Podcasts about stare decisis

Stare Decisis and Precedent Source: Excerpts from "Stare Decisis and Precedent For law school students" Main Themes: Definition and Importance of Stare Decisis and Precedent: This section defines stare decisis as the doctrine of adhering to precedents, emphasizing its role in ensuring legal consistency, predictability, and fairness. Types of Precedent: The document distinguishes between binding precedent (mandatory for lower courts) and persuasive precedent (influential but not obligatory), further categorizing them into vertical (hierarchy-based) and horizontal (court adhering to its own decisions). Landmark Cases: The document examines cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade to illustrate how stare decisis shapes legal landscapes and adapts to societal shifts. Exceptions to Stare Decisis: While emphasizing continuity, the document acknowledges exceptions to stare decisis, including changes in societal values, flawed reasoning in prior rulings, and advancements in knowledge. Criticisms of Stare Decisis: The document presents criticisms like rigidity, potential for judicial conservatism, and complexity of overturning precedent. Benefits for Law Students: The document stresses the importance of understanding stare decisis for law students, highlighting its role in enhancing case analysis, persuasive argumentation, practical knowledge, and ethical awareness. Key Ideas and Facts: Definition: "Stare decisis, which literally means 'to stand by things decided,' is a judicial doctrine fundamental to common law systems." Purpose: "This principle aims to ensure consistency and predictability in the law by making previous judicial decisions binding or at least influential in future cases." Binding vs. Persuasive Precedent: "Binding Precedent: This is a precedent that must be followed by all lower courts in the same jurisdiction... Persuasive Precedent: This refers to decisions from other jurisdictions or courts of equivalent status that may influence a court's decision but are not obligatory." Vertical vs. Horizontal Stare Decisis: "Vertical Stare Decisis: This aspect deals with the hierarchy of courts... Horizontal Stare Decisis: This applies to courts adhering to their own prior decisions." Importance of Brown v. Board of Education: "This illustrates how horizontal stare decisis can adapt to changing social values by overturning past decisions." Flexibility of Stare Decisis: "Although the principle of stare decisis promotes consistency, it is flexible enough to adapt to changes in societal values." Overturning Precedent: "Courts may overturn precedent to align with new societal values... If a prior decision was based on incorrect reasoning or led to unjust outcomes, the court might overturn it." Criticisms: "Some critics argue that stare decisis can create an inflexible system that is slow to adapt to change... The doctrine encourages judicial conservatism, leading courts to rely on existing decisions and avoid innovative legal interpretations." Benefits for Law Students: "Being able to analyze how precedents apply to new fact patterns is an essential skill for legal practice... Reference to precedent forms a core part of legal argumentation." Overall Summary: This document provides a comprehensive overview of stare decisis and precedent, highlighting its importance in shaping legal systems. While emphasizing the principle's role in ensuring consistency and predictability, it also acknowledges its limitations and potential for criticism. By exploring landmark cases and exceptions to the rule, the document presents a nuanced perspective on this fundamental legal doctrine. It specifically emphasizes the significance of understanding stare decisis for law students, preparing them for future legal practice. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

For 49 years, from 1973 until 2022, the Supreme Court declared that the US Constitution protected abortion rights. With this precedent overturned, decision making about reproductive rights now resides with state governments. But the court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization relied on a partial and inaccurate understanding of American history, and its claims to be a pro-democracy decision were disingenuous. Dobbs is just one example of the court smashing precedents in the last few years. Melissa Murray is the Frederick I. and Grace Stokes Professor of Law at New York University, where she specializes in family law, constitutional law, and reproductive rights and justice. She has written for a wide range of academic journals and popular publications and regularly provides legal commentary for several major media outlets. Her credits include the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, the New York Times, Washington Post, and many others. She's a legal analyst at MSNBC and is also one of the cohosts of the podcast Strict Scrutiny, which focuses on the Supreme Court. https://crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/ https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250881397/thefallofroe

Stare Decisis, a Latin term meaning “let it stand,” is a key element of how American law is interpreted, applied, and adjudicated. When applied, it leads courts to stand by decided cases, to uphold precedents, and/or to maintain former adjudications. How exactly that principle should be applied, however, is a topic of some debate. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court held that a proper application of stare decisis required an assessment of the strength of the grounds on which the prior precedent was based. That articulation has led some to question: what are the implications of applying that conception of stare decisis to the Court’s constitutional criminal jurisprudence under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments? What might be its effect on those rights and remedies?Featuring:Hon. John F. Bash, III, Partner, Quinn EmanuelMr. Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Southern District of FloridaProf. Meghan J. Ryan, Co-Director, Tsai Center for Law, Science and Innovation, Altshuler Distinguished Teaching Professor, and Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of LawProf. John Stinneford, Edward Rood Eminent Scholar Chair, Professor of Law, & Senior Fellow, Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education, Levin College of Law, University of FloridaModerator: Hon. Amul Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitOverflow: Chinese Room

Case Law and Its Role in Constitutional Interpretation. 1. Examination of the Common Law Tradition. The common law tradition, inherited from English legal principles, forms the foundation of case law. In this tradition, judges' decisions in individual cases create legal precedents that guide future rulings. Significance: Case law provides an evolving body of legal principles that adapts to societal changes and addresses novel legal questions. This flexibility is particularly crucial in constitutional law, where interpretations may need to respond to evolving societal norms. Example: The common law tradition allows judges to interpret constitutional provisions in light of changing circumstances. For instance, the application of the Fourth Amendment to emerging technologies like smartphones has been shaped through case law. 2. The Role of Case Law in Constitutional Interpretation. Case law is instrumental in interpreting and applying constitutional provisions. Supreme Court decisions, in particular, set binding precedents that lower courts must follow. These decisions clarify constitutional principles and guide future rulings. Significance: The evolving nature of case law ensures that constitutional interpretations remain relevant and responsive to contemporary challenges. Supreme Court decisions, in particular, carry significant weight in shaping the legal landscape. Example: Brown v Board of Education (1954) is a landmark case that fundamentally altered constitutional interpretation, rejecting the "separate but equal" doctrine and declaring state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. Judicial Precedent in Constitutional Interpretation. 1. Understanding the Hierarchy of Courts. The U.S. legal system has a hierarchical structure of courts. Decisions made by higher courts, especially the Supreme Court, carry more weight as precedent than decisions by lower courts. This hierarchy ensures consistency and stability in the law. Significance: Supreme Court decisions are binding on all lower courts, creating a uniform interpretation of constitutional provisions across the country. However, the Court can also overturn its own precedent in certain circumstances. Example: When a federal district court in one state faces a constitutional question, it must follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court, ensuring a consistent application of constitutional principles. 2. Overview of Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Landmark Supreme Court cases play a pivotal role in constitutional interpretation. These decisions often involve issues of profound societal importance and shape the legal landscape for generations. Significance: Landmark cases establish important legal principles and interpretations that influence subsequent decisions. They are critical in defining and protecting constitutional rights. Example: Roe v Wade (1973) is a landmark case that recognized a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an abortion, based on the right to privacy implicit in the Constitution. 3. Role of Stare Decisis in Constitutional Law. Stare decisis, the principle of adhering to precedent, is fundamental in constitutional law. While the Court has the authority to overturn its own precedent, it generally follows established decisions to ensure stability and predictability in the law. Significance: Stare decisis contributes to the legitimacy of the legal system by providing consistency and fostering public confidence in the judiciary. Example: The principle of stare decisis was reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992), where the Court upheld the essential holding of Roe v Wade, citing the importance of precedent in preserving the rule of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Welcome back to the fourth part of our session on the Preamble and Articles of the U.S. Constitution. In the previous segments, we explored the significance of the Preamble, examined each Article of the Constitution, and delved into the Amendments, particularly the Bill of Rights and other crucial additions. Today, we will shift our focus to the principles of judicial review and the pivotal role that the judiciary plays in interpreting and applying the Constitution. Introduction to Judicial Review. Instructor: One of the foundational principles of our constitutional system is judicial review, which empowers the judiciary to review and, if necessary, invalidate laws and government actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution. This principle emerged from the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison. Marbury v. Madison - The Power of Judicial Review. In 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, decided the case of Marbury v. Madison. This case is pivotal in legal history because it established the principle of judicial review. Marbury v. Madison centered on a political dispute over the appointment of judges during the final days of President John Adams's administration. The Court ruled that while William Marbury, one of the appointees, had a right to his commission, the Supreme Court did not have the authority to enforce it. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion, however, went further, asserting the Court's power to review acts of Congress and determine their constitutionality. The Judiciary's Role in Interpreting the Constitution. Let's delve into the role of the judiciary in interpreting and applying the Constitution: Interpreting the Constitution: The judiciary serves as the final arbiter in interpreting the Constitution. When disputes arise over the Constitution's meaning or the constitutionality of laws, it falls to the courts to provide an authoritative interpretation. Applying Constitutional Standards: The judiciary employs various standards of review to assess the constitutionality of laws. These standards include strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review, depending on the nature of the right at stake. Balancing Rights and Government Interests: Courts must strike a balance between protecting individual rights and upholding legitimate government interests. This often involves intricate legal reasoning and consideration of the impact of decisions on society. The Doctrine of Stare Decisis. Another important principle in judicial interpretation is the doctrine of stare decisis, which means "to stand by things decided." This doctrine encourages courts to adhere to precedent - decisions made in previous cases - to ensure consistency, predictability, and stability in the law. Stare decisis allows for the gradual evolution of legal principles over time, as new cases build upon existing precedents. However, it also gives courts the flexibility to overrule past decisions if they are no longer viable or if societal values have changed significantly. Judicial Review and Constitutional Checks and Balances. Instructor: The principle of judicial review plays a crucial role in maintaining the checks and balances among the three branches of government. While the legislative and executive branches enact and implement laws, the judiciary ensures that those laws comply with the Constitution. Through the exercise of judicial review, the judiciary can strike down laws that violate constitutional principles, protecting individual rights and preventing the concentration of power in one branch. This power also reinforces the Constitution's role as the supreme law of the land, guiding the actions of all branches of government. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Show #1948 Links from this broadcast: Coach’s Honk and Wave: https://www.facebook.com/dave.daubenmire/videos/300446719201756 LAN, Stand with Dr. Tenpenny: https://thelibertyactionnetwork.com/event/stand-with-dr-sherri-tenpenny/ Send Emails to: complaints@med.ohio.gov  Reunited America: https://goevents101.com/reuniteamericami/#tkt-slctr-tbl-1494 Rosary Rally: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10160556808638497&set=a.10150713922603497 Ohio Medical Board: https://med.ohio.gov/about-the-board/board-members Stare Decisis: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis Overturned […]

Legal precedent is an odd thing. It matters, but it isn't codified. There are advantages and disadvantages. Let's all dive in and take at STARE DECISIS today. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow 1/2: #ClassicRichardEpstein: Before: the 6-3 Majority: 1/2: SCOTUS and stare decisis, 2021. @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst (Originally posted May December 9, 2021) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. 1922 @Batchelorshow 2/2: #ClassicRichardEpstein: Before: the 6-3 Majority: 2/2: SCOTUS and stare decisis, 2021. @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst (Originally posted May December 9, 2021) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

10.04.22 - Tues PM - Bro. Jacob Phillips -" Stare Decisis " by GBFPC

In this episode, we dig into the Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn Roe v Wade, thereby eliminating a constitutional right to an abortion. There are two main questions at issue: Was the reasoning in Roe sound? And then, separately, should it be overturned? We go over the arguments of the majority and concurring opinions, and also the criticisms of the dissent.Toby Napoletano, Michael Hughes

The Death of Stare Decisis (stâr′ē dĭ-sī′sĭs)

In this episode, we dig into the Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn Roe v Wade, thereby eliminating a constitutional right to an abortion. There are two main questions at issue: Was the reasoning in Roe sound? And then, separately, should it be overturned? We go over the arguments of the majority and concurring opinions, and also the criticisms of the dissent.Toby Napoletano, Michael Hughes

The Supreme Court currently has a majority of conservative judges, and it's the most conservative court since the New Deal Era. The Court made more conservative decisions this term than at any time since 1931, according to statistics compiled by professors Lee Epstein of Washington University in St. Louis and Keven Quinn of the University of Michigan. The recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has caused some to speculate that this may be the beginning of a movement to overturn other landmark liberal decisions like Obergfell v. Hodges. Jamal Greene is the Dwight Professor Law at Columbia Law School and author of “How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession with Rights Is Tearing America Apart.” He joins WITHpod to discuss what methodology Supreme Court justices use to arrive at their decisions, whether there is political motivation, and just how strictly they interpret the Constitution.

Jay and Suzanne talk through how the Supreme Court's hard right turn is affecting all aspects of American life, in both political and cultural spheres. Learn about Stare Decisis, how abortion became such a hot button topic for Evangelicals, and why there might be a reason to hope that this is only a moment in time. CNN - “The Supreme Court Just Threw the Idea of Settled Law Out the Window”: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics/supreme-court-stare-decisis-precedent/index.htmlNew York Times - “The Major Supreme Court Decisions of 2022”: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/21/us/major-supreme-court-cases-2022.htmlReuters - “Explainer: How Abortion Became a Decisive Issue in U.S. Politics”:https://www.reuters.com/world/us/how-abortion-became-divisive-issue-us-politics-2022-06-24/Want more Brand New Information? Follow us on Instagram @brandnewinformationpod + on Twitter @brandnewinfopod

Stare Decisis is a Latin phrase, commonly used in law that roughly translates to: “Let wrong decisions of the Warren Court stand” Regardless of your personal opinion in the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate , Roe v Wade was a terrible opinion bereft of even a modicum of legal merit and substantive due process is a garbage legal doctrine invented out of thin air by the Warren Court a century after the 14th amendment was ratified. The only people who could disagree with that statement are people who have never read the actual case brief for Roe v Wade and never bothered to so much as read the 14th amendment, much less earnestly try to give it a good faith interpretation. Full Case Brief - Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Today In Supreme Court History - Roe v Wade (1973) The 14th Amendment & Incorporation Doctrine Clarence Thomas was right to say as much in his concurrence in Dobbs. This is a position He (and much less importantly I) have held for many years. A careful reading of Thomas' opinion is, in many respects, less detrimental to the protection of unenumerated rights, secured by substantive due process than either Justice Alito's majority opinion and Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion. This is because he is the only one who suggests how the 14th amendment could be used in its original public meaning to secure many of the unenumerated rights that have been created with the imaginary theory of substantive due process , through the original public meaning of the 14th amendment's Privileges & Immunities Clause AMENDMENT XIV, SECTION 1 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.... In this episode we briefly discuss why Thomas is right and why those on the left who have turned into violent racist bigots over this decision are demonstrating a new low in their pursuit of political ends through mostly peaceful violence and mostly non-racist racism Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

John takes a look at the US Supreme Court's Dobbs decision which struck down Roe v. Wade. It has some interesting sections on 'stare decisis' (precedent), judicial hubris, and what is referred to in the judgment as "raw judicial power." We then comment on a couple of Justice Centre cases out of Saskatchewan; one in which a complaint against a law student for holding incorrect opinions is withdrawn, and another in which a doctor is suing for wrongful dismissal for expressing incorrect opinions about vaccines for children.Cornell Law School LLI: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health OrganizationCornell Law School LLI: Stare decisisYahoo News, Jun 24, 2022: World leaders decry the Supreme Court's 'horrific' decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, saying 'abortion is a fundamental right'National Catholic Register, May 5, 2022: The Dobbs Decision Leaked: What Does It Mean?Daily Signal, Jan 18, 2018: 3 Reasons Why Pro-Life Young Adults Like Me Are DangerousDaily Signal, Jan 17, 2017: How Ultrasounds Inspired the Pro-Life CauseCBC, Jun 24, 2022: U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, leaving abortion rights up to statesJustia, US Supreme Court: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)NPR, Dec 19, 2012: Robert Bork's Supreme Court Nomination 'Changed Everything, Maybe Forever'CanLII: R. v. Morgentaler, 1988 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1988] 1 SCR 30CBC, Apr 20, 2022: Budget puts abortion access on the table in future health funding talks with provincesCanLII: Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2018] 2 SCR 453Justice Centre, Jun 23, 2022: Complaint withdrawn against U of S law student who was forced to defend his opinions on racism in a classroom forumJustice Centre, Jun 24, 2022: Saskatchewan surgeon sues Health Authority and College of Medicine after being terminated and defamed for questioning covid vaccines for childrenTheme Music "Carpay Diem" by Dave StevensSupport the show

A draft of a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade and the right to an abortion heads this week's episode. We analyze and admonish the Supreme Court for playing politics with Womens' bodies and overturning years of precedent. We also discuss the lack of values in American history that leads to things like the policing of Womens' bodies and Black Americans getting gunned down while trying to go grocery shopping, for no other reason than the fact they were black. This is a heavy episode. Grab a drink. You're going to need it. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/imnotmadpodcast/support

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:Criminal offences require two things, often described with Latin names: actus reus and mens rea. Actus reus is an intentional physical act. Mens rea is a guilty mind. We don't wish to convict people for physical acts that were not intentional: crashing your car when you have a heart attack or tripping and falling into someone else would not be criminal offences, even if someone else was injured. We also don't want to convict people who don't intend to do something wrong. If, for example,  a checkout clerk at a store fails to scan something in your grocery cart properly and you walk out of the store without having paid for the item, it would not constitute theft. Being drunk will not ordinarily provide a defence to a criminal offence. When, however, someone is so impaired by alcohol or drugs that they are no longer capable of voluntary actions, it can amount to automatism. Such a state could result in involuntary movements like those that might result from sleepwalking or someone having a seizure. The Supreme Court of Canada recently considered a case in which a young man consumed alcohol and psilocybin mushrooms which, according to expert evidence that a trial judge accepted, caused hallucinations and ultimately for him to lose voluntary control over his actions. In this state, the man broke into a house and hit a random woman with a broom, injuring her.The Supreme Court of Canada found section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which permitted convictions even where there was no actus reus, or mens rea, because of voluntary intoxication, to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada pointed out that section 33.1 made no distinction between legal and illegal drugs. Someone who had an adverse reaction to an anesthetic and, while incapacitated, involuntarily hit someone could have been convicted of assault because of section 33.1. The court pointed out that it would be constitutionally permissible to create an offence of criminal intoxication, which would be focused on intentionally getting into a state of extreme impairment and then causing harm, rather than attempting to convict people for physical acts they had no control over. Also, on the show, in a companion decision to the one referred to above, the SCC clarified the concept of Horizontal stare decisis. The court system is organized as a hierarchy. There is a Provincial Court, a Superior Court, and a Court of Appeal in each province. The Supreme Court of Canada then hears appeals from all the Courts of Appeal. Lower courts are required to follow the decisions of higher courts in the same province. The Supreme Court of Canada pointed out that judges are also required to follow the decisions of other judges from the same level of court in their province: Horizontal stare decisis.This requirement promotes consistent, predictable decision-making. A judge is only permitted to depart from a legal finding of a previous judge of the same court in the circumstances set out in a BC case dating from 1954: Re Hansard Spruce Mills. Finally, on the show, the BC Court of Appeal, in a 2 – 1 split decision, has found some impugned provisions of the ICBC no-fault scheme to be constitutionally permissible. The provisions prevent injured people from suing in Supreme Court.The issues in the case involved the jurisdiction of the BC Supreme Court judges and the lack of independence of the Civil Resolution Tribunal, which has been permitted to make decisions concerning disputes with ICBC, even though it's not independent of government. Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed. 

We discuss the recent leaked SCOTUS interim decision, we discuss Casey, Roe cases, as well as abortion and anti-abortion politics of the 70s through the 90s. We also answer listener questions on - U.S. Grant and his image, favorite podcasts, which President to go on a bus ride with, why John Kerry lost and George W. Bush won in '04, Clinton impeachment, historical novels, First Past the Post voting systems, and conspiracy theories, oh and the signs of the end of the republic, all from MHCBUYP listeners. We are part of Airwave Media Network. Want to advertise - sales@advertisecast.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In shocking news today the Supreme Court on Terra overturned Virginia vs West Virginia upsetting 150 years of Stare Decisis to Declare West Virginia and thus Senator Joe Manchin Illegal.

On this week's episode, we cover a follow-up to the Google auto-correct “woke” feature and whether it's in our school classrooms. Also, Woke Joke Disney is serving as the canary in the coal mine for businesses all across America and the world. Amazon is offering to reimburse employees up to $4,000 dollars to travel out of state to kill their babies. Also, we're talking about the leaked SCOTUS decision and what it means. Also, we're announcing the start of our next investigative documentary film, "Dysphoria". To learn more about it and to help us get this film done, visit www.fearlessfeatures.org/dysphoria ******
Watch 'The Mind Polluters' - vimeo.com/ondemand/themindpolluters
Use promo code FEARLESS to get $5 off your rental.
****** Companies that will pay for your abortion: https://www.infowars.com/posts/meet-the-companies-that-will-facilitate-abortions-for-red-state-employees/ Do black babies' lives matter? https://www.theblaze.com/news/black-man-confronts-pro-abortion-protesters-over-black-babies What is Stare Decisis? https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

Topics Discussed: The intent behind the leak of the Supreme Court Majority Opinion draftWhat does this draft opinion mean?Lies from the media and politiciansWhat does this mean for the government funding of abortion?Is this a victory for the pro-life movement? Links Mentioned:Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - PoliticoYouTube Video: Psaki Says Limitations Prevent Us From Seeing Biden's MagicChief Justice Roberts responds to leaked Supreme Court draft opinion - ABC NewsThe Supreme Court marshal leading the leak investigation is a career Army lawyer - NPRElizabeth Warren's TweetBiden defends abortion rights after leak of Supreme Court draft striking down Roe v. Wade - CNBCYouTube Video: VP Kamala Harris delivers remarks at gala hosted by abortion rights group Emily's ListRate & Review Our Podcast Have a topic you want to see discussed on the show? [Submit it here.]To learn more about what Life Dynamics does, visit: https://lifedynamics.com/about-us/Support Our Work Be Sure To Follow Life Dynamics:Our WebsiteFacebookTwitterInstagramYouTube

The Heritage Foundation is honored to announce its inaugural Edwin Meese III Originalism Lecture featuring Professor Josh Blackman from South Texas College of Law Houston.This annual lecture seeks to honor former Attorney General Ed Meese's legacy of advancing an understanding and jurisprudence of originalism. When the Framers wrote the Constitution, “Their intention was to write a document not just for their times but for posterity,” Meese said in a 1985 speech to the D.C. Chapter of the Federalist Society Lawyers Division. Meese reiterated the theme of Original Intention in several speeches, warning of the danger of “seeing the Constitution as an empty vessel into which each generation may pour its passion and prejudice.” The Great Debate that he launched over three decades ago placed the idea of judicial originalism at the center of American jurisprudence and fundamentally altered the constitutional landscape of this nation.Today, originalism is no longer a novel concept; instead, it is now widely embraced in legal circles, including academia and the judiciary. Building on the work of Ed Meese, this lecture aims to continue the conversation he started and examine new trends and themes in originalist thought today. Please join us for our inaugural lecture with Professor Josh Blackman delivering a speech entitled Originalism and Stare Decisis in the Lower Courts­. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jackson Milton joins us to discuss Leftist Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson's senate confirmation hearings, the supreme court case that could overturn Roe v. Wade, and clarify the FIVE Jacksons. 0:00 Jackson #1: Jackson Milton 1:04 Jackson #2: Mississippi City 2:07 Jackson #3: Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson 8:21 Expected Confirmation Outcomes 14:42 Jackson #4: Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson - Huge Pro-Life Win! 22:12 Jackson #5: The Case to Reverse Roe: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization 23:11 Possible Outcomes from Dobbs v. Jackson 29:04 Why is a Middle Ground Approach Not Likely? 31:27 Republican Justices - How They Will Likely Vote 35:03 Stare Decisis & Viability 39:29 When Would a Decision Likely Come Out? 43:04 Quick: What Comes Next if Roe Is Overturned Give Now to defend the Texas Heartbeat Act Register for Team Life Camp

Erin Hawley of Alliance Defending Freedom Tradition And Stare Decisis Are More Reasons The Supreme Court Should Reverse Roe v. Wade Alliance Defending Freedom

Brad Snyder, Professor of Law at Georgetown and Author of "A Well-Paid Slave" visits BaseballBiz and shares his story about Curt Flood and his legal battles to fight for player's rights for some control over their careers.Career of Curt Flood began with Reds in 1956First trade to St. Louis Cardinals 7x Golden Glove player6x MVPCurt Flood cerebral man, civil rights activistOakland – diverse early days of his baseball journeyRacism in Reds minor leagues 1961 integrated spring training in St PetersburgCurt works with Jackie Robinson, Medgar Evans for Civil Rights in MississippiShotgun Threats against Curt and his family Cincinnati All Black outfield would not stand and Curt was traded to CardinalsPhiladelphia trade – black players faced a lot of racismCurt wanted to control his own path after playing 12 years How would Social Media have allowed Curt to control the narrative look to LeBron James and how he has controlled his message through Social Media?Curt challenged the trade with the December 24 letter to Bowie KuhnCosell interview Backing of MLBPA Players Representatives including Roberto Clemente & Reggie JacksonMarvin Miller would have selected different counsel for CurtThe Reserve Clause – a reserve system of perpetual ownership of the sport. An illegal monopoly.Anti-Trust Exemption – 1922, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes gave baseball a pass13th Amendment was part of the question100 years later the decision stands “Stare Decisis” rely on past decisions even if they are wrong.Supreme Court wants to kick baseball problem back to CongressNCAA recent challenge in Supreme Court – One Justice sites Flood v Kuhn as ridiculousJustices' Baseball Fandom gets in the way of justice for FloodBlackmun writes an ode to baseball in his Supreme Court opinion. Judges want to show their fandom can get in the way of the lawCurt Flood lost in Supreme CourtFlood's efforts opened doors for change and empowered players beginning with Grievance ArbitrationCurt Flood 10 & 5 rule allows qualified players to veto any trade Marvin Miller kept Curt Flood's efforts top of mind reminding young players of how they enjoyed the fruits of his effortsCurt's life rises later life with personal happiness with Judy Pace and recognitionKen Burns Baseball documentary with Curt Flood celebrated at the White House with President ClintonGerrit Cole gave credit to Curt Flood as he signed his contract with the Yankees.Cole's book report on FloodCurt led the way in fighting for a cause as seen with Pat Tillman, Colin Kaepernick,Jackie Robinson was the Guardian Angel for Curt FloodToday sports player like LeBron James have the empowerment to make Floods exclusion in Hall of FameUnion needs to educate the players on their historyRecognition with a Curt Flood DayDemocratic Justice Book about the Supreme Court history and Justice Felix FrankfurterDon't look to the Supreme Court to solve all of your problemsBaseballBiz is also on iheartradio, Stitcher, Spotify, Apple & Google podcasts You can reach Mark @TheBaseballBiz on Twitter & Brandon @SportsBlitzPod Special thanks to XTaKeRuX for the music "Rocking Forward"

"Stare Decisis" Preached by Bro. Jacob Phillips at the First Jesus Name Church of Benndale on the Wednesday night of 12 - 22 - 2021. For more information about our church or this message please email us at fjncbenndale@icloud.com. Have a wonderful and blessed day.

Today, I will talk about a very important principle of law, the principle of stare decisis. I will discuss the same with a jurisprudential perspective to provide conceptual clarity in relation to the doctrine of stare decisis.To know more about the present post, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/12/basics-of-doctrine-of-stare-decisis.htmlTelegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoonYouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2wApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARADAmazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook. Credits: Music by Wataboi from Pixabay Thank you for listening!

This week's episode is going up a day early as we had to call Happy Hour for Thursday evening on account of scheduling problems, and Steve and Lucretia welcome to the bar the noted Bourbon drinker and McRibb connoisseur John Yoo. (He's also apparently a law professor somewhere.) We review a few of the tea leaves from last week's Supreme Court oral argument in the Dobbs case, but use this momentous... Source

DOCUMENTATION AND ADDITIONAL READING PART 1 (0:0 - 6:11): ────────────────── Chile Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage — A Sign of Vast Social and Moral Change in Latin America NEW YORK TIMES (PASCALE BONNEFOY AND ERNESTO LONDOñO) Chile Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage at Fraught Political Moment PART 2 (6:12 - 11:20): ────────────────── Scott Peterson Sentenced to Life in Prison Without Parole for Killing His Pregnant Wife Confirmed — Rightly Convicted of Two Killings, Not One LA TIMES (DON THOMPSON) Scott Peterson Re-Sentenced to Life Term in Laci Peterson's 2002 Death PART 3 (11:21 - 13:26): ────────────────── Author Constance Ahrons Dies at 84 — But Her Idea of the “Good Divorce” Has Gained Ground NEW YORK TIMES (KATHARINE Q. SEELYE) Constance Ahrons, Advocate of ‘Good Divorce,' Dies at 84 PART 4 (13:27 - 17:8): ────────────────── What are the Possible Outcomes of the Mississippi Abortion Case? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters From Listeners Of The Briefing PART 5 (17:9 - 18:14): ────────────────── Does Investing in China Lead to Westernization? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters From Listeners Of The Briefing PART 6 (18:15 - 20:17): ────────────────── Why Should We Not Just ‘Flush and Forget'? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters From Listeners Of The Briefing PART 7 (20:18 - 22:17): ────────────────── Is It Wrong for Christians to Think About A Trimester Understanding of Pregnancy? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters From Listeners Of The Briefing PART 8 (22:18 - 23:51): ────────────────── Will You Discuss Why 5 of 6 Justices Who Voted in Favor of Roe Were Appointed by Republican Presidents? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters From Listeners Of The Briefing PART 9 (23:52 - 26:14): ────────────────── In the Case of Stare Decisis, When Is It Appropriate for the Supreme Court to Supersede and Overrule the Will of the People? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters From Listeners Of The Briefing

Photo:   The law library of the Naval Legal Service Office detachment 2/2: SCOTUS and stare decisis, 2021. @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

Photo:  Starre decision as precedent.  Here,  Suffragettes at court house injunction precedings, July 13/20 1/2: SCOTUS and stare decisis, 2021. @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

This week’s episode is going up a day early as we had to call Happy Hour for Thursday evening on account of scheduling problems, and Steve and Lucretia welcome to the bar the noted Bourbon drinker and McRibb connoisseur John Yoo. (He’s also apparently a law professor somewhere.) We review a few of the tea leaves from last week’s Supreme Court oral argument in the Dobbs case, but use this momentous case to talk more broadly about the whole problem of stare decisis (“let the decision stand”) in our jurisprudence. Along the way we entertain some seriously heterodox views, such as the proposition that Brown v. Board of Education never actually overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson. It it has done so, we wouldn’t have the messy regime of quotas and affirmative action today. We also speculate on whether there might actually be leaks from somewhere inside the Court ahead of the decision—something that rarely or never happens—because the liberal justices are desperate to do anything to derail an overturning of Roe (which, Steve argued to John, is the “McRibb sandwich of modern jurisprudence: a compressed confection of offal cuts slathered with sauce to disguise its true awfulness”). Finally, we discuss the “crisis of the conservative legal movement” and what might happen to it if the Court muffs the Dobbs case.

This week’s episode is going up a day early as we had to call Happy Hour for Thursday evening on account of scheduling problems, and Steve and Lucretia welcome to the bar the noted Bourbon drinker and McRibb connoisseur John Yoo. (He’s also apparently a law professor somewhere.) We review a few of the tea […]

Supreme Court abortion oral arguments, the January 6th committee, and the Oxford High School shooting are making the headlines this week. In this sample from the CAFE Insider podcast, Preet and Joyce break down oral arguments in the high-profile abortion case in which Mississippi is asking the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Will the Court uphold the Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of gestation? Is Roe dead? In the full episode, Preet and Joyce discuss the latest developments from the January 6th committee investigation: Mark Meadows's decision to stop cooperating with the committee, and Jeffrey Clark's and John Eastman's invocations of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. They also break down the manslaughter charges brought against the parents of Ethan Crumbley, the Oxford High School shooter. To listen to the full episode and get access to all exclusive CAFE Insider content, try the membership free for two weeks: www.cafe.com/insider Sign up to receive the free weekly CAFE Brief newsletter: www.cafe.com/brief This podcast is brought to you by CAFE Studios and Vox Media Podcast Network.  Tamara Sepper – Executive Producer; Matthew Billy – Senior Audio Producer; Jake Kaplan – Editorial Producer REFERENCES & SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS:  Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, U.S. Supreme Court, oral argument transcript, 12/1/21 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, U.S. Supreme Court, opinion, 1992 Roe v. Wade, U.S. Supreme Court, opinion, 1973 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The oral argument is complete in the Mississippi abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. In our previous two episodes, Professor Amar prepared our audience with a remarkable menu of constitutional theory, a recap of the relevant cases and the orientation of the justices.  We now look at the actual argument and find where it cohered with Akhil's notions.  We critique the arguments, the advocates, and the arbiters, and discuss arguments that might have been made.  Was precedent ("Stare Decisis") the theme, and did it have to be?  The voices of the justices, inserted in our podcast, put you right there, with Professor Amar as your guide.

Watching the case before the Supreme Court this week on whether or not the Court should overrule Roe v Wade and a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus becomes viable, KSL Newsradio's Amanda Dickson asks her guests on A Woman's View whether the viability test is the right balance of rights - the right balance of the woman's rights with the rights of the state to protect the unborn child. Her guests this week include Cassie Bingham, Program Director of Utah Valley University's Center for Social Impact, Andrea Himoff, senior advisor on the Becky Edwards for U.S. Senate campaign, and Dr. Delania Tonks, Principal of Mountain Heights Academy. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

More than reading the tea leaves of where the nine Justices may come down, in today's episode, Chris cautions that reading into the questions they ask is not always representative of the outcome they ultimately come to decide.  So while the arguments can be instructive in getting a sense of what they seek to understand, it is not always dispositive of their leaning.Then, Chris and Vick tick through the Justices' questions and arguments that generally fall into three camps of outcome: kick it to the states and uphold Mississippi; a compromise of allowing Mississippi law to go to 15 weeks but keeping Roe in tact; or allowing the 50 years of precedent to hold firm as many Justices have reiterated over the years since Roe and then Casey were decided.Chris explains that while a lot is made of past judicial decisions,  something is stare decisis (the Latin term in the law for standing by things decided) until it isn't.  In other words: precedent is only precedent until they change it.And Another Thing:  A beat on the continual need to keep calm and carry on when it comes to the Omicron variant, and Chris' prescription to not to let panic get ahead of the facts. Plus:  An introduction to the Cuomo family dogs, all three!

Next Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on what to do with Roe v. Wade. If you are pro-life, this is a must listen. David again uses the words of Justice Clarence Thomas to explain why using “stare decisis” to perpetuate for decades wrong decisions like Roe violates the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution. You will know why “Black Robed Legislators” is an apt description of the Court. Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donate See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A new term of the US Supreme Court started last month. What have they discussed, what will they discuss, and who's on the bench doing the discussing? Our guest for the show today is attorney Max Meyers from the Mississippi Center for Justice.https://mscenterforjustice.org/https://www.supremecourt.gov/https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-fascinating-facts-on-the-supreme-courts-birthdayDid you know there were Justices on our US money? John Marshall was on the $500 bill, while Salmon P. Chase was on the $10,000 bill. Neither bill is in circulation today. We are in the area of the Robert's Court. It is the 17th. Supreme Court historians categorize eras in court history by the name of the chief justice presiding over the court and its sessions. There have been 17 chief justices and hence, 17 “Courts.” Did you know there was a Grandfather / grandson justice duo? John Marshall Harlan II served from 1955 to 1971. His grandfather was the legendary John Marshall Harlan, who served on the Court from 1877 to 1911. The elder Harlan was known as the Great Dissenter for his opposition to rulings that promoted Jim Crow laws in the South.Creation of Supreme Court, powers, members.Now many members, Stare Decisis.Supreme Court Oral Arguments Live https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Today David explains what you need to know to appreciate the oral arguments to be made in the Supreme Court on December 1st in the most significant abortion case since 1992. Stare Decisis will be key to whether Roe v. Wade is overturned. David exposes how liberals have ripped stare decisis from its common law context, twisted it to create a “living Constitution,” and then used it to protect the “new rights” created by their constitutional malfeasance. Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donate See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With important gun rights and abortion cases now being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, you must understand the role of stare decisis—the use of past precedents—and its rather arbitrary application by the Court. Listen and you'll know why liberals like U.S. Senator Blumenthal make stare decisis a litmus test for judicial confirmation. Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donate See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

• Mawhorter Finance: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcCtp1sgEaDEJuXOldfDhnA • Political Factions: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5AXD5yt2STFr4bqsbD86sA • Joshua's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/joshua_mawhorter/

Panel III – Originalism, Constitutional Interpretation, and Stare DecisisThe Honorable James C. Ho, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitThe Honorable Gregory E. Maggs, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed ForcesChristopher Landau, Former Ambassador to MexicoErik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLPModerator: The Honorable Gregory G. Katsas, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitThe Heritage Foundation and the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at Antonin Scalia Law School will co-host a special event to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court of the United States. Bringing together jurists, legal academics, and practitioners, including many of his former clerks, we will discuss the Justice's jurisprudence and impact on the Court over the past three decades. Join us for this all-day law symposium to reflect on the legacy of Justice Thomas thirty years into his service. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Today, I will talk about two very important concepts, precedent and stare decisis. We have heard these terms quite often and I am sure that many of you would already be aware about their respective meanings. To know more about it, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/10/doctrine-of-precedent-and-stare-decisis.htmlTelegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoonYouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2wApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARADAmazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook. Credits: Music by Wataboi from Pixabay Thank you for listening!

Links from Today’s Show: Russ Dizdar on the Hagmann Report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwyWk4gkaos Stare Decisis: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis Alison Williams leaves ESPN: https://www.foxnews.com/sports/allison-williams-leaving-espn-covid-vaccine-mandate Old Deluder Satan Act: https://www.mass.gov/doc/old-deluder-satan-law/download Mayflower Compact: http://mayflowerhistory.com/mayflower-compact Jeremiah 1:10 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah+1%3A10&version=KJV Coach Dave LIVE Always […]

Episode #41 Today on Categorical Imperatives we do our latest installment of "Today In Supreme Court History. This is the 1992 case that sought to overturn Roe v Wade, but ended up reaffirming Roe, however with some very interesting changes to the original decision. This case had a fascinating treatment of a number of areas of 14th amendment jurisprudence including it's shifting views on the application of substantive due process & judicial scrutiny. As well as an odd an unique approach to Stare Decisis. Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberalHow to support the channel:Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58¤cy_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberalShow Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.comCategorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Unlike many states, Texas has separate high courts for civil and criminal cases. Criminal practitioners follow the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals closely because its decisions impact criminal law in every corner of the state. As a former appellate prosecutor, Judge David Newell brings a unique perspective to that Court. Judge Newell joins Jody Sanders and Todd Smith in this episode to discuss his background, his experience as a prosecutor, and his path to running for statewide election as a first-time candidate. He also provides insights on Court of Criminal Appeals proceedings and how the Court responded to the pandemic, including its adoption of new technology and practices. Finally, Judge Newell discusses the Court's credibility, the role stare decisis plays at the Court, and opinions he wrote of which he is particularly proud.Imagine working in the DA's office and then the next thing you know, you're sitting on the bench with the robes and all. You are the judge of a courtroom. That is the life of Judge David Newell. David is the judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the equivalent of the Texas Supreme Court. Join your host, Jody Sanders, as he sits down with Judge Newell to discuss the Court of Criminal Appeals. Find out more about him and what piqued his interest in the law. Learn about the challenges and decision-making that are needed from a judge. Know why the Stare Decisis is important for credibility. Find out how technology and the pandemic affected court trials. Also. get more in-depth information about some of the more interesting cases of David's career. Learn what it takes to be the judge of the highest court in Texas in this episode.Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share!Here's How »Join the Texas Appellate Law Podcast Community today:texapplawpod.comTwitterFacebookLinkedInYouTube

Photo:  Stare decisis definedCBS Eye on the World, with John Batchelor1/2  Stare decisis and Roe v Wade: a history  @RichardAEpstein  @HooverInsthttps://www.hoover.org/research/should-roe-v-wade-stand

Photo: Demonstrators in the first March for Life in Washington, D.C. on January 22, 1974, a year after Roe v. Wade was passedCBS Eye on the World, with John Batchelor2/2  Stare decisis and Roe v Wade: a history  @RichardAEpstein  @HooverInsthttps://www.hoover.org/research/should-roe-v-wade-stand

This week the #SistersInlaw look at the differences between civil and criminal charges that have been filed against the Trump Organization, and if a commission into January 6th would find that the President and his supporters had kicked off an insurrection. Then, the #sisters look at the role of stare decisis in our legal system and whether it has relevance in 2021.  What do you think? Get More From The #SistersInLaw: Joyce Vance: Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC Jill Wine-Banks: Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President Kimberly Atkins: Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR Barb McQuade: Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC Email the sisters at SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM Or tweet using #SistersInLaw Barb's Articles this week: On AG investigation of Trump Org https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/21/new-york-criminal-probe-escalates-legal-risk-trump-business/5184002001/ On voting bill in Michigan and elsewhere that restricts access to the ballot box https://www.crainsdetroit.com/crains-voices/commentary-lets-not-make-it-harder-vote-michigan THIS WEEK'S SPONSORS: JENNI KAYNE: FIND YOUR FOREVER PIECES AT WWW.JENNIKAYNE.COM AND GET 15% OFF YOUR FIRST ORDER WHEN YOU USE CODE SISTERS AT CHECKOUT. AUDIBLE: GO TO WWW.AUDIBLE.COM/SISTERSINLAW OR TEXT SISTERSINLAW TO 500-500 HYDRANT: GO TO WWW.DRINKHYDRANT.COM/SISTERS OR ENTER OUR PROMO CODE SISTERS AT CHECKOUT.  ARTICLES FROM THE SISTERS THIS WEEK: BARB ON THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION INVESTIGATION KIM ON THE 1/6 COMMISSION  

This week: What does Greenberg plea deal mean for Greenberg; what could it mean for Gaetz; what dumb Executive Orders did Biden undo; what does Justice Thomas really think about stare decisis; are we preparing for a Roe v Wade showdown; is Stefanik really that conservative; are there any Republicans standing up against the Cyber Ninjas? Apologies for getting this episode a day late. It got stuck as the hosting platform performed an update.  Want to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early? Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45pod Check out the show's sponsors: Go to magicspoon.com/cleanup to grab the new limited edition Birthday Cake, or a custom bundle of cereal to try it today! And be sure to use our promo code CLEANUP at checkout to save five dollars off your order.  Go to http://SteadyMD.com/CLEANUP to take the FREE quiz and see which doctor is a perfect fit for you. SteadyMD dot com slash CLEANUP.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Evan is joined by IP Practice Co-Chair Matt Wolf to go behind the scenes of his recent argument before the nation's highest court in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., assessing whether assignor estoppel should be eliminated, retained, or limited.    

On Episode 6 of Legal AF, MeidasTouch's weekly law and politics podcast, hosts MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, analyze key decisions this “Supreme Court Season” and take apart SCOTUS' 6-3 Republican majority and its unrelenting attack on judicial precedent (Stare Decisis) to legislate from the bench and change the law as we know it in the areas of abortion, the Second Amendment (NY State Rifle Association v. Corlett), and criminal sentencing for minors (Jones v. Mississippi). Speaking of SCOTUS, Ben and Michael also take a hard look at Justice “I am Not the Notorious ACB” Amy Coney Barrett and examine why she has refused to recuse (disqualify) herself from a series of recent cases involving her family and PACs that paid a million bucks to confirm her nomination (the Americans for Prosperity case), and how SCOTUS is on the verge of allowing unlimited and anonymous corporate dark money to pour into US elections. The Analytical Friends (is that what AF stands for?) then move into the #LegalWTF segment as they look at various state legislation that seeks to overturn fundamental US Constitutional rights. First up, Oklahoma gives immunity to drivers who maim or kill protestors with their cars, while criminalizing peaceful protests in the streets, and then for good measure virtually bans all abortions despite a woman's US Constitutionally-protected right to choose. Not to be outdone, Arizona is allowing a made up QAnon conspiracy theorists called “Cyber Ninjas” to gain access to their voters' sacred presidential election ballots to perform some sort of bizarre and illegitimate “audit” not to overturn the election, but to allow the Arizona Republicans to continue their charade at taxpayers' expense that the election was “stolen.” And of course, Florida Man is heard from, this time it's the governor, who is about to sign a law that likely violates the US Constitution's Commerce Clause by preventing social media companies from banning political candidates from their platforms or face fines of up to $100k a day. Easter egg alert: Ben considers permanently changing the name of the podcast to LegalWTF, and not only does fan-favorite “financial dominatrixes” make an appearance, but so does cos-play! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Episode 6 of Legal AF, MeidasTouch’s weekly law and politics podcast, hosts MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, analyze key decisions this “Supreme Court Season” and take apart SCOTUS’ 6-3 Republican majority and its unrelenting attack on judicial precedent (Stare Decisis) to legislate from the bench and change the law as we know it in the areas of abortion, the Second Amendment (NY State Rifle Association v. Corlett), and criminal sentencing for minors (Jones v. Mississippi). Speaking of SCOTUS, Ben and Michael also take a hard look at Justice “I am Not the Notorious ACB” Amy Coney Barrett and examine why she has refused to recuse (disqualify) herself from a series of recent cases involving her family and PACs that paid a million bucks to confirm her nomination (the Americans for Prosperity case), and how SCOTUS is on the verge of allowing unlimited and anonymous corporate dark money to pour into US elections. The Analytical Friends (is that what AF stands for?) then move into the #LegalWTF segment as they look at various state legislation that seeks to overturn fundamental US Constitutional rights. First up, Oklahoma gives immunity to drivers who maim or kill protestors with their cars, while criminalizing peaceful protests in the streets, and then for good measure virtually bans all abortions despite a woman’s US Constitutionally-protected right to choose. Not to be outdone, Arizona is allowing a made up QAnon conspiracy theorists called “Cyber Ninjas” to gain access to their voters’ sacred presidential election ballots to perform some sort of bizarre and illegitimate “audit” not to overturn the election, but to allow the Arizona Republicans to continue their charade at taxpayers' expense that the election was “stolen.” And of course, Florida Man is heard from, this time it's the governor, who is about to sign a law that likely violates the US Constitution’s Commerce Clause by preventing social media companies from banning political candidates from their platforms or face fines of up to $100k a day. Easter egg alert: Ben considers permanently changing the name of the podcast to LegalWTF, and not only does fan-favorite “financial dominatrixes” make an appearance, but so does cos-play! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/meidastouch/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/meidastouch/support

Seventeen days of criterium racing across some of the biggest and best events in the American calendar. We are one nation united by criteriums. Each event, as a standalone race makes perfect; but the union of events in a series or as part of a calendar is a touch lacking. Where is the story? Where is the drama? What links them all together? Right now it doesn't seem like too much. Eric Hill of Project Echelon gives us his take as a racer and team director on what the PRT is, why his team does it, and what ways he thinks it can better serve our community.

11/22/2020 Sunday Evening

11/22/2020 Sunday Evening

ACB confirmation hearing reactionWhat's your deal, Samantha?Huntergate is a brewin'

In this episode, Kiel Brennan-Marquez, Associate Professor of Law and William T. Golden Scholar at the University of Connecticut School of Law, discusses his draft article "Revitalizing Stare Decisis." Brennan-Marquez begins by explaining why the doctrine of stare decisis is in a crisis moment, and why he thinks that is a problem. He proposes an alternative way of conceptualizing stare decisis, and he explains why he thinks we ought to prefer it. Brennan-Marquez's scholarship is available on SSRN.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Gestern hat der US Supreme Court ein Gesetz gekippt, das eine Abtreibung im Bundesstaat Louisiana nahezu unmöglich gemacht hätte. Die entscheidende Stimme kam von Chief Justice Roberts, einem erzkonservativen Abtreibungsgegner. Während sich Liberale erfreut die Augen reiben und das Weiße Haus ein “unglückliches Urteil” beklagt, wird STEPHEN F. ROSS von der Penn State Law School misstrauisch: Könnte es sein, dass Trumps scheinbarer Rückschlag eigentlich ein Wahlkampfgeschenk ist — in Abtreibungsdebatte verpackt und mit verfassungsrechtlichem Schleifchen verziert? Diese These bespricht er im heutigen Podcast-Interview mit Max Steinbeis.

Mary Jo and John shed some light on the Supreme Court Decision in the Louisiana abortion case.

Lawrence David, a professor at the University of Ottawa discusses stare decisis at the Supreme Court of Canada, bolstered with his insights and findings found in his new book Stare Decisis, The Charter and the Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of Canada. You can find him on LinkedIn searching Lawrence David or by following this link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawrencedavidlegal/?originalSubdomain=ca

Essentially, the Latin term "stare decisis" refers to precedent. Courts traditionally make rulings not only based on the written law, but also based on past rulings. The idea is to cause the court, in general, to be consistent and predictable in its rulings and exact justice evenly from person to person. The problem is when the court blindly uses precedent in spite of the law, reinterpreting or bending the law to fit its interpretation and thereby becoming a de facto legislative body. Frankly, we could use less precedent and more Constitution in our court proceedings today. Support the show.

Professor John Greabe discusses the impact of stare decisis on court decisions, especially regarding the United States Supreme Court. This episode revolves around Professor Greabe's Constitutional Connections series running in the Concord Monitor, read this month's edition: https://www.concordmonitor.com/The-Supreme-Court-and-constitutional-stare-decisis-33880073. Produced and hosted by A. J. Kierstead. Get an email when the latest episode releases! UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law is now accepting applications for JD, Graduate Programs, and Online Professional Certificates at https://law.unh.edu  Legal topics include civil rights, United States Supreme Court, constitutional law

A panel of legal scholars discussed the relationship between originalist legal philosophy and stare decisis, the legal principle of using precedent to determine outcomes in litigation. The panel consisted of Professors John Harrison and Deborah Hellman; Kurt Lash, University of Richmond School of Law professor; and UVA Law student Henry Dickman ’20. Professor Emeritus Lillian R. BeVier served as moderator. This panel was featured during UVA Law Federalist Society’s symposium “Originalism and Precedent: Exploring Paths to Reform.” (University of Virginia School of Law, Feb. 13, 2020

On January 3-4, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted its 22nd annual Faculty Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. The first panel discussed "Originalism and Stare Decisis".Sometimes the original meaning of the Constitution conflicts with or points in a different direction from the Supreme Court's precedents. When that happens, what is the role of stare decisis? To what extent is stare decisis consistent with or at odds with originalism? What should an originalist Court do with non-originalist precedent? What exactly does stare decisis commit a court to follow? Do the Supreme Court’s past practices or its duty to follow its precedents differ from inferior courts’ duty to heed Supreme Court decisions? *******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers. Featuring:Randy E. Barnett, Georgetown University Law CenterRandy J. Kozel, Notre Dame Law SchoolJohn O. McGinnis, Northwestern University Pritzker School of LawModerator: Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist SocietyIntroduction: Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President & Director, Faculty Division, The Federalist Society

On January 3-4, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted its 22nd annual Faculty Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. The first panel discussed "Originalism and Stare Decisis".Sometimes the original meaning of the Constitution conflicts with or points in a different direction from the Supreme Court's precedents. When that happens, what is the role of stare decisis? To what extent is stare decisis consistent with or at odds with originalism? What should an originalist Court do with non-originalist precedent? What exactly does stare decisis commit a court to follow? Do the Supreme Court’s past practices or its duty to follow its precedents differ from inferior courts’ duty to heed Supreme Court decisions? *******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers. Featuring:Randy E. Barnett, Georgetown University Law CenterRandy J. Kozel, Notre Dame Law SchoolJohn O. McGinnis, Northwestern University Pritzker School of LawModerator: Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist SocietyIntroduction: Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President & Director, Faculty Division, The Federalist Society

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel covered "Stare Decisis in Civil Rights Cases".Stare decisis is generally regarded as a stronger force when applied to statutes than it is in constitutional law. The standard rationale is that it is much easier for the legislature to overrule statutory precedents than it is for the people to overrule constitutional precedents. But stare decisis has never been an absolute rule in either context. Has the Supreme Court been excessively reluctant to reconsider high-profile precedents that clearly misinterpreted the original meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similar statutes?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones DayMr. William S. Consovoy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC and Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. William N. Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law SchoolProf. Neil Kinkopf, Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. Diane S. Sykes, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel covered "Stare Decisis in Civil Rights Cases".Stare decisis is generally regarded as a stronger force when applied to statutes than it is in constitutional law. The standard rationale is that it is much easier for the legislature to overrule statutory precedents than it is for the people to overrule constitutional precedents. But stare decisis has never been an absolute rule in either context. Has the Supreme Court been excessively reluctant to reconsider high-profile precedents that clearly misinterpreted the original meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similar statutes?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones DayMr. William S. Consovoy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC and Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. William N. Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law SchoolProf. Neil Kinkopf, Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. Diane S. Sykes, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

On October 7, 2019, The Federalist Society held a panel on Stare Decisis at its annual Kentucky Chapters Conference.This spring, Justice Breyer wrote, in response to the Supreme Court's decision to overrule Nevada v. Hall, "Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next." But is the Roberts Court actually more aggressive in overruling precedents than previous Courts? How does the Kentucky Supreme Court compare? And when should a Court overrule a precedent? This latter question divides many originalists and textualists, in part because it cuts across ideological lines. Our panel will explore these topics, with a focus on the intersection of originalist principles and the principles of stare decisis.Cassie Chambers Armstrong - Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird; Vice Chair, Kentucky Democratic PartyProf. Michael Morley - Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of LawJohn Sheller - Stoll Keenon OgdenHon. Laurance VanMeter - Kentucky Supreme CourtModerator: Hon. Amul Thapar - U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth 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.

On October 7, 2019, The Federalist Society held a panel on Stare Decisis at its annual Kentucky Chapters Conference.This spring, Justice Breyer wrote, in response to the Supreme Court's decision to overrule Nevada v. Hall, "Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next." But is the Roberts Court actually more aggressive in overruling precedents than previous Courts? How does the Kentucky Supreme Court compare? And when should a Court overrule a precedent? This latter question divides many originalists and textualists, in part because it cuts across ideological lines. Our panel will explore these topics, with a focus on the intersection of originalist principles and the principles of stare decisis.Cassie Chambers Armstrong - Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird; Vice Chair, Kentucky Democratic PartyProf. Michael Morley - Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of LawJohn Sheller - Stoll Keenon OgdenHon. Laurance VanMeter - Kentucky Supreme CourtModerator: Hon. Amul Thapar - U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth 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.

In this episode...Professor Margaret Hannon, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Michigan School of Law discusses the all-important case brief, including the parts of the brief, how to brief a case and the relationship of the case brief to the court system.Some key takeaways are:1. Case briefs are personal to the person briefing them, no judgment2. Cases for law school are edited, briefs found on the internet might not reflect the edited version of a case in the case book.3. Reasoning is the "protein" of the case4. Stare Decisis means that courts must follow their own decisions and the decisions of courts above them.About our guest...Professor Margaret C. Hannon joined the Law School faculty in 2013 as a clinical assistant professor in the Legal Practice Program. She previously taught legal research, writing, and reasoning as a clinical assistant and clinical associate professor at Northwestern Law School, where she also served as the assistant director and interim director of the legal research and writing program. In recognition of her teaching, Professor Hannon received Northwestern's Dean's Teaching Award and Dean's Teaching Award Honorable Mention. Professor Hannon practiced law at Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLP (now K&L Gates LLP). Her practice focused on labor and employment counseling and litigation, and the negotiation and administration of collective bargaining agreements. She is an active member of the Legal Writing Institute. She is an active member of the Legal Writing Institute; in addition to presenting at its academic conferences, she is a member of the awards committee and a member of the editorial board for one of its journals, The Monograph Series. In addition, Professor Hannon is an associate editor for Legal Communication & Rhetoric: JALWD, the journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors.Professor Hannon is an associate editor for Legal Communications & Rhetoric: JALWD, the journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors. She also is a member of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) Legal Writing Section and the AALS Section on Teaching Methods. Professor Hannon is the co-author of Aspen Publishers' From Theory to Practice: Employment Discrimination Law (with Rachel Croskery-Roberts), and is under contract with Aspen Publishers to co-author From Theory to Practice: Employment Law (also with Croskery-Roberts). Professor Hannon received her BA from Binghamton University, cum laude, and her JD from Michigan Law, where she was a notes editor for the Michigan Law Review.You can learn more about Professor Hannon at https://www.law.umich.edu/FacultyBio/Pages/FacultyBio.aspx?FacID=mchannonYou can follow Professor Hannon on twitter @mch_tweets As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know! You can email us at leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet to @lawtofact. Don’t forget to follow us on

Guest host CHARLES STAR and RANDOLPH BRICKEY recap June's Supreme Court madness beginning with: A judge who loved the troops and playing games too much ... THEME ... GAMBLE v. UNITED STATES: Separate sovereign, double jeopardy and the criminal president ... Larry Krasner again ... RBG on dual-sovereignty and individuals ... Double jeopardy, Blockburger and stacking charges ... BREAK ... Plugs ... FLOWERS v. MISSISSIPPI ... A series of reversals for racism ... Alito's bafflement at the actual justice system ... Thomas: Exculpating prosecutors, "reverse racism" ... How to not NOT fake peremptories ... BREAK ... MONT v. UNITED STATES: On probation, three days from retirement ... Getting a probation violation while in jail ... Notorious RBG ... Probations, cases and multiple jurisdictions ... REHAIF v. UNITED STATES: Demonstrably bad student, obviously troubled guy and gun-possessor ... Is it "see something/say something" paranoia or actually scary? ... Knowing violations ... A shining moment for Sam Alito's issue-spotting clerk trollery ... The excesses of "possession of a firearm" ... BREAK ... GUNDY v. UNITED STATES: Pedophilia defense as administrative law crumbles ... A nine-month period of administrative phantom zone ... Alito's love-letter to a future Kavanaugh ... Gorsuch: No Gods, No Masters, Unbounded Discretion ... BREAK ... KNICK v. TOWNSHIP of SCOTT ... Force state exhaustion; state exhaustion precludes federal claims ... Takings law: You cost me billions in child poison! ... Billionaires walling off beaches ... Kagan: No one cares about stare decisis anymore ... FRANCHISE TAX BOARD of CALIFORNIA v. HYATT ... Decades of losing your own settlement, still not paying taxes ... Kagan signaling about the census and gerrymandering ... BREAK ... PDR NETWORK v. CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC: I'm the Fax Spam ... The GOP turning its back on Chevron ... No government left worth ruining ... VIRGINIA URANIUM v. WARREN: Downing millings, chasing tailings ... Gorsuch: World Class Alienating Pedant ... Roberts trolling RBG just to do it ... Gorsuch loses the women again ... Gerrymandering, Wisconsin and permanent anti-majoritarian legislatures ... The future is screaming ... • Intro theme courtesy of Ted Leo • All other music by Chris Collingwood of Look Park and Fountains of Wayne.

On February 1-2, 2019, the Federalist Society held its annual Florida Chapters Conference in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The first session discussed "Stare Decisis and Precedent". As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy position. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Welcome and Opening Remarks:Michelle Suskauer, President, The Florida BarIntroduction: Daniel Woodring, Principal Attorney, Woodring Law FirmPanelists:W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & EllisProf. Randy J. Kozel, Associate Dean for Faculty Development, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolRichard H. Levenstein, Shareholder, Nason YeagerProf. Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawModerator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

On February 1-2, 2019, the Federalist Society held its annual Florida Chapters Conference in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The first session discussed "Stare Decisis and Precedent". As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy position. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Welcome and Opening Remarks:Michelle Suskauer, President, The Florida BarIntroduction: Daniel Woodring, Principal Attorney, Woodring Law FirmPanelists:W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & EllisProf. Randy J. Kozel, Associate Dean for Faculty Development, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolRichard H. Levenstein, Shareholder, Nason YeagerProf. Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawModerator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Stare decisis – “to stand by things decided” – is the doctrine under which courts follow their own precedents, and precedents of superior courts. Proponents of stare decisis assert that it promotes predictability in the law, reduces revisiting settled issues, and increases reliance on judicial decisions, all while enhancing the legitimacy of the judicial branch. Critics of stare decisis assert that a court decision in error should not be followed blindly, and over-reliance on stare decisis can cause errors to become set in concrete. A handful of recent opinions suggest that some in the judiciary might be open to revisiting the contours of the doctrine of stare decisis. Should it be reevaluated? Does it matter whether the issue under consideration is statutory or constitutional? Does the time in history of the original decision matter? What is the future of this doctrine?Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law CenterHon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPMr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLPModerator: Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Stare decisis – “to stand by things decided” – is the doctrine under which courts follow their own precedents, and precedents of superior courts. Proponents of stare decisis assert that it promotes predictability in the law, reduces revisiting settled issues, and increases reliance on judicial decisions, all while enhancing the legitimacy of the judicial branch. Critics of stare decisis assert that a court decision in error should not be followed blindly, and over-reliance on stare decisis can cause errors to become set in concrete. A handful of recent opinions suggest that some in the judiciary might be open to revisiting the contours of the doctrine of stare decisis. Should it be reevaluated? Does it matter whether the issue under consideration is statutory or constitutional? Does the time in history of the original decision matter? What is the future of this doctrine?Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law CenterHon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPMr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLPModerator: Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Sam discusses stare decisis and its impact on the Supreme Court judicial nomination process. If you enjoy this podcast, please subscribe so you don't miss any updates. Music: https://www.bensound.com/royalty-free... For more information, check out our website at https://www.ventolalaw.com. At Ventola Law, our clients consist of businesses, partnerships, individuals, and religious organizations. This firm’s biggest priority is to make our clients successful in all of their legal pursuits. Sam has a wide variety of experience in litigation, legal education, and mediation. He has been an attorney on both sides in business litigation, employment disputes, probate litigation, and personal injury cases. In addition to being an attorney, he has been a mediator, hearing officer, labor relations professor, and lecturer on litigation, employment, and First Amendment issues. Sam has over 30 years’ experience in: General Litigation Business Law and Litigation Employment Law and Litigation First Amendment Litigation Estate Planning and Probate Litigation Mediation He has also achieved the rating of AV Preeminent® by Martindale Hubbell.

Late at night, mics dragged up by the fire, talking mailbag items on conversation, Banach spaces, mental models, the Facebook dumpster fire, and Christian's weird old tricks for managing your online world. Finally, Mr. Rogers and being better. This show’s links: Larry Alexander, Constrained by Precedent (http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/scal63&div=10&id=&page=) Scott Hershovitz, Integrity and Stare Decisis (https://books.google.com/books?id=O3FCAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=Exploring%20Law%27s%20EmpireThe%20Jurisprudence%20of%20Ronald%20Dworkin%24%20Exploring%20Law%27s%20Empire%3A%20The%20Jurisprudence%20of%20Ronald%20Dworkin&pg=PR16#v=onepage&q&f=false) Aaron Glantz and Emmanuel Martinez, For People of Color, Banks Are Shutting the Door to Homeownership (https://www.revealnews.org/article/for-people-of-color-banks-are-shutting-the-door-to-homeownership/) Zhigang Wei, Hugh McDonald, and Christine Coumarelos, Fines: Are Disadvantaged People at a Disadvantage? (http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/&id=D5D375991CE8E1B68525823A000641F4) Banach spaces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach_space) Christian Turner, Models of Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2835112) Lawerence Solum, On the Indeterminacy Crisis: Critiquing Critical Dogma (https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1957/) Robert Cover, Violence and the Word (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2708/) Ben Thompson, The Facebook Brand (https://stratechery.com/2018/the-facebook-brand/) Will Oremus, The Real Scandal Isn’t What Cambridge Analytica Did (https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/the-real-scandal-isnt-cambridge-analytica-its-facebooks-whole-business-model.html) Oral Argument 72: The Guinea Pig Problem (http://oralargument.org/72) (guest Michelle Meyer) Matthew Yglesias, The Case Against Facebook (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17144748/case-against-facebook) Nicholas Carlson, Well, These New Zuckerberg IMs Won't Help Facebook's Privacy Problems (http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5) Oral Argument 58: Obscurity Settings (http://oralargument.org/58) (guest Woody Hartzog) The trailer for Won't You Be My Neighbor? (https://kottke.org/18/03/the-trailer-for-wont-you-be-my-neighbor)

A distracted John Gerardi multitasks between watching Notre Dame's first-round game in the NCAA basketball tournament, and hosting a radio show.  He leads off the show discussing his appearance on KSEE 24's Sunday Morning Matters tv show, chats with Jonathan Keller from California Family Council about potential conflicts between California law and the new Republican healthcare proposal, and talks Congress and the Supreme Court.   KSEE 24 story: http://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/panel-tackles-healthcare-bill-abortion-and-high-speed-rail/669658269   Story about California/Republican Healthcare conflict: http://cbsloc.al/2lYEkbs   Witherspoon Institute column on Stare Decisis: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/03/18762/