Podcast appearances and mentions of Shelley V Kraemer

Discrimination can take many forms. When J.D. and Ethel Shelley simply tried to purchase a house, they found themselves involved in a landmark legal case to fight for their right to move into their property. They were battling a restrictive covenant that tried to exclude them based on their race. ——— Click on search links to see if there are episodes with related content:  Cicely Hunter, Landmarks, Black History, Civil Rights, Podcast Transcript: I'm Cicely Hunter, Public Historian from the Missouri Historical Society, and here's history, on eighty-eight-one, KDHX. ——— For St. Louis to be named the 10th segregated city in the United States might have come as a surprise to those who heard it back in 2017, but St. Louis's history is similar to many other urban cities. With all the hidden gems and history that surrounds this city, racial segregation became more fixed and evident as public policies and private practices tightened restrictions against Black communities. But these instances of discrimination and racism were often contested. We can look to Shelley v Kraemer, a court case that was argued in the Supreme Court and outlawed state enforced restrictive covenants. ———- J.D. and Ethel Shelley and their children moved from Mississippi to Missouri. They were looking to purchase a home, so Elder Robert Bishop, who was their pastor and a realtor, showed them 4600 Labadie Avenue. The Shelley's loved the home so much that they made an offer, and it was accepted. But, since the house had a restrictive covenant, the Shelley's racial identity became a determining factor that restricted Black people from entering, purchasing, or occupying certain areas based on residential segregation. ——— The Marcus Avenue Improvement Association with Fern and Louis Kraemer as the plaintiffs were determined to stop the Shelley family from living in their newly purchased home. The Circuit Court ruled that the restrictive covenant was poorly executed since the property owners failed to sign the document. Then, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and argued the restrictive covenant remained a legitimate agreement. The final ruling by the Supreme Court on May 3, 1948, established that restrictive covenants violated the Fourteenth Amendment and could not be judicially enforced even though it was a private contract. ——— St. Louis was important to the civil rights movement, and at the center of Black legal resistance, with court cases like Shelley v Kraemer and Gaines v Canada, and Dred and Harriet Scott's freedom suit. In 1988, the Shelley House was dedicated as a National Historic Landmark and served as a “living memorial to the Shelley family and their fight against racial discrimination.” ——— Here's history is a joint production of the Missouri Historical Society and KDHX. I'm Cicely Hunter and this is eighty-eight-one, KDHX, St. Louis. ———

This episode discusses Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) a case that involved the use of restrictive covenants, which barred white people from selling their homes/property to blacks and people of other races and ethnicities. This essentially ensured that neighborhoods would remain segregated. J.D. Shelley, a black man bought a home for his family that had a restrictive covenant attached, and his neighbor sued to have him removed. The case went to the US Supreme. Listen to the episode to find out what happened. Resources-- Book: Olivia's Story: The Conspiracy of Heroes behind Shelley v Kraemer by Jeffery Copeland Film: The Story of Shelley v. Kraemer

In this episode, Pitt's ACLU Club discusses racism in the real estate industry.

"There's a certain kind of human truth that can only really be found by talking with family members who have this story that’s passed down generation to generation," says STLPR's Tim Lloyd.

200th Anniversary of the birth of Frederick Douglass Discussion of Landmark Supreme Court Case from St. Louis - Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948 Black History Month-Little Known Facts

Loren Miller, one of the nation's most prominent civil rights attorneys from the 1940s through the early 1960s, successfully fought discrimination in housing and education. Alongside Thurgood Marshall, Miller argued two landmark civil rights cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, whose decisions effectively abolished racially restrictive housing covenants. One of these cases, Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), is taught in nearly every American law school today. Later, Marshall and Miller played key roles in Brown v. Board of Education, which ended legal segregation in public schools. Amina Hassan's book, Loren Miller: Civil Rights Attorney and Journalist, recovers this remarkable figure from the margins of history and for the first time fully reveals his life for what it was: an extraordinary American story and a critical chapter in the annals of racial justice. Born to a former slave and a white midwesterner in 1903, Loren Miller lived the quintessential American success story, blazing his own path to rise from rural poverty to a position of power and influence. Author Amina Hassan reveals Miller as a fearless critic of those in power and an ardent debater whose acid wit was known to burn "holes in the toughest skin and eat right through double-talk, hypocrisy, and posturing."Amina Hassan is an independent historian and an award-winning public radio documentarian. Her diverse background in public radio and media activism has allowed her to live and travel extensively in the Caribbean, the Near and Middle East, North Africa, Central America and Europe. She has been a Corporation for Public Broadcasting consultant and has administered radio projects for the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History and the Institute for Policy Studies. Hassan has a master's in telecommunications and a Ph.D. in rhetorical criticism from Ohio University.Writers LIVE programs are supported in part by a bequest from The Miss Howard Hubbard Adult Programming Fund. 

Loren Miller, one of the nation's most prominent civil rights attorneys from the 1940s through the early 1960s, successfully fought discrimination in housing and education. Alongside Thurgood Marshall, Miller argued two landmark civil rights cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, whose decisions effectively abolished racially restrictive housing covenants. One of these cases, Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), is taught in nearly every American law school today. Later, Marshall and Miller played key roles in Brown v. Board of Education, which ended legal segregation in public schools. Amina Hassan's book, Loren Miller: Civil Rights Attorney and Journalist, recovers this remarkable figure from the margins of history and for the first time fully reveals his life for what it was: an extraordinary American story and a critical chapter in the annals of racial justice. Born to a former slave and a white midwesterner in 1903, Loren Miller lived the quintessential American success story, blazing his own path to rise from rural poverty to a position of power and influence. Author Amina Hassan reveals Miller as a fearless critic of those in power and an ardent debater whose acid wit was known to burn "holes in the toughest skin and eat right through double-talk, hypocrisy, and posturing."Amina Hassan is an independent historian and an award-winning public radio documentarian. Her diverse background in public radio and media activism has allowed her to live and travel extensively in the Caribbean, the Near and Middle East, North Africa, Central America and Europe. She has been a Corporation for Public Broadcasting consultant and has administered radio projects for the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History and the Institute for Policy Studies. Hassan has a master's in telecommunications and a Ph.D. in rhetorical criticism from Ohio University.Writers LIVE programs are supported in part by a bequest from The Miss Howard Hubbard Adult Programming Fund. Recorded On: Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Robots. What are they? Just a new sort of tool, qualitatively different kinds of tools that do things we neither expect nor intend, new kinds of beings? With the incipient explosion of complex robots, we may need to re-examine the way law uses and understands intention, responsibility, causation, and other basic concepts. We’re joined by Ryan Calo, who has achieved the outrageously awesome feat of earning a living thinking about robots. (It’s pronounced Kay-low. So Joe got this one right.) We discuss flying drones, chess computers, driverless cars, antilock brakes, and computer-conceived barbecue sauce. This show’s links: Ryan Calo’s faculty profile and writing Follow-up from listener David on Episode 40: The Split Has Occurred, Shelley v. Kraemer, and Buchanan v. Warley Lego Mindstorms Ryan Calo, Robots and Privacy FIRST Lego League robotics competition for ages nine to fourteen DJI Phantom Vision 2+ flying drone camera thing capable of making like this one and this one Mark Berman, National Park Service Bans Drone Use in All National Parks and Chris Vanderveen, Man Banned from Yellowstone after Drone Crash FAA’s Key Initiatives page on drones Joan Lowy, Drone Sightings Up Dramatically Ryan Calo, Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw (including a discussion of the concepts of embodiment, emergence, and social meaning as the core of the legal challenge posed by robotics) Stephen Johnson, Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software Radiolab, Emergence Frank Easterbrook, Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse Cory Doctorow, Why It Is Not Possible to Regulate Robots Neil Richards and William Smart, How Should the Law Think About Robotics? Ryan Calo, A Horse of a Different Color: What Robotics Law Can Learn from Cyberlaw About IBM’s Watson and Deep Blue (the chess machine) Daniel Suarez, Daemon Richard Fisher, Is It OK to Torture or Murder a Robot? Radiolab, Furbidden Knowledge Nicholas Bakalar, Robotic Surgery Report Card Studdert, Mello, and Brennan, Medical Malpractice Ryan Calo, The Case for a Federal Robotics Commission Excerpt from In re Polemis, the case we forgot the name of About Amazon’s Kiva Systems, the subsidiary that supplies Amazon with robotic warehouse workers Rochelle Bilow, We Put a Computer in Charge of Our Test Kitchen for a Day, and Here’s What Happened, and Mark Wilson, I Tasted BBQ Sauce Made By IBM’s Watson, And Loved It E.M. Forster, The Machine Stops About the Future Tense event, Can We Imagine Our Way to a Better Future?, including descriptions and video, in which Ryan participated About cognitive radio Daria Roithmayr, Complexity Law and Economics We Robot 2015, meeting April 10-11, 2015 in Seattle Special Guest: Ryan Calo.

This is not the first episode, but it is the launch of Oral Argument, a weeklyish show on which Joe and I talk to people about legal practice, theory, and education and also about random things that interest us. No guests in this test episode we recorded. But we do chat about nonsense, Duck Dynasty, and bad questions abour heroism. We recorded an additional segment on law school exams, but that will have to await the director's cut version of episode 0, due out never. Relevant links: Phil Magary, Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Gives Drew Magary a Tour (http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson), GQ. Hillbilly Handfishin' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbilly_Handfishin') Christian Turner, State Action and Duck Dynasty (http://www.hydratext.com/blog/2013/12/20/muzzling-the-duck-dynasty), HydraText Christian Turner, State Action Problems (http://www.hydratext.com/blog/2012/3/22/state-action-problems.html), HydraText Shelley v. Kraemer (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12732018998507979172) Buchanan v. Warley (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17109776118808449915) Shutter Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_Island_(film))