Podcast appearances and mentions of Stephen G Breyer

In our second installment of our new “Quick Look” series, we review the Administrative Procedure Act—or APA—a vital statute that is key to navigating and influencing the regulatory world.   Show Notes: Administrative Procedure Act, Pub L. No. 79-404, 324 Stat. 237 (1946) ACUS Sourcebook Judicial Review Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by Congressional Research Service Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy: Problems, Text, and Cases by Stephen G. Breyer, et al. George B. Shepherd, The Administrative Procedure Act Emerges from New Deal Politics, 90 Nw. L. Rev. 1557 (1996). The Federal Register

Amarica's Constitution proudly celebrates four years of ambitious inquiry with a long-promised and very honored guest, former Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, Stephen G. Breyer.  Justice Breyer placed no restrictions on our questioning, and we engaged him in a frank discussion on a variety of topics related to his time on the Court, and then we switched to his current book: Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, not Textualism.  As you can imagine, Professor Amar has some opinions on the matter as well.  The discussion ranged far, from the French essayist Montaigne to 20th century American pragmatists, as Justice Breyer's broad range is displayed in a way few have seen.  We take our time, and the Justice generously indulged, for an in-depth look at the thinking that helped shaped the bench for decades. This podcast will be available on YouTube video as well as the usual audio feeds found here; we will provide  information on accessing the video in subsequent podcast episodes, as well as on our Instagram feed - check it out.  CLE credit is available through podcast.njsba.com.

Welcome back to A Hard Look! Listen to our first episode of our new “Quick Look” series, where we provide insight into foundational administrative law principles. In today's episode, we start with basics and define administrative law, provide an overview of its principles, and discuss its development within the United States. Show Notes Visit our website: https://administrativelawreview.org/podcast-a-hard-look/ Recommended Readings Administrative Law and Process in a Nutshell by ⁠Ronald M. Levin & Jeffrey S, Lubbers Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy: Problems, Text, and Cases by Stephen G. Breyer, et al. This episode was produced by the Administrative Law Review Senior Technology Editor, Sophia Navedo-Quinones, and Technology Editor, Victoria Paul. Thank you to Professor Jeffrey S. Lubbers at American University Washington College of Law for contributing to this episode's development. If you have any questions about this episode or the podcast, or if you would like to propose a topic or guest, please e-mail us at ALR-Sr-Tech-Editor@wcl.american.edu.

When the draft majority decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health was leaked, the media, public officials, and scholars focused on the overturning of Roe v. Wade. They noted Justice Alito's strident tone and radical use of originalism to eliminate constitutional protection for reproductive rights. My guest today has written a book that asks us to also notice over 140 footnotes in the majority opinion and dissent. Are these notes part of the law? In his new book, The Supreme Court Footnote: A Surprising History (NYU Press, 2024), Dr. Peter Charles Hoffer insists that these notes are significant. The footnotes reveal the justices' beliefs about the Constitution's essence, highlight their controversial reasoning, and expose “vastly different interpretations of the role of Supreme Court Justice.” Using a comprehensive qualitative analysis, The Supreme Court Footnote, offers a history of the evolution of footnotes in US Supreme Court opinions and a thoughtful set of case studies to reveal the particular ways that the footnote has affected Supreme Court decisions. Hoffer argues that justices alter the course of history through their decisions and the footnote is the way in which they push their own understanding of the Constitution. Eight case studies show how the footnote has evolved over time. He begins with Chisholm v. Georgia in 1792 and ends with Dobbs v. Jackson case in 2022. Using Dred Scott, Viterbo v. Friedlander, Muller v. Oregon, United States v. Carolene Products, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, and District of Columbia v. Heller, Hoffer demonstrates how the footnotes reflect the changing role of the Supreme Court justice and the manner in which they interpret the Constitution. Dr. Hoffer looks back in order to look forward. He offers a study of the footnote that is relevant to contemporary debates over the Supreme Court, methods of interpretation, and politics.  Dr. Peter Charles Hoffer is Distinguished Research Professor of History at the University of Georgia. Hoffer went to University of Rochester and Harvard and has taught at Ohio State, Notre Dame, and UGA (since 1978). He has written books on the Supreme Court, the Federal Court System, infanticide, impeachment, abortion, early American history, slave rebellions, and historical methods. During the podcast, we mentioned: Anthony Grafton's The Footnote: A Curious History (Harvard, 1999) My NBN conversation with Laura F. Edward's on her book (The People and their Peace), originalism and domestic violence The University of Kansas's Landmark Law Series Peter's book Reading Law Forward: The Making of a Democratic Jurisprudence from John Marshall to Stephen G. Breyer (University of Kansas, 2023) The June 2024 recording of Justices Roberts and Alito on godliness Susan's “Sensitive Places?: How Gender Unmasks the Myth of Originalism in District of Columbia v. Heller” (Polity, 2021) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Justice Stephen G. Breyer returns to the City Arts & Lectures stage to discuss his first book since retiring from the United State Supreme Court, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not TextualismDuring his 28-year tenure on the United States Supreme Court, which began with his appointment by President Bill Clinton in 1994, Justice Stephen G. Breyer authored 551 opinions. As a liberal voice in the federal judiciary, he has played a key role in reforming criminal sentencing procedures, protecting the environment, and preserving abortion rights. In 2022, Justice Breyer was succeeded by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, his former law clerk. The Justice credits his time at Lowell High School in San Francisco for helping to instill in him a commitment to civic engagement. Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism is his first book since retiring from the Supreme Court.Sarah Isgur is a legal analyst at ABC News and a staff writer for The Dispatch. She was a leader in political campaigns for Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, and Mitt Romney, and was the spokeswoman for The Department of Justice under former President Donald Trump. Isgur now hosts the legal podcast Advisory Opinions and is the “R” panelist for KCRW's Left, Right, & Center.

The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429, on April 27, 2022. At issue is whether the state of Oklahoma can prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that jurisdiction lies with the federal government. The hearing lasted about 2 hours and 12 minutes, far longer than the 70 minutes allotted by the Supreme Court. The hearing concluded with a tribute to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who is stepping down at the end of the court's current session. TRACKLIST: Kannon K. Shanmugam for State of Oklahoma Zachary Charles Schauf for Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta Edwin S. Kneedler for the United States Rebuttal from Kannon K. Shanmugam for State of Oklahoma Recognition of Edwin S. Kneedler and Tribute to Justice Stephen G. Breyer

Justice Stephen G. Breyer participated in his final oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court on April 27, 2022. "For 28 years, this has been his arena for remarks profound and moving, questions challenging and insightful and hypotheticals downright silly," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in a tribute to Breyer. Fellow justices could be heard laughing at the remarks. Breyer is stepping down at the end of the high court's current term. Before he does so, he will help decide three Indian law cases, including the one argued on April 27, which was the final day for arguments. Decisions in Oklahoma v. Carlos-Huerta, Denezpi v. United States and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas are expected before the end of June 2022. Cover Artwork: Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States Photographer: Steve Petteway

Justice Stephen G. Breyer and Supreme Court Nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson With Jeff Shesol, Former Speechwriter for President Bill Clinton Joins Host Richard Levick of LEVICK: Jeff Shesol, former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, historian, comic strip author and a partner at West Wing Writers joins host Richard Levick of LEVICK to discuss U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson; Justice Stephen G. Breyer's efforts to keep the Court out of politics; the Nixon-Kennedy election and the charges of election fraud; the death of institutionalism in American – the power of process -- and more in a remarkable episode. The current Court has plunged willfully into an era of what law professors Lee Epstein and Eric Posner described as an “extreme — and alarming” partisan division.

On this episode of At The Bar, Inez Stepman and Jennifer C. Braceras discuss President Joe Biden's nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace Stephen G. Breyer as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Dan Urman, director of Northeastern University's Undergraduate Program for Law and Public Policy, and Mike Davis, former Chief Nominations Counsel for Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, join the conversation.--Hosted by Inez Stepman of Independent Women's Forum and Jennifer Braceras of Independent Women's Law Center, At The Bar is virtual happy hour conversation about issues at the intersection of law, politics, and culture.You can find the latest At The Bar episodes wherever you get your podcasts, on YouTube, or on iwf.org. Then subscribe, rate, and share with your friends.Independent Women's Forum (IWF) believes all issues are women's issues. IWF promotes policies that aren't just well-intended, but actually enhance people's freedoms, opportunities, and choices. IWF doesn't just talk about problems. We identify solutions and take them straight to the playmakers and policy creators. And, as a 501(c)3, IWF educates the public about the most important topics of the day.Independent Women's Law Center advocates for equal opportunity, individual liberty, and respect for the American constitutional order.Check out our website for more information on how policies impact you, your loved ones, and your community: www.iwf.org.Subscribe to IWF's YouTube channel.Follow IWF on social media: - on Twitter- on Facebook- on Instagram#IWLC #AtTheBar #IWlaw #IWF Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today on Post Reports, a guide to the judges being considered to fill Justice Stephen Breyer's Supreme Court seat and make history as the first Black woman on the court. Plus, two Washington Post politics experts talk … figure skating. Read more:After Justice Stephen G. Breyer announced his plan to retire at the end of the Supreme Court's current term, all eyes turned to President Biden, who now has the chance to bolster the court's liberal minority and deliver on a major campaign promise: to nominate the first Black female justice. On today's Post Reports, White House reporter Seung Min Kim runs through the professional backgrounds and legal philosophies of three of the judges under consideration – Ketanji Brown Jackson, Leondra Kruger and J. Michelle Childs – and the challenges they could face if nominated. And later in the episode, non-sports-reporters Phil Rucker and Robert Samuels join Maggie Penman to talk about … Olympic figure skating.

Last week, Justice Stephen G. Breyer announced his decision to retire after 28 years on the U.S. Supreme Court. To reflect on his legacy, both personal and professional, today's episode is a two-part conversation with guests who have unique insights into Justice Breyer's life and work. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen for the first part of the conversation are two former law clerks to Justice Breyer. Neal Katyal, who clerked for Justice Breyer from 1996 – 1997, is a partner at Hogan Lovells and the Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law Center, and Theodore Ruger, who clerked for Justice Breyer from 1997 – 1998, is the Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and Bernard G. Segal Professor of Law. For the second part of the conversation, Nell Breyer, executive director of the Marshall Scholars Association and Foundation and Justice Breyer's daughter, joins us to share some family memories and life lessons learned from her dad.   The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's 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.

Last week, Justice Stephen G. Breyer announced his decision to retire after 28 years on the U.S. Supreme Court. To reflect on his legacy, both personal and professional, today's episode is a two-part conversation with guests who have unique insights into Justice Breyer's life and work. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen for the first part of the conversation are two former law clerks to Justice Breyer. Neal Katyal, who clerked for Justice Breyer from 1996 – 1997, is a partner at Hogan Lovells and the Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law Center, and Theodore Ruger, who clerked for Justice Breyer from 1997 – 1998, is the Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and Bernard G. Segal Professor of Law. For the second part of the conversation, Nell Breyer, executive director of the Marshall Scholars Association and Foundation and Justice Breyer's daughter, joins us to share some family memories and life lessons learned from her dad.   The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's 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.

At last, President Biden has a chance to atone for his mistreatment of Anita Hill. Three decades after Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings, the president could put the first African American woman on the Supreme Court. He vowed Thursday to keep his campaign promise to nominate a Black woman after Justice Stephen G. Breyer, 83, announced plans to retire when the court's term ends this summer.Biden, 79, is an old man in a young country. Of the 115 justices to serve on the Supreme Court, 16 have been confirmed since Biden was elected to the Senate half a century ago. Assuming Democrats can confirm his nominee through a 50-50 Senate, Biden is poised to select just the third African American and sixth woman ever to serve. The president hopes to announce his choice by the end of February. Sadly, relatively few Black women serve as federal appellate judges, which has been the traditional pipeline for justices. (Biden has nominated eight Black women to circuit courts since taking office, and five have been confirmed.) “But he does not believe that is a prerequisite,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Polilogue, we take a spin throughout several interviews on Face the Nation and then dissect the story of the Supreme Court. First, we reflect on the fact that Margaret Brennan often books more compelling guests and asks more noteworthy questions than her Sunday counterparts. We then ask why the Sunday news shows (and the media ecosystem more broadly) seems so unwilling to critically examine an entire branch of the US Federal Government—-the Supreme Court itself. Shows discussed State of the Union on CNNFox News Sunday on FOXThis Week on ABCFace the Nation on CBSMeet the Press on NBCResourcesEssays on Justice Stephen G. Breyer (Harvard Law Review)Stephen G. Breyer Brief Bio (Oyez)The Supreme Court's Enduring Bias (The Atlantic)Contact usEmail us at podcast@polilogue.com or you can send us your feedback @PolilogueCast. You can also follow us at @sotonaomi_ and @bsteidle.Support the show: We produce Polilogue out of our own pocket. If you'd like to support the show with a one-time or recurring donation, please visit our donate page here. Or leave a review on iTunes, Apple Music, or the Apple Podcast library. Thank you!Check out some of our other work: Brendan's website: www.armisticedesigns.com Naomi's website: www.startwithaquestion.org

To subscribe and receive tomorrow's member's only post, go to https://www.readtangle.com/membership/ Stephen G. Breyer. Yesterday, news broke that the senior member of the Supreme Court's three-member liberal wing will retire. Breyer, who is 83, was appointed in 1994 by Bill Clinton and is the oldest member of the court. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, many progressives began urging Breyer to step down to ensure President Joe Biden would be able to select his replacement. Breyer's most consequential decisions on the bench involved holding up the Affordable Care Act, backing pro-choice rulings, and supporting the 2015 ruling to legalize same-sex marriage. You can read today's podcast here. You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/tanglenews/support

Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court, talks with David F. Levi about themes from his latest book, "The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics," published by Harvard University Press.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer spoke about his new book, The Authority of the Court and the Perils of Politics, and his views on judicial decision-making with David F. Levi, director of the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School and president of The American Law Institute.During the hour-long conversation, Breyer reflects on his 27 years on the Court and discusses the roots of the Court's authority and its relationship to the political branches of government. The power of the Court, he says, resides in the people — in their faith in the institution, their belief in the rule of law, and their understanding that the Court operates outside the political realm. The peril of politics, he says, is that if people begin to see judges as nothing more than ‘junior league politicians' — or as making decisions in order to help a political party or to advance a political agenda — the Court's power will erode, along with the rule of law.He recalls that the Chief Justice of Ghana once asked him where the Supreme Court got its power, and why Americans accept and abide by its decisions. After all, as Alexander Hamilton famously noted, the Court has no military or economic power to enforce its decisions. In considering the question, he offers examples of Court decisions that were not enforced — or were actively subverted — by the government: Worcester v. Georgia found that the states did not have the power to impose law on Native American land, yet President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the decision and the U.S. government ultimately forced Native American tribes off their land. Similarly, states refused to enforce Brown v. Board of Education, and segregation in schools persisted for years despite various efforts by the federal government to force integration. “I wanted the Chief Justice of Ghana to know that it's not God-given that people would follow what the Court says,” Breyer explains. “If you want a rule of law, if you want it in reality and not on paper, you can't just talk to the judges and you can't just talk to the lawyers. Everybody thinks they want a rule of law. That's how they make their living. But it is the people in the towns, in the villages. Contrary to popular belief, of our 331 million people, 330 million are not lawyers. And they're the ones that have to be convinced that it is in their interest to follow decisions, even when those decisions affect them in a way they don't like, and when those decisions are wrong — because if, after all, it's five to four, somebody's wrong.”But in America today, Breyer says, very controversial decisions are accepted. Consider a decision as contested as Bush v. Gore, he says. There were no shots fired after Bush v. Gore, he notes, because “Americans have reached a point where they don't even think about the decisions of the Court, not following them. They think it's like the air we breathe. People do. And that doesn't happen by magic. That happens by people understanding the country, by living a history, by having examples.”That faith in the Court is risked, however, if the public begins to see the Court as a political actor — a perception that the judiciary must counter, he says. He discusses the differences between political decision-making and judicial decision-making, arguing that while judicial philosophies and personal experiences may influence an individual judge's views, judges must be guided by the law, not political constituents. That doesn't mean, however, that judges don't have differing views of what the Constitution means. “After a while, I began to understand this is a big country, and people think all kinds of different things. And it is not such a terrible thing to have a Supreme Court with nine members where different presidents appoint different judges,” Breyer says. “Ultimately, the country has to suffer from, or rejoice sometimes, or in any case live with the decisions and interpretations of the Court. What Justice Scalia happens to think, or Justice Breyer or Justice O'Connor, about the Constitution is of great interest to many law professors, but not to most people in the United States. It is the Constitution as interpreted by the Court that matters.”Breyer also discusses the power of deliberation and compromise as a way for the Court to generate public trust and as a way to develop and strengthen common values that can bind the country together in times of division — “remembering that the Constitution has as a basic principle — one of the things that I think is most important — is the principle that it works. The principle that this society does hold together, the principle that this society has certain basic values, and they work. . . . That's our society. We pull together in light of those rather basic constitutional ideas.”  

This week, Justice Stephen G. Breyer is expected to announce his plan to retire from the Supreme Court at the end of its term this summer. Breyer's signal comes after a year-long pressure campaign from the political left and others anxious to ensure that Democrats control who replaces the court's most senior liberal justice.  Guest: Mark Joseph Stern, who covers courts and the law for Slate. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get benefits like zero ads on any Slate podcast, bonus episodes of shows like Slow Burn and Dear Prudence—and you'll be supporting the work we do here on What Next. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to help support our work. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Justice Stephen G. Breyer is expected to announce his plan to retire from the Supreme Court at the end of its term this summer. Breyer's signal comes after a year-long pressure campaign from the political left and others anxious to ensure that Democrats control who replaces the court's most senior liberal justice.  Guest: Mark Joseph Stern, who covers courts and the law for Slate. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get benefits like zero ads on any Slate podcast, bonus episodes of shows like Slow Burn and Dear Prudence—and you'll be supporting the work we do here on What Next. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to help support our work. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

4PM - Justice Stephen G. Breyer to Retire From Supreme Court // ‘This is the year to do it': Bill to reduce Washington sales tax garners bipartisan support // An Income Tax Cut-Filled January // CBS's Latest Socialism Sales Pitch: ‘Maybe You Can Be Too Rich' // Disney says it's 'taking a different approach' to 'avoid reinforcing stereotypes' of dwarfs in classic movie remake after Peter Dinklage attacked it as 'backward' See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

6PM - Justice Stephen G. Breyer to Retire From Supreme Court // ‘This is the year to do it': Bill to reduce Washington sales tax garners bipartisan support // An Income Tax Cut-Filled January // Peter Robbins, voice of Charlie Brown, is found dead from suicide aged 65: Troubled voice actor and former child star served five years in prison before turning life around // Neil Young Demands Spotify Remove His Music Over Joe Rogan's Vaccine Comments See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, Justice Stephen G. Breyer is expected to announce his plan to retire from the Supreme Court at the end of its term this summer. Breyer's signal comes after a year-long pressure campaign from the political left and others anxious to ensure that Democrats control who replaces the court's most senior liberal justice.  Guest: Mark Joseph Stern, who covers courts and the law for Slate. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get benefits like zero ads on any Slate podcast, bonus episodes of shows like Slow Burn and Dear Prudence—and you'll be supporting the work we do here on What Next. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to help support our work. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Justice Stephen G. Breyer will retire at the end of the current Supreme Court term. This clears the way for President Biden to make good on his campaign promise to nominate the first Black woman to serve on the court.Read more:Justice Breyer will retire from the Supreme Court, according to a person familiar with his plans. This clears the way for President Biden to reinforce the court's liberal minority and make good on a campaign promise: to nominate the first Black woman to the nation's highest court. Our Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes says Breyer will be remembered for his willingness to compromise with his conservative colleagues — and his long-winded questions.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer joins The Post to discuss his new book “The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics." In the book, Breyer reflects on his tenure and discusses the historical evolution of the Supreme Court's authority.

Last week, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a live online program to discuss the Constitution, civility, the Court, and more. In a wide-ranging conversation, the justice discusses how he goes about making decisions, shares some stories and life lessons from his time on the bench, and shares some of his favorite books and authors. He also explains why civic education is so important today, why people need to reach across the political divides more than ever, and why he's optimistic about the future of America. Finally, he answers questions from the audience and describes how he's been spending his time during the pandemic (including Zooming with his law clerks and meditating). This conversation was one of our constitutional classes broadcast live to learners of all ages. All of the classes from the past school year were recorded and can be watched for free at https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.   Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a live online program to discuss the Constitution, civility, the Court, and more. In a wide-ranging conversation, the justice discusses how he goes about making decisions, shares some stories and life lessons from his time on the bench, and shares some of his favorite books and authors. He also explains why civic education is so important today, why people need to reach across the political divides more than ever, and why he's optimistic about the future of America. Finally, he answers questions from the audience and describes how he’s been spending his time during the pandemic (including Zooming with his law clerks and meditating). This conversation was one of our constitutional classes broadcast live to learners of all ages. All of the classes from the past school year were recorded and can be watched for free at https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.   Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer recently joined National Constitution Center President Jeffrey Rosen for a wide-ranging conversation on the Supreme Court and government today, reaching across political divides, and more.   This conversation was one of our constitutional classes broadcast live to learners of all ages. All of the classes from the past school year were recorded and can be watched for free at https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.   Additional resources and transcripts available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Peril of Politics in Court In this episode, Vec discusses Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer's speech at Harvard Law School's annual Scalia Lecture held April 7th, where he discussed the complexities at the intersection of the “authority of the court” and the “peril of politics”. In his speech, Breyer warned against court-packing and said that the court's authority depends on “a trust that the court is guided by legal principle, not politics.” “What I'm trying to do is to make those whose initial instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional changes — such as forms of court-packing — think long and hard before they embody those changes in law,” he said.   FinCEN's Proposed Rule Later in the episode, Mark explains NCLA's objection to a proposed rule by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) within the U.S. Department of Treasury.  The "Requirements for Certain Transactions Involving Convertible Virtual Currency or Digital Assets" presents USTD's planned “crackdown” on cryptocurrency holders' private wallets. NCLA considers this an unconstitutional power grab that would lead to a massive collection of people's personal information. The unlawful requirements laid out by FinCEN, would likely force privacy-sensitive digital assets out of the U.S. banking system. The proposed rule represents a radical—and unlawful—extension of FinCEN's financial surveillance. If FinCEN moves forward with its proposal in its current form, digital assets would fall into the “monetary instruments” category of regulated currencies. That designation would mean a vast expansion of the Bank Secrecy Act's (BSA) record-keeping and currency transaction reporting requirements—to collect private data of Bitcoin's and Ethereum's users, among others. Besides transaction reports, the proposed rule sets in motion a chain reaction of personal information mandatory disclosure. Whenever a financial institution makes a transaction involving digital assets worth more than $3,000 with a person—even an individual holding them in an “unhosted” wallet—it must keep detailed records concerning both the customer and the counterparty. Even existing BSA requirements for traditional banks do not require this level of disclosure about counterparties. NCLA argues that the proposed rule exceeds appropriate constitutional limits by empowering FinCEN to exercise Congress' exclusive legislative power. First, in reclassifying digital assets, FinCEN is not filling in details in existing law, but rather is writing new rules, on new subjects, with criminal consequences. Second, the proposed rule is not within the Executive Branch's inherent powers, for it creates whole new types of criminal liability—a uniquely legislative prerogative. Furthermore, the proposed rule violates the Fourth Amendment by extending the BSA's reach to require production of sensitive financial information from those who have never voluntarily disclosed it to a financial institution, and who, like cryptocurrency owners, have been excluded from the BSA's reach. It would unconstitutionally require disclosure of private information to law enforcement without any suspicion of wrongdoing. Read more about our objection to the proposed rule here: https://nclalegal.org/2021/03/ncla-comments-warn-against-treasurys-proposed-crypto-surveillance-rule-as-unconstitutional/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, the final installment in our pre-primary series of Conversations with the Candidates. Tom's guest is Thiru Vignarajah, a veteran city and federal prosecutor and one of a crowded field of Democratic contenders in the June 2nd primary election for Baltimore mayor. A WYPR/Baltimore Sun/University of Baltimore poll released yesterday places Mr. Vignarajah just outside the group of three leading candidates in the race, but the poll also indicated that crime reduction is the top priority for a majority of likely voters. Will Baltimore choose a prosecutor to lead the City in the fight against violence and a global pandemic? Mr. Vignarajah has spent most of his legal career in public service. He attended Yale University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review. He went on to clerk for Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and then served as a federal prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Baltimore, working under then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein. Vignarajah later moved to the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office, where he headed the Major Investigations Unit. In 2014, he was appointed Deputy Attorney General for Maryland under Attorney-General Brian Frosh, a position he left to work on the transition team for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. In 2017, Vignarajah ran an unsuccessful Democratic primary campaign for Baltimore City State's Attorney. Currently a litigation partner at the law firm DLA Piper in Baltimore, he is one of 23 Democratic and 7 Republican registered candidates vying to be their party’s nominee for Baltimore mayor in the June 2 primary. Thiru Vignarajah is 43 years old. He lives in Baltimore's Federal Hill neighborhood. He joins Tom via Skype phone from his campaign office in Baltimore.

On this episode of The Critical Hour, Dr. Wilmer Leon is joined by Dr. Jack Rasmus, professor of economics at Saint Mary's College of California; Jim Kavanagh, political analyst and commentator and editor of The Polemicist; and Caleb Maupin, journalist and political analyst. It's Friday, so that means it's panel time. A London court will decide in February whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will be extradited to the US to face 18 criminal charges in connection with the leak of thousands of classified documents relating to US military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan. Assange appeared at the Westminster Magistrates' Court Friday by video link from Belmarsh Prison, where he is currently serving a 50-week sentence for skipping bail and fleeing to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2012. It's interesting to me that Assange told the London court he had not seen the latest indictment containing 18 US allegations against him.The US Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a lawsuit by a Yemeni man, Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi, who has been held in wartime detention for more than 17 years at the military's Guantánamo Bay prison, prompting Justice Stephen G. Breyer to warn in a statement that the American legal system is on autopilot toward permitting life imprisonment without trial. “It is past time to confront the difficult question left open by” a 2004 ruling allowing the indefinite detention of Guantánamo prisoners captured after the 2001 American invasion of Afghanistan. What has happened to the US Constitution? Two petrochemical tankers in the Gulf of Oman came under suspected attack early Thursday amid soaring tensions between the United States and Iran. One of two ships attacked, a Japanese-owned tanker, was targeted just as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was wrapping up a high-stakes visit to Tehran to help cool hostilities in the region and potentially mediate US-Iran talks. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iran on Thursday for the “blatant assault” on the vessels and said the United States would defend itself and its allies against Iranian aggression in the region. US President Donald Trump rejected Iran's denials Friday that it had attacked two tankers, insisting in a television interview that “Iran did do it” and pointing to a video released by the US Central Command purporting to show Iranian vessels retrieving an unexploded mine from one of the damaged ships. Can anyone say Gulf of Tonkin?President Trump announced an expanded military relationship with Poland on Wednesday, including the likelihood of additional US troops serving at what Trump called a “world-class” new Polish base, as his administration rewards a like-minded and increasingly authoritarian NATO ally. What's going on here? Poland, which has said it wants to buy 32 state-of-the-art F-35s from the US, meets its NATO defense spending commitment, while Germany falls far short. Trump pointed to the NATO spending shortfall several times during public appearances alongside Polish President Andrzej Duda, and also criticized Germany for its planned purchase of large amounts of Russian natural gas.GUESTS:Dr. Jack Rasmus — Professor of economics at Saint Mary's College of California and author of "Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression."Jim Kavanaugh — Political analyst and commentator and editor of The Polemicist.Caleb Maupin — Journalist and political analyst who focuses his coverage on US foreign policy and the global system of monopoly capitalism and imperialism.

On Sunday, February 5, 1984, Judge Stephen G. Breyer of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed the Congressional Copyright and Technology Symposium, making five points about copyright law and policy. A transcript of his address is available here. Among other things, Breyer reflected on his influential article, "The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copyright in Books, Photocopies, and Computer Programs" (1970), which he wrote as a law professor, as the Copyright Office was considering what became the Copyright Act of 1976. Breyer discussed the economic and moral justifications for copyright, the application of the economic justification, why it should apply differently in different contexts, how new technology requires rethinking of the scope of copyright protection, and why we should be wary of extending too much protection. In 1994, Breyer was appointed to the United States Supreme Court, where he has been the key dissenter in many copyright cases.Also of interest in relation to this speech might be:Barbara A. Ringer, The Demonology of Copyright, October 24, 1974.Stephen G. Breyer, The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Look Back Across Four Decades, 79 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1635 (2011).Pamela Samuelson, The Uneasy Case for Software Copyrights Revisited, 79 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1746 (2010).I found Breyer's address especially interesting because of his brief and oblique reference to the story of St. Columcille and the "Battle of the Book," in which he references High King Diarmed's ruling, "To every cow its calf; to every book it's copy," as the origin of the moral theory of copyright. This observation reappears in Breyer's dissent in Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873, 902 (2012). Breyer understandably relies on Augustine Birrell's 1889 account of the Columcille legend. A. Birrell, Seven Lectures on the Law and History of Copyright in Books 42 (1899). But in a forthcoming article, I will argue that the treatment of the "Battle of the Book" as the "first copyright litigation" reflects only a misunderstanding of what was intended as an allegorical claim to political legitimacy by a 16th century Irish king. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Continuing our series of Conversations with the Candidates, our focus today is on the Democratic primary election later this month for Baltimore City State’s Attorney. Three candidates, including the incumbent, Marilyn Mosby, are competing in that race to be the city’s top prosecutor.It’s a big job, overseeing more than 200 lawyers and tens of thousands of prosecutions every year, and it's a job our guest today would very much like to have. Thiru Vignarajah is a former prosecutor who’s spent most of his legal career in public service. He was born in Baltimore to Sri Lankan immigrant parents, both of them Baltimore City public school teachers. Vignarajah himself moved through the public school system, and went from Edmondson Heights and Woodlawn High to Yale University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review . He went on to clerk for Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and he served as a federal prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Baltimore, working under then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein. Vignarajah subsequently moved to the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office, where he headed the Major Investigations Unit.In 2014, he was appointed Deputy Attorney-General for Maryland, under Attorney-General Brian Frosh, a position he left in 2016 to work on the transition team for the ill-fated Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. He is currently a litigation partner at the law firm DLA Piper in Baltimore, but he continues to act as the lead attorney for the State of Maryland in the post-conviction appeal of Adnan Syed, who was convicted of the 1999 murder of Hae Min Lee in a case that became the subject of the popular podcast Serial. Thiru Vignarajah is 41 years old. He lives in Federal Hill. We streamed this conversation live on the WYPR Facebook page; you can view the video here.

Dec. 9, 2014. As a part of a symposium on the enduring legacy of Magna Carta, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is interviewed by David Rubenstein. Speaker Biography: Stephen G. Breyer is an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Speaker Biography: David Rubenstein is co-founder and co-CEO of the Carlyle Group. For transcript, captions, and more information, visit http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=6697

What are the nine unelected justices of the U.S. Supreme Court really good for? In a wide ranging interview with UC Hastings law professor David Faigman, Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer talks about the role that the High Court plays in determining the fate of the nation. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 23486]

What are the nine unelected justices of the U.S. Supreme Court really good for? In a wide ranging interview with UC Hastings law professor David Faigman, Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer talks about the role that the High Court plays in determining the fate of the nation. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 23486]