Podcasts about texas law review

In one of the most timely and urgent shows we have ever done, today I speak with law scholar Aziz Rana about his brilliant and bracing article recently published in New Left Review, “Constitutional Collapse.” We talk about how the Trump administration and its enablers are shredding a liberal “compact” which was established in in the 1930s through the Sixties and extending an imperial presidency abroad to an authoritarian one domestically. We talk about the current constitutional crisis, but also about the need for, and manifestations of, a politics which is at once a genuine membership organization and social community. As Aziz Rana powerfully argues, “its aim should be to transform the world people organically experience.” This is exactly the analysis and message so many of us need in these dark times.Aziz Rana is a professor of law at Boston College Law School, where his research and teaching center on American constitutional law and political development. In particular, his work focuses on how shifting notions of race, citizenship, and empire have shaped legal and political identity since the founding. Rana's first book, The Two Faces of American Freedom (Harvard University Press) situates the American experience within the global history of colonialism, examining the intertwined relationship in American constitutional practice between internal accounts of freedom and external projects of power and expansion.  His new book, The Constitutional Bind: How Americans Came to Idolize a Document that Fails Them (University of Chicago Press, 2024), explores the modern emergence of constitutional veneration in the twentieth century -- especially against the backdrop of growing American global authority -- and how veneration has influenced the boundaries of popular politics. Aziz Rana has written essays and op-eds for such venues as n+1, The Boston Review, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Dissent, New Labor Forum, Jacobin, The Guardian, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Nation, Jadaliyya, Salon, and The Law and Political Economy Project.  He has articles and chapter contributions published or forthcoming with Yale and Oxford University Presses, The University of Chicago Law Review, California Law Review, UCLA Law Review, Texas Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal Forum, among others. 

On episode 222, we welcome Jon Michaels and David Noll to discuss the alliance between vigilante groups and governments in the US, the four types of vigilantism and how they affect our lives, how vigilante groups utilize state laws to limit freedom of movement, the roots of vigilantism in the slavery era, the argument of individual liberty as a veil for tyranny, and the societal effects of the merger between business interests and right-wing cultural warriors. Jon Michaels is a UCLA professor of law specializing in constitutional, administrative, and national-security law. His award-winning scholarship has been published in The Yale Law Journal, the University of Chicago Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, and the Harvard Law Review; his popular essays have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, The Guardian, and The Forward. A Yale Law graduate and former Supreme Court clerk, Michaels is a member of the American Law Institute, serves on the advisory board of UCLA's Safeguarding Democracy Project, and is a faculty affiliate of UCLA's Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy. His first book, Constitutional Coup, was published by Harvard University Press. David Noll is the associate dean for faculty research and development and a professor of law at Rutgers Law School. His scholarly writings on civil procedure, complex litigation, and administrative law have appeared in the California Law Review, the Cornell Law Review, the New York University Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and the Texas Law Review, among others, and his popular writing has appeared in venues including The New York Times, Politico, Slate, and the New York Law Journal. A graduate of Columbia University and New York University School of Law, Noll is an academic fellow of the National Institute for Civil Justice. He clerked on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. | Jon Michaels and David Noll | ► Website | http://www.jondmichaels.com/about ► Twitter 1| https://x.com/davidlnoll ► Twitter 2 | https://x.com/JonDMichaels ► Bluesky | https://bsky.app/profile/david.noll.org ► Vigilante Nation Book | https://amzn.to/3zEjQvM Where you can find us: | Seize The Moment Podcast | ► Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/SeizeTheMoment ► Twitter | https://twitter.com/seize_podcast  ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/seizethemoment ► TikTok | https://www.tiktok.com/@seizethemomentpodcast

Today we speak with legal scholar and historian Aziz Rana about his deep study into the ways the Constitution has been critiqued, reimagined, and adapted from liberal, conservative, radical, progressive, decolonial, and other groups since its inception. What emerges from his book is a demystification of a document that is both durable and malleable, conservative at its core but open to both radical challenges and appropriation—a true site of contestation.Aziz Rana is a professor of law at Boston College Law School, where his research and teaching center on American constitutional law and political development. In particular, his work focuses on how shifting notions of race, citizenship, and empire have shaped legal and political identity since the founding. Rana's first book, The Two Faces of American Freedom (Harvard University Press) situates the American experience within the global history of colonialism, examining the intertwined relationship in American constitutional practice between internal accounts of freedom and external projects of power and expansion.  His new book, The Constitutional Bind: How Americans Came to Idolize a Document that Fails Them (University of Chicago Press, 2024), explores the modern emergence of constitutional veneration in the twentieth century -- especially against the backdrop of growing American global authority -- and how veneration has influenced the boundaries of popular politics. Aziz Rana has written essays and op-eds for such venues as n+1, The Boston Review, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Dissent, New Labor Forum, Jacobin, The Guardian, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Nation, Jadaliyya, Salon, and The Law and Political Economy Project.  He has articles and chapter contributions published or forthcoming with Yale and Oxford University Presses, The University of Chicago Law Review, California Law Review, UCLA Law Review, Texas Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal Forum, among others.

Brian Beckcom is a Computer Scientist, Philosopher, & Trial Lawyer based in Houston, Texas. He has been voted a Texas Super Lawyer 14 consecutive times—every single year he has been eligible. Brian's law firm, VB Attorneys, is one of the best law firms in the United States, and has obtained hundreds of millions of dollars for the firm's clients, including many record-breaking results. ‌Brian also hosts Lessons from Leaders with Brian Beckcom, a popular podcast featuring military leaders, sports stars, New York Times best selling authors, scientists, and more. ‌Brian is a former Division I athlete at Texas A&M (basketball). He is currently a purple belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, a single-digit golfer, and an accomplished fly fisherman. ‌Brian graduated from Texas A&M University with degrees in Computer Science & Philosophy. He was a member of the Texas A&M basketball team and one of the leaders of the Corps of Cadets, the oldest military organization in the State of Texas. ‌Brian then attended the University of Texas School of Law, where he was one of the top students. He graduated with honors, served as an Officer on the Texas Law Review, & was the starting free safety for the Legal Eagles. ‌Brian is consistently viewed by his peers as one of the best lawyers of his generation. Brian has also published hundreds of articles and 6 books about success, happiness, leadership, and other important topics. What you will learn Learn about the intersection of computer science, philosophy, and law. Discover why purpose and meaning are more important than pursuing happiness directly. Understand the limitations of artificial intelligence compared to human intelligence. Discover the potential impact of large language models on industries like law. Understand the potential dangers of leaving AI development solely to tech companies. Explore the importance of having leaders who are well-versed in ethics, especially when it comes to the development and regulation of artificial intelligence.

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against race-based admissions at college campuses nationwide after hearing companion cases by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) that challenged admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC). SFFA overturned the 2003 ruling by a more liberal Supreme Court in the case Grutter v. Bollinger, which affirmed that a student's race could be used as one of multiple factors in admissions decisions at the University of Michigan.  Affirmative action was rejected by the conservative majority on the bench, which agreed that UNC's policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and that Harvard's affirmative action plan discriminates against Asian American students, a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But did it really change the way campus admissions will operate?  In their forthcoming paper in the Texas Law Review, “The Goose and the Gander: How Conservative Precedents Will Save Campus Affirmative Action,” Professor Guha Krishnamurthi of the University of Maryland Carey Law School contends (along with his co-author Peter Salib) that though affirmative action is legally dead, race will still figure into holistic admissions procedures-- just not as a check-box item. In this episode of Discovery, we speak with Prof. Krishnamurthi about the previous state of play in race-based admissions and his opinion that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling against campus affirmative action has no practical effect on the way schools operate. He argues that due to the Supreme Court's decades-old rulings that statistical proof cannot carry a constitutional discrimination claim, universities will only be liable in litigation if they admit that they practice affirmative action, so most schools will pursue diversity by other means, simply by operating in the shadows.

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, we are honored to be joined by friend of the show, Congressman David Schweikert of Arizona's First Congressional District. Later in the show, we check in with Ilan Wurman, who is working on a critical lawsuit over “The Zone,” a homeless encampment in downtown Phoenix. -David Schweikert is serving his fifth term in the United States Congress.  He holds a seat on the Ways and Means Committee, and serves as the Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security. Prior to his service on the Ways and Means Committee, David served on the House Committee on Financial Services.David also sits on the bicameral Joint Economic Committee, Co-Chairs the Valley Fever Task force with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and is the Republican Co-Chair of both the Blockchain Caucus, the Tunisia Caucus and the Caucus on Access to Capital and Credit.Among his legislative accomplishments, David was instrumental in authoring and passing the JOBS ACT into law. The bill was signed by the President in April 2012. Having previously served as Chairman of the EPA Oversight Subcommittee on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee; David championed key reforms such as the Secret Science Reform Act, which has passed the House of Representatives.A national leader on tribal policy, David draws on a unique background working with Arizona's tribal communities on important priorities.   He is always eager to take on a technical challenge.As a strong advocate for efficiencies in the 21st Century economy, David collaborates with entrepreneurs and innovators in Arizona and around the world on ways to increase trade and drive economic growth.  David is the co-chair of the Blockchain Caucus, and has championed technological innovations as the solution to the problems of over-burdensome government regulations.-Ilan Wurman is an associate professor at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, where he teaches administrative law and constitutional law. He writes primarily on the Fourteenth Amendment, administrative law, separation of powers, and constitutionalism. His academic writing has appeared or is forthcoming in the Yale Law Journal, the Stanford Law Review, the University of Chicago Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, the Duke Law Journal, the Minnesota Law Review, and the Texas Law Review among other journals. He is also the author of A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism (Cambridge 2017), and The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment (Cambridge 2020).-Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com

Roe was much more than a Supreme Court decision.  It was an event that changed the course of women's lives around the world.  How do we commemorate it, especially after the Supreme Court overruled the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health last year?Linda Greenhouse is the Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist who covered the U.S. Supreme Court for the New York Times from 1978 to 2007.  She continues to contribute op-eds regularly at the New York Times, and is a clinical lecturer and senior research scholar at Yale Law School and author of, most recently, Justice on the Brink: A Requiem for the Supreme Court (2022) and "Does the War Over Abortion Have a Future?" (NY Times Jan. 18, 2022).Professor Reva Siegel is the Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Professor Siegel's highly influential and prolific writing draws on legal history to explore questions of law and inequality and to analyze how courts interact with representative government and popular movements in interpreting the Constitution. Her most recent article, of relevance to today's conversation is Memory Games: Dobbs's Originalism as Anti-Democratic Living Constitutionalism — and Some Pathways for Resistance, forthcoming in the Texas Law Review. She is the author, along with Melissa Murray and Serena Mayeri, of the Amicus Brief of Equal Protection Law Scholars in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health(2021), making equality-based constitutional arguments for abortion rights.Further reading:Linda Greenhouse and Reva B. Siegel, Before Roe v. Wade: Voices that Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court's Ruling (2010).Linda Greenhouse, “Requiem for the Supreme Court,” N.Y. Times, June 24, 2022Reva B. Siegel & Douglas Nejaime, Answering the Lochner Objection: Substantive Due Process and the Role of Courts in a Democracy, 96 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1902 (2021)Reva B. Siegel & Cary Franklin, Equality Emerges As A Ground for Abortion Rights (SSRN, 2022).

If you enjoyed my very first blog, Underneath Their Robes (2004-2006)—which I wrote under a pseudonym while working as a federal prosecutor, pretending to be a female associate in Biglaw obsessed with federal judges and fashion—then you'll enjoy this latest podcast episode. How many podcasts combine analysis of Supreme Court oral arguments with discussion of pumps versus cowboy boots versus Mary Janes? (For the record, my guest made the first reference to shoes; I didn't go there unprompted.)My latest guest is—of course—the inimitable Lisa Blatt, chair of the Supreme Court and appellate practice at Williams & Connolly, the legendary litigation firm. Lisa needs no introduction to Original Jurisdiction devotees, so I'll mention just two distinctions. First, Lisa has argued 43 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, more than any other woman in history. Second, she has won 37 of those 43 cases (86 percent), which makes her one of the most consistently victorious SCOTUS advocates. (Trivia question: is there a Supreme Court lawyer currently practicing who has argued that many cases before the high court with that high a win percentage?)In our ebullient and enjoyable interview, Lisa and I covered her special relationship with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for whom she clerked; how she rose to the top of the male-dominated Supreme Court bar, as a woman from Texas who “didn't go to a fancy law school”; how she developed her distinctive, famously unfiltered style of oral argument; and why she prefers cowboy boots over stiletto heels. I hope you have as much fun listening to this episode as Lisa and I had recording it.Show Notes:* Lisa Blatt bio, Williams & Connolly LLP* Reflections of a Lady Lawyer, Texas Law Review* Lisa S. Blatt: Cases argued, OyezPrefer reading to listening? A transcript of the entire episode appears below (although you really should listen to this one, since as is the case with her SCOTUS arguments, a transcript doesn't do Lisa justice).Two quick notes:* This transcript has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter meaning, e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning (although I've done less clean-up than usual to better preserve the flavor of our fabulous and freewheeling conversation).* Because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email. To view the entire post, simply click on "View entire message" in your email app.David Lat: Hello, and welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to by visiting davidlat.substack.com.You're listening to the seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Wednesday, November 30. My normal schedule is to post episodes every other Wednesday.I must confess, with all due respect to my past guests, that this episode might be the most fun one yet—and I owe it all to my guest. Lawyers are known for being risk-averse and many carry that over into their interviews, not wanting to say anything that might get them in trouble or rub someone the wrong way. That's definitely not true of my latest guest, who's known for her refreshing candor, whether you're chatting with her at a cocktail party or whether she's arguing before the United States Supreme Court.Lisa Blatt serves as Chair of Williams & Connolly's Supreme Court and appellate practice. She has argued 43 cases before the Supreme Court, more than any other woman in history. And she has prevailed in 37 of those 43 cases, giving her a win percentage of 86 percent—which has to be one of the highest around, at least among advocates who have argued before the Court as often as she has. She has won numerous awards, including Litigator of the Year from the American Lawyer in 2021.Lisa graduated from the University of Texas for both college and law school, summa cum laude both times. She clerked for then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the D.C. Circuit and then joined Williams & Connolly as an associate. After government service, at the Department of Energy and then the Office of the Solicitor General, where she worked for 13 years, Lisa returned to private practice, and in 2019, she came full circle by returning to Williams & Connolly.In our lively and wide-ranging conversation, Lisa and I discussed her unique relationship with the late Justice Ginsburg, for whom she clerked; her distinctive approach to Supreme Court oral advocacy, including her thoughts on trying humor with the justices; why she loves coaching debate; and why she thinks lawyers should not be passionate about their work.Without further ado, here's my interview of Lisa Blatt.DL: Lisa, thank you so much for joining me. I'm honored to have you on the podcast.Lisa Blatt: Well, thank you. I am honored to be here.DL: So if I had to guess where you're from based on meeting you at a cocktail party or hearing you argue before the Court, I would've guessed you're one of us, a New Yorker or a Northeasterner. But you're from Texas.LB: That's right. Both of my parents are from New York, and I grew up listening to the word “y'all” with a very thick New York accent, so everyone assumes I'm from New York. But no, I was born and raised in Texas, West Texas. I moved all over Texas, UT for undergrad and law school, and a lot of my personality is because I'm from Texas. And I think I'm on my 12th pair of cowboy boots?DL: Oh wow, okay!LB: I'm definitely a Texan. Part of the way I talk just is because my parents are both from New York.DL: That makes sense. And you have a kind of candor, although I guess Texans are pretty candid too, aren't they?LB: I don't think my candor comes from being from Texas! I don't know where that comes from, actually—no one in my family's like that.DL: Fair enough. So going to your upbringing in Texas, were there any hints that you might become a lawyer? I believe your parents were not lawyers.LB: Right. Dad was a software engineer, Mom a stay-home mom until she became a psychologist. But no, I think it was Thurgood Marshall, something about his story of Brown—I still get sort of teary when I think about it—something about his story of what he did in Brown v. Board of Education, being the lawyer, the advocate, not the justice. I just wanted to be a lawyer and I did debate, speech and debate starting maybe in seventh grade, I was always very into debate and just knew that I wanted to go to law school.DL: What events did you do in speech and debate?LB: Now it's embarrassing, but policy debate, which is all that fast talking, and I had to unlearn that many years later. But yeah, I did policy debate and I spent many years coaching debate, so I do love the art of advocacy and argumentation and trying to persuade someone.DL: I read in one of your profiles or interviews that you do coach or did coach debate. What was that like for you? It seems like you're very competitive about coaching debate?LB: No, actually that's not right. I'm very passionate about coaching debate, and I feel very strongly about coaching; it's what I would definitely do if I wasn't a lawyer, and I feel very passionate about helping children and kids. But I don't think it's about winning—and that's one of the things you have to teach kids, because they just want a trophy. So much in life when it comes to competition and jobs is arbitrary and capricious. One of the things that is so important for us, even adults, to understand is that some stuff is out of our control. If I can just teach one child how to stand up straight and feel good about an argument, then that's a home run. So I love everything about coaching debate.Also, the different perspective was just a huge thing, getting a bunch of kids in a room. I've taught middle-school debate and high-school debate, and I would say my favorite was middle school because they're not yet completely sold on their politics and ideology, and trying to just get them to open up about things like background checks or hate speech or should dodgeball be banned in schools because it's violent. Just anything, any topic—nowadays not all topics are as safe as others, but just lots of fun topics—which tastes better, Coke or Pepsi, anything that you can just form an argument about and how to organize your responses.Look how excited I get! Just the notion of being able to teach this in a way that is helpful, especially for women, and a lot of kids are very insecure at this age, and everything about trying to show them that they can be confident is just the best thing in the whole world.DL: Speech and debate was huge for me in that respect. I was a very nerdy kid, very insecure, but when I found something and I enjoyed it, and I was good at it, it was a big boost for my confidence. So your husband's a lawyer, you're a lawyer, I believe you have two kids—are either of them into speech and debate?LB: One's in law school, they both did debate, and the other one's just applying and now getting into law school. So we're going to be Blatt & Associates, or Blatt Blatt Blatt & Blatt. David, my husband, no debate, he finds it completely foreign, but both Daniel and Rachel did debate.DL: Excellent. So in doing my research, I did come across your wedding announcement when you and David got married. I'm curious: did you give much thought to the whole “take his name or not take his name” thing?LB: My maiden name is Schiavo, so I was so eager, I would've married anybody with any last name—as soon as somebody gave me a proposal, the answer was yes. So yes, I gave a lot of thought to taking his last name. Everyone mispronounced Schiavo. Actually its direct translation is “slave” in Italian. So I was happy to [take his name], I happen to love Blatt, which rhymes with your last name. It's so great.DL: It's very easy to spell. The only issue is one or two t's, but absolutely.LB: I'm actually fine with people—a lot of people still know me as Lisa Schiavo, and that's fine too—but I like being Lisa Blatt.DL: So as we talked about, you went to UT for college and law school, summa cum laude, did super well. And in some ways your first big break, I would say, was clerking for then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the D.C. Circuit. She was a great advocate and a great justice, but some say she wasn't warm and fuzzy with her clerks. But based on your great piece for the Texas Law Review—Reflections of a Lady Lawyer, which I'm going to put in the show notes—it sounds like you had a fairly close relationship with her?LB: Extremely, because I couldn't talk about the law with her! I'm being completely serious. Both my co-clerks were absolutely brilliant people from Harvard, on the Harvard Law Review, but that was just never going to go anywhere with me, to talk with her about the law. And so I'm probably one of her few clerks where it was shoes, jewelry, or clothes. I could not keep up with her, and we talked about fashion.When it was one of her huge anniversaries, it may have been her tenth year on the Court, twenty years on the bench, there were only two people, maybe three people who gave a toast, and I was one of them. And everyone talked about all her this, that, and the other thing, legal giant—and I spent the whole time roasting her about how skinny she was and all her jewelry and how she was an airhead, and she was cracking up. But she liked people who made her laugh, and I think I made her laugh.DL: That makes perfect sense. Look at [her late husband] Marty, look at [her good friend] Justice Scalia, and you. She was somewhat reserved or introverted, but she was drawn to people who could bring her out.LB: She's so hard to talk to about… I just couldn't talk to her about the law, and I was probably her least productive and least intelligent clerk. I remembered at this toast I did for her, I showed everyone the bench memo I did for her, it was a made-up thing, but she took only the caption—a draft opinion, I drafted the opinion, and she cut out the caption and used that for the opinion. It's true, it was a true story, but I did it on a big blowup poster and it was very funny. And I was also her first and last clerk from University of Texas, because she's such a snob, a super school snob….DL: That is true. Yeah….LB: Some of them are very, very specific about their Ivy League schools. But I loved her, and I do think it was a different relationship than she had with other clerks. Very different.DL: That makes perfect sense. You mentioned you both were into or bonded over fashion. Did you have similar or different styles?LB: No, she was so weird! She would just—come on, she wore all those caftans, at least back in when she was on the D.C. Circuit. Actually, now I think I dress like her because I love bright colors, and she definitely is where I got my “you know what, just wear it, own it.” Because she would show up in the strangest outfits and she just like looked very happy and I thought, “Wow, I wanna be her, she's beautiful.” She just loved life and travel and clothes. She definitely had a unique clothing style. I have a bunch of Mary Jane shoes that I have now after she passed away that I call my “RBG shoes.”DL: Oh, interesting…. Mary Janes, and cowboy boots. I would've thought you would go for some pumps, with three- or four-inch heels or something?LB: I'm so tall, I can't do it. No, I can't do heels, really. Cowboy boots are my thing.DL: Okay, fair enough. So turning to what you're most well-known for, arguing before the Supreme Court, I believe you have argued more Supreme Court cases than any woman in history. You noted that in your Texas Law Review piece, but I noticed that on your Williams and Connolly bio, it doesn't say that. Was that intentional? Do you want to be known as a Supreme Court advocate and not a female Supreme Court advocate?LB: Uh, no. How about a “female Jewish funny old-lady Supreme Court advocate”? No, I didn't even know that, David. I guess I could put [it] on my website. I don't know if anyone cares, so, no intentionality, no, no intentionality at all. I am very proud of the fact that I have more arguments than any woman in history, but I expect and hope to see other women pass me up very shortly, and I assume they will.DL: Do you happen to know who would be number two?LB: Well, I'm hoping it'll be Elizabeth Prelogar when she gets out of the SG's office.DL: That's right, that's right. She is racking up a lot of arguments.LB: And she's gloriously fantastic.DL: She's amazing.LB: She's amazing. But there are plenty of women out there. Well, [my partner] Sarah Harris, my right-hand person, she's far more talented than I am. Because I'm a little bit different than other people, I hope that my style doesn't necessarily rub off, but I hope that what rubs off on people is that somebody who didn't go to Yale or Harvard and who lacked a lot of self-confidence and wasn't really groomed for anything can just do well. I was incredibly insecure for so much of my professional life. And so I very much want to be a model for people.DL: And you write about that very eloquently in your Texas Law Review essay, which again, I really commend to people.I'm curious, your Williams & Connolly bio does note that you've argued 43 cases before the Court, and you've won 37. And as I recall, didn't you have a very long win streak before you notched that first loss?LB: Yeah, I was in the twenties, and Ted Olson gave me a case to lose. Yeah!DL: And let me ask—are you the “winningest” Supreme Court advocate with a certain number of arguments below your belt, like 25 or 30 or 40? Your win percentage is something like 90 percent, 88 percent, something like that.LB: I don't know….DL: One thing that's interesting about the Supreme Court, and I think you alluded to this earlier—you said so much of life is arbitrary and capricious and luck, and I would argue that despite your amazing talents as a Supreme Court litigator, so many Supreme Court cases are decided based on political or jurisprudential or other factors independent of the argument style. How important would you say briefing and argument are? I know this is a very vague question….LB: I'll break it down two ways. I disagree on the jurisprudential [point], except for abortion, guns, race, and religion. Everything else, I think, is open to grab, although you could make some points about statutory construction and administrative law—so you're increasingly more correct, but I still think that there are plenty of cases that are completely up for grabs on bankruptcy or even arbitration these days. Just random commercial cases or civil cases, I don't think it's that ideological. I will give you on—I don't think the Court needs to be briefed on how to rule in an abortion case, you're just completely right.Then there's oral argument, and whether that matters, and a lot of us who argue like to say it matters. At a minimum, I would say it matters in that you can lose a case at argument and you can go backwards. It's much harder to win a case at argument, but it's pretty easy to lose a lot of ground and lose a case at argument. And as you can tell now from the current format, the justices are just bursting with stamina in terms of how much they want to argue. It's like the cage has been opened, and I think they're going to go back to all-day argument soon.DL: Do you like the new approach?LB: How can you not?DL: I do, as a listener….LB: Because there's no time limit for them in the lightning round or whatever they call it—round robin, Justice Sotomayor just called it—and you can tell they're all sort of looking at each other like, “How much longer can I get away with?” The worst thing about the old style, where it was rapid fire and Justice Thomas was silent, is you just didn't learn that much about what their concerns were because it was so hard to get your point out, it was so hard to hear what every justice thinks. Now Justice Thomas is free and is so involved in argument, and all of them are, so you're just getting all of them now. The only problem with that is you're having nine conversations, so it's just turning into very long arguments. But the parties, who aren't lawyers, it's helpful for them to see the Court in action, so I like that, and for the public to see how hard they're working through the issues.DL: Absolutely—and I know this is a pending case, so we won't delve into the merits—but I would commend people to the argument in the Warhol case [Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith], which you and Roman Martinez and Yaira Dubin recently argued. It's a great case. It's super-interesting. The argument went on for quite some time, but you really do see the justices grappling with the issues in a very earnest and non-ideological way. It's a great argument.LB: One of the things I don't like talking about in argument is the law, so to me, those cases are the most fun, because you can talk about how the case matters in the real world, what it means to people, the public, the parties, and you're not so much talking about what some word in the U.S. Code means.DL: Exactly. That case covered everything from Darth Vader to Mondrian to The Jeffersons, and so it was a really fun case for folks to listen to.Turning to advocacy and your style of arguing before the Court, which we alluded to, Sarah Isgur of the Advisory Opinions podcast said that nobody should try to imitate Lisa Blatt, even though Sarah thinks you're an amazing advocate, nobody should try to imitate Lisa. And I agree that there's a sort of “don't try this at home, kids” quality to your argument. Would you say you have a distinct style of argument, and if so, how is it?LB: Well, it upsets me that so many people say don't try to emulate her because… it just upsets me to hear that. I'd like….DL: I would be flattered! I'd be like, I'm inimitable, I'm sui generis, you can't imitate me!LB: One of the things that you have to do when you're a Supreme Court advocate or any advocate is make sure everything you say you can back up. If somebody wants to say, “wait a minute, did you just say what you said,” you're going to go, “I absolutely said what I said, and I'll repeat it again,” and that has always been my philosophy.It's true I think some people think I maybe go right up to the edge, but I'm okay with that. Sometimes I say things and I'm like, oh my God, why did I say that? In the Romag case with Neal Katyal, that was definitely one of my more notable ones, where I said, “I think you might have to cut me off.” The Chief just looked at me like, “Are you crazy?”So I say things like that and I'm like, what? Or “I didn't go to a fancy law school,” and I'm like, well, why did I say that? So things like that, I'll regret saying, and you shouldn't say things like “I didn't go to a fancy law school,” so I would never recommend people repeat that. But I would think that lots of people make statements and arguments that they're like, I should have said it differently, so I don't know why I should be any different.What I guess is upsetting to me is my style, if it's unique, it's that I have this very strong view that truth is the best form of advocacy and for someone to have a different view—it's disturbing to me. Why would you not be incredibly honest and direct with the Court? That's all I have to say, and I think everyone would agree. I don't know whether it was Irv Gornstein or Michael Dreeben [who said it], but Paul Clement and I often talk about this, that oral argument is truth serum, so whatever someone tells you to do, what you think is really going to come out. I've tried to change my style, I would like to be different, but it's very hard for me to not be the way I am.DL: Well, let me give you some examples. I totally agree with you on the point about fidelity to the law and the facts, and I think that if someone were to compare you to Paul Clement, your former colleague in the SG's office, who would also be identified as one of the best Supreme Court litigators of all time….LB: Paul is the best. Let's just be clear.DL: Okay, well, fair enough….LB: Paul is magical in a completely different way. His magic is the way he engages with cases and doctrine, and I've never seen anything like itDL: What would you say is your special sauce or superpower?LB: I don't think I have one! I think, I'm not trying to be funny, but I think that they sometimes are laughing, like a fair amount of times are laughing. And so I don't know why that is, that they think it's funny, the things I say.DL: I think this is another aspect of your argument that I think people say don't try to imitate. Usually when people say, well, what are the rules of appellate or Supreme Court advocacy, they say, well, listen to the judges or justices, don't talk over them, really try to be responsive, [and] people also say generally don't try humor. But you do try humor, and it almost always works.LB: No, I don't try it, I don't try it! That's, no, you never should try humor! Absolutely. Never. Try. Humor. It would be a disaster. And can you imagine making a bad joke? That is the worst thing to do. Don't try humor. I think sometimes I say things…. I remember the first time I said something that got a hysterical laugh, it was an argument in the gas tank case [United States v. Flores-Montano], which is mentioned in the Guide for Counsel. Definitely considered, I know at least by Justice Ginsburg, it was one of her favorite arguments, and it was a glorious argument, but in the course of the argument, Justice Scalia said, I said something and he goes, “Is that public?” And I said, “I just made it public.” And they all just broke out laughing. And I'm like, I'm not trying to be funny, but sometimes that bluntness and directness, it's funny, but I'm not trying to be funny. Does that make sense?DL: Well, so when you made the funny quip in the Warhol argument about the airbrushed photos of Lisa Blatt, you were not trying to be funny? Because it was funny.LB: Nor was I trying to be funny when I said the court was “yakking.”DL: Yes. That was also great!LB: The minute that came out, I was like, ah, how do I take that back? And they thought it was hysterical, but I wasn't trying to be funny. Why would anybody say that? Intentionally?DL: Okay, okay, fair enough.LB: But, so, I think it's just quirky. I don't, maybe, I don't know what the word is. I don't know.DL: When people say, don't try to imitate you, I don't think they're saying anything about your fidelity to the facts or the law or the record. I think you and Paul are pretty much toe to toe on that. But you have very different styles. He's conversational and you are conversational, but you're much more… lively, no offense to Paul, you're more sort of… in your face, I guess? I don't know how to put it….LB: Oh, I don't know what I think of that. Paul is definitely just more eloquent and elegant and intellectual, and I'm just more, let's talk, let's roll up our sleeves.DL: And I think that would be your superpower. I think you have a way to just cut to the heart of the case, in a way, and to also play out the consequences. I know that we're deciding cases on the law, precedent, not policy, blah blah blah, but I think you're really great at unfolding [consequences]. I love the line you had in the B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District case about the cursing cheerleader, where you're saying near the end in your rebuttal, like, “judges, justices, don't do this!” in terms of setting forth a bad rule.LB: I said, “please don't do this to courts,” or “please don't do this to schools.” Yes, I said “please.” Okay. The minute I said “please,” it's like, I would highly recommend never saying, in any oral argument, “please.” But it did come out that way.DL: It was great!LB: Maybe it's just refreshing because nobody says “please.” Or I referred to North Korea and Russia. And so, but trust me, I am not trying to be entertaining because I strongly think that that is a disastrous move. You should never try to be that or try to be—you just can only be yourself.DL: Yes.LB: And so what you see at argument, I think with a lot of people is just someone's true self. And maybe it's because I didn't go to a fancy law school.DL: You mentioned in your Texas Law Review piece that it took you a while to learn to be yourself, that you tried on a couple of styles before settling on your current one?LB: Absolutely. Yes. That's why I feel the modeling and supporting younger people are extremely important. But how are you supposed to know this in your thirties? I didn't have the confidence and I hated everything about myself, so, yeah, I thought I would look at other, I guess, women and men and want to be like them. Maureen Mahoney, one of the best all-time advocates, everything about her is to die for. I couldn't be her if my life depended on it. And it was very hard for me to just accept the fact that I was never going to be that kind of lawyer or just always be a little different and not ever feel comfortable like in a suit, and just really…. I'm sure a lot of people feel this way, where they don't feel like they belong. This is not some great revelation. And so the sooner you can accept your weaknesses and lean into your strengths, the better off you are. So the more I can try to tell people that wherever that leads you, the better. It just took me a while, probably late thirties, early forties.DL: What were some of the styles you tried on before settling into your current one?LB: I grew up in the eighties, seventies and eighties. It was the suits, the, like, really uncomfortable suits, pantyhose, all that stuff, like uncomfortable shoes, not bright colors, or not speaking up, or worrying about how it comes out. I think the biggest thing that a lot of people won't do is admit they don't understand something. And I do that all the time at the meeting, I'm like, I have no idea what you're talking about, I literally have no clue what you just said. And a lot of people would never do that. And I think I sat through so many meetings where I would just go, I have no idea what those people are talking about. And now I'll say it and maybe people think I'm dumb, but I don't care. I'd rather—I'm positive that there's probably someone in the room that didn't follow it either.DL: Yes, exactly. I think that's so true.LB: But you know what? Shame and humiliation drive so many people and the way they conduct themselves, and the sooner you can sort of laugh at yourself, the better off the world would be.DL: That's very true, very true. I'm curious, over your 40-plus arguments, is there a win that you're most proud of? You have won a lot of really interesting cases, but is there one, maybe one that we haven't heard of or have not heard as much about?LB: Yes, and it'll be probably, you know, a lot of people will get mad at this, and please don't hate me on social media, but the [Adoptive Couple v.] Baby Girl case.DL: Ah yes….LB: With the Adoptive Couple [case] that I did with Paul, it just took, you know, like two years into my life and it was just a long, long struggle. And so I am proud that we won that case. It was just involved, a child, a family, and so it was just, to me, a meaningful case. It was also, you know, definitely one of my more memorable oral arguments.DL: I remember that case. I re-listened to that one recently, and this was a case that was interpreting the Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA, which is now back before the Court. And you just had a really powerful line in there where you said something like, “Look, we're talking about children, we're not talking about property or something.” You had a really resonant line in that argument.LB: Yeah, so I think in that case, I think it's fair to say that I know this from inside sources that, you know, you could see that case in two ways: it was one about the law and one about the facts. Then you can take it from there, and I chose to argue the case about the facts. I think the ICWA case now before the Court is very much about the law.DL: Interesting.LB: It's just so—some cases are more about the facts than the law.DL: I think you won that case on the facts as well. There were a lot of facts, I think, that were not great for the other side.LB: It was a 5-4 case. It was just tough, and the argument was very tough. It was also just very meaningful for me because I did it with Paul who was, you know, such an inspiration, and I basically give Paul credit for my entire career. So it was just a huge deal to me to have him up there arguing with me.I also blame Paul because I was really restrained in the whole beginning of the argument and it looked like we were losing. And Paul is like, you know, you gotta keep, keep it under control. And right before I went up for rebuttal, I said, “Can I just let loose?” And he said, “Yeah, just do it.” So I don't know if he remembers it that way, but I always say, Paul told me just to let loose, so that's what I did.DL: I would say another one of your superpowers is you really bring it in the rebuttal. Rebuttal is sometimes kind of an afterthought, but your rebuttal in that case, your rebuttal in the BL v. Mahanoy Area School District Case….LB: No, Oklahoma [Carpenter v. Murphy] was the worst.DL: What do you mean by the worst?LB: Well, because I basically said, this will stimulate you, and then repeated about rapists and molesters and murderers. It was, it was epic. And then everybody blamed me for going hysterical, and then everything I predicted happened in Oklahoma [after McGirt v. Oklahoma, which addressed the same issue after the Court deadlocked in Carpenter]. But yeah, no, the Oklahoma rebuttal was definitely one that was probably a little over the top.DL: Well look, sometimes you go a little over the top, but I think you also just bring a—I know you don't like this word as applied to argument—but I do think people would say you're a passionate advocate, or you're….LB: Ugh!!!DL: I know, I know, I've read your pieces saying don't use the P word, save it for your, save it for your hobbies, or…LB: Save it for sex.DL: Ha!LB: I'm not a big fan of “passion.” Do you really want a passionate surgeon? No.DL: Well, I guess maybe….LB: I just want someone who's good. Do you want a passionate architect? No. Do you want a passionate airline pilot? No. Just get me somebody who can get the job done and not mess up my face, or my house, or my plumbing. I mean, just get the job done. I do not want a passionate professional, period.DL: Okay, so well…..LB: I would say I'm extremely high-energy.DL: Yes, yes. And I think you just have a sort of sincerity, I think, [so] that nobody feels they're ever getting a snow job from you. It's like very, very honest, very unfiltered. And I think that that candor, that uber-compliance with the duty of candor to the court, I think is very appreciated by the judges.LB: Again, think of a surgeon. Seriously. When you're out and under their knife, you need them doing a good job with whatever they're repairing. Your life is in their hands and you need to take care of them. And that is in addition to putting myself in the role of a mother, I also think of a surgeon. I mean, you do everything you can for your kids. And if you're a surgeon, you know you got a job to do and you just, you gotta get it done. And so, I don't like that word “passion.” It sounds like it interferes with judgment. That's why I don't like that word. And maybe I am passionate, but I don't like to be called that.DL: So what are you passionate about then? What do you like to do outside of work? I see you, the listeners can't, but we're on Zoom, I see you're wearing a Peloton sweatshirt. Are you passionate about exercise? I know you mentioned you're not passionate about cooking or baking because you tried that on and that didn't work. So what do you like to do when you're not arguing before the Court?LB: I love to play with my dog, I love to exercise, I love music, and I love children.DL: Okay. Those are all worthy interests.So this is the lightning round, [since] I see our time is almost elapsed. Let me ask you my final four questions, which are standardized for all guests.The first is, what do you like the least about the law? And that can either be the practice of law or it can be law as that system that governs all of us.LB: The stereotypical male ego.DL: Fair enough. That is a good point and a very concise one. What would you be if you were not a lawyer?LB: Debate coach.DL: Oh, there are a lot of similarities there.LB: I would coach. I would be involved with children in some way, teacher, coaching, whatever I could do with kids.DL: Wonderful, wonderful.LB: I think everything that you think is different about me as an advocate is why I really come alive with children, because they're so not used to adults that are normal. They're so used to adults kind of doing weird stuff with kids and they're like, they just flip out when an adult is like, just tells it to them straight. They just, there's some way, just so much fun. I love kids.DL: Well, it's funny, I think in your Texas piece you had a line about how, well, the kids know that you're different from the other parents because….LB: I swear with them. I can't tell you how much I love kids. I mean, I love dogs too, but I love children.DL: Oh, that's great. Well, I'm sure that if you ever retire from Supreme Court advocacy, I'm sure a school or debate camp would love to have you.Question number three, how much sleep do you get each night?LB: I sleep all the time, in the middle of the day, in the morning, I just sleep. I love to sleep, so I don't know, seven, eight hours. I would sleep for 12 if I could. I really like to sleep.DL: I am so glad to hear that.LB: Naps are the best.DL: I agree with you on that. I have a great ability to nap. Unfortunately, not everyone does, and some people have trouble sleeping, but it sounds like you're not one of them.LB: I've had trouble since the pandemic. I've had trouble sleeping, but I still, then I'll just sleep in the daytime. But I do like to sleep, so I definitely get enough sleep.DL: Oh, good, good. And I guess my final question: any words of wisdom, especially for listeners who look at your life and career and say, I want to be Lisa Blatt?LB: Maybe it's two things that are similar. The hardest lessons are how to deal with failure, and you just can't let failure define you. It is inevitable. Setbacks are so inevitable, and so is embarrassment, shame, and humiliation. And so the sooner you can adapt to that, the better. Jeff Wall once gave me the best advice of my entire life: with every door that closes, the window opens. And the other thing that Jeff Wall told me that was sort of foundational was when you look back upon your life, will you be thinking about how much money you have or how many arguments you have? And the answer is no. You're not gonna be thinking, if I'd only had one more argument or gotten one more award, you'll be thinking about the relationships you've made along the way, that those are the most important. Now, I remember telling this to Judge [Pamela] Harris, who's an amazing Fourth Circuit judge, and she said, “No, that's not what I'll be thinking about, I'll be thinking about what good I did for the world.” And I was like, “Ah, I can't win for losing!” So if you don't think about your relationships, at least think about what good you did for the world.And then the other piece of advice, which is along [the lines of] don't let failure define you, is just don't let other people's view of you define you just because someone doesn't respect you. Okay. You need to define who you are for yourself, and it is so easy to see yourself through other people's eyes, and it's just something you need to fight if you're insecure, like I was.DL: Again, very, very true, and I think you have managed to succeed and define yourself in a really unique way. And again, I have such admiration for you, Lisa, and I'm so grateful to have you on the show.LB: Yeah. And David, let me just plug you. You're a god and my family loves you. My husband loves you. We always read you. You're just amazing. My husband follows everything you say about Yale.DL: Well, there's a lot to say, and I think I'm gonna be hopping on a train soon to head up there for an event. But, again, thank you so much….LB: We are avid, avid followers of you.DL: Thank you again, Lisa. This was so much fun and best of luck in the arguments you have stacked up for the rest of this Term.LB: Thank you. And thank you for inviting me!DL: Thanks again to Lisa for joining me. I'm always inspired by people like Lisa who can reach the pinnacle of the legal profession while remaining true to themselves. She's a unique advocate and personality, and I mean that in the very best sense.As always, thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers, for tuning in. If you'd like to connect with me, you can email me at davidlat@substack.com, and you can find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to Original Jurisdiction. Since this podcast is relatively new, please help spread the word by telling your friends about it. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, as is most of the newsletter content, but it is made possible by your paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast should appear two weeks from now, on or about Wednesday, December 28. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; and (3) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

This month, Shobita and Jack talk about the recent concerns about academic culture in the science and technology studies community, how to understand FTX's recent implosion, and the bizarre logics of effective altruism. And we chat with Boston University law professor Aziza Ahmed about how the politics of knowledge are shaping abortion politics in the United States.- Darren Tseng, Stephen Diehl, Jan Akalin (2022). Popping the Crypto Bubble: Market Manias, Phony Populism, Techno-Solutionism. Consilience Publishing.- Concerned.Tech (2022). "Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy." - Aziza Ahmed (2022). "These are the gray areas for women's privacy now in a post-Roe world." CNN Opinion. August 4.- Aziza Ahmed (2021). "The Future of Facts: The Politics of Public Health and Medicine in Abortion Law." University of Colorado Law Review. 92: 1151-1162.- Aziza Ahmed (2020). "Weaponizing Objectivity: The Politics of the CDC." Ms. Magazine. October 28. - Aziza Ahmed (2020). "Will the Supreme Court legitimate pretext?" SCOTUSblog. January 31.- Aziza Ahmed (2017). "Abortion in a Post-Truth Moment: A Response to Erwin Chemerinsky and Michele Goodwin." Texas Law Review. 95: 198-203.Transcript available at thereceivedwisdom.org.

In this episode, Amy interviews Professor Bill Henderson of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law.  Prof. Henderson's research focuses primarily on the empirical analysis of the legal profession and has appeared in leading legal journals, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and the Texas Law Review.  He regularly publishes articles in The American Lawyer, The ABA Journal, and The National Law Journal.  His observations on the legal market are also frequently quoted in the mainstream press, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Atlantic Monthly, The Economist, and National Public Radio. Based on his research and public speaking, Professor Henderson was included on the National Law Journal's list of The 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America (complied every ten years).  In 2015 and 2016, he was named the Most Influential Person in Legal Education by The National Jurist magazine. In addition to his research and teaching, Professor Henderson has participated in several legal innovation initiatives: 2018 to present: Co-founder of the Institute for the Future of Law Practice (IFLP, “i-flip”), a nonprofit that designs and delivers curricula and training for T-shaped legal professions (i.e., law combined with data, process, technology, design principles, and business). 2017 to present: Founder and editor of Legal Evolution, an online applied research publication focused on successful legal industry innovation. 2010-2016: Co-founder of Lawyer Metrics, an applied research company that helps lawyers and law firms use data to make better operational and strategic decisions. Lawyer Metrics (now LawyerMetrix) was acquired by AccessLex Institute in 2015.  Additional links mentioned in the podcast: On diffusion theory: https://www.legalevolution.org/2019/06/scoring-your-innovation-098/   On the CRT: https://www.legalevolution.org/2019/06/is-access-to-justice-a-design-problem-099/

Leah talks with Lee Kovarsky of the Capital Punishment Center at the University of Texas about the Supreme Court's treatment of death penalty cases.  Before 2020, there hadn't been a federal execution since 2003. In the last six months of the Trump presidency, there were 13. Lee tells us how that came to be, and what the justices' writings signal for future death penalty cases.Read Lee's article, "The Trump Executions," in the University of Texas Law Review

Insiya Aziz is a second year law student at the University of Texas School of Law. In her time as a law student, she has been involved with many pro bono projects, focusing on criminal justice, special education, and immigration. She also is also a board member at the American Muslim Bar Association, where she is involved in legal advocacy and policy work surrounding issues affecting Shia Muslims, both domestically and abroad. At present, she is working with the Southern Center for Human Rights in Georgia and the Council on American Islamic Relations in their Civil Rights department. At the law school, she is on the editorial board for the Texas Law Review and a competitor on the Jessup International Moot Court team.

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Stanley Fish is Professor of Law at Florida International University and Visiting Professor of Law at Cardoso Law School. In addition to being one of the country's leading public intellectuals, Professor Fish is an extraordinarily prolific author. Professor Dr. Fish has written for many of the country's leading law journals. including Stanford Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Yale Law Journal, University of Chicago Law Review, Columbia Law Review, and Texas Law Review. His books include There's No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It's a Good Thing, Too (1994); and The First: How to Think About Hate Speech, Campus Speech, Religious Speech, Fake News, Post-Truth, and Donald Trump (2019). In this episode, we focus on free speech. Dr. Fish presents his thesis against the idea that free speech exists, and we discuss its details. We start with a bit of Dr. Fish's background and where his interest in free speech comes from, and also a definition of free speech. We talk about John Stuart Mill's position, and the history of the political struggle for free speech. We discuss freedom of speech in the context of academia and the media. We ask if it makes sense to distinguish speech from action, and also address the distinction between freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry. Toward the end, Dr. Fish explains why he thinks “philosophy does not matter”. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, BO WINEGARD, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, ANJAN KATTA, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, MAX BEILBY, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, OMARI HICKSON, PHYLICIA STEVENS, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JOÃO ALVES DA SILVA, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, TOM ROTH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, MIRAN B, NICOLE BARBARO, AND ADAM HUNT! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, SERGIU CODREANU, LUIS CAYETANO, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, AND NIRUBAN BALACHANDRAN! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, JAMES PRATT, AND MATTHEW LAVENDER!

In this episode Ms. Eickbusch is interviewing Ms. Kara Blomquist, a recent graduate of the University of Texas Law School where she was also a member of the Texas Law Review. Ms. Blomquist clerked for a judge in McAllen, Texas after completing law school. She is now currently working in immigration law in the state of New York.

In this episode, Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, discusses his article, "Making Federalism Great Again: How the Trump Administration's Attack on Sanctuary Cities Unintentionally Strengthened Judicial Protection for State Autonomy," which is published in the Texas Law Review. Somin begins by explaining what a "sanctuary city" is and how the Trump administration has tried to block sanctuary city legislation. He describes the different approaches the administration has taken, and the federalism-based defenses raised by sanctuary cities, which sound in the Spending Clause and the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine. He observes that the defenses have been effective, and reflects on whether they reflect opportunism or a new reflect for federalism as a way of checking government power. You can read his related Washington Post op-ed here. Somin is on Twitter at @IlyaSomin.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate 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.

In this episode, I speak with legal writing authority, and professional treasure Bryan Garner about his most recent book, Garner's Guidelines for Drafting and Editing Contracts, published by West Academic. Some key takeaways are:1. Unlike most legal writing, contract writing is about the future; it guides parties about what will happen next in their relationship with each other.2. Precision matters in contract writing. Precise writing will create unmistakably and help to avoid conflict in the future.3. Every lawyer, regardless of the area of law in which they practice, needs a merger clause.About our guest:Bryan Garner is the authority on legal writing. He is the editor in chief of Black's Law Dictionary and the author of many leading works on legal style, including A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, The Elements of Legal Writing Style, Garner's The Redbook: A Manual of Legal Style, The Winning Brief, and The Winning Oral Argument. He has co-written two books with Justice Antonin Scalia; Reading the Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts and Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges. His magnum opus is the 897-page Garner's Modern Usage Style, published by Oxford University Press. It is widely considered the preeminent authority on questions of English usage.Prof. Garner received an Honorary LL.D. from Thomas M. Cooley Law School in 2000; a J.D. from the University of Texas at Austin in 1984, where he was an Associate Editor of the Texas Law Review; and a B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin in 1980, with Special Honors in Plan II. He is President of LawProse, Inc., the foremost provider of CLE training in legal writing, editing, and drafting. His many professional activities include service on the Board of Directors of the Texas Law Review Association and on the Editorial Advisory Boards of The Copy Editor and The Green Bag, and as a consultant to the Oxford Dictionary Department in Oxford, England. Prof. Garner has received the 2005 Lifetime Achievement Award in Plain Legal Language, the 2000 Scribes Book Award for Research and Writing (for Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed.), and the 1998 Outstanding Young Texas Ex Award, as well as many other honors and awards.As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know! You can email us at lawtofact@gmail.com or tweet to @lawtofact. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter and Instagram (@lawtofact) and to like us on Facebook! And finally, your ratings and reviews matter! Please leave us a review on iTunes. Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact? Join our mailing list by visiting us at www.lawtofact.com.

The second-bloodiest riot in the history of New York was touched off by a dispute between two Shakespearean actors. Their supporters started a brawl that killed as many as 30 people and changed the institution of theater in American society. In this week's episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll tell the story of the Astor Place riot, "one of the strangest episodes in dramatic history." We'll also fertilize a forest and puzzle over some left-handed light bulbs. Intro: In 1968, mathematician Dietrich Braess found that installing a traffic shortcut can actually lengthen the average journey. What key is "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" written in? Sources for our feature on the Astor Place riot: Nigel Cliff, The Shakespeare Riots: Revenge, Drama, and Death in Nineteenth-Century America, 2007. Richard Moody, The Astor Place Riot, 1958. Lawrence Barrett, Edwin Forrest, 1881. Joel Tyler Headley, Pen and Pencil Sketches of the Great Riots, 1873. H.M. Ranney, Account of the Terrific and Fatal Riot at the New-York Astor Place Opera House, 1849. Leo Hershkowitz, "An Anatomy of a Riot: Astor Place Opera House, 1849," New York History 87:3 (Summer 2006), 277-311. Bill Kauffman, "New York's Opera House Brawl," American Enterprise 13:4 (June 2002), 51. M. Alison Kibler, "'Freedom of the Theatre' and 'Practical Censorship': Two Theater Riots in the Early Twentieth Century," OAH Magazine of History 24:2 (April 2010), 15-19. Edgar Scott, "Edwin Forrest, First Star of the American Stage," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 84 (1960), 495-497. Adam I.P. Smith, "The Politics of Theatrical Reform in Victorian America," American Nineteenth Century History 13:3, 321-346. Daniel J. Walkowitz, "'The Gangs of New York': The Mean Streets in History," History Workshop Journal 56 (Autumn 2003), 204-209. Gretchen Sween, "Rituals, Riots, Rules, and Rights: The Astor Place Theater Riot of 1849 and the Evolving Limits of Free Speech," Texas Law Review 81:2 (December 2002), 679-713. Michael J. Collins, "'The Rule of Men Entirely Great': Republicanism, Ritual, and Richelieu in Melville's 'The Two Temples,'" Comparative American Studies 10:4 (December 2012), 304-317. Loren Kruger, "Our Theater? Stages in an American Cultural History," American Literary History 8:4 (Winter 1996), 699-714. Dennis Berthold, "Class Acts: The Astor Place Riots and Melville's 'The Two Temples,'" American Literature 71:3 (September 1999), 429-461. Cary M. Mazer, "Shakespearean Scraps," American Literary History 21:2 (Summer 2009), 316-323. Barbara Foley, "From Wall Street to Astor Place: Historicizing Melville's 'Bartleby,'" American Literature 72:1 (March 2000), 87-116. Neil Smith, "Imperial Errantry," Geographical Review 102:4 (October 2012), 553-555. Betsy Golden Kellem, "When New York City Rioted Over Hamlet Being Too British," Smithsonian.com, July 19, 2017. Amanda Foreman, "A Night at the Theater Often Used to Be a Riot," Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2015. Scott McCabe, "At Least 22 Killed in Astor Place Riots," [Washington, D.C.] Examiner, May 10, 2011. Timothy J. Gilfoyle, "A Theatrical Rivalry That Sparked a Riot," Chicago Tribune, April 22, 2007, 14.11. Paul Lieberman, "The Original Star; On His 200th Birthday, America's First 'Celebrity' Actor, Edwin Forrest, Still Has Fans," Los Angeles Times, March 21, 2006, E.1. Michael Grunwald, "Shakespeare in Hate; 150 Years Ago, 23 People Died In a Riot Over 'Macbeth,'" Washington Post, March 28, 1999, G01. Mel Gussow, "Richard A. Moody, 84, American-Theater Expert," New York Times, April 4, 1996. Frank Rich, "War of Hams Where the Stage Is All," New York Times, Jan. 17, 1992. "Theater: When 'Macbeth' Shook the World of Astor Place," New York Times, Jan. 12, 1992. "The Biggest Publicity Coup in the History of the Stage," New York Tribune, May 4, 1913, 4. "Death of an Aged Actress," New York Times, March 17, 1880. J. Brander Matthews, "W.C. Macready," Frank Leslie's Popular Monthly 10 (1880), 97-101. "The Astor Place Riots," New York Times, April 11, 1875. "An Old Story Retold; The Astor Place Riot -- Reminiscences of Macready," New York Times, April 3, 1875. "Dreadful Riot and Bloodshed in New York," British Colonist, May 23, 1849. "Remembering New York City's Opera Riots," Weekend Edition Saturday, National Public Radio, May 13, 2006. Listener mail: M. Ben-David, T.A. Hanley, and D.M. Schell, "Fertilization of Terrestrial Vegetation by Spawning Pacific Salmon: The Role of Flooding and Predator Activity," OIKOS 83 (1998), 47-55. James M. Helfield and Robert J. Naiman, "Effects of Salmon-Derived Nitrogen on Riparian Forest Growth and Implications for Stream Productivity," Ecology 82:9 (2001), 2403-2409. Wikipedia, "Salmon" (accessed July 13, 2019). Paul Clements, "An Irishman's Diary on Football Legend Danny Blanchflower," Irish Times, April 11, 2015. "Danny Blanchflower," Big Red Book (accessed July 13, 2019). Alex Finnis, "Jersey Is Being Terrorised by 100-Strong Gangs of Feral Chickens Waking Up Locals and Chasing Joggers," i, June 18, 2019. "Jersey Residents Annoyed by Feral Chickens," BBC, July 6, 2018. "Channel Islands Residents Cry Foul Over Feral Chickens," Morning Edition, National Public Radio, June 28, 2019. Daniel Avery, "Gang of 100 Feral Chickens Terrorizing Town," Newsweek, July 2, 2019. Will Stewart, "Russian Hermit Cut Off From World Refuses to Leave Despite Rocket Debris Fears," Mirror, June 21, 2019. "Siberian Hermit, 75, Who 'Lives in 18th Century' Refuses to Be Moved by Space Age," Siberian Times, June 21, 2019. A bridge of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad), from listener Alex Baumans: This week's lateral thinking puzzle was devised by Greg. Here are two corroborating links (warning -- these spoil the puzzle). You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Google Podcasts, on Apple Podcasts, or via the RSS feed at https://futilitycloset.libsyn.com/rss. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at podcast@futilitycloset.com. Thanks for listening!

In this episode, Michael Mannheimer, Professor of Law at the Northern Kentucky University Chase College of Law, discusses his article “Vagueness as Impossibility,” forthcoming in the Texas Law Review. Prof. Mannheimer begins by giving an overview and history of the void for vagueness doctrine, focusing on the two traditional rationales for its existence: 1) requiring that statutes, both criminal and civil, give notice of what conduct is illegal, and 2) preventing the delegation of legislative power to those who should not wield it, such as prosecutors or police. He then describes and contrasts differing positions that Supreme Court justice has taken on the doctrine, particularly between Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Prof. Mannheimer explains the difference between ambiguous and vague statutes, and highlights some of the problems with the current void for vagueness doctrine, including its underinclusivity, and its inherent contradictions. He closes by discussing a potential reframing of vagueness as impossibility, taking the doctrine in a much more practical direction. Mannheimer's scholarship is available on SSRN.This episode was hosted by Maybell Romero, Assistant Professor of Law at Northern Illinois University College of Law. Prof. Romero is on Twitter at @maybellromero. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, Miriam Baer, Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, discusses her articles "Sorting Out White-Collar Crime," which was published in the Texas Law Review and "Insider Trading's Legality Problem," which was published in the Yale Law Journal Forum. Baer begins by explaining that state criminal law statues typically "sort" crimes into different degrees of severity, but federal criminal law does not, instead relying on sentencing guidelines to modulate punishment. She argues that the lack of sorting in federal criminal law makes it difficult to gather information about the severity of federal crimes and to express social judgments about those crimes, which is especially a problem in relation to white-collar crimes like fraud and insider trading. She argues that federal criminal law should adopt sorting principles similar to those used in state criminal law.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Associate 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.

In his much-anticipated testimony on Capitol Hill this week, former FBI Director James Comey described several uncomfortable interactions with President Trump that preceded his firing. The big question for all watching was: could any of those interactions be considered “obstruction of justice?” On this week’s episode, we put the question to Stanford Law School Professor Robert Weisberg. We also discuss the ongoing litigation around President Trump’s executive order on immigration with Kate Shaw, an associate professor at the Cardozo School of Law and a Supreme Court analyst for ABC News. Shaw is the author of a new article in the Texas Law Review that considers what sorts of presidential speech is and isn’t admissible in a court of law. [Read Shaw’s recent New York Times op-ed on the subject here.] Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Tony Field.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In his much-anticipated testimony on Capitol Hill this week, former FBI Director James Comey described several uncomfortable interactions with President Trump that preceded his firing. The big question for all watching was: could any of those interactions be considered “obstruction of justice?” On this week’s episode, we put the question to Stanford Law School Professor Robert Weisberg. We also discuss the ongoing litigation around President Trump’s executive order on immigration with Kate Shaw, an associate professor at the Cardozo School of Law and a Supreme Court analyst for ABC News. Shaw is the author of a new article in the Texas Law Review that considers what sorts of presidential speech is and isn’t admissible in a court of law. [Read Shaw’s recent New York Times op-ed on the subject here.] Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Tony Field.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Social Network Show welcomes Professor Anupam Chander to the September 1, 2014 episode. Professor Anupam Chander, a law professor, Director of the California International Law Center and author of The Electronic Silk Road: How the Web Binds the World Together in Commerce talks about how the borderless internet has changed commerce around the world. The rise of the internet has connected people all over the world not just regarding communication, but trade of services. Professor Chander talks about how commerce has changed; the benefits of purchasing services outside of your country and how the differences in laws in each country affect this process. You can connect with Professor Chander on Twitter, learn more about him at U.C Davis faculty site, and check out his book  The Electronic Silk Road: How the Web Binds the World Together in Commerce Professor Anupam Chander Professor Anupam Chander is the Director of the California International Law Center and Martin Luther King, Jr. Hall Research Scholar. His research focuses on the regulation of globalization and digitization. His new book, The Electronic Silk Road: How the Web Binds the World Together in Commerce, was released in June 2013 by Yale University Press. He has been a visiting professor at Yale Law School, the University of Chicago Law School, Stanford Law School, and Cornell Law School. He has published widely in the nation's leading law journals, including the Yale Law Journal, the NYU Law Journal, the University of Chicago Law Review, Texas Law Review, and the California Law Review. A graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School, he clerked for Chief Judge Jon O. Newman of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge William A. Norris of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He practiced law in New York and Hong Kong with Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton. He serves as a judge and commentator at the Harvard-Stanford Junior International Law Faculty Forum. His writing has received honors from the American Association of Law Schools and been selected for presentation by the Stanford-Yale Junior Faculty Forum. Education A.B., magna cum laude Economics, Harvard University 1989 J.D., Yale Law School 1992