Podcast appearances and mentions of sherif girgis

Notre Dame law professor Sherif Girgis joins Sarah and David to discuss his latest law review article, “Originalism's Age of Ironies.” But first, the two respond to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's confusion over international law. The Agenda: —AOC's questions regarding Israel —What is liquidation? —Living constitutionalism lacks a clear defense in modern discourse. —The role of judges in interpreting law —Asking AI Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh questions —Princeton requests corrections Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), pro-choice advocates have argued that restrictions on abortion violate freedom of religion in some circumstances. A recent decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals, academic articles, and media stories have taken up these religious free-exercise challenges to abortion laws. This panel will explore the constitutional and statutory grounds for these claims in different faith traditions. pro-life responses to them, and the implications of these claims for religious liberty and for the post-Dobbs legal status of abortion.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending FreedomProf. Michael A. Helfand, Brenden Mann Foundation Chair and Co-Director of the Nootbaar Institute for Law, Pepperdine Caruso School of LawProf. Jessie Hill, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of LawProf. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Prof. Michael Moreland, Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

Suppose we don’t like how our governmental powers are separated. Perhaps we think the executive branch has too much power. Or perhaps we think that it is doing more than the original meaning of “the executive power” would suggest, but we think that is a good thing. What are the legitimate methods of constitutional change in our republic? Must we amend the Constitution? How should an originalist approach these questions?Featuring:Prof. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Lawrence Lessig, Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Stephen E. Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

The first book in the storied career of one of the most influential conservative legal scholars and philosophers of our day is the focus of an upcoming conference in Washington, DC. Making Men Moral (1993) is the book and Robert P. George is the man behind it—Princeton professor of jurisprudence, bioethicist and pro-life and civil liberties champion. Scheduled speakers include some of the most important thinkers on social conservatism and legal thought of the generations he has molded, plus many of his peers and George himself. This conference is our focus for today. As the founder and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University since 2000, George has provided a model for a slew of similar programs, centers and institutes throughout American academia and abroad. He is also a noted public speaker, often in partnership with his good friend the African-American scholar, Cornel West. Because of George's outsized role in public discussion of moral issues and his unique position as a stalwart Christian voice and admired scholar in the heavily secular academe of our time, rather than interview the author of a book today I will be chatting with one of the organizers of Making Men Moral: 30th Anniversary Conference. This event is co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Ethics & Public Policy Center, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, and the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at Catholic University. And luckily for those unable to attend in person the event at AEI in Washington, DC Thursday, November 30, 2023 | 12:00 PM to 5:30 PM ET and Friday, December 1, 2023 | 9:00 AM to 5:15 PM ET, they can register to follow the proceedings live online for free. This is a welcome opportunity to learn about one of the most important books in the fields of moral philosophy, the philosophy of law, and natural law of the last 30 years. For decades, George's Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality has been the go-to text for legal scholars, political theorists, philosophers and educated readers who want to grasp what types of human vice and folly can be legitimately regulated, what the relationship is between morals legislation and freedom, what is owed by the individual to the ordering of society, and what falls under the protection of privacy or basic civil liberties legal regimes. The conference features leading lights in the conservative legal firmament such as our guest today--J. Joel Alicea an associate professor at the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America, Sherif Girgis, Melissa Moschella and Professor George himself. It will also feature scholars in the fields of theology and religious learning such as Andrew T. Walker; bioethicists and legal scholars such as O. Carter Snead; luminaries in the field of natural law like Hadley Arkes; journalists such as Timothy P. Carney and Alexandra DeSanctis and notable social scientists such as Mark Regnerus and W. Bradford Wilcox. The first day of the two-day conference will feature an interview of George by his fellow public intellectual and former student, Ryan T. Anderson. Our guest today, Professor Alicea, will not only open the conference but will participate in a panel discussion entitled, “Making Men Moral and Constitutional Interpretation,” the title of which nicely encapsulates two of the many roles Robert P. George serves in the public sphere: George is both a powerful moral voice and a skillful, much loved professor at Princeton where he teaches a famous course on Constitutional Interpretation (the lectures of which were recorded and are available free online). Let's hear from Professor Alicea. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The first book in the storied career of one of the most influential conservative legal scholars and philosophers of our day is the focus of an upcoming conference in Washington, DC. Making Men Moral (1993) is the book and Robert P. George is the man behind it—Princeton professor of jurisprudence, bioethicist and pro-life and civil liberties champion. Scheduled speakers include some of the most important thinkers on social conservatism and legal thought of the generations he has molded, plus many of his peers and George himself. This conference is our focus for today. As the founder and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University since 2000, George has provided a model for a slew of similar programs, centers and institutes throughout American academia and abroad. He is also a noted public speaker, often in partnership with his good friend the African-American scholar, Cornel West. Because of George's outsized role in public discussion of moral issues and his unique position as a stalwart Christian voice and admired scholar in the heavily secular academe of our time, rather than interview the author of a book today I will be chatting with one of the organizers of Making Men Moral: 30th Anniversary Conference. This event is co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Ethics & Public Policy Center, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, and the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at Catholic University. And luckily for those unable to attend in person the event at AEI in Washington, DC Thursday, November 30, 2023 | 12:00 PM to 5:30 PM ET and Friday, December 1, 2023 | 9:00 AM to 5:15 PM ET, they can register to follow the proceedings live online for free. This is a welcome opportunity to learn about one of the most important books in the fields of moral philosophy, the philosophy of law, and natural law of the last 30 years. For decades, George's Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality has been the go-to text for legal scholars, political theorists, philosophers and educated readers who want to grasp what types of human vice and folly can be legitimately regulated, what the relationship is between morals legislation and freedom, what is owed by the individual to the ordering of society, and what falls under the protection of privacy or basic civil liberties legal regimes. The conference features leading lights in the conservative legal firmament such as our guest today--J. Joel Alicea an associate professor at the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America, Sherif Girgis, Melissa Moschella and Professor George himself. It will also feature scholars in the fields of theology and religious learning such as Andrew T. Walker; bioethicists and legal scholars such as O. Carter Snead; luminaries in the field of natural law like Hadley Arkes; journalists such as Timothy P. Carney and Alexandra DeSanctis and notable social scientists such as Mark Regnerus and W. Bradford Wilcox. The first day of the two-day conference will feature an interview of George by his fellow public intellectual and former student, Ryan T. Anderson. Our guest today, Professor Alicea, will not only open the conference but will participate in a panel discussion entitled, “Making Men Moral and Constitutional Interpretation,” the title of which nicely encapsulates two of the many roles Robert P. George serves in the public sphere: George is both a powerful moral voice and a skillful, much loved professor at Princeton where he teaches a famous course on Constitutional Interpretation (the lectures of which were recorded and are available free online). Let's hear from Professor Alicea. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The first book in the storied career of one of the most influential conservative legal scholars and philosophers of our day is the focus of an upcoming conference in Washington, DC. Making Men Moral (1993) is the book and Robert P. George is the man behind it—Princeton professor of jurisprudence, bioethicist and pro-life and civil liberties champion. Scheduled speakers include some of the most important thinkers on social conservatism and legal thought of the generations he has molded, plus many of his peers and George himself. This conference is our focus for today. As the founder and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University since 2000, George has provided a model for a slew of similar programs, centers and institutes throughout American academia and abroad. He is also a noted public speaker, often in partnership with his good friend the African-American scholar, Cornel West. Because of George's outsized role in public discussion of moral issues and his unique position as a stalwart Christian voice and admired scholar in the heavily secular academe of our time, rather than interview the author of a book today I will be chatting with one of the organizers of Making Men Moral: 30th Anniversary Conference. This event is co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Ethics & Public Policy Center, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, and the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at Catholic University. And luckily for those unable to attend in person the event at AEI in Washington, DC Thursday, November 30, 2023 | 12:00 PM to 5:30 PM ET and Friday, December 1, 2023 | 9:00 AM to 5:15 PM ET, they can register to follow the proceedings live online for free. This is a welcome opportunity to learn about one of the most important books in the fields of moral philosophy, the philosophy of law, and natural law of the last 30 years. For decades, George's Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality has been the go-to text for legal scholars, political theorists, philosophers and educated readers who want to grasp what types of human vice and folly can be legitimately regulated, what the relationship is between morals legislation and freedom, what is owed by the individual to the ordering of society, and what falls under the protection of privacy or basic civil liberties legal regimes. The conference features leading lights in the conservative legal firmament such as our guest today--J. Joel Alicea an associate professor at the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America, Sherif Girgis, Melissa Moschella and Professor George himself. It will also feature scholars in the fields of theology and religious learning such as Andrew T. Walker; bioethicists and legal scholars such as O. Carter Snead; luminaries in the field of natural law like Hadley Arkes; journalists such as Timothy P. Carney and Alexandra DeSanctis and notable social scientists such as Mark Regnerus and W. Bradford Wilcox. The first day of the two-day conference will feature an interview of George by his fellow public intellectual and former student, Ryan T. Anderson. Our guest today, Professor Alicea, will not only open the conference but will participate in a panel discussion entitled, “Making Men Moral and Constitutional Interpretation,” the title of which nicely encapsulates two of the many roles Robert P. George serves in the public sphere: George is both a powerful moral voice and a skillful, much loved professor at Princeton where he teaches a famous course on Constitutional Interpretation (the lectures of which were recorded and are available free online). Let's hear from Professor Alicea. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The first book in the storied career of one of the most influential conservative legal scholars and philosophers of our day is the focus of an upcoming conference in Washington, DC. Making Men Moral (1993) is the book and Robert P. George is the man behind it—Princeton professor of jurisprudence, bioethicist and pro-life and civil liberties champion. Scheduled speakers include some of the most important thinkers on social conservatism and legal thought of the generations he has molded, plus many of his peers and George himself. This conference is our focus for today. As the founder and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University since 2000, George has provided a model for a slew of similar programs, centers and institutes throughout American academia and abroad. He is also a noted public speaker, often in partnership with his good friend the African-American scholar, Cornel West. Because of George's outsized role in public discussion of moral issues and his unique position as a stalwart Christian voice and admired scholar in the heavily secular academe of our time, rather than interview the author of a book today I will be chatting with one of the organizers of Making Men Moral: 30th Anniversary Conference. This event is co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Ethics & Public Policy Center, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, and the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at Catholic University. And luckily for those unable to attend in person the event at AEI in Washington, DC Thursday, November 30, 2023 | 12:00 PM to 5:30 PM ET and Friday, December 1, 2023 | 9:00 AM to 5:15 PM ET, they can register to follow the proceedings live online for free. This is a welcome opportunity to learn about one of the most important books in the fields of moral philosophy, the philosophy of law, and natural law of the last 30 years. For decades, George's Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality has been the go-to text for legal scholars, political theorists, philosophers and educated readers who want to grasp what types of human vice and folly can be legitimately regulated, what the relationship is between morals legislation and freedom, what is owed by the individual to the ordering of society, and what falls under the protection of privacy or basic civil liberties legal regimes. The conference features leading lights in the conservative legal firmament such as our guest today--J. Joel Alicea an associate professor at the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America, Sherif Girgis, Melissa Moschella and Professor George himself. It will also feature scholars in the fields of theology and religious learning such as Andrew T. Walker; bioethicists and legal scholars such as O. Carter Snead; luminaries in the field of natural law like Hadley Arkes; journalists such as Timothy P. Carney and Alexandra DeSanctis and notable social scientists such as Mark Regnerus and W. Bradford Wilcox. The first day of the two-day conference will feature an interview of George by his fellow public intellectual and former student, Ryan T. Anderson. Our guest today, Professor Alicea, will not only open the conference but will participate in a panel discussion entitled, “Making Men Moral and Constitutional Interpretation,” the title of which nicely encapsulates two of the many roles Robert P. George serves in the public sphere: George is both a powerful moral voice and a skillful, much loved professor at Princeton where he teaches a famous course on Constitutional Interpretation (the lectures of which were recorded and are available free online). Let's hear from Professor Alicea. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The first book in the storied career of one of the most influential conservative legal scholars and philosophers of our day is the focus of an upcoming conference in Washington, DC. Making Men Moral (1993) is the book and Robert P. George is the man behind it—Princeton professor of jurisprudence, bioethicist and pro-life and civil liberties champion. Scheduled speakers include some of the most important thinkers on social conservatism and legal thought of the generations he has molded, plus many of his peers and George himself. This conference is our focus for today. As the founder and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University since 2000, George has provided a model for a slew of similar programs, centers and institutes throughout American academia and abroad. He is also a noted public speaker, often in partnership with his good friend the African-American scholar, Cornel West. Because of George's outsized role in public discussion of moral issues and his unique position as a stalwart Christian voice and admired scholar in the heavily secular academe of our time, rather than interview the author of a book today I will be chatting with one of the organizers of Making Men Moral: 30th Anniversary Conference. This event is co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Ethics & Public Policy Center, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, and the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at Catholic University. And luckily for those unable to attend in person the event at AEI in Washington, DC Thursday, November 30, 2023 | 12:00 PM to 5:30 PM ET and Friday, December 1, 2023 | 9:00 AM to 5:15 PM ET, they can register to follow the proceedings live online for free. This is a welcome opportunity to learn about one of the most important books in the fields of moral philosophy, the philosophy of law, and natural law of the last 30 years. For decades, George's Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality has been the go-to text for legal scholars, political theorists, philosophers and educated readers who want to grasp what types of human vice and folly can be legitimately regulated, what the relationship is between morals legislation and freedom, what is owed by the individual to the ordering of society, and what falls under the protection of privacy or basic civil liberties legal regimes. The conference features leading lights in the conservative legal firmament such as our guest today--J. Joel Alicea an associate professor at the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America, Sherif Girgis, Melissa Moschella and Professor George himself. It will also feature scholars in the fields of theology and religious learning such as Andrew T. Walker; bioethicists and legal scholars such as O. Carter Snead; luminaries in the field of natural law like Hadley Arkes; journalists such as Timothy P. Carney and Alexandra DeSanctis and notable social scientists such as Mark Regnerus and W. Bradford Wilcox. The first day of the two-day conference will feature an interview of George by his fellow public intellectual and former student, Ryan T. Anderson. Our guest today, Professor Alicea, will not only open the conference but will participate in a panel discussion entitled, “Making Men Moral and Constitutional Interpretation,” the title of which nicely encapsulates two of the many roles Robert P. George serves in the public sphere: George is both a powerful moral voice and a skillful, much loved professor at Princeton where he teaches a famous course on Constitutional Interpretation (the lectures of which were recorded and are available free online). Let's hear from Professor Alicea. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

The first book in the storied career of one of the most influential conservative legal scholars and philosophers of our day is the focus of an upcoming conference in Washington, DC. Making Men Moral (1993) is the book and Robert P. George is the man behind it—Princeton professor of jurisprudence, bioethicist and pro-life and civil liberties champion. Scheduled speakers include some of the most important thinkers on social conservatism and legal thought of the generations he has molded, plus many of his peers and George himself. This conference is our focus for today. As the founder and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University since 2000, George has provided a model for a slew of similar programs, centers and institutes throughout American academia and abroad. He is also a noted public speaker, often in partnership with his good friend the African-American scholar, Cornel West. Because of George's outsized role in public discussion of moral issues and his unique position as a stalwart Christian voice and admired scholar in the heavily secular academe of our time, rather than interview the author of a book today I will be chatting with one of the organizers of Making Men Moral: 30th Anniversary Conference. This event is co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Ethics & Public Policy Center, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, and the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at Catholic University. And luckily for those unable to attend in person the event at AEI in Washington, DC Thursday, November 30, 2023 | 12:00 PM to 5:30 PM ET and Friday, December 1, 2023 | 9:00 AM to 5:15 PM ET, they can register to follow the proceedings live online for free. This is a welcome opportunity to learn about one of the most important books in the fields of moral philosophy, the philosophy of law, and natural law of the last 30 years. For decades, George's Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality has been the go-to text for legal scholars, political theorists, philosophers and educated readers who want to grasp what types of human vice and folly can be legitimately regulated, what the relationship is between morals legislation and freedom, what is owed by the individual to the ordering of society, and what falls under the protection of privacy or basic civil liberties legal regimes. The conference features leading lights in the conservative legal firmament such as our guest today--J. Joel Alicea an associate professor at the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America, Sherif Girgis, Melissa Moschella and Professor George himself. It will also feature scholars in the fields of theology and religious learning such as Andrew T. Walker; bioethicists and legal scholars such as O. Carter Snead; luminaries in the field of natural law like Hadley Arkes; journalists such as Timothy P. Carney and Alexandra DeSanctis and notable social scientists such as Mark Regnerus and W. Bradford Wilcox. The first day of the two-day conference will feature an interview of George by his fellow public intellectual and former student, Ryan T. Anderson. Our guest today, Professor Alicea, will not only open the conference but will participate in a panel discussion entitled, “Making Men Moral and Constitutional Interpretation,” the title of which nicely encapsulates two of the many roles Robert P. George serves in the public sphere: George is both a powerful moral voice and a skillful, much loved professor at Princeton where he teaches a famous course on Constitutional Interpretation (the lectures of which were recorded and are available free online). Let's hear from Professor Alicea. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The first book in the storied career of one of the most influential conservative legal scholars and philosophers of our day is the focus of an upcoming conference in Washington, DC. Making Men Moral (1993) is the book and Robert P. George is the man behind it—Princeton professor of jurisprudence, bioethicist and pro-life and civil liberties champion. Scheduled speakers include some of the most important thinkers on social conservatism and legal thought of the generations he has molded, plus many of his peers and George himself. This conference is our focus for today. As the founder and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University since 2000, George has provided a model for a slew of similar programs, centers and institutes throughout American academia and abroad. He is also a noted public speaker, often in partnership with his good friend the African-American scholar, Cornel West. Because of George's outsized role in public discussion of moral issues and his unique position as a stalwart Christian voice and admired scholar in the heavily secular academe of our time, rather than interview the author of a book today I will be chatting with one of the organizers of Making Men Moral: 30th Anniversary Conference. This event is co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Ethics & Public Policy Center, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, and the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at Catholic University. And luckily for those unable to attend in person the event at AEI in Washington, DC Thursday, November 30, 2023 | 12:00 PM to 5:30 PM ET and Friday, December 1, 2023 | 9:00 AM to 5:15 PM ET, they can register to follow the proceedings live online for free. This is a welcome opportunity to learn about one of the most important books in the fields of moral philosophy, the philosophy of law, and natural law of the last 30 years. For decades, George's Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality has been the go-to text for legal scholars, political theorists, philosophers and educated readers who want to grasp what types of human vice and folly can be legitimately regulated, what the relationship is between morals legislation and freedom, what is owed by the individual to the ordering of society, and what falls under the protection of privacy or basic civil liberties legal regimes. The conference features leading lights in the conservative legal firmament such as our guest today--J. Joel Alicea an associate professor at the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America, Sherif Girgis, Melissa Moschella and Professor George himself. It will also feature scholars in the fields of theology and religious learning such as Andrew T. Walker; bioethicists and legal scholars such as O. Carter Snead; luminaries in the field of natural law like Hadley Arkes; journalists such as Timothy P. Carney and Alexandra DeSanctis and notable social scientists such as Mark Regnerus and W. Bradford Wilcox. The first day of the two-day conference will feature an interview of George by his fellow public intellectual and former student, Ryan T. Anderson. Our guest today, Professor Alicea, will not only open the conference but will participate in a panel discussion entitled, “Making Men Moral and Constitutional Interpretation,” the title of which nicely encapsulates two of the many roles Robert P. George serves in the public sphere: George is both a powerful moral voice and a skillful, much loved professor at Princeton where he teaches a famous course on Constitutional Interpretation (the lectures of which were recorded and are available free online). Let's hear from Professor Alicea. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher.

In this episode, a panel of libertarian and conservative scholars—J. Joel Alicea of the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute, and Sherif Girgis of Notre Dame Law School—explore the different strands of originalism as a constitutional methodology. They also explore the Roberts Court's application of originalism in recent cases, and how originalism intersects with textualism and other interpretive approaches. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was originally streamed live on June 28, 2023.    Additional Resources  Moore v. Harper (2023)  New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2023)  Grutter v. Bollinger (2002)  District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)  Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)  Counterman v. Colorado (2023)   J. Joel Alicea, “The Moral Authority of Original Meaning,” Notre Dame Law Review (2022)   Joel Alicea, “Originalism and the Rule of the Dead,” National Affairs (2022)  Sherif Girgis,  “Living Traditionalism,” N.Y.U. L.Rev (2023)  Sherif Gergis, “Dobb's History and the future of Abortion Laws,” SCOTUSblog (2022)  Anastasia Boden, “Supreme Court's Sidestep Leaves Native Kids Without Answers,” Volokh Conspiracy (June 2023)  Anastasia Boden, “Discourse: Irrational Basis,” Pacific Legal Foundation, (August 2022)    Stay Connected and Learn More  Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. 

A panel of libertarian and conservative scholars—J. Joel Alicea of The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute, and Sherif Girgis of Notre Dame Law School—join for an in-depth comparative look at the different strands of originalism as a constitutional methodology. We explore originalism's modern history and application by current members of the Roberts Court through the examples of recent cases, and how originalism intersects with textualism and other interpretive approaches. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Additional Resources Moore v. Harper (2023) New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2023) Grutter v. Bollinger (2002) District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) National Constitution Center, "Second Amendment," Interactive Constitution Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) Counterman v. Colorado (2023)  John O. McGinnis and Michael B. Rappaport, Originalism and the Good Constitution Randy Barnett and Evan Bernick, "The Letter and the Spirit: A Unified Theory of Originalism," Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works     Stay Connected and Learn More Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

3/7/23 - Sherif Girgis currently serves as Associate Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame. His work at the intersection of philosophy and law - including criminal law, constitutional law, and jurisprudence - has appeared in academic and popular venues including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. His excellent writings about the evils of contraception, the defense of traditional marriage, and other prominent topics have resonated with Catholics around the world.

Did you know that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms were not in the original Constitution, drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787? So where did they come from? Sherif Girgis, associate professor of law at the University of Notre Dame, has the answer. Donate today to help keep PragerU podcasts and videos free! PragerU.com/donate

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court released a 6-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, holding that the Constitution confers no right to abortion. The Dobbs decision poses critical questions about the Court’s past and future. Is the decision a misguided action or an overdue correction? How will Dobbs frame judicial and legislative disputes over abortion in years to come? What does Justice Alito’s lead decision, together with Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh’s concurrences, project about the Court’s future rulings? Our panel of experts will discuss these issues and more.Featuring:Prof. Mary Anne Case, Arnold I. Shure Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. David D. Cole, National Director, American Civil Liberties UnionProf. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law SchoolMs. Carrie Campbell Severino, President, JCNModerator: Hon. Elizabeth "Lisa" Branch, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

The Supreme Court seems to have the final say over every controversial issue from abortion to gun control to same-sex marriage. But is that what the Framers of the Constitution intended? Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame, has the answer.

Alexander Hamilton called the U.S. Supreme Court the “weakest” branch of government, because it has no direct control over the military or budget. But the court's recent cluster of decisions on hot-button issues has demonstrated that it can have an enormous impact on the American people and life in this country. Is the judiciary becoming more powerful, and therefore more dangerous? And what will be the consequences if the Court's power is undermined by ongoing questions about its legitimacy? The 2022 Aspen Ideas Festival asked a panel of legal experts to address these questions and shed some light on the Court's recent decisions. Law professor and writer Jeffrey Rosen, of the National Constitution Center, moderates the conversation between Melissa Murray of NYU School of Law, Sherif Girgis of Notre Dame Law School and Neal Katyal of Georgetown Law. This is the final episode of three about SCOTUS decisions and the future of the Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on June 24, 2022, has clear consequences: abortion is no longer a protected federal right in the U.S, and many clinics are shutting down. But the legal arguments the decision relies upon are much more complex, and those details often get lost in the headlines. The 2022 Aspen Ideas Festival brought together a conservative and a liberal constitutional scholar to break down the ruling, explain the nuances and speculate about how Dobbs might impact the legal future of other federal rights, such as contraception access and same-sex marriage. Law professor and writer Jeffrey Rosen, of the National Constitution Center and Yamiche Alcindor, the Washington correspondent for NBC News, moderate the conversation between Sherif Girgis of Notre Dame Law School and Melissa Murray of NYU School of Law. This is the second of three episodes about SCOTUS decisions and the future of the Court.

Sherif Girgis of the University of Notre Dame What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense

As many of you know, at the beginning of May, the United States Supreme Court experienced an unprecedented leak of a draft opinion on the Dobbs v. Jackson case currently being adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito Jr., and, if it ends up reflecting the Court's decision due this month,  would overturn nearly 50 years of abortion law under the landmark Roe v. Wade case, which ruled that many then-current restrictions on abortion were unconstitutional, and guaranteed nationwide access to abortion through the first two trimesters of pregnancy. Roe, and the subsequent Casey v. Planned Parenthood have paved the way for laws that in many states, allow abortion very late into pregnancy. Abortion is a very tricky topic, and a very sensitive one for people on all sides of the issue. But we feel like we have a duty as citizens to become educated on important matters like this, and our faith must have something to say on issues in which life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are at stake.  Elder Oaks recently stated: "On contested issues we seek to moderate and unify." In that spirit, we explored the issue from several angles, starting from a factual perspective — diving into the specifics of what's going on and what the practical stakes are, then moving into what our faith might be asking of us as we seek to create a world that is just and equitable; one that honors both agency and life. I'm sure we weren't perfect as we navigated this territory, but we did the best we could to show respect to the values and humanity that inform people of good faith on either side. This conversation comes in two parts; in the first, we spoke with Sherif Girgis, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, who also clerked for Justice Alito of the U.S. Supreme Court as well as for our friend Thomas B. Griffith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. When we asked Judge Griffith who would be the most qualified voice we could bring on the show, he unhesitatingly recommended Sherif. Sherif earned his J.D. at Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal, and is currently completing his Ph.D. in philosophy at Princeton. Sherif helped us understand the current state of abortion law in the US as well as what it could look like after a decision is made on Dobbs.  After speaking with Sherif, we spoke with Latter-day Saint scholars Justin Collings and Jenet Erickson. Justin Collings is ​​Associate Dean for Faculty and Curriculum at BYU and a Professor at the J. Reuben Clark School of Law at BYU, where he's been since 2013. He is a scholar of constitutional law, comparative constitutional law, and constitutional history, and received his law degree  and his PhD in History both from Yale.Jenet Erickson is an associate professor in the Department of Church History and Doctrine in BYU Religious Education. Her research has focused on maternal and child well-being in the context of work and family life, as well as the distinct contributions of mothers and fathers in children's development. She is a research fellow of both the Wheatley Institution and the Institute for Family Studies and has been a columnist on family issues for the Deseret News since 2013.Justin and Jenet brought this conversation home in terms of what it means for Latter-day Saints. We found them incredibly insightful and empathetic, and helped us see this issue in new ways — we think they'll do the same for you. The conversation with Justin and Jenet led to some really spirit-filled and practical takeaways for Latter-day Saints who want to be thoughtful, engaged, and loving on this issue. We're deeply grateful to them for coming on.

Nationally recognized religious freedom expert Dr. Ryan T. Anderson delivered an exclusive talk to the Christendom community on Monday, January 30, titled: “‘Marriage Equality': Religious Freedom or a ‘License to Discriminate'?”Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, and the founder and editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute. He is the author of the just-released book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom and the co-author with Princeton's Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis of the book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. Anderson's research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, in two U.S. Supreme Court cases.Anderson received his B.A. from Princeton University and received his doctoral degree in political philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. He has made appearances on ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and Fox News, including appearance on This Week with George Stephanopoulos and Piers Morgan Live. Anderson's work has also appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, First Things, and Principles.

Nationally recognized religious freedom expert Dr. Ryan T. Anderson delivered an exclusive talk to the Christendom community on Monday, January 30, titled: “‘Marriage Equality': Religious Freedom or a ‘License to Discriminate'?”Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, and the founder and editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute. He is the author of the just-released book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom and the co-author with Princeton's Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis of the book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. Anderson's research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, in two U.S. Supreme Court cases.Anderson received his B.A. from Princeton University and received his doctoral degree in political philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. He has made appearances on ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and Fox News, including appearance on This Week with George Stephanopoulos and Piers Morgan Live. Anderson's work has also appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, First Things, and Principles.

The team discuss how we should we respond when we get invited to a gay wedding and whether it makes a difference if the couple are Christians. They also ponder whether this is something that Christians can agree to disagree on, how we can communicate our decision to the couple, and some of the missional considerations.Resources mentioned and relatedShould I Go to a Gay Wedding? Anne WittonWhat's Wrong With a Permanent, Faithful, Stable Same-Sex Sexual Relationship? Ed ShawShould a Christian Wear a Rainbow Lanyard? Ed ShawShould I attend a Gay Wedding? Phil BarnettShould I Attend the Wedding of a Gay Friend or Family Member? Peter Ould, Eve Tushnet, Lisa Severine Nolland and Sherif Girgis

Picking up where we left off in our last episode, the remaining 30 titles I finished in 2021 were as follows: Our Oriental Heritage by Will Durant That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis The Revolt of the Elites and The Betrayal of Democracy by Christopher Lasch Lead by Paul David Tripp The Civil War as a Theological Crisis by Mark A. Noll Constantine the Emperor by David Potter The Island at the Center of the World by Russell Shorto Amsterdam by Russell Shorto The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. by Grant Ulysses S. Grant The Democratization of American Christianity by Nathan O. Hatch The Ancient Celts by Barry Cunliffe The Republic of Pirates by Colin Woodard 1491 by Charles C. Mann Leadership Strategy and Tactics by Jocko Willink Beyond Order by Jordan B. Peterson The Supremacy of God in Preaching by John Piper Coolidge by Amity Shlaes What Is Marriage? by Sherif Girgis and Company A Holy Baptism of Fire and Blood by James P. Byrd Black & Tan by Douglas Wilson Lincoln's Last Trial by Dan Abrams Heirs of the Founders by H.W. Brands The Life of Greece by Will Durant Charlemagne by Johannes Fried The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther Whirlwind by James Clavell The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment by Jeremiah Burroughs Of Temptation by John Owens The First Wave by Alex Kershaw The Templars by Dan Jones --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/garrett-ashley-mullet/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/garrett-ashley-mullet/support

On today's show: Mary Szoch, FRC's Director of the Center for Human Dignity, discusses the rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court as oral arguments were heard in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case; Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor

On December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, one of the most anticipated cases on the Court's docket in recent years, on the question of whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.In defending its ban on abortions after 15-weeks gestation, Mississippi asks the Court to overrule Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, arguing that the cases were egregiously wrong because a right to abortion has no basis in the text, structure or history of the Constitution. Mississippi further argues that the various frameworks have proved hopelessly unworkable; that the cases have inflicted severe damage on democratic self-government, on the country, and on the understanding that the Supreme Court is a neutral arbiter of the law; that they have been overtaken by a better legal and factual understanding; that reliance interests do not support upholding Roe and that accordingly stare decisis principles counsel in favor of overruling them. Respondents argue that the viability standard is the central line that underpins these rulings, and that the Court's decision to retain it in Casey, in the face of repeated requests to abandon it both in the years leading up to Casey and in Casey itself, makes the bar for overruling it particularly high. They further note stare decisis's centrality to the rule of law and to public confidence in the courts. They add that the viability standard is well-grounded in the Constitution and that a right to abortion remains critical to women's equal participation in the workforce.Our panel explored these and other arguments and considered whether overruling these decisions, maintaining the viability line in some form, or some other approach best serves the rule of law.Featuring:-- Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley-- Prof. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School-- Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law-- Prof. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law-- Prof. Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law-- Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, formerly U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Once upon a time, "the right side of history" was the side where marriage was defined as a man and a woman committed to one another for life. Marriage was not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Whatever we wanted to call those alternative lifestyles, they were just that - alternatives. But then came loud calls for affirmation and legitimizing of everything which is not marriage. The folks who were not in a faithful, monogamous marriage wanted all the honor and recognition that comes with marriage for themselves, but without putting in the actual work to deserve it. Defenders of traditional marriage said that redefining marriage more broadly would not expand marriage, but would rather undermine and destroy the institution. And like the prostitute who stole the baby of another prostitute after her own baby died (probably due to neglect or contempt), wise King Solomon's command that a sword be brought to split the live baby in two so each could have half was just fine to the so-called "marriage equality" crowd. In other words, the "love is love" folks showed themselves content to have half of someone else's now-dead baby rather than the other harlot getting a whole live baby all to herself. And so the powers that be in the United States of America redefined marriage to include other relationships besides a man and a woman committed publicly for life to one another. Right around the time when all of this was decided, Sherif Girgis, Ryan T Anderson, and Robert P George wrote 'What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense.' Published at the tail-end of 2012, reading this book is like stepping into a time machine. Remember the bygone days when we were arguing about the traditional definition of marriage? Those were the days indeed. Plenty of arguments can be made from a legal, philosophical, sociological, historical, cultural, and practical standpoint without bringing religion into the equation. And these three men brought those arguments here. But by the time they had published their work, the matter had already been decided. And now we reap the whirlwind. What will future generations say of us? Likely, we will spend a number of generations reaping what wind was sown in the form of broken children growing up to be broken adults who beget still more broken children, and so-on and so-forth. All the same, I am reminded that the first thing God is recorded as having said was not good was that the man should be alone. Furthermore, I am still old enough to remember when God making a help-meet suitable for Adam was interpreted without controversy as Eve, a woman. And I am still stubborn enough to agree with God that this arrangement as a means to fulfilling the Dominion Mandate was looked on by God and not just called "good," but "very good." --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/garrett-ashley-mullet/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/garrett-ashley-mullet/support

Historically, marriage was understood to be a conjugal relationship; that is to say, a bond uniting a man and a woman as husband and wife in a partnership shaped by its special aptness for conceiving and rearing children. Thus, its norms included sexual complementarity, exclusivity, fidelity, and a pledge of permanence. In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, held that states could no longer define marriage as a distinctively male-female bond. The Court required all fifty states to eliminate the norm of sexual complementarity so that the relationships of same-sex partners could be recognized as “marriages.” To many Americans, justice had triumphed, “bigotry” had been defeated, so-called “marriage equality” would usher in a golden era of tolerance and there would be absolutely no negative repercussions. Those people and institutions (such as religious bodies) who cling to the idea of marriage as a conjugal bond and therefore oppose this sweeping change were henceforth to be treated as not just defeated foes in a series of court cases but as hate-filled yahoos suffering from a form of moral insanity. This was despite the fact that those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman were assured repeatedly by their opponents throughout the period up until Obergefell—and by the majority itself in that decision—that they had nothing to fear from what was, they insisted, a mere extension of marriage not its redefinition. They were told no harm would result to either individuals of conscience or to parents or children who would now be brought up in a world in which marriage is defined as basically an emotional union between adults of whatever sex, not one based on the bodily union of a man and a woman made possible by their sexual-reproductive complementarity. When defenders of the conjugal view of marriage pointed out that its legal abolition left no principled basis for norms such as permanence, monogamy, and fidelity, their arguments went for the most part unaddressed, except by the occasional candid critic, such as the gay activist writer Michelangelo Signorile, who replied that the abolition of traditional norms of morality represented a form of “liberation” from outmoded strictures. The norms were to be relegated to the history books and those who expressed allegiance to them were to find themselves increasingly in danger of losing their jobs, their businesses, and their rights to educate their children in their own beliefs. The authors of a book published in 2012, and in 2020 out in a second edition with a powerful new afterword, saw all of this coming. That book was What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (Encounter Books,  by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson & Robert P. George. We will talk to Mr. Anderson about the new edition of the book and what he and his co-authors got right about what was likely to happen in terms of religious freedom generally and in areas such as foster care and adoption assistance in a same-sex marriage world and what even he and his co-authors did not foresee. All of this affects all of us. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Historically, marriage was understood to be a conjugal relationship; that is to say, a bond uniting a man and a woman as husband and wife in a partnership shaped by its special aptness for conceiving and rearing children. Thus, its norms included sexual complementarity, exclusivity, fidelity, and a pledge of permanence. In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, held that states could no longer define marriage as a distinctively male-female bond. The Court required all fifty states to eliminate the norm of sexual complementarity so that the relationships of same-sex partners could be recognized as “marriages.” To many Americans, justice had triumphed, “bigotry” had been defeated, so-called “marriage equality” would usher in a golden era of tolerance and there would be absolutely no negative repercussions. Those people and institutions (such as religious bodies) who cling to the idea of marriage as a conjugal bond and therefore oppose this sweeping change were henceforth to be treated as not just defeated foes in a series of court cases but as hate-filled yahoos suffering from a form of moral insanity. This was despite the fact that those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman were assured repeatedly by their opponents throughout the period up until Obergefell—and by the majority itself in that decision—that they had nothing to fear from what was, they insisted, a mere extension of marriage not its redefinition. They were told no harm would result to either individuals of conscience or to parents or children who would now be brought up in a world in which marriage is defined as basically an emotional union between adults of whatever sex, not one based on the bodily union of a man and a woman made possible by their sexual-reproductive complementarity. When defenders of the conjugal view of marriage pointed out that its legal abolition left no principled basis for norms such as permanence, monogamy, and fidelity, their arguments went for the most part unaddressed, except by the occasional candid critic, such as the gay activist writer Michelangelo Signorile, who replied that the abolition of traditional norms of morality represented a form of “liberation” from outmoded strictures. The norms were to be relegated to the history books and those who expressed allegiance to them were to find themselves increasingly in danger of losing their jobs, their businesses, and their rights to educate their children in their own beliefs. The authors of a book published in 2012, and in 2020 out in a second edition with a powerful new afterword, saw all of this coming. That book was What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (Encounter Books,  by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson & Robert P. George. We will talk to Mr. Anderson about the new edition of the book and what he and his co-authors got right about what was likely to happen in terms of religious freedom generally and in areas such as foster care and adoption assistance in a same-sex marriage world and what even he and his co-authors did not foresee. All of this affects all of us. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Historically, marriage was understood to be a conjugal relationship; that is to say, a bond uniting a man and a woman as husband and wife in a partnership shaped by its special aptness for conceiving and rearing children. Thus, its norms included sexual complementarity, exclusivity, fidelity, and a pledge of permanence. In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, held that states could no longer define marriage as a distinctively male-female bond. The Court required all fifty states to eliminate the norm of sexual complementarity so that the relationships of same-sex partners could be recognized as “marriages.” To many Americans, justice had triumphed, “bigotry” had been defeated, so-called “marriage equality” would usher in a golden era of tolerance and there would be absolutely no negative repercussions. Those people and institutions (such as religious bodies) who cling to the idea of marriage as a conjugal bond and therefore oppose this sweeping change were henceforth to be treated as not just defeated foes in a series of court cases but as hate-filled yahoos suffering from a form of moral insanity. This was despite the fact that those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman were assured repeatedly by their opponents throughout the period up until Obergefell—and by the majority itself in that decision—that they had nothing to fear from what was, they insisted, a mere extension of marriage not its redefinition. They were told no harm would result to either individuals of conscience or to parents or children who would now be brought up in a world in which marriage is defined as basically an emotional union between adults of whatever sex, not one based on the bodily union of a man and a woman made possible by their sexual-reproductive complementarity. When defenders of the conjugal view of marriage pointed out that its legal abolition left no principled basis for norms such as permanence, monogamy, and fidelity, their arguments went for the most part unaddressed, except by the occasional candid critic, such as the gay activist writer Michelangelo Signorile, who replied that the abolition of traditional norms of morality represented a form of “liberation” from outmoded strictures. The norms were to be relegated to the history books and those who expressed allegiance to them were to find themselves increasingly in danger of losing their jobs, their businesses, and their rights to educate their children in their own beliefs. The authors of a book published in 2012, and in 2020 out in a second edition with a powerful new afterword, saw all of this coming. That book was What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (Encounter Books,  by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson & Robert P. George. We will talk to Mr. Anderson about the new edition of the book and what he and his co-authors got right about what was likely to happen in terms of religious freedom generally and in areas such as foster care and adoption assistance in a same-sex marriage world and what even he and his co-authors did not foresee. All of this affects all of us. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court will soon pronounce upon the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which amended that state’s constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act that was enacted into law in 1996 under then President Bill Clinton. This conversation with Ryan Anderson, co-author with Sherif Girgis and Robert George of the […]

John Corvino is Professor of Philosophy at the Wayne State University in Detroit. His academic work focuses on topics in moral, social, and legal philosophy surrounding sexuality, gender, marriage, religious conviction, and discrimination. But John is also an active public philosopher who frequently participates in public debates over these topics. He produces and appears in a popular YouTube series of short videos devoted to the philosophical discussion of controversial topics. He is the author of What's Wrong with Homosexuality?, co-author (with Maggie Ghallagher) of Debating Same Sex Marriage, and.co-author (with Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis) of Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination, all published with Oxford University Press. The "Why We Argue" podcast is produced by the Humanities Institute at the University of Connecticut as part of the Humility and Conviction in Public Life project. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

John Corvino is Professor of Philosophy at the Wayne State University in Detroit. His academic work focuses on topics in moral, social, and legal philosophy surrounding sexuality, gender, marriage, religious conviction, and discrimination. But John is also an active public philosopher who frequently participates in public debates over these topics. He produces and appears in a popular YouTube series of short videos devoted to the philosophical discussion of controversial topics. He is the author of What's Wrong with Homosexuality?, co-author (with Maggie Ghallagher) of Debating Same Sex Marriage, and.co-author (with Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis) of Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination, all published with Oxford University Press. The "Why We Argue" podcast is produced by the Humanities Institute at the University of Connecticut as part of the Humility and Conviction in Public Life project. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/language

John Corvino is Professor of Philosophy at the Wayne State University in Detroit. His academic work focuses on topics in moral, social, and legal philosophy surrounding sexuality, gender, marriage, religious conviction, and discrimination. But John is also an active public philosopher who frequently participates in public debates over these topics. He produces and appears in a popular YouTube series of short videos devoted to the philosophical discussion of controversial topics. He is the author of What's Wrong with Homosexuality?, co-author (with Maggie Ghallagher) of Debating Same Sex Marriage, and.co-author (with Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis) of Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination, all published with Oxford University Press. The "Why We Argue" podcast is produced by the Humanities Institute at the University of Connecticut as part of the Humility and Conviction in Public Life project. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

John Corvino is Professor of Philosophy at the Wayne State University in Detroit. His academic work focuses on topics in moral, social, and legal philosophy surrounding sexuality, gender, marriage, religious conviction, and discrimination. But John is also an active public philosopher who frequently participates in public debates over these topics. He produces and appears in a popular YouTube series of short videos devoted to the philosophical discussion of controversial topics. He is the author of What's Wrong with Homosexuality?, co-author (with Maggie Ghallagher) of Debating Same Sex Marriage, and.co-author (with Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis) of Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination, all published with Oxford University Press. The "Why We Argue" podcast is produced by the Humanities Institute at the University of Connecticut as part of the Humility and Conviction in Public Life project. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

John Corvino is  Professor of Philosophy at the Wayne State University in Detroit.  His academic work focuses on topics in moral, social, and legal philosophy surrounding sexuality, gender, marriage, religious conviction, and discrimination.  But John is also an active public philosopher who frequently participates in public debates over these topics. He produces and appears in a popular YouTube series of short videos devoted to the philosophical discussion of controversial topics.  He is the author of What’s Wrong with Homosexuality?, co-author (with Maggie Ghallagher) of Debating Same Sex Marriage, and.co-author (with Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis) of Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination, all published with Oxford University Press.

The Cambridge Pro Bono Project (CPP) hosted this lecture in the CPP Colloquium Series, supported by the Centre for Public Law. The lecture was given by Professor John Corvino, at the Faculty of Law on 20 November 2017. He spoke about 'Conscience, Religious Accommodations, and Religious Exemptions'. The presentation for this lecture is available at: https://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/documents/Cambridge_Public_Lecture_Corvino_20_11_2017.pdf John Corvino is Professor of Philosophy and the incoming Dean of the Irvin D. Reid Honors College at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, USA. He is the author of numerous articles, as well as three books from Oxford University Press: Debating Same-Sex Marriage (with Maggie Gallagher, 2012), What's Wrong with Homosexuality? (2013), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (with Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis, 2017). He has lectured at over 250 campuses on topics of sexuality, marriage, and ethics. Read more at www.johncorvino.com. For more information on the Cambridge Pro Bono Project see https://www.cpp.law.cam.ac.uk/

The Cambridge Pro Bono Project (CPP) hosted this lecture in the CPP Colloquium Series, supported by the Centre for Public Law. The lecture was given by Professor John Corvino, at the Faculty of Law on 20 November 2017. He spoke about 'Conscience, Religious Accommodations, and Religious Exemptions'. The presentation for this lecture is available at: https://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/documents/Cambridge_Public_Lecture_Corvino_20_11_2017.pdf John Corvino is Professor of Philosophy and the incoming Dean of the Irvin D. Reid Honors College at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, USA. He is the author of numerous articles, as well as three books from Oxford University Press: Debating Same-Sex Marriage (with Maggie Gallagher, 2012), What's Wrong with Homosexuality? (2013), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (with Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis, 2017). He has lectured at over 250 campuses on topics of sexuality, marriage, and ethics. Read more at www.johncorvino.com. For more information on the Cambridge Pro Bono Project see https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/cpp This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The Cambridge Pro Bono Project (CPP) hosted this lecture in the CPP Colloquium Series, supported by the Centre for Public Law. The lecture was given by Professor John Corvino, at the Faculty of Law on 20 November 2017. He spoke about 'Conscience, Religious Accommodations, and Religious Exemptions'. The presentation for this lecture is available at: https://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/documents/Cambridge_Public_Lecture_Corvino_20_11_2017.pdf John Corvino is Professor of Philosophy and the incoming Dean of the Irvin D. Reid Honors College at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, USA. He is the author of numerous articles, as well as three books from Oxford University Press: Debating Same-Sex Marriage (with Maggie Gallagher, 2012), What's Wrong with Homosexuality? (2013), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (with Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis, 2017). He has lectured at over 250 campuses on topics of sexuality, marriage, and ethics. Read more at www.johncorvino.com. For more information on the Cambridge Pro Bono Project see https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/cpp

The Cambridge Pro Bono Project (CPP) hosted this lecture in the CPP Colloquium Series, supported by the Centre for Public Law. The lecture was given by Professor John Corvino, at the Faculty of Law on 20 November 2017. He spoke about 'Conscience, Religious Accommodations, and Religious Exemptions'. The presentation for this lecture is available at: https://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/documents/Cambridge_Public_Lecture_Corvino_20_11_2017.pdf John Corvino is Professor of Philosophy and the incoming Dean of the Irvin D. Reid Honors College at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, USA. He is the author of numerous articles, as well as three books from Oxford University Press: Debating Same-Sex Marriage (with Maggie Gallagher, 2012), What's Wrong with Homosexuality? (2013), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (with Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis, 2017). He has lectured at over 250 campuses on topics of sexuality, marriage, and ethics. Read more at www.johncorvino.com. For more information on the Cambridge Pro Bono Project see https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/cpp This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The Cambridge Pro Bono Project (CPP) hosted this lecture in the CPP Colloquium Series, supported by the Centre for Public Law. The lecture was given by Professor John Corvino, at the Faculty of Law on 20 November 2017. He spoke about 'Conscience, Religious Accommodations, and Religious Exemptions'. The presentation for this lecture is available at: https://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/documents/Cambridge_Public_Lecture_Corvino_20_11_2017.pdf John Corvino is Professor of Philosophy and the incoming Dean of the Irvin D. Reid Honors College at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, USA. He is the author of numerous articles, as well as three books from Oxford University Press: Debating Same-Sex Marriage (with Maggie Gallagher, 2012), What's Wrong with Homosexuality? (2013), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (with Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis, 2017). He has lectured at over 250 campuses on topics of sexuality, marriage, and ethics. Read more at www.johncorvino.com. For more information on the Cambridge Pro Bono Project see https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/cpp

The Cambridge Pro Bono Project (CPP) hosted this lecture in the CPP Colloquium Series, supported by the Centre for Public Law. The lecture was given by Professor John Corvino, at the Faculty of Law on 20 November 2017. He spoke about 'Conscience, Religious Accommodations, and Religious Exemptions'. The presentation for this lecture is available at: https://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/documents/Cambridge_Public_Lecture_Corvino_20_11_2017.pdf John Corvino is Professor of Philosophy and the incoming Dean of the Irvin D. Reid Honors College at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, USA. He is the author of numerous articles, as well as three books from Oxford University Press: Debating Same-Sex Marriage (with Maggie Gallagher, 2012), What's Wrong with Homosexuality? (2013), and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (with Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis, 2017). He has lectured at over 250 campuses on topics of sexuality, marriage, and ethics. Read more at www.johncorvino.com. For more information on the Cambridge Pro Bono Project see https://www.cpp.law.cam.ac.uk/

Virtually everyone supports religious liberty, and virtually everyone opposes discrimination. But how do we handle the hard questions that arise when exercises of religious liberty seem to discriminate unjustly? How do we promote the common good while respecting conscience in a diverse society? Listen as John Corvino, a longtime LGBT-rights advocate, opposite Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis, prominent young social conservatives discuss these questions and more.

The first ERLC conference in 2014, “The Gospel, Homosexuality, and the Future of Marriage,” was well received and exceeded expectations. Part of this is because we're are living in world that is confused about these topics. Sherif Girgis helped shed some light on how to think about marriage in his talk, “Better Together: Marriage and the Common Good.”

Visit summit.org to receive unflinching worldview analysis of current news and events. Look for the email signup on the sidebar to the right. Dr. Ryan T. Anderson is a champion of traditional marriage on the very frontline of the marriage debate. He's the co-author of What is Marriage? with Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George, and has appear on a number of mainstream media shows, where's he fearlessly defended one-man, one-woman marriage. For more information on Ryan Anderson, please visit the Heritage Foundation. Aaron Atwood talks with Ryan T. Anderson about the latest developments in the marriage debate at the Supreme Court, and explains the case for traditional marriage.