up 16:16 SEG 2 Tom Jipping, Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, talks about Hillary Clinton telling MSNBC yesterday that people should be punished – even criminally – for posting “misinformation” online. | Selling Tik-Tok | The Judicial-Confirmation Standings as the Senate Returns to Work | Constitution Day and working for Scalia back in 1986https://twitter.com/TomJipping https://www.heritage.org/staff/thomas-jipping 35:00 SEG 3 Chris' Corner is about Kamala's easy interview with the black press https://www.jeffersoncountyportauthority.com/ https://newstalkstl.com/  FOLLOW TIM - https://twitter.com/SpeakerTimJones    FOLLOW CHRIS - https://twitter.com/chris_arps    24/7 LIVESTREAM - http://bit.ly/NEWSTALKSTLSTREAMS  RUMBLE - https://rumble.com/NewsTalkSTL   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Riding Shotgun With Charlie #211 Dick Heller Heller v DC   Back in 2018, I was heading to hear some friends speak at the Heller 10 Celebration hosted by Second Amendment Institute. I got a call from one of my friends and she said “we're going to Heller's house”. I wondered “who's we? Is it her? Am I part of we?”. She called back and I got to go hang out at the Heller resident. The next day, I found myself being asked/told that I was going to give an impromptu speech on the Supreme Court Steps. I've seen Dick at a number of events and got to film this show on our way to go shoot sporting clays at the M&M Hunting Preserve in New Jersey. He was the keynote at a fundraiser the night before. We shot clays with John Petrolino (RSWC #093), Gabby Franco (RSWC #), and Eric, who was helping get Dick around for the weekend.    We've all heard of the Heller decision. We all know what happened in the Heller case. It's been cited and referenced in cases upon cases. It's referenced in the McDonald v Chicago and NYSRPA v Bruen. If you haven't read that “magnificent Scalia decision”, you need to do some homework.    The Heller case was ruled in 2008, but it started years before. Getting a case to the SCOTUS takes time and money. And lots of both. Several years before, Dick was friends with a fighter pilot and instructor and Vietnam veteran. He was also an Olympic shooter in 1980. Dick rented him a room. So he came over with a truck full of guns, which was illegal at the time, and said they're all going to jail. The friend got the guns out of DC and decided that he was going to go to law school to fight this nonsense. Heller said he was going to become a cop and they'll give him a gun to protect them, but he won't be able to protect himself. This is the beginning of the case.    When the case was done, Heller had to sign 12 more papers for another case just so the lawyers would get paid. He points out that the government pays to fight us with our own money in the form of taxes. And we also have to pay with our own money to fight the government. Heller's team of lawyers were able to win the case despite the unlimited funds that DC has.    The case went to a federal court since it was a Constitutional issue. But it didn't rule in Heller's favor the first time. So they appealed to the DC Circuit Court. There they prevail. During one of the trials, the opposing attorney admits to the judge that they just don't want guns in DC. The lawyer hadn't seen or heard the news that crimes in DC at the time was rising and a very violent city to live in.   Heller also shares that with his ruling in 2008 and with Sandy Hook happening in 2012, he was posed with what kind of influence his case could have been responsible for that incident. Ultimately, each individual has to be responsible for their actions. His ruling shouldn't, and didn't, have anything to do with other acts of evil people.    For years now, Heller has been associated with Gun Owners of America because they are the group that will not compromise our rights away. He's been to a number of the Coalition of New Jersey Gun Owners and Women for Gun Rights events up and down the east coast. And he's been to several of the other national 2A events around the country. If you get a chance to see him and hear him speak, you need to take that. He's a national treasure. And you can hear some of his story here.    Favorite quotes: “Everybody out there can do a little bit of something.” “The city has unlimited funding in the form of our tax dollars… with which to hurt us with our own money.” “You don't whimp your way to the Supreme Court.” “In the arrogance of government, they thought they would have the high court voting on their side of the law.” “Sometimes you have to pull up your big  boy pants and understand who you are and what you're doing.” Heller Foundation https://www.hellerfoundation.org/   The Heller Decision https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep554/usrep554570/usrep554570.pdf   Gun Owners of America https://www.gunowners.org/   Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners https://www.cnjfo.com/ Second Amendment Foundation https://secure.anedot.com/saf/donate?sc=RidingShotgun    Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms https://www.ccrkba.org/     Please support the Riding Shotgun With Charlie sponsors and supporters.    Buy RSWC & GunGram shirts & hoodies, stickers & patches, and mugs at the store! http://ridingshotgunwithcharlie.com/rswc-shop/   Dennis McCurdy Author, Speaker, Firewalker http://www.find-away.com/   Self Defense Radio Network http://sdrn.us/   Buy a Powertac Flashlight, use RSWC as the discount code and save 15% www.powertac.com/RSWC   SABRE Red Pepper Spray  https://lddy.no/1iq1n   Or listen on: iTunes/Apple podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/riding-shotgun-with-charlie/id1275691565

How SCOTUS turned ex-presidents into immune monarchs, made them above the law and protected by an “authoritarian constitution.” Read More: www.WhoWhatWhy.org

Professor Adrian Vermeule, an administrative and constitutional law expert, argued during an October 2022 panel discussion at Harvard Law School that the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia began his career on the bench as a proponent of the administrative state and only later evolved into its most fearsome foe. His remarks were followed by responses by Andrew Oldham, a judge who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and fellow Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig.

Quick recap The team discussed the upcoming elections, focusing on the need for secure voting methods, fairness in ballot counting, and the role of activists in ensuring a fair election. They also introduced notable figures, including Christian and Dennis Bernstein, who shared their views on women's rights, voter education, and the importance of poetry in times of uncertainty. Lastly, they engaged in discussions about potential running mates for Kamala Harris, the interconnectedness of all work, and the historic nature of Harris becoming the first woman of color to hold the presidency. Next steps Karen Greenberg and Julian Zelitzer to continue promoting their book "Our Nation at Risk: Election Integrity as a National Security Issue Christian Nunez and NOW to continue get-out-the-vote efforts and voter education initiatives Dennis Bernstein to follow up on discussing Diablo Canyon on his radio show Harvey Wasserman to connect Karen Greenberg and Julian Zelitzer with Dennis Bernstein for a potential radio interview Harvey Wasserman to reach out to Barbara Koppel about obtaining video footage from Woodstock '94 Myla Reson to monitor astrological aspects related to upcoming political events Harvey Wasserman to write a letter to the current Mayor of Chicago regarding protest permits for the upcoming Democratic Convention Mike Hirsch to prepare audio recording of his composition for next week's call Harvey Wasserman to invite Mimi Gurman back next week to read her poetry Call participants to continue discussing and analyzing potential VP picks for Kamala Harris Call participants to monitor and support Cori Bush's primary campaign in the coming days Harvey Wasserman and Myla Reson to host their radio show on Wednesday at 3:05 PM Pacific time on KPFK.org Summary Automatic Meeting Summary and LSD Discussion Gree-Gree introduced an automatic meeting summary feature, which could simplify the work of the station board secretaries. myla and Mike discussed the potential benefits and issues, including name recognition accuracy. Meanwhile, karen presented while Win led a discussion on LSD legalization and the Fermi nuclear plant incident. The group also discussed a book by karen and julian about a potential "armed coup," with Win praising their credentials. Lastly, Linda Foley, a Maryland representative, joined as a guest, and plans were made to feature poetry readings by Dennis Bernstein in the following hour. Election Security and Voting Rights Discussion Win initiated a discussion about the security of the upcoming elections and the nation, with karen and julian sharing their concerns. karen emphasized the importance of viewing elections as a national security issue, given the various vulnerabilities and threats. julian discussed the relevance of the issues surrounding voting rights and election administration in the current political climate, highlighting the potential for increased political support to tackle these problems. The discussion also touched on the origins of these issues in the 21st century, with Win citing examples of voter roll purges and alleged electoral fraud in several states. The conversation concluded with the importance of election security and the potential threats to the upcoming presidential election being emphasized, with julian suggesting the reintroduction of measures to restore the Voting Rights Act. Introducing Notable Figures and Endorsing Kamala Harris Win introduced several notable figures including Delegate Foley, a journalist and former president of the newspaper guild, and Christian, a social worker and women's rights advocate. Christian, representing the National Organization for Women, emphasized the importance of fighting for women's civil, voting, and reproductive rights, and the need to combat disinformation and oppression in the upcoming presidential election. He also announced their Political Action Committee's official endorsement of Kamala Harris as the Presidential nominee, made the day after Joe Biden endorsed Harris. Securing Elections and Protecting Democracy The team discussed concerns about the integrity of the US election process, focusing on the need for secure voting methods, such as hand-marked paper ballots, and the importance of fairness in the selection of those who count the ballots. They also highlighted the role of activists and grassroots movements in ensuring a fair election, and the potential impact of high volunteer rates for campaigns. The discussion touched on the upcoming election in North Carolina, the need for voter education, and the potential challenges and vulnerabilities in the election process. The team also emphasized the importance of unity and solidarity in protecting democracy, and the need to prevent a regression to pre-Civil Rights era conditions if Donald Trump is re-elected. Dennis Bernstein's Poetry and Election Discussion Win introduced Christian, who had to leave early, and then invited Dennis Bernstein, a poet and talk show host, to share his work. Dennis read two poems: one in memory of his brother who was a skilled mechanic, and another in honor of his father, a war hero who often spoke of a bee that saved his life. The meeting also included an open forum discussion about the upcoming election, but no official endorsements were made. Poetry Sharing and Resilience Discussion Dennis shared a poem about resilience and hope, emphasizing the importance of living fully despite difficult circumstances. Tatanka thanked Dennis for his poetry and encouraged others to continue sending letters to Biden and Harris. Win then shared a poem about his experience at Woodstock, reflecting on the loss of his parents and the spiritual connection he felt at the event. The conversation ended with Win sharing another poem titled "Shoshi and Daddy," which he dedicated to his mother. Sharing Personal Poetry and Emily Dickinson Win shared a personal and touching experience with his daughter on Mother's Day, which was followed by Tatanka's drum song "2 Hearts, one drum," emphasizing the power of love and the importance of being present in the moment. Dennis shared a personal anecdote about his mother's poem and encouraged others to share their own poetic works, with myla affirming that everyone in the Zoom call likely had a poem to share. The group also discussed the life and work of Emily Dickinson, highlighting her impact and influence, and mentioned an ongoing exhibition in Amherst, Massachusetts, and a yearly gathering of her fans to read her poetry. Woodstock Memories and Regrets Ron and Win reminisced about their experiences at Woodstock in 1994 and 1969. Win recounted being asked to give a speech criticizing Pepsi and other bottlers at Woodstock '94, though Pepsi threatened to withhold sponsorship if he did so. Ron shared an anecdote about interacting with Country Joe of Country Joe and the Fish. Win discussed the chaos of being introduced by Graham while Crosby, Stills & Nash were playing during his 1969 Woodstock speech. He also mentioned a premonition about his mother's death while dancing to Tatanka's music. Both speakers lamented their inability to obtain a video of the events to show their grandchildren. Hope, Diablo Canyon, and Songwriting Discussion Dennis shared a poem about hope, which led to a discussion about Diablo Canyon and a promise to provide more information. myla then shared her nostalgic experience selling the Berkeley Barb during the war and the group discussed the upcoming primary election for Cori Bush, a Democratic Squad member. The group considered endorsing candidates and supporting Bush's campaign through the Progressive Democrats of America. Towards the end, the group engaged in a light-hearted discussion about singing and songwriting, with a focus on the Scalia and Thomas themes. The possibility of future discussions with songwriter Steven Seinheim was also suggested. Discussing Potential Running Mates for Kamala Harris Win suggested several potential running mates for Kamala Harris, including Josh Shapiro, Roy Cooper, and Mark Kelly. Win believed that Mark Kelly would be a strong candidate due to his impressive resume and potential to deliver Arizona and Nevada. However, Steve disagreed, suggesting that Roy Cooper would be a better choice due to his experience and ability to attack the Republicans. myla also expressed her preference for Cooper and Tim Walts, highlighting their progressive values and leadership qualities. The group also discussed potential drawbacks of having two women on the ticket and expressed uncertainty about the progressive credentials of Roy Cooper. Ancestors, VP Candidates, and Elections Tatanka initiated a discussion about the interconnectedness of all work and the significance of acknowledging ancestors. The group then engaged in a lively conversation about potential vice presidential candidates, with suggestions ranging from Muhammad Ali to Eleanor Roosevelt. The historic nature of Kamala Harris becoming the first woman of color to hold the presidency was also discussed, with references to Gracie Allen's 1941 presidential campaign. The participants also discussed the possibility of international observers for the upcoming US election, the influence of big tech money on Kamala's campaign, and the upcoming Democratic Convention. Personal anecdotes and memories were shared, and the importance of remembering names correctly was emphasized.

Welcome back to the Innovator Insights podcast, hosted by Louder Co. Today we welcome our visionary guest Steve Scalia, President at Tanner Pharma Group. In this episode Steve shares his expertise on how the right combination of people, streamlined processes, and cutting-edge technology can drive significant enterprise growth. Striking the perfect balance while staying at the forefront of innovation is essential to maintaining a competitive edge. Steve's insights will open your eyes to new, innovative ideas on how to adapt and succeed in today's fast-paced world. Website: Louderco.com Sign up for our AI Newsletter: bit.ly/3VURS5J

7/3/24 Hour 1    The New York Times is reporting that a Biden ally says Joe knows his campaign may not be salvageable. Vince wonders if George Stephanopoulos may be setting Joe Biden up for a buzzsaw. The White House claims they have been one of the most transparent administrations when it comes to medical records. Vince catches Karine Jean Pierre in a lie. Vince speaks with James Rosen, Chief White House correspondent for Newsmax and Author of “Scalia” about Joe Biden's cognitive decline.  Rosen was one of the first reporters to raise questions on the issue and asked Joe Biden directly.    For more coverage on the issues that matter to you visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 3-6pm.   To join the conversation, check us out on social media: @WMAL @VinceCoglianese.      Executive Producer: Corey Inganamort @TheBirdWords See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Vince speaks with James Rosen, Chief White House correspondent for Newsmax and Author of “Scalia” about Joe Biden's cognitive decline.  Rosen was one of the first reporters to raise questions on the issue and asked Joe Biden directly.    For more coverage on the issues that matter to you visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 3-6pm.   To join the conversation, check us out on social media: @WMAL @VinceCoglianese.      Executive Producer: Corey Inganamort @TheBirdWords See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jim talks with Bob Levy about the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, in the Supreme Court. They discuss Bob's late-career move to law, never being too old to reinvent yourself, how Bob got involved in a pivotal Supreme Court case in establishing the modern interpretation of the Second Amendment, the text of the Second Amendment, District of Columbia v. Heller, United States v. Miller, United States v. Emerson, the scholarship around framing the Second Amendment as an individual right, the state of play of gun control in D.C. at the time, the handgun ban, handguns in the home for self-defense, the NRA case & a rookie error by the NRA's lawyers, legal strategy in the Heller case, sufficient vs necessary conditions for exercising the right, the meaning of "well-regulated," the specific holdings in Heller, the meaning of fundamental rights, Breyer's dissent against Scalia's opinion, the rational basis standard, McDonald v. City of Chicago, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, "good moral character," the murky precedent of striking down laws that weren't present during the framing era, a strict scrutiny approach, speculations on the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence, ghost guns, and much more. Episode Transcript The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom, by Robert Levy & William Mellor "The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller," by Brian L. Frye Bob Levy was, for 14 years, chairman of the board of directors at the Cato Institute. He is now chairman emeritus. Bob joined Cato as senior fellow in constitutional studies in 1997 after 25 years in business. The Institute's Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies is named in his honor. He has also served on boards of the Federalist Society, the Foundation for Government Accountability, and the Institute for Justice. Bob received his PhD in business from the American University in 1966, then founded CDA Investment Technologies, a major provider of investment information and software. At age 50, after leaving CDA in 1991, Bob went to George Mason law school, where he was chief articles editor of the law review and class valedictorian. He received his JD degree in 1994. The next two years he clerked for Judge Royce Lamberth on the US District Court and Judge Douglas Ginsburg on the US Court of Appeals, both in Washington, DC.

Today's guest is Fr. Paul Scalia, the Vicar General of the Diocese of Arlington. Fr. Scalia shares his testimony and a bit about growing up with his father, Antonin Scalia. He talks about his calling into the priesthood and what it's like to be a priest for such a young diocese. We discuss the state of men today and how in today's society, men have been deprived of heroes and the role of providing and protecting. Additionally, we talk about the need for fraternity, specifically in seminaries and the priesthood, and for fatherhood in the family and the Church.   Subscribe/Rate Never miss out on an episode by subscribing to the podcast on whatever platform you are listening on. Help other people find the show by sharing this episode on your social media. Thanks!   Connect with Brett: Website: https://brettpowell.org Twitter/X: @BrettPowellorg https://twitter.com/BrettPowellorg   Music "Southern Gothic" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/   Editing by ForteCatholic (https://www.fortecatholic.com)

Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record.  In The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, Dennie traces the roots of originalism as a legal theory back to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, though the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the 1954 case. Its adherents argue the meaning of the Constitution must solely be determined by “the original public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was drafted,” and that there is a discernible correct answer to what that meaning would have been. The theory gained popularity in the 1980s, with the late Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia as two influential proponents. Scalia famously said the Constitution is “not a living document. It's dead, dead, dead.” Today, originalism has formed the basis for decisions such as Justice Samuel Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. “Despite originalism's reputation as a serious intellectual theory, it's more like dream logic: It seems reasonable at first, but when you wake up, you can recognize it as nonsense,” Dennie writes. “Originalism deliberately overemphasizes a particular version of history that treats the civil-rights gains won over time as categorically suspect. The consequences of its embrace have been intentionally catastrophic for practically anyone who isn't a wealthy white man, aka the class of people with exclusive possession of political power at the time the Constitution's drafters originally put pen to paper (or quill to parchment).” In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Dennie and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how conservative originalists prioritize the time period of the Founding Fathers over the Reconstruction Era that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “We can't fulfill the Reconstruction Amendments' radical vision of full equality and freedom if we can't be attentive to the ways in which we have been made unequal and unfree,” Dennie writes in The Originalism Trap. While Dennie believes there are portions of the historical record that support broad civil liberty protections, she says she does not think originalism is a useful tool for progressives to use as a legal framework.  In place of originalism, Dennie has a bold proposal: inclusive constitutionalism. “Inclusive constitutionalism means what it says: the Constitution includes everyone, so our legal interpretation must serve to make the promise of inclusive democracy real. When the judiciary is called upon to resolve a legal ambiguity or when there are broad principles at issue, the application of which must be made specific, it is proper for courts to consider how cases may relate to systemic injustices and how different legal analyses would impact marginalized people's ability to participate in the country's political, economic and social life.”  Rawles and Dennie also discuss how lawyers and judges can push back against originalism; the legal rights and protections achieved by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and the LGBTQ+ community; why she dropped Jurassic Park references into the book; and how she keeps an optimistic outlook on the expansion of civil liberties. “Justice for all may not be a deeply rooted tradition,” Dennie writes, “but fighting for it is.”

Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record.  In The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, Dennie traces the roots of originalism as a legal theory back to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, though the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the 1954 case. Its adherents argue the meaning of the Constitution must solely be determined by “the original public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was drafted,” and that there is a discernible correct answer to what that meaning would have been. The theory gained popularity in the 1980s, with the late Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia as two influential proponents. Scalia famously said the Constitution is “not a living document. It's dead, dead, dead.” Today, originalism has formed the basis for decisions such as Justice Samuel Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. “Despite originalism's reputation as a serious intellectual theory, it's more like dream logic: It seems reasonable at first, but when you wake up, you can recognize it as nonsense,” Dennie writes. “Originalism deliberately overemphasizes a particular version of history that treats the civil-rights gains won over time as categorically suspect. The consequences of its embrace have been intentionally catastrophic for practically anyone who isn't a wealthy white man, aka the class of people with exclusive possession of political power at the time the Constitution's drafters originally put pen to paper (or quill to parchment).” In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Dennie and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how conservative originalists prioritize the time period of the Founding Fathers over the Reconstruction Era that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “We can't fulfill the Reconstruction Amendments' radical vision of full equality and freedom if we can't be attentive to the ways in which we have been made unequal and unfree,” Dennie writes in The Originalism Trap. While Dennie believes there are portions of the historical record that support broad civil liberty protections, she says she does not think originalism is a useful tool for progressives to use as a legal framework.  In place of originalism, Dennie has a bold proposal: inclusive constitutionalism. “Inclusive constitutionalism means what it says: the Constitution includes everyone, so our legal interpretation must serve to make the promise of inclusive democracy real. When the judiciary is called upon to resolve a legal ambiguity or when there are broad principles at issue, the application of which must be made specific, it is proper for courts to consider how cases may relate to systemic injustices and how different legal analyses would impact marginalized people's ability to participate in the country's political, economic and social life.”  Rawles and Dennie also discuss how lawyers and judges can push back against originalism; the legal rights and protections achieved by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and the LGBTQ+ community; why she dropped Jurassic Park references into the book; and how she keeps an optimistic outlook on the expansion of civil liberties. “Justice for all may not be a deeply rooted tradition,” Dennie writes, “but fighting for it is.”

Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record.  In The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, Dennie traces the roots of originalism as a legal theory back to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, though the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the 1954 case. Its adherents argue the meaning of the Constitution must solely be determined by “the original public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was drafted,” and that there is a discernible correct answer to what that meaning would have been. The theory gained popularity in the 1980s, with the late Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia as two influential proponents. Scalia famously said the Constitution is “not a living document. It's dead, dead, dead.” Today, originalism has formed the basis for decisions such as Justice Samuel Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. “Despite originalism's reputation as a serious intellectual theory, it's more like dream logic: It seems reasonable at first, but when you wake up, you can recognize it as nonsense,” Dennie writes. “Originalism deliberately overemphasizes a particular version of history that treats the civil-rights gains won over time as categorically suspect. The consequences of its embrace have been intentionally catastrophic for practically anyone who isn't a wealthy white man, aka the class of people with exclusive possession of political power at the time the Constitution's drafters originally put pen to paper (or quill to parchment).” In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Dennie and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how conservative originalists prioritize the time period of the Founding Fathers over the Reconstruction Era that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “We can't fulfill the Reconstruction Amendments' radical vision of full equality and freedom if we can't be attentive to the ways in which we have been made unequal and unfree,” Dennie writes in The Originalism Trap. While Dennie believes there are portions of the historical record that support broad civil liberty protections, she says she does not think originalism is a useful tool for progressives to use as a legal framework.  In place of originalism, Dennie has a bold proposal: inclusive constitutionalism. “Inclusive constitutionalism means what it says: the Constitution includes everyone, so our legal interpretation must serve to make the promise of inclusive democracy real. When the judiciary is called upon to resolve a legal ambiguity or when there are broad principles at issue, the application of which must be made specific, it is proper for courts to consider how cases may relate to systemic injustices and how different legal analyses would impact marginalized people's ability to participate in the country's political, economic and social life.”  Rawles and Dennie also discuss how lawyers and judges can push back against originalism; the legal rights and protections achieved by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and the LGBTQ+ community; why she dropped Jurassic Park references into the book; and how she keeps an optimistic outlook on the expansion of civil liberties. “Justice for all may not be a deeply rooted tradition,” Dennie writes, “but fighting for it is.”

"Flag day" continues; Scalia flag-burning stance, what is and isn't a flag?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rod and Karen banter about May/December romances. Then they discuss more P Diddy fallout, Scalia won't recuse himself, Rudy Giuliani coffee, a disappointing Bluey event, children working at AL chicken plant, NYC to Dublin video portal shutdown, Black passengers suing American Airlines, Canadian writer pisses off Black Twitter with new book, Cinnamon Roll assault, pasta assault, man calls into court while driving on a suspended license and sword ratchetness. Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@rodimusprime⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SayDatAgain⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@TBGWT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@TheBlackGuyWhoTips⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠theblackguywhotips@gmail.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Blog: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.theblackguywhotips.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Teepublic Store⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Amazon Wishlist⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Crowdcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Voice Mail: 704-557-0186Go Premium: https://www.theblackguywhotips.com/premium/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Check out Fr. Scalia's homilies on Spotify.    Check out Desert Streaming on YouTube.

Check us out on YouTube! The Five Goals of Courage   The Five Goals were created by the members themselves, when Courage was founded. The goals are read at the start of each meeting and each member is called to practice them in daily life. Here are the Goals in their entirety.   1) To live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality. (Chastity)   2) To dedicate our entire lives to Christ through service to others, spiritual reading, prayer, meditation, individual spiritual direction, frequent attendance at Mass, and the frequent reception of the sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist. (Prayer and Dedication)   3) To foster a spirit of fellowship in which we may share with one another our thoughts and experiences, and so ensure that no one will have to face the problems of homosexuality alone. (Fellowship)   4) To be mindful of the truth that chaste friendships are not only possible but necessary in a chaste Christian life; and to encourage one another in forming and sustaining these friendships. (Support)   5) To live lives that may serve as good examples to others. (Good Example/Role Model)

On September 26, 2020, then-President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court. Upon confirmation, Justice Barrett took the seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had passed away one week before Justice Barrett's nomination. Writing in the Fall 2023 issue of the Criminal Justice Magazine, Daniel Kaplan observes that Justice Barrett's voting pattern in the court's criminal cases has been notably Scalia-esque. That's perhaps not surprising, given that Justice Barrett was a law clerk for Justice Scalia after her graduation from Notre Dame Law School. She remains the only former Scalia clerk among the 9 justices currently on the court. Daniel Kaplan is an Assistant Federal Public Defender in Phoenix, Arizona. His article is "Amy Coney Barrett: A Mellower Scalia". You can read his article here

On this edition of CrimsonCast Daily, the doctor lauds Sara Scalia for her performance in the three point shooting contest (and chides ESPN's unfortunate broadcast approach), talks a bit about Indiana State's disappointing end to a galvanizing season in Terre Haute, and discusses the new CST / college football proposal.

Cyndi sits down with Aimee to discuss the article written by Fr. Paul Scalia, "Blessed Are The Woke of Heart." The article can be found at : ecatholicthing.org/2021/11/28/blessed-are-the-woke-of-heart/ Jesus advises us : "Beware that your hearts do not become drowsy from carousing and drunkenness and the anxieties of life" in Luke 21:34.  Cyndi and Aimee share their thoughts and how this is especially pertinent during the Time of Lent. Books by Fr.Scalia - 1.Sermons in Times of Crisis https://www.amazon.com/Sermons-Times-Crisis-Twelve-Homilies/dp/1505108780  and 2. That Nothing May Be Lost  https://www.amazon.com/That-Nothing-May-Lost-Reflections/dp/1621641503 To schedule Cyndi to speak to your group, contact Cyndi at TheCyndiPetersonShow@gmail.com. Cyndi's book, Waiting for a Miracle: One Mother's Journey to Unshakable Faith can be purchased on Amazon.com or reach out to Cyndi at TheCyndiPetersonShow@gmail.comfor a personally signed copy mailed directly to you.      

Buy Tickets for the Stand Up PodJam Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27  and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991.   Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others.   Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok!   Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art

SERIES 2 EPISODE 114: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SURPRISE! A decade ago, conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia issued a Supreme Court opinion in which he declared - and reiterated to two stunned conservative attorneys - that the President of the United States IS an OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES. Thus the man who Trump called one of "the greatest Americans to ever live" has already destroyed Trump's only argument that he cannot be disqualified for the presidency under the 14th Amendment because the president is NOT an officer of the United States. Unearthed by Roger Parloff of Lawfire - how, as the cliche goes, is this not the lead story everywhere in the nation? The Scalia ruling and letter (which may itself have been agreed with by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, and Justice Thomas) destroys Trump's only argument for why the 14th Amendment Disqualification Clause does NOT apply to him and can't be used to kick him off the ballot. Trump insists the president is NOT an "officer." Yet four years ago Trump proposed a garden dedicated to the 30 greatest Americans who ever lived - and Scalia was one of them! Historians have also found a Senate argument confirming that body agreed that the disqualification clause applied to Presidents, and that it was self-enforcing, and that it was acknowledged as such by everybody from Jefferson Davis to President Andrew Johnson. Also, the Illinois Election Board was to meet today to address the bid there to enforce the 14th. Also: Trump has now enabled Biden to run on the Bipartisan Border Enforcement and Great Economy platform, while his House lackeys have made DHS Secretary Mayorkas look like the border hardliner of the bunch. On Day 15 of his mental health crisis Trump's mind continues to corrode, and damn but Nikki Haley isn't letting up, and more importantly seems to be having a gas calling Trump unhinged and in decline EVERY SINGLE DAY. B-Block (22:32) IN SPORTS: The Clay Travis Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce/Super Bowl/Joe Biden conspiracy theory has now been disproved. It has been replaced by the Vivek Ramaswamy Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce/Super Bowl/Joe Biden conspiracy theory. And why Bill Belichick going to do TV football could be the greatest move since John Madden did it. (29:36) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Charlie Kirk defames one of the Central Park Five while trying to dig himself out from having already defamed him; Elise Stefanik scrubs her website; South Dakota Governor (former South Dakota Snow Queen) Kristi Noem thinks the Constitution is a treaty signed between the 13 Colonies and Texas. C-Block (36:51) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: In memory of the late Red Sox, Astros, and Blue Jays' manager Jimy Williams, the saga of the day I was thrown off the field at Fenway Park and directed to sit next to Yankee owner George Steinbrenner who promptly joined me on the Fox game broadcast and accused Williams of trying to instigate a riot during the game.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.