Podcasts about Vanderbilt University Law School

Well, here we are—the final episode of Informatics in the Round (we think!). After five incredible years, 38 episodes, and thousands of listeners, we've decided it's time to wrap up this journey. But first, we're taking a minute (or maybe two hours) to reflect on this wild ride—and we've brought some people you might recognize! In this episode, we pull some clips from the archive to help us look back at our best moments, favorite topics, and silliest slip-ups over the years. We take you through our “Top 5” topics that we loved to talk about the most: electronic health records, patient privacy, public health, health equity, and AI. We will also share some stories you didn't hear (like that time we forgot to hit records—oops), how the pandemic reshaped our personal and professional lives, and the lessons that will stick with us. To lead us through our Top 5, we invited back some of our favorite guests to reflect and discuss the future of the field:  Dr. Yaa Kumah-Crystal, MD, MPH, MS, is an Associate Professor of Biomedical Informatics and Pediatric Endocrinology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center whose research focuses on documentation in healthcare communication. Dr. Ellen Wright Clayton, JD, MD, is a professor of Pediatrics, Law, and Health Policy at Vanderbilt University Law School and Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Her research focuses on the ethical, legal, and social implications of genomics research. Dr. Melissa McPheeters, PhD, MPH, is the Senior Director for Analytics at RTI International, as well as an esteemed epidemiologist and public health informatician. Her work focuses on building interdisciplinary teams to address complex problems across health, public health, and data modernization processes. Dr. Consuelo H. Wilkins, MD, is the Senior Vice President and Senior Associate Dean of Health Equity at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the Associate Director of the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. Her work attempts to bring together community stakeholders and create collaboration initiatives to improve community health and biomedical research. Dr. Chris Callison-Burch, PhD, MS, is a Professor of Computer and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania. His research focuses on natural language processing and generative AI. So, is this really goodbye? Maybe, maybe not. We can never sit still for long. But for now, let's raise a glass, share a few laughs, and remember the good ol' times! We can't leave without saying thank you to all of you for being part of the ride, for listening to us on your jog or your commute, and for engaging critically with all we've had to say. It's been an honor. Thank you to all the guests who have joined us throughout the last five years. Thank you for contributing your expertise, your lived experiences, and your unfiltered thoughts. Thank you to the musicians who bravely stepped into conversations about topics they knew little about and for offering up their questions. You ensured we spoke to everyone, and your music said the rest of what our words couldn't convey. To all our guests, your generosity with your time and your knowledge is what made this podcast what it was. Our mission was always to make informatics intelligible so that you and all your friends and family can engage confidently with the topic. We hope you now have the language to feel empowered navigating this crazy, awesome, flawed, fascinating healthcare system.  For now, this is Kevin Johnson, Harris Bland, and Ellie Shuert signing off! Mentioned in the episode: -Hidden Brain podcast -Scott Scovill and Moo TV, plus his appearance on episode 4: “Automated Resilience: Biomedical Informatics as a Safety Net for Life” -Nancy Lorenzi in “Informatics and Anti-Black Racism: What We Need to Do” (Jun. 2020) -Trent Rosenbloom in “21st Century Cures: Curing our Anxiety or Causing It?” (May 2021) -Hey Epic! -Brad Malin in “Data Privacy: Possible, Impossible, or Somewhere In Between?” (Aug. 2020) -Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990) -”Learning Health Care and the Obligation to Participate in Research” by Ruth R. Faden and Nancy E. Kass (Hastings Center Report) -”The Right to Privacy” by Samuel D. Warren II and Louis Brandeis (Harvard Law Review) -Revenge of the Tipping Point: Overstories, Superspreaders, and the Rise of Social Engineering by Malcolm Gladwell -Colin Walsh in “COVID and the Hidden Data Gap” (Feb. 2021) -Bryant Thomas Karras in “Get Your Dose of Data! An Introduction to Public Health Informatics” (Jul. 2024) STE and public health highway? -Consuelo Wilkins in “Clinical Trials: Are We Whitewashing the Data?” (Nov. 2023) -Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? by Martin Luther King Jr. -Michael Matheny and Tom Lasko in “AI and Medicine: The Slippery Slope to an Uncertain Future” (Feb. 2020) -Lyle Ungar and Angela Bradbury in “Chatbots in Healthcare: The Ultimate Turing Test” (Aug. 2024) -“A Textbook Remedy for Domain Shifts: Knowledge Priors for Medical Image Analysis” by Yue Yang, Mona Gandhi, Yufei Wang, Yifan Wu, Michael S. Yao, Chris Callison-Burch, James C. Gee, Mark Yatskar (NeurIPS) -Google DeepMind -OpenAI's Deep Research -The Thinking Game (2024) dir. by Greg Kohs -“Dolly the Sheep: A Cautionary Tale” by Robin Feldman and Vern Norviel (Yale Journal of Law & Technology) -Who, Me? Children's book series -The Influencers Substack Follow our social media platforms to stay up to date on our new projects!

This isn't the first time they've ruled on this issue, with additional decisions on immunity in civil cases given during both the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton administrations. But what does the ruling actually state? And what degree of immunity do our state and local leaders have? Most importantly, how do we as a country balance immunity with accountability? We've convened a panel of experts to take your questions and comments. Call 615-760-2000 to join the conversation.This episode was produced by Mary Mancini.GUESTSDr. John R. Vile | Dean, MTSU Honors College & Professor of Political ScienceJunaid Odubeko | Attorney, Bradley Law Firm; Adjunct professor, Campaign Finance and Elections Law, Vanderbilt University Law School; Former legal counsel to Gov. Phil BredesenFURTHERAug. 1, 2024: Open Line Thursday - How are you doing this election season?

Andrew is a Vanderbilt University Law School Graduate and currently works as the Head of Appellate Practice at Arnold and Itkin. In this episode, we dive deep into Andrew's inspiring journey—a path marked by intentional decisions and a relentless pursuit of passion.We kick off our conversation before Andrew's time at Vanderbilt University Law School. Faced with a pivotal choice, Andrew had to decide between diving into the world of politics working as an intern for Senator Mitch McConnell, or pursuing a legal career. His decision to choose law school over politics underscores his commitment to following a career that truly brings him joy.Andrew's law school years at Vanderbilt were transformative. He discovered a profound love for litigation, fueled by the dynamic environment of the university and the vibrant city life that helped him maintain a balance between his personal life and academic pursuits.We then explore Andrew's extensive experiences in the legal field. He shares invaluable insights on the importance of testing your assumptions about your interests and the critical role of networking. In a profession that isn't always a true meritocracy, knowing the right people can make all the difference.Finally, Andrew takes us through his current role as the Head of Appellate Practice at Arnold & Itkin. He paints a vivid picture of his daily work life, trying cases nationwide while doing what he loves. His passion and dedication to his work are not just admirable but also a source of inspiration for anyone looking to find fulfillment in their career.Tune in to hear Andrew's story—a testament to the power of intentionality and the pursuit of passion.Andrew's LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/andrewgouldBe sure to check out the Official Sponsors for the Lawyers in the Making Podcast:Rhetoric - takes user briefs and motions and compares them against the text of opinions written by judges to identify ways to tailor their arguments to better persuade the judges handling their cases. Rhetoric's focus is on persuasion and helps users find new ways to improve their odds of success through more persuasive arguments. Find them here: userhetoric.comThe Law School Operating System Recorded Course - Use this Link (https://www.lisablasser.com/offers/nAytQusX?coupon_code=LSOSNATE10) or go to LisaBlasser.com for 10% off her recorded course! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lawyersinthemaking.substack.com

Shownotes and Transcript We are delighted to welcome Jacki Deason, who is the host of The Jacki Daily Show on blaze.com to help Peter delve into the recent presidential debate.  They begin by critiquing candidate performances and discussing political strategies before touching on cultural Marxism's impact on institutions, advocating for balanced history education, and prioritizing national interests in industries like energy.  The conversation extends to renewable energy challenges, highlighting the need for informed decision-making, stressing the importance of nuanced understanding and thoughtful discourse on complex societal issues. Jacki Deason hosts The Jacki Daily Show, a weekly show and podcast airing on BlazeMedia, on the dial in Texas, and podcast on iHeartRadio, iTunes, Spotify, and Stitcher. Previously, Jacki worked for an engineering firm specializing in energy production, national security, and environmental cleanup.  She served as legal counsel on Capitol Hill to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and the former Ranking Member of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, advising on the oversight of federal agencies.  Prior to her career in Washington, she worked as a corporate litigator, and as an Assistant Vice President for a national bank. Jacki studied Economics, Spanish, and World History at Marshall University (U.S. Society of Yeager Scholars), Oxford University (U.K.), and the University of Zaragoza (Spain).  She is an alum of the Vanderbilt University Law School, where she served as the President of the law school's Federalist Society chapter. Jacki has an extensive network from which the show draws its guests—including industry leaders representing all parts of the energy sector, government officials, journalists, and political insiders.  Often, Jacki will know the day's most-wanted guest and be able to secure the guest with a personal call. Jacki is from the Ohio River Valley, where the shale runs deep. She descends from a long line of energy workers, including roughnecks, railroaders, coal miners, and nuclear energy specialists. Connect with Jacki... WEBSITE                jackidaily.com/ X/TWITTER            x.com/JackiDailyHost TRUTH                   truthsocial.com/@jackidaily INSTAGRAM           instagram.com/jackidaily/ Interview recorded  28.6.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ TRANSCRIPT (Hearts of Oak) It's wonderful to have a guest on, first time, who I met over when I was stateside last time, Jacki Deason. Jacki, thank you so much for your time today. (Jacki Deason) Thank you so much, Peter, for the opportunity. I'm looking forward to this. Not at all. I know you've got a lot happening in everything, in media world, and everything else, so it is great to have you on. And, of course, you host the Jacki Daily Show, a weekly show airing on Blaze Media. And I had the privilege of actually getting a tour of the fantastic Blaze Studios, which made me feel a little bit jealous as a Brit. But great. And I know on your tagline, it says, entertains and educates a worldwide audience, dispels fear with facts and all things energy, freedom, happiness and prosperity. And I love that uplifting message. And your background you worked in energy and then before that legal counsel on Capitol Hill and then before that you worked as a corporate litigator and assistant at the president for a national bank. So, a lot in there in your background a lot of experience you bring and I love talking to those in the media who actually have a wealth of background experience they bring to that and it's It's not just another podcast. So, great to have you with us. And obviously, people can find you @JackiDailyHost on Twitter or X. And JackiDaily.com is the website. And all the links for your Facebook and Instagram are all up there on the website and on Twitter. Now, the first thing I need to ask you, of course, Jacki, is the presidential debate last night. And I didn't subject myself to the whole two hours. I watched snippets of it, maybe snippets more on the Trump side, because you get what feed Twitter gives you. But what were your thoughts on that? And I've read a lot of newspaper headlines, but what were your thoughts? So, I watched it from start to finish and I went and got a massage and took a nap before the debate just to get rested up for it. Like everyone here was so jacked up, amped up for it. You know, I mean, we couldn't wait, because we actually thought this moment might never come, either because Biden would just refuse to debate, which is the new thing, or because, you know, Trump could be in jail. Literally, it's possible. So, we didn't know what was going to happen. Out of nowhere came this early debate, which is weird. I'm telling you, the Democrats are doing that strategically, agreeing to that so that they can show the world why they have no choice but to replace him at the convention. Probably with Michelle Obama, could be Gavin Newsom. But it's Michelle Obama who, who, you know, they put these books out for her, book tours all over the place. She's all over these shows that are, you know, supposedly mainstream culture shows, but they're really run by Democrat loyalists at the top. She's the one that's being traipsed out all the time, not Gavin Newsom. They did have a debate with Gavin Newsom and DeSantis earlier in the year. So, some people thought they were, like, trying him out. But, I really think that's the whole purpose of this debate. I think it came from the Democrat side. They know the problem they have. I mean, there's no way that Biden can not have major gaps showing that he's cognitively not there anymore. He wasn't in 2016 either, really, but they could hide it well enough. People scorned me for saying that he was being drugged up in advance of national media appearances. But you know what? Like about 95 percent of conservatives believe that. And now probably 90 percent of liberals would believe that. I don't know. But anyway, you heard Biden say that there were a thousand trillionaires in America. I mean, whoa, that people were being raped by their in-laws and their brothers and sisters, that he beat Medicare, that Democrats are against late-term abortion. Abortion, I'm sure that disgusted and shocked his base, who think therefore, or at least if they actually correct that, most Democrats are not, but the party apparatus, the people at the highest levels most certainly are. So anyway, those were all major flaws in his performance, I thought, aside from the obvious the name calling and moodiness and all that. Trump actually, I thought, performed just like last time, which is that, you know, I watched and he is, he missed a lot of opportunities to lay out. Well, there were a lot of opportunities, I agree. I mean, I think it's just that he refuses to prepare, right? So because, like you said, He said, I saw the quote, he says, I've been preparing for this debate all of my life. He is off the cuff because he is, in fact, a performer. He is an entertainer. And that works to his benefit a lot. People don't know, if you haven't been to a Trump rally, he's a completely different person. He is like a stand-up comedian. He is very relaxed. He's having a great time. He's witty and clever. Last night, he was agitated. You know, it wasn't, it's a very different Trump. And so, you know, I heard a lot of repetition in there. And, you know, John McCain did the same thing. They're two very different people, two very different people. But, you know, I thought Trump was passable. I don't think it changed really anyone's minds. Campaigns, the only person who changed minds was Biden, because now he did his job, which was to convince the Democrats that they don't want him on the ticket, even though they voted for him in the primary. That's the issue. And he has to want to step down. I mean, I actually thought that maybe going after his son criminally was about coercing him to step down. They did the same thing to General Flynn on the Republican side, you might remember. So, that either didn't work or he didn't get it. He really cognitively might not even understand threats at this point. So, it's very interesting. But there's a total meltdown this morning on the Democrat side, which I think is orchestrated, foreseeable. I try to not get too political on my, X account. You know, I actually try to avoid the words Democrat or Republican. It's not a partisan show. It's a policy show. So, I don't, but I don't mind when I go into other people's shows. It's your show. So, you can ask anything you want. And the truth is I love talking politics. I don't get to do it very often on my show. So, this is a real treat for me. Good. Well, I want to ask you everything. And I've had the privilege of being at three Trump rallies, including my picture with the man himself, so it's it's phenomenal and from someone who's been at steeped in U.K politics nothing beats a trump rally. So, anyone watching this you have to get out to a trump rally before November, because nothing beats that atmosphere the excitement the the electric environment that is. But I was kind of thinking, and I agree with your assessment fully. I'm glad I'm not more down the rabbit hole than you are; Michelle Obama: I agree it ticks those boxes. I wonder why kind of you the trump team would want to debate Biden, because you don't want him to look too decrepit because then it plays into the hands of those who want to remove him, but the media have portrayed him as mentally unable over the last maybe one, two, three, months and it of seems to be playing up and this seems to be the the culmination in that. So, maybe the Trump team couldn't actually do anything about it that they had to push for the debate, agree, and then whatever happens-happens. So, what... Yeah, what were your I thought why would he want to debate debate Biden, because he seems to be winning on immigration on the border and economy, so why go into that. You know, I don't communicate with the Trump team, so I don't have any special insight into that decision making process. But I will tell you, I do believe what they should have done is waited until after the Democratic convention, which is the normal course of things. I mean, that's the way it normally works. I mean, the fact that they would agree to this should have tipped off some alarm bells. So, I do think that was a tactical mistake myself. I think I think that part of what they must have been thinking is literally it's possible Trump will be in jail between now and the election. What the debates represent, and few people appreciate this, even in the States, is it is the one event where you have both sides watching, listening, meaning President Trump can get through to even the Democrat supporters of Biden with zero media filter. And that almost never happens. It almost doesn't exist. Everything we get is filtered through our media source of choice. And so it's really scary that we live in these echo chambers and now you have social media so you can cultivate your own reality and universe and friend set. So, I love debates because it's the one opportunity we get to really speak directly to the other side. We have to find all of those opportunities we can. And even people like you and me, who we might not be running for president, but we do have a platform and a voice. And I try very hard to find those opportunities to speak directly to people on the other side, especially at the highest levels. Levels because once you spend time around them, which is so rare these days, unfortunately, you realize something. Many of them are just human beings. They really do believe in what they're doing sometimes. Some of them do. And so I've spent a lot of time lately trying to hack the filter that they're seeing through and figure out how do we get to them? Because here's what I come away with every single time. Every single time I spend time with a high profile liberal, like having drinks or spending social time, you know, just really downtime. It's that both sides maybe are being deceived. What the really bad guys, the really bad guys don't want is for us to communicate directly and get around the filters that are put on us. By both sides of the corporate media. So... I just, we have to remain humanized to each other. We become objectified as some big, horrible, awful other out there. And they believe the worst things imaginable about us. And it has to be shocking for them to be around us and find out that we're just normal, decent, caring, respectful human beings. And so I just come away with this. I'm not going to give you the names, but it was just a couple of months ago. I was out in Palo Alto, California with two extremely high profile liberals. You would know their names right away in the UK too. And so we were meeting for this kind of side reason. It's not the core of what I do at all. I just happened to be there. In fact, I wasn't really an invitee and clearly they had no idea who I was, because I walk in and spend half an hour talking to one of them before this thing gets started. And she's like, so what do you do? And I'm like, well, I do energy and environment research. And she goes, oh, how lovely. She has no idea who I am, which is great. So, we have this amazing conversation. And here's the bottom line. At the end of this long event, we then go have drinks. And it's just a few of us, like less than five. And these two to say to me, every day, we were on the phone this morning and we said, every day we become more conservative, because they're like, you know what? Pro-Hamas protests, we're out. This business of, you know, operating on children, removing their genitals, so they can't reproduce before they're even old enough to know, you know, you're four years old. Every other day you think you're a dinosaur, much less the opposite sex. They're like, we're out. We're having no part of that. We cannot be a part of that. It's a violation of our conscience. And then, you know, men in our transition, men in women's sports, we're out. We can't be a part of that. And even one of them was in a gay marriage and said that the other one, the spouse, had just been let go from a job for refusing to identify pronouns, because that person objected. You know, there are actually people on the other side who are reasonable. They know what's happening is not the truth. They know they're being asked to be part of something that cannot be right. And so, I really just came away with a lot of hope after speaking with them. Like I said, they'd been drinking. I feel like they were like loosened up and it was like a truth serum coming out. And it was really very reassuring. And then they said to me, they said, you know, people just believe that Republicans don't care about people. I said, that is just emphatically false. It is emphatically false. I feel like most of my day is filled with trying to figure out how to protect people. And so anyway, what I'm saying to you is that conversation was so valuable. It was so valuable because that's a humanizing conversation. I think it's exactly the conversation that the really bad guys don't want us to have. hey don't want us to figure out that the people on the other side are probably actually decent human beings who just, that what's happened is we, we all have, different information sets, different life experiences, different, friend sets. And so that's probably the biggest difference between the average liberal and average conservative. It's different. You've been exposed to different information. And so, but you're not that different. So, I just want this unifying message. I had a separate conversation with a guy who was the founder of the Bloods street gang here in Dallas. There's the Bloods and the Crips in LA, very famous. There've been films made about it. There are rap songs about it. These are very violent criminal gangs, but they are a family to the people who join them, because often they don't have family. Anyway, I was speaking with him him. And I could tell you other things about him that make him different from me. We're racially different. We're at this point, socioeconomically different, but I just, we had this amazing conversation and I just thought this is exactly, again, I came away thinking, this is the conversation that the people who work to divide us don't want us to have. We have to force those conversations in those social settings where it's not a debate. You're not at a panel, right? You know, where it's scripted in front of a lot of people. You're just talking one-on-one. I want to pick up, because that's a really interesting line, because often we see the other side as the enemy, or we see them as actually as maybe evil in what they push forward and forget that they are probably misinformed. And that may be a better place to start. I want to pick up on that, but I wanted to ask you one more question on the debate, because some of the headlines, I mean, even CNN talked about 67% thought that Trump won. From their viewers and 33% thought the Biden one, I don't know where how those 33% were watching; maybe they were sleeping, I don't know. You were pulling The White House staff. They could have been but and then a lot of the headlines. I mean, New York post: this debate was a blowout for Trump, political Democrats really have no way to spin this. And New York Times piece: Joe Biden is a good man a good president, but he must buy out of the race. And then CNN did that fact check and and showed a lot of the stuff was incorrect. Independent in the U.K: I really didn't know what he said and I think, I don't think he does either, which was a quote from Trump. That was the headline of the article. Trump pulls no punches as Biden struggles in debate Sky News an unmitigating disaster for Biden and tv debate with Trump as he faces calls from democrats to step aside which is what you touched on. Then The Guardian, who will replace Joe Biden, and a lot of other publications beginning to talk about who will replace for the first time ever, actually. It's been more the conservative side, but actually seeing the left. And it seemed as though simply on the end with Joe Biden taking him by the hand and leading the poor guy off stage where Trump just walks off. All of that. Seem to be put out to say, actually, he's not able to continue. And I'm firmly of the view, not that I would put money on it, even after our conversation, but actually, Michelle Obama seems to tick all the boxes the Democrats want. So they think. I'll tell you what, here's my thought about it. And maybe I'm totally wrong, not like I had my finger on the pulse of the average Democrat voter. But she seems to me to check the boxes for the elite Democrat set. The elites, they're the ones that you the only ones you're allowed to hear from, really, on cable news. So, Michelle Obama, she is, I think I was saying I grew up beneath the poverty line. I'm now very much not. The liberals in the suburbs and the really nice neighbourhoods think she's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'll tell you who I don't think thinks that. Union Democrats, people working with their hands, which historically was a huge voting bloc for Democrats. And they've already been peeling off a lot long before she came along. Then Hispanics. I mean, again, Hispanics are very practical people. There's no cocktail circuit that they're going to care about as much. These are like, some of them are new Americans, but a lot of them are not. People forget. We have a very large Hispanic community that's Cuban in South Florida and Venezuelan from the central and South America. You've got the Puerto Ricans in New York. [20:39] You've got Mexicans in Texas. [20:42] And we we have in this southwestern part of the country, Hispanics who were here long before we were, like literally, they didn't immigrate anywhere in the last probably thousand years. So, they're a huge demographic that's now flipping Republican. And people marvelled at this last election. These were once Native American tribes. Then they were conquered by the Mexicans, specifically the Spanish government when they were still in control of Mexico. Then they were Texians because they'd won their independence from Mexico. Then they joined the United States. So, the borders just keep running over top of these folks. That's a huge demographic. What is it about Michelle Obama that appeals to them at all? I can't think of really one reason why. What has she accomplished, really? They don't care about checking boxes and woke politics. These are people who care about inflation and crime and immigration, obviously, for where they live is going to be the big issue for them. I'm just not at all sure. Then how about all of the new immigrants who come from countries? Where women don't have the status that they have here? How about countries where, you know, if women testify in court, their testimony is worth half of a man's? We're importing immigrants from countries where that is the practice. That is the belief system. Why are they going to go for Michelle Obama? I just don't, I don't see it. Okay, well, we'll watch it and see if her surname carries her forward or whether they choose someone else. But I 100% agree, that everything was played out to show that Biden is not able to stand us, whether Jill Biden accepts us, maybe that could be the sticking point. I'm sure she's enjoying that position in the White House. Jacki, I'm interested in your thoughts on the whole march of cultural Marxism, which you've seen over the past couple of decades, really, through every institution, not only in the US, but here in the UK and across Europe. And during this election, immigration and the economy are the two big issues, whether it's in the European elections just passed or the French elections just happening, the UK elections coming up in days or the US election in November. It's actually interesting the same issues which is border control, immigration, and the economy, but the whole issue of cultural Marxism and how it's torn up a lot of our institutions and I'm wondering how that kind of fits in in regards to rewriting American history, and then we'll get on to kind of education, the whole gender debate, but where does that fit into this, presidential election? So, I mean, we now have reached, the Marxists have now reached a critical mass of young people. So, let's say people under the age of maybe who genuinely are buying into what they're. Which is that there's an us versus the oppressor. So they're permitting the people teaching them to divide us. That's the first issue. And it's just a modern application. And because they don't have enough evidence, I mean, they tried earlier in American history in the last 100 years to divide us, lower income bracket, upper income bracket. They introduced the words class. That's why I try so hard to avoid using the words working class, upper middle class. The word class itself is dividing. It just means, you know, let's call them upper income, lower income. It didn't work in America because frankly, I mean, I grew up in a lower income family. Our lives were not that bad. You know, I don't recall ever going hungry, ever going homeless. We were free. We could say what we wanted, do what we wanted. It wasn't like Europe where only the elite could hunt. We could hunt, we could fish and feed ourselves and grow our own crops. We all had gardens growing up. Our lives were pretty good. The socioeconomic Marxism really never caught on here. gear. So, they shifted gears. And now it's all about your immutable characteristics, race, sex, or now they'll fluid it with gender. Race and sex, you inherited those completely beyond any control of your own from the moment of your conception, not the moment of your birth, the moment of your conception. You were encoded with your DNA as male or female, black, white, whatever. And so this has been success. What's amazing is they had to do the bag of checks and go back 400 years to the 1619 Project to be able to find sins big enough to cause people to begin to question whether or not America was good, whether or not they are good, whether or not their parents are any good and their grandparents. And so what I see happening, and it's the critical theory school, the Frankfurt School and all that, you're seeing them use critical theory, which in my mind is the cheapest theory. Easiest, lowest bar school. And all it does is say, all right, let's take whatever it is we want to destroy, zoom in on the worst moments in the history, moments in a person's life, blow them up out of all proportion and pretend they're representative. And by all means, what you will never want to do is actually show the other side of that person or that country. Here's the truth, right? You can destroy any country or people or person with that approach. There is no people group that didn't practice slavery. And in fact, Americans were one of the first to abolish it. I mean, slavery is going on right now all over the world. There are more people enslaved right now than in any other time in history. Do people even know that? They don't, because if they did, the fault wouldn't break down along racial lines that the Marxists need to get what they want politically in this country. It's just a matter of changing the perspective of the kids they're brainwashing and saying, just a minute, let me ask you one question. What country would you rather live in, the United States or pick a Marxist country? Pick one. Cuba, Russia, some of the middle America countries have hard left governments. Some of the South American countries, you know, I don't see you rushing their border the way the people from those countries are rushing our border. Why is that? Why do they want to be here? We must be doing something right. Would you like to talk about what we're doing right? You know, would Would you like to talk about what's so great about America or the West or Christendom as it was once known? Countries that have a Christian background? I mean, one of the things I thank God for is that I was born in this country and I wasn't born an Iraqi Christian in the last 30 years. Or a Syrian Christian or a Lebanese Christian. The war on Christians and the genocide that's happened against Christians around the world, not just in the Middle East and North Africa, but all over the place, is an outrage. And no one seems too concerned about that. Why? Why aren't Americans under the age of 40 taught about that? Why not? Instead of learning about the genocide that's happening today. They're learning about something that happened 400 years ago. They have to reach back 400 years. And still, if I were born, you know, check their boxes. If I were a young, black, female, bisexual, I'd far rather live in the United States than live in any other country. Period. Period. And so what are we doing right? Why is that true? And why is nobody asking these questions? So, I guess what I'm saying is it's a critical theory. [29:50] And you can get people to understand this by applying it to one human being, rather than looking at countries, rather than needing a command of world history, which most people don't have, because the Department of Education scrubbed that out of the curriculum a long time ago to make sure you can't do this analysis I'm asking you to do. Let's look at one person. Let's take the Christian view of this, which is you can take any human being and, and take the worst moments of their lives where they behave the worst, they did the worst thing that they're most ashamed of, that they most regret. You can zoom in on that and put it up on a big, you know, overhead projector. Let me show you how old I am and overhead projector and, or put it up on your social media and pay for it to go viral and show the world that one worst moment in that human being's life and pretend like that represents their life. There's nothing else to know, right? They've never done anything good in their life. There's no redeeming anything about that person. This is it. That's what the Marxists do. That's what the politics is about today. And it's about dehumanizing and demonizing that person or that country or that culture or that faith off the very worst moments in history three with the very worst people who ever phony put on the mantra and that, that label. So, I guess it's just, it's the critical thinking that we have to teach to the younger people so they don't fall victim to this warring against their own people, their own family, you know, people who won't even speak to their parents anymore because they, they believe something different about supply side economics or taxation or something. It's ridiculous. And that's brainwashing. And it's what What brainwashers do, they isolate you from everyone who ever loved you. So, they can have their way with you in your brain. And so it's not that the kids are bad, and it's not that they're stupid. It's none of those things. And you have to refrain from getting angry about it and calling people names, because it's actually that nobody has ever taught them real history. No one has ever taught them how to think critically, because that's the last thing that the Marxists want. I was talking to a lady yesterday in Texas who is doing education reform. Now, she said, this is in Texas now, they don't even want to give the kindergartners pencils or crayons. God forbid they might learn how to read and write. You know, it was illegal in slave-holding countries to teach the slaves how to read. You know why? They might actually advance in society. They're harder to subdue. And now they're doing the exact same thing in Texas schools or someone's trying to make that the policy. This is an outrage. And they do it on the basis of not every kid can read and write. Not every kid can succeed. We need to care about the people at the lower end who can't succeed. And that is a thinly veiled excuse for keeping them down. We got to call this what it is. That is victimization. That's a predator trying to keep those kids down. It's really disgusting. And there are very few people who are truly the bad people. Again, it's only the operatives who want to keep us divided and want to keep people ignorant. We have to recognize this is so important. It's a teeny little sliver of the population. It's not the Democrat party. Most Democrats don't feel that way. It's some of the people at the top of the apparatus who are funding things, who run the media. And we all need to kind of get together against that teeny little sliver of bad people trying. And why do they do it? You know, it's about power and money. It's about separating people from their rights and their money and their autonomy and their self-determination. Anyway, I could go on for a long time. As you can see, I'm very passionate about this and reframing the debate so that people aren't having their heritage stripped from them. Americans should be very proud to be Americans. There's a lot we do right. And that's why there are millions of people flooding our border to get in here. And nowhere else in the world do you see that. Yeah, I agree. We're seeing British history rewritten where the British Empire is now something awful instead of looking at how William Wilberforce was the forefront of actually freeing, stopping slavery and then looking at the educational side, the health side, transport, all those things that were provided and history is rewritten. And it kind of fits into in the US where Make America Great Again is an uplifting message of hope, of actually bringing the country to where it should be. And that's now degraded as evil and hateful. It's curious where making a country great is regarded as awful. It's, yeah, a curious mix. It's a very difficult mantra to try to demonize, but people have certainly tried. And so, you know, they're like, what he's trying to say, they make this up. Okay. They're saying what Trump is trying to say is that somehow we were great when we were less diverse. It's like, actually, this country has always been diverse. Always. There's never been a day, a day since America existed from the 1700s that we didn't have have. Native Americans, especially all over the frontier, wherever that was, we have, you know, always had, at least since the 1700s, a hefty percentage of Black Americans. We had, as you know, the Spanish were in Florida, the French were in the North, the Dutch, you know, it used to be Dutch in New York before it was English, before we renamed it York. Yeah. But anyway, and of course, as I told you, the people in the Southwest, they were always tribal and they're still there. They're not on reservations. They live in Laredo. They live in El Paso. So anyway, it's always been a diverse country. Therefore, the slogan, Make America Great Again, in, does not hearken back to some, this is what they, his enemies want you to believe, like it harkens back to some time when America was all white. When was that? But because their sense of history is about as deep as their lifetime, or maybe not even that long, they became politically conscious five years ago. So, nothing existed before five years ago. And so anyway, I mean, sometimes I make fun of the the people on the other side just because you have to laugh or cry. You got to have some fun sometime. But really, there's a great mission in front of us to educate people about real history and some of it is dark, some of it is bad, and then we have to own it. When you were in Texas, for example. My studio, part of the studio is a museum. It's called the American Journey Experience. And the museum highlights all kinds of things from Hollywood and its history to, you know, to the Geneva Bible, to crime and punishment. There's an electric chair in there showing you some of the really dark stuff. And Glenn Beck is, you know, running that project. And he's like the the lead host at the Blaze Media. He thought it was important to take all the horrible things in history and showcase them accurately, which sometimes it's actually worse than you think. Sometimes it's better than you think. But also there's American greatness in the museum. You can also see a whole library of burned books that the Nazis burned in World War II. So, you know, it's just a lot of great stuff that you can't really get anywhere else. And so that's the importance of history. We have to tell it all. The good and the bad. Concede the bad points. But make sure the good points are taught. And you're making me jealous again and I did see some of that. I thought it's so essential that that story, that history is preserved because there seems to be an onslaught everywhere. One of the other tidelines is America first. First and this is something that actually Europe are struggling with actually nations being the priority for the government which should be the first duty of any government putting the country and citizens first and we've ended up a duty of the government seems to be putting the citizens last. I mean when Trump was in the White House he there were many things that he wanted to do with manufacturing, with energy, and I know your background in energy, and he always talked about being energy independent. And we've moved away, not only in America, but in Britain, we've got gas in the North Sea, and we were energy independent for decades. But we've moved away from that to shipping LPG from foreign countries, and that seems better than actually producing it under our own feet. But that must be another part of Trump's call for November to actually put America first and to use the resources that America has instead of relying on other countries. Right. So, you know, COVID should have taught us about strategic commodities. There were all kinds of things that we needed and we weren't sure that we would have them, whether it's pharmaceuticals like antibiotics or whether it's PPE is what we call it. But that's basically during COVID, it's all the sterile stuff, the masks, you know, the gloves, the simple stuff, plastic barriers. America doesn't manufacture anything anymore. Well, take that problem and put it on steroids when you're talking about oil and gas. Oil and gas run the world, even now and even for the foreseeable future, at least 20 years from now. Anything to the contrary is just a lie. It's just a lie. Imagine this in in the first two world wars the united states supplied about 70 percent of the oil and gas or the fuel to the allies that was needed to win those wars if it weren't for American oil and gas and American steel as well those wars would have gone the other direction, understand it. So, that's why you know Hitler was trying so hard to get Baku Azerbaijan on. That's the oldest oil field in the world. It's huge. And he really needed that to continue the war. That's a lot of what went wrong for him. And thank God it went wrong for him. And so it was us storming the beaches of Europe at this time with oil and natural gas. And it's one reason why the pipeline that the Russians lost was such a big deal too. Because everyone knows fossil fuels are still what run the world. It's the reason why China's building all these coal plants, because they're smart. They have to somehow take care of 1.3 or more billion people. You can't do that without fossil fuels. We are watching this bizarre suicide that our federal government is trying to impose upon us. Right now, the U.S. is the number one oil producer on Earth. We're the number one natural gas producer on Earth. That wasn't true before the fracking revolution. So first you saw the attack on fracking. It supposedly is destroying groundwater. It's destroying the air and all that proved false. It was debunked. Then it was methane. Then it's attack pipelines. Suddenly pipelines are evil, even though they're obviously the most green way of moving the hydrocarbon because the alternatives are rail and truck. When you stop the pipeline, all you're doing is moving it to rail and truck, which has like 20 times the carbon footprint of a pipeline. So anyway, back to what Trump needs to do is make clear to people, number one, face the reality. With math and with physics, it is not possible to run this country on wind and solar, nor is it green, by the way, but that's a much longer conversation. But when you watch people make really bad decisions like like RFK Jr. And Governor Cuomo, who banned fracking in New York, an outrage. New York is rich in shale. It has one of the most monstrous shale plays in the country. Pennsylvania chose to develop it. So, you have like a lot of wealth in Pennsylvania. These poor farmers up in New York, they can't have any of that money and the New Yorkers can't have any of the gas. So guess what? The result is that the Russians are pulling their tankers into the Northeast to give New York its natural gas. And the New Yorkers are paying the Russians and therefore or have been since over the time when they did the ban, which I think was 2014. Russians are a little more suppressed at this point. But for a long, long, long time, that's what happened. Now you're paying Russia for your fuel. Congratulations. You didn't change one thing about the amount of fossil fuels you're burning. All you're doing is giving Putin money to fuel a war. And so this is what happens. But the New Yorkers really believed that if they voted for the fracking ban, they were all going to just magically hop over to wind and solar, which can't even fuel that state. Apparently, all the battery storage in the country right now could run New York City for an hour. So, yeah, but they were lied to. They were lied to. And so they didn't know that. hey would never have made that choice if they'd had the real facts that people like Governor Cuomo and RFK Jr. Miseducated them because they were miseducated themselves. Yeah, not huge. I think energy needs to be; without energy actually economy collapses nothing works and energy is is absolutely central and forefront to to anything.. Jacki, I really do appreciate your time covering obviously the debate that we've just had and touching on some of those key issues which I think will be front and foremost in this election campaign. So, thank you so much for giving us your time today. Thank you, Peter. And thank you for the opportunity. It's really fun to connect across the ocean here, have this conversation. I really appreciate everything you do. Oh, thank you. You keep up the great work.

In April of 2024, the United States Drug Enforcement Agency recently announced that they are proceeding with reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. The Justice Department proposal would move marijuana from the “Schedule I” group which includes heroin, LSD, quaaludes and ecstasy to “Schedule III” which includes ketamine and some anabolic steroids. In this episode, Craig is joined by professor Robert Mikos from Vanderbilt University Law School to discuss the proposed reclassification of marijuana. Craig & Rob take a look at the history of the war on drugs, cannabis law, and what constitutional right an individual has when it comes to drug use.

In April of 2024, the United States Drug Enforcement Agency recently announced that they are proceeding with reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. The Justice Department proposal would move marijuana from the “Schedule I” group which includes heroin, LSD, quaaludes and ecstasy to “Schedule III” which includes ketamine and some anabolic steroids. In this episode, Craig is joined by professor Robert Mikos from Vanderbilt University Law School to discuss the proposed reclassification of marijuana. Craig & Rob take a look at the history of the war on drugs, cannabis law, and what constitutional right an individual has when it comes to drug use.

With this episode, we mark the third anniversary of Pioneers and Pathfinders.  Nothing could mark this milestone better than to welcome back a thought leader in the legal profession and legal education, Cat Moon, lecturer and Director of Innovation Design at Vanderbilt University Law School. Since Cat last joined us on the podcast, she has co-founded VAILL, the Vanderbilt AI + Law Lab, which she also co-directs. In this program, she collaborates with professionals across various disciplines to improve legal practice by exploring and experimenting at the intersection of generative AI, legal education, law practice, and access to justice. Today, Cat discusses the resilience of her law students, the challenges ahead for lawyer training, her fascinating work with VAILL, and developing competency in the use of generative AI.

In a high-stakes presidential election year, in partnership with the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, Open to Debate is taking a look at more than a decade of the Citizens United Supreme Court case. The 2010 landmark decision that ruled the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofits, labor unions, and other associations, changed the landscape of political spending in the U.S. This gave rise to Super PACS and an increase in election campaign spending. Since then, there have been questions about whether the decision has harmed our democratic process. Those who support the decision argue it upholds free speech, allowing diverse voices in the political arena, and broadens the range of discourse by enabling groups to freely express their views and support candidates or policies. Those against it argue that it allows a disproportionate influence from corporations and special interest groups, and leaves the voices of ordinary citizens overshadowed by the financial resources of a few, eroding the principles of equality and fair representation.  With this context, we debate the question: Has Citizens United Undermined Democracy?     This debate is presented in partnership with the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law as part of the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series. It will be recorded live in person on Wednesday, February 21, 2024, at the Thorne Auditorium at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. Arguing Yes: Francesca Procaccini, Assistant Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School; Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Professor of Law at Stetson University   Arguing No: Floyd Abrams, Senior Counsel at Cahill Gordon & Reindel; Eric Wang, Partner at The Gober Group, pro bono Senior Fellow at the Institute for Free Speech   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Yesha Yadav is the Milton R. Underwood Chair at Vanderbilt Law School, the Robert Belton Director of Diversity, Equity and Community and , and Associate Dean in addition to being a Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Director of the school's LLM program at Vanderbilt University Law School. Her research interests are in financial market and securities regulation, and corporate bankruptcy law – focusing on market structure, exchange design, payments, digital asset regulation, distressed debt and restructuring.  Before joining Vanderbilt's law faculty in 2011, Yesha worked as a legal counsel with the World Bank in its finance, private-sector development and infrastructure unit, where she specialized in financial regulation and insolvency, and debtor-creditor rights. Before joining the World Bank in 2009, she practiced from 2004-08 in the London and Paris offices of Clifford Chance in the firm's financial regulation and derivatives group. As part of her work in the area of payments regulation, she advised the European Payments Council on the establishment of the Single Euro Payments Area. Since joining Vanderbilt, Yesha has served as an honorary advisor to India's Financial Services Law Reform Commission and on the Atlantic Council's Task Force on Divergence, Transatlantic Financial Reform and G-20 Agenda. She has served as a member of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's Technology Advisory Committee, where she sat on the Distributed Ledger Technology and Algorithmic Trading Subcommittees. She earned an MA in Law and Modern Languages at the University of Cambridge, after which she earned an LLM at Harvard Law School. She was a Vanderbilt University Chancellor Faculty Fellow for 2019-21 In this episode of Regulatory Ramblings, she chats with host Ajay Shamdasani on the future of money and the shape currency and payment mechanisms will take in the coming decade. Money and payments have experienced a significant redesign over the last decade with money becoming increasingly digital cash use declining rapidly – especially since the pandemic, in countries like Sweden and urban China where cashlessness is the norm. Yesha shares her views on technologies combining digital banking and smartphones spurring a rapid restructuring of the payments architecture for everyday consumers and businesses. The conversation looks at the design of payment systems, the inefficiencies that exist even as such systems have been scaled – including financial exclusion for lower income communities and communities of color – as well as the efficacy of emerging digital asset solutions such as stablecoins, where tokenized representations of currencies like US dollar or the Euro move on rapidly computer networks (blockchains), transferring money in minutes and cheaply. The discussion moves on to exploring the risks emerging with a highly bank centric payments system (as is the case in the US less so in EU). As shown in the U.S. in March 2023, bank collapses mean that payment systems can also be disrupted (e.g., the collapse of Signature Bank caused a big disruption to the Signet payment system). Further, money kept by non-bank payment providers at US banks was also in peril where accounts exceeded the federal insurance limit (e.g., Circle had over US$3 billion in cash reserves held at SVB). The chat concludes with Yesha's thoughts some of the tensions arising from the current trend toward digitization and the potential for blockchain-based decentralized finance to take off and gain more mainstream acceptance. HKU FinTech is the leading fintech research and education in Asia. Learn more at www.hkufintech.com.

From economic turbulence and overworked employees to the issues that affect everyday travelers, like delays, cancellations, lost luggage, and reduced routes – it's safe to say the airport experience has gotten pretty rough! Ganesh Sitaraman is on a mission to improve the airline industry for travelers, and his new book Why Flying Is Miserable: And How to Fix It lays out a plan for how leaders could fix flying to serve more people more efficiently and with fewer federal bailouts and headaches. Ganesh is a Doctor of Law from Harvard and is currently a Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School. He's a policy expert who teaches and writes about constitutional law, the regulatory state, economic policy, democracy, and foreign affairs.  In this episode, Ganesh and I unpack some of these problems with the US airline industry and take a look at the potential solutions through the eyes of a policy expert. While policy reform might not be something you thought you'd ever get excited about, you're going to be after listening to this episode! How can airline reform create a better travel experience for you? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic and hope you'll share by sending me an audio message. Tune In To Learn: How we got to where we are and the issue with unregulated air travel The biggest lesson for the industry to take away from the pandemic Why the current system's overall higher prices with fewer routes due to less competition is no longer working The surprising role that airports play in the airline system, who it hurts, and why Why the industry in its present state is bad for geographic equality and economic growth  His three-point plan for fixing flying and how the solution plays into climate change How he envisions AI playing out in the industry and the potential downsides for travelers  What it was like behind the scenes of a presidential campaign and how it's inspired his work His advice on opening someone up to an idea and what you can do to make a difference in policy reform And so much more Resources: Subscribe to our FREE newsletter Today's Sponsors - Wise, US Bank, Land Rover Visit Ganesh's website Grab his book, Why Flying Is Miserable: And How to Fix It Want More? When Is the Best Time to Book a Flight (In 2024) With Christie Hudson How To Take More Vacations by Booking Better, Cheaper Flights With Scott Keyes Flight Attendants Secrets Revealed: What NOT To Do On A Plane, Staying Healthy, Wild Passenger Stories and Amazing Travel Experiences w/ “Skybabes” Tee and Nena Thanks To Our Sponsors Wise can help you send, spend, and receive internationally without the hidden fees or exchange rate markups. Learn how Wise can work for you by downloading the app or visiting www.wise.com/travel. US Bank Altitude Go Visa Signature Card get 4 X the points on eating out and 2 X the points on groceries, entertainment services, and gas or EV charge stations. Apply today at usbank.com/altitudego to get 20,000 points by spending $1,000 in your first 90 days.  You're up for any challenge that comes your way, and the Land Rover Defender 110 is too. Learn more at landroverusa.com/defender.

Can artificial intelligence run an LLC by itself? Daniel Gervais, Milton R. Underwood Chair and professor of law at Vanderbilt University, examines the laws of the land to find out. Daniel J. Gervais, PhD, is Milton R. Underwood Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School, where he serves as Director of the Vanderbilt Intellectual […]

Complaints against U.S. airlines hit a record high in 2022. And it's not getting any better. Consumer complaints nearly doubled in the first three months of this year, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.With only four major airlines in the U.S., there's little choice for consumers in the market. And with air travel expected to reach a record high this holiday season, many will be subjected to the worst of travel: long lines, high prices, and of course, awful airplane food.But why does our time in flight have to be riddled with anguish? And what can be done to make the skies friendly again?For that, we're turning to Ganesh Sitaraman, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and director of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator. He's also out with the new book, "Why Flying is Miserable: And How to Fix It."Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Find out how to connect with us by visiting our website.

In 2021, Alina Lee founded Your Ad Attorney, LLC which serves as outside general counsel to companies in the marketing, tech, retail, utilities, and consulting spaces. Before becoming an entrepreneur, Alina was Senior Corporate Counsel for several corporations including Mailchimp and Southern Company Gas, worked as a corporate transactional attorney at Morris, Manning & Martin (MMM) in Atlanta, and practiced corporate transactional law for almost two years at Rogers & Hardin. Alina graduated from Vanderbilt University Law School, where she received Academic Excellence Awards in Comparative Law and Immigration Law and Policy. She attended the University of Georgia for her undergraduate degree in History while playing on UGA's varsity women's golf team, which was ranked top five in the nation. In her sophomore year, Alina became the youngest medalist of a NCAA Division I golf tournament when she tied for first place (no play-off) at the Ladies Puerto Rico Classic. Show Notes: In this episode, Tim and Taylor welcome Atlanta attorney turned entrepreneur, Alina Lee to the podcast. Alina discusses her journey from golf prodigy to attorney to business owner. Realizing unprecedented growth, Alina shares her surprise by the early success of her new law firm, the benefits of providing true work-life balance, and helping small businesses protect their intellectual property. Episode Highlights: • What Matters to Small Business [0:03:03] • Getting Started [0:03:31] • A Unique Market [0:05:00] • Leading the Firm [0:07:32] • Intellectual Property: Protecting Your Brand [0:08:27] • Surprising Success [10:11] • Learning on the Job [0:12:10] • Leveraging Lessons Learned through Golf [0:13:24] • Accountability in a Flexible Workplace [0:16:28] • Ideal Employee Profile [0:18:56] • Best and Worst Mistake [0:20:33] • What's Next? [0:23:03] • Maintaining Your Mental Health [0:24:24] • Rapid Fire [0:26:10] • Contact Information [0:30:00] • SBM Announcements [0:31:01]

Welcome back to another episode of the How I Lawyer Podcast, where Professor Jonah Perlin interviews lawyers about what they do, why they do it, and how they do it well. Today's guest is Michelle Kallen, who is a Partner in Jenner & Block's Supreme Court and Appellate practice and previously served as the seventh Solicitor General for the Commonwealth of Virginia.  After graduating from Vanderbilt University Law School, Michelle clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and then worked as a Litigation Associate at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, before moving to the public sector.  Following her service as the first woman Solicitor General for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Michelle represented the Select Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives to investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. In this episode, Michelle shares valuable insights about the legal profession including:

Yesha Yadav is Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School. She is one of the world's leading experts on financial and securities regulation. Before Vanderbilt, Yesha worked as legal counsel with the World Bank and before that she practiced regulatory and derivatives law at Clifford Chance. This week's podcast covers key bankruptcies in crypto from Celsius to FTX, crypto regulation and enforcement risks, and the impact of AI in financial markets.   Follow us here for more amazing insights: https://macrohive.com/home-prime/ https://twitter.com/Macro_Hive https://www.linkedin.com/company/macro-hive

Complaints against U.S. airlines hit a record high in 2022. And it's not getting any better. Consumer complaints nearly doubled in the first three months of this year, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.With only four major airlines in the U.S., there's little choice for consumers in the market. And with air travel expected to reach a record high this holiday season, many will be subjected to the worst of travel: long lines, high prices, and of course, awful airplane food.But why does our time in flight have to be riddled with anguish? And what can be done to make the skies friendly again?For that, we're turning to Ganesh Sitaraman, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and director of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator. He's also out with the new book, "Why Flying is Miserable: And How to Fix It."Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Find out how to connect with us by visiting our website.

The PFAS family of man-made compounds are found in countless consumer products, as well as medical devices and firefighting foam. The incredibly strong carbon-fluorine bond that make PFAS so useful also makes them incredibly persistent. They are so ubiquitous that PFAS can be found in the blood of every human on earth and rainwater throughout the world. In this episode we are going to give you some history of the compounds, discuss some important differences, review what litigation we're seeing (including the various claims and defenses), note what we can learn from recent settlement structures, forecast the impact of any new regulation, and predict what litigation might be next. My guests have been at the forefront of PFAS litigation since they began defending carpet manufacturers in suits brought by two Alabama municipalities in 2017. They are: David J. Marmins, a partner with Arnall Golden Gregory LLP in Atlanta, Georgia. He is part of the firm's litigation and real estate practices and co-chair of the firm's retail industry team. David has concentrated his practice on complex civil litigation since becoming a lawyer in the last century. He earned his JD from Georgia State University College of Law. Morgan E. M. Harrison, partner, in AGG's litigation and dispute resolution and employment practices. She is also a member of the payments systems and fintech, and background-screening industry teams. Morgan has a JD from Vanderbilt University Law School. BONUS! Read David and Morgan's article on the subject, just published in the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

In this week's episode of the People Places Planet podcast, Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein engages in an illuminating discussion with Vanderbilt Professor W. Kip Viscusi about the social cost of carbon—a hotly debated and frequently litigated number—that is used to quantify the harm caused by one ton of carbon emissions. They are joined by ELI Senior Attorney Linda K. Breggin and Vanderbilt Law student Kyle Blasinsky. This important number is used in developing a range of regulations and soon will be used in federal budgeting and purchasing decisions, as well as National Environmental Policy Act reviews, under a new Biden Executive Order. Professor Sunstein, an Obama Administration Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator, discusses the key judgement calls that must be made in developing the social cost of carbon, such as the appropriate discount rate and approaches to incorporating equity, and offers his views on developing a number that can withstand arbitrariness review in any renewed effort to challenge the number in court. Professor Sunstein's related article Arbitrariness Review and Climate Change was selected for inclusion in this year's Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review, which recognizes scholarship that presents creative and feasible legal and policy solutions to pressing environmental problems. ELPAR is published annually by the ELI's Environmental Law Reporter in collaboration with the Vanderbilt University Law School. ★ Support this podcast ★

Recorded October 4, 2023 Signed on Oct. 1, 1953, in the wake of the armistice, the U.S.-South Korea alliance has matured into a dynamic partnership, deterring conflict and fostering cooperation with respect to trade, technology and people-to-people ties. This expert panel reflected on the legacy and future of the alliance. This program was jointly hosted by The Korea Society, the Korea Defense Veterans Association and the Korea-Pacific Program at the UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy. About the Speakers: Thomas J. Byrne joined The Korea Society as its President in August of 2015 following a distinguished career that included Senior Vice President of Moody's Investor Services and Senior Economist of the Asia Department at the Institute of International Finance. Byrne has an M.A. degree in International Relations with an emphasis on economics from The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Before doing graduate work at SAIS, he served in South Korea for three years as a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer. His commentary on Korean affairs has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Financial Times among others. Stephen Haggard is the Lawrence and Sallye Krause Distinguished Professor and director of the Korea-Pacific Program at the UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy. He teaches courses on the international relations of the Asia-Pacific at GPS covering political economy as well as security issues. He has done extensive research on North Korea in particular. In addition, he has a long-standing interest in transitions to and from democratic rule and the current phenomenon of democratic backsliding. His recent research on South Korea addresses the issue of political polarization, including with respect to foreign policy. Allison Hooker is a foreign policy and national security specialist with 20 years of experience in the U.S. Government working on Asia. She served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Asia, where she led the coordination and implementation of U.S. policy toward the Indo-Pacific region. Prior to that, Hooker served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the Korean Peninsula, where she staffed the U.S.-DPRK Summits in Singapore, Hanoi, and the DMZ. Prior to her service at the White House, Hooker was a senior analyst for North Korea in the Department of State and staffed the Six-Party Talks on North Korea's nuclear program. She received a Masters' of Arts Degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and has been a research fellow at Osaka University and Keio University, where she focused on Japan-Korea relations, and Japan-China relations, respectively. Youngwan Kim is a career diplomat who joined the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Korea in 1993. He worked at various Ministries of the Korean Government, including Foreign Ministry, Unification Ministry, and Office for Government Policy Coordination, Prime Minister's Office. Prior to his current post as Consul General in LA, he served as Director-General for National Security and Foreign Policy at the Prime Minister's office. He also worked as Director-General for Planning and Management of the Foreign Ministry. His most recent foreign post was a Member of the Panel of Experts, UN Security Council Sanctions Committee at the United Nations headquarter. His foreign posts also include Washington D.C., New York, Beijing and Baghdad. Munseob Lee is an economist who concentrates his research efforts on macroeconomics, growth and development, firm dynamics, and Korea. He has investigated the factors that determine the growth of firms, with a particular focus on how government purchases can promote long-term growth of small businesses. Additionally, he examined the disproportionate effect of inflation, revealing that low-income households and black families are the most affected by rising prices in the United States. Lee, who is an Associate Director in GPS's Korea-Pacific Program, teaches courses including Fiscal and Monetary Policy, Macroeconomics of Development and The Korean Economy. In 2019, General Curtis “Mike” Scaparrotti completed a distinguished 41-year career in the U.S. Army as the Commander, U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, NATO. Prior to that he served as the Commander of U.S. Forces Korea / United Nations Command / Combined Forces Command in Seoul from 2013 to 2016. Other prominent postings in his highly-decorated career include Director of the Joint Staff, Commander of the International Security Assistance Force, the Deputy Commander of U.S. Forces – Afghanistan, the Commanding General of I Corps and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, and the Commanding General of the 82nd Airborne Division. Additionally, over the years, General Scaparrotti served in key leadership positions at the tactical, operational, and strategic level. He has commanded forces during Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), Support Hope (Zaire/Rwanda), Joint Endeavor (Bosnia-Herzegovina), and Assured Response (Liberia). General Scaparrotti holds a Master's degree in Administrative Education from the University of South Carolina. In addition to his work with The Cohen Group, General Scaparrotti sits on the boards iof the Atlantic Council and Patriot Foundation, and is a Senior Fellow at the National Defense University. Yoo Myung-hee served at the Ministries of Trade, Industry and Energy and Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea for nearly three decades before becoming Korea's first female trade minister (2019-2021). In a variety of roles she designed and implemented Korea's trade policy and negotiation strategies and led numerous bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations as Korea's chief negotiator, including the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP) and Korea's free trade agreements with the United States and ASEAN. As trade minister, she contributed to international initiatives to ensure supply chain resilience and to address digital trade policy. She received her BA and MPA from Seoul National University and JD from Vanderbilt University Law School and currently teaches at the Graduate School of International Studies of Seoul National University. For more information, please visit the link below: https://www.koreasociety.org/policy-and-corporate-programs/item/1745-the-u-s-republic-of-korea-alliance-at-70-legacy-and-future

Matt represents entrepreneurs, financial institutions, real estate developers, and other companies and individuals. He handles an array of corporate, finance, real estate, and general business matters. Matt earned a Bachelor of Arts from Occidental College and graduated from Vanderbilt University Law School. He is licensed to practice in Arizona and Texas. HIGHLIGHTS IN THE SHOW: 00:00 - Intro 01:28 - Matthew's Background 02:47 - Impact Equity LLC Ad 04:05 - Public vs Private Placements  06:55 - Exemptions 10:37 - 506B Offerings 16:01 - Private Placement Memorandum 23:01 - Fees 26:04 - Attorney Review 28:26 - Investor Protections 32:11 - Current Market  36:24 - Member Loan  38:20 - Capital Call 40:39 - Education Resources 42:57 - Bucket List 44:00 - Where To Invest 100k 46:24- Connect With Matthew CONNECT WITH OUR GUEST:https://thrasherpllc.com/ matt@thrasherpllc.com CONNECT WITH OUR HOST:  Connect with our host, Randy Smith, for more educational content or to discuss investment opportunities in the real estate syndication space at www.impactequity.net, https://www.linkedin.com/in/randallsmith or on Instagram at @randysmithinvestor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Follow us on social media @the.gentle.art.of.crushing.it Listen, like, subscribe, comment: http://thegentleartofcrushingit.com/

Auto-GPT is a new generative artificial intelligence application which autonomously “self-prompts” to engage beyond a human-chatbot discussion. This takes us into a realm of AI self-prompted actions that do not need additional human inputs. It also potentially puts the “traditional” GPT models on a fast track to further reduce human interaction. The number of use cases as well as the number of legal and ethical questions is inevitable. For that reason, it's becoming increasingly important for businesses to understand how Auto-GPT technologies use data, the potential for biased results, and how to responsibly leverage these powerful technologies.Listen to my interview with Jason I. Epstein, Partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough as we explore this emerging field. Jason is the co-head of the firm's technology and procurement industry group which provides legal services to global buyers and sellers of technology in industries that include FinTech, HealthIT,  and manufacturing. An experienced business and technology negotiator, Jason has dealt with a variety of matters, e.g., the metaverse, technology transfer, privacy, cryptocurrency, IoT, open-source code, and more. Jason received his JD from the University of Tennessee College of Law. He also teaches "Law of Cyberspace" as an adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University Law School.  I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

Do you know how to legally protect your membership? In this episode of Art of Online Business, I'm sharing a replay of a fan-favorite episode from November of 2021 where I sat down with Chanteé Hallet and Autumn Witt Boyd to talk about everything you need to know about legally protecting your membership. Autumn Witt Boyd works with influencers to help them protect their members and avoid costly legal mistakes while scaling their businesses.I talk with Autumn and Chanteé Hallett about the legal side of memberships. We talk about most of the legal things that you're probably not thinking about, but really should be thinking about, when it comes to having a membership in your business.Autumn Witt Boyd is the founder of the AWB Firm. Autumn graduated in the top 10% of her class from Vanderbilt University Law School. She spent the first ten years of her career battling over copyrights and business issues in courtrooms across the U.S. Autumn started AWB in 2015 to help entrepreneurs scale and protect their businesses. Chanteé Hallett is an attorney at the AWB Firm. She has a passion for intellectual property matters and helping creatives protect their brands and rights. Chanteé graduated from Charlotte School of Law in North Carolina with her Juris Doctorate.In this episode, you'll learn:Why you need a contract with your membersWhat information and details your contract should includeIf you should trademark your membership or program's nameThe downside of your content's copyright protectionThe pitfalls of enforcing your contract internationallyWhy having different payment tiers can get diceyIf you should have a disclaimer in your contractIf you have to disclose when you're an affiliate for someoneLinks & Resources:The Art of Online Business websiteDM me on InstagramVisit my YouTube channelThe Art of Online Business clips on YouTubeFull episodes of The Art of Online Business Podcast on YouTubeThe Art of Online Business Podcast websiteCheck out my Accelerator coaching program*Disclosure: I only recommend products I use and love and all opinions expressed here are my own. This post may contain affiliate links that at no additional cost to you, I may earn a small commission.Autumn Witt Boyd's Links: Autumn Witt Boyd's Instagram Check out the AWB FirmChanteé Hallett's Links: Connect with Chanteé on LinkedInFull show notes available at www.rickmulready.com/676

Cy pres is the practice of awarding class-action settlement funds to third-party organizations when distribution of settlement funds directly to class members is considered impractical. Champions of cy pres awards – which can amount to tens of millions of dollars – claim that the practice directly aids the causes in question. They also note its convenience and the importance of deterrence. Cy pres critics contend that such awards lead to conflicts of interest, the failure of class attorneys to prioritize class recovery, and First Amendment concerns over the compelled support of political beneficiaries. By a 6-5 vote, the Eighth Circuit recently declined en banc review of an opinion affirming approval of a Monsanto settlement that paid $16 million to cy pres while leaving 98% of the class uncompensated. The Second Circuit affirmed approval of a settlement with Navient that paid the class of student debtors nothing with all settlement proceeds going to a few nonprofits affiliated with the teachers' union funding the class action. Both courts rejected objectors' First Amendment and Rule 23 arguments, and both cases are now the subject of cert petitions.Ted Frank, who argued Frank v. Gaos and is counsel of record in St. John v. Jones and Yeatman v. Hyland, and Brian Fitzpatrick, author of The Conservative Case for Class Actions, will debate the pros, cons, and legality of cy pres and discuss possible Supreme Court review.Featuring:--Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation & Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute--Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School

From December 11, 2020: This week, the Supreme Court returned once again to the complex and sometimes controversial Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, that protects foreign sovereigns from litigation before U.S. courts. At the same time, Congress is once again debating new exceptions to the protections provided by the FSIA on issues ranging from cybercrime to the coronavirus pandemic, an effort that may risk violating international law and exposing the United States to similar lawsuits overseas. To discuss these developments and where they may be headed, Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading scholars on sovereign immunity issues: Chimène Keitner, a professor at the UC Hastings School of Law and a former counselor on international law at the U.S. State Department, and Ingrid Wuerth, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and one of the reporters for the American Law Institute's Fourth Restatement on U.S. foreign relations law.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Yesha Yadav is Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School. She is one of the world's leading experts on financial and securities regulation. Before Vanderbilt, Yesha worked as legal counsel with the World Bank and before that she practiced regulatory and derivatives law at Clifford Chance. This week's podcast covers why the US Treasury market is fundamentally broken, the rise of HFT and algo trading, the diverges uses of Treasuries, and much more.

Tanner Jones, your host and Vice President of Business Development at Consultwebs, welcomes you to another episode of the LAWsome Podcast by Consultwebs. In today's episode, Tanner is accompanied by Kyle Farmer, founding attorney at Farmer Law PC, which offers strategic solutions for client immigration needs such as employment-based recruitment and visas.  After graduating from Vanderbilt University Law School, Kyle and his wife and co-founder, Natalie Farmer, began working on various types of immigration visas for their family construction business in Iowa. As employers, they experienced what can be accomplished through foreign recruitment and legal immigration.  Today's topic is related to good customer service for legal professionals.   Key Takeaways: 00:17 Introduction  02:30 How law firms can grow their business  04:40 The key to great client relationship in law  08:17 Common law firm mistakes in the client relationship 11:15 Creating SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) 14:30 Tips for better client communication part 1 17:17 Tips for better client communication part 2 19:19 Relationship-driven law firm  21:11 Challenges behind a client-law firm relationship  22:43 Finding your firm's ideal client  24:27 Ending thoughts  Best way to contact Kyle Farmer:  512-894-2128  kyle@farmerlawpc.com  intake@farmerlawpc.com  https://farmerlawpc.com/    Discover More About the Podcast and Consultwebs: Subscribe to the LAWsome Podcast by Consultwebs on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify   Follow Consultwebs on social for legal marketing updates: Facebook Instagram Twitter Linkedin YouTube  

From December 11, 2020: This week, the Supreme Court returned once again to the complex and sometimes controversial Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, that protects foreign sovereigns from litigation before U.S. courts. At the same time, Congress is once again debating new exceptions to the protections provided by the FSIA on issues ranging from cybercrime to the coronavirus pandemic, an effort that may risk violating international law and exposing the United States to similar lawsuits overseas. To discuss these developments and where they may be headed, Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading scholars on sovereign immunity issues: Chimène Keitner, a professor at the UC Hastings School of Law and a former counselor on international law at the U.S. State Department, and Ingrid Wuerth, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and one of the reporters for the American Law Institute's Fourth Restatement on U.S. foreign relations law.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Guest: Yesha Yadav, law professor, associate dean, Vanderbilt University Law School,

Alex Tolbert is the founder and CEO of BerniePortal, the all-in-one HRIS for small and mid-sized businesses. Alex received his B.S. and B.A. in Finance and International Studies from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, where he was a member of the Huntsman Program in International Studies and Business, and obtained his J.D. and M.B.A. from Vanderbilt University Law School and the Vanderbilt University Owen School of Management. 

Greg Abbott, Texas Governor, joins Liberty & Justice to discuss with Matt Whitaker the crisis on our southern border and the bussing of illegal immigrants to New York and Washington, D.C.  This is episode 28.  This episode was recorded at CPAC Texas.  Watch every episode of Liberty & Justice at Whitaker.tv.Get Governor Abbott's book:  Broken But Unbowed: The Fight to Fix a Broken America here-amzn.to/3A6GLfbNamed “Best Governor in the Nation” in 2020, Governor Greg Abbott continues to build on his record as a strong conservative leader who fights to preserve Texas values and ensure the Lone Star State remains the best place to raise a family, build a business, and create greater opportunity for all.Governor Abbott's vision for an even stronger Texas of tomorrow is focused on creating more jobs and economic opportunity, elevating our schools and education system, protecting individual liberties, and securing the Texas border in the face of federal inaction.Perseverance. Before his election in 2014 as the 48th Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott was the 50th Attorney General of Texas, earning a national reputation for defending religious liberty and protecting Texas communities and children. He also previously served as a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court and as a State District Judge in Harris County.A native Texan and avid sportsman and hunter, Governor Abbott was born in Wichita Falls and raised in Duncanville. After graduating from The University of Texas at Austin, he earned a law degree from Vanderbilt University Law School.Shortly after graduating from law school, he was partially paralyzed by a falling tree while jogging. From his faith and family, he gained strength, recognizing “our lives are not defined by our challenges, but by how we respond to them.”Governor Abbott and his wife, Cecilia, a former teacher and principal, and the first Hispanic First Lady of Texas, were married in 1981. Their daughter, Audrey, is a recent college graduate.Matthew G. Whitaker was acting Attorney General of the United States (2018-2019).  Prior to becoming acting Attorney General, Mr. Whitaker served as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. He was appointed as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa by President George W. Bush, serving from 2004-2009. Whitaker was the managing partner of Des Moines based law firm, Whitaker Hagenow & Gustoff LLP from 2009 until rejoining DOJ in 2017. He was also the Executive Director for FACT, The Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, an ethics and accountability watchdog, between 2014 and 2017.   Mr. Whitaker is Author of the book--Above the Law, The Inside Story of How the Justice Department Tried to Subvert President Trump.  Buy Matt's book here: https://amzn.to/3IXUOb8Mr. Whitaker graduated with a Master of Business Administration, Juris Doctor, and Bachelor of Arts from the University of Iowa.  While at Iowa, Mr. Whitaker was a three-year letterman on the football team where he received the prestigious Big Ten Medal of Honor.Mr. Whitaker is now a Co-Chair of the Center for Law and Justice at America First Policy Institute and a Senior Fellow at the American Conservative Union Foundation. Matt is on the Board of Directors for America First Legal Foundation and is a Senior Advisor to IronGate Capital Advisors. He is also Of Counsel with the Graves Garrett law firm.  Whitaker appears regularly to discuss legal and political issues on Fox News, Newsmax andThe Enthusiasm ProjectDeep dives exploring the world of what it means to be an independent creator.Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

For more than a decade, ELI and Vanderbilt University Law School have featured some of the year's best academic thinking on legal and policy solutions to pressing environmental problems via the Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review (ELPAR).  Linda Breggin, a Senior Attorney at ELI and a Lecturer in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School who co-founded ELPAR, and Kritsen Sarna, a Vanderbilt law student who served as editor-in-chief, talk to Howard Learner, President and Executive Director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, to find out his thoughts on environmental citizen suits, the subject of one of this year's featured articles.★ Support this podcast ★

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Jennifer Cole and Michael Vandenbergh. Dr. Cole is a postdoctoral scholar in social psychology at the Vanderbilt Climate Change Research Network, and Professor Vandenbergh is the David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law at the Vanderbilt University Law School. Their work examines the political polarization of climate change and covid policies. To start off, Livermore asks his guests how they stay positive when studying something as divisive as the politicization of climate change. Vandenbergh explains the concept of “solution aversion,” which happens when individuals are aware of a solution but are wary of the means to achieve it. Cole then describes how this problem can be avoided by leveraging group polarization to shift perspectives and uses this example to talk about the field of social psychology, generally, and what her work focuses on, specifically (:40 – 5:16). This leads to a discussion about the state of polarization in both climate issues and covid issues. Climate change, Vandenbergh says, has become so polarized that it can essentially serve as substitute for all other political views, across the social spectrum. Cole then defines the concept of “pluralistic ignorance,” or the gap that exists between what a group actually believes and what others think that groups believe. In the case of climate change, people think Republicans as a group do not believe in climate change, but research demonstrates that a substantial number of Republicans agree with the scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is occurring. The guests then explain how societal reactions to covid have paralleled those to climate change. Cole found that rather than treating covid as a shared threat, people responded to it with the same level of political polarization that they have to climate change (5:18 – 14:02). This leads to an extended discussion about the disconnect between party bases and party elites. Vandenbergh suggests some tactics that party elites can engage in to attempt to shift the position of a party base, such as appealing to primary voters or appearing on popular media platforms. This part of the conversation then segues into an explanation of how party leaders can control messaging before an issue becomes broadly accepted amongst the party's base (14:05 – 29:38). Moving away from a focus on party elites, Livermore asks what kind of strategy would be optimal to change perceptions amongst a party's base. Vandenbergh emphasizes how stressing private sector action can be quite helpful, particularly in the case of something like climate change, while Cole says the research suggests discussing issues more often can actually lead to shifts in mindset. (29:46 – 36:49) The conversation concludes with Livermore posing the hypothetical of a conservation group that, in all other issues, is conservatively-oriented, and asking why it is difficult to envision such an organization existing in our current climate. Vandenbergh counters that there are some Republicans engaged in the climate change space, while also arguing that the real focus should be on those organizations that are complying with their ESG commitments, and using that as a tool to urge non-compliant organizations to fall in line. Cole suggests that climate change-focused organizations may be able to use conservative terminology and appeal to conservative morality to appeal to conservatives, even if the organization more broadly does not align itself with conservative ideology (36:53 – 43:07). Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

Linda Breggin, a Senior Attorney at ELI and Director of ELI's Center for State, Tribal and Local Environmental Programs, talks to Professors Monte Mills and Martin Nie about their article, Bridges to a New Era: A Report on the Past, Present, and Potential Future of Tribal Co-Management on Federal Public Lands. In it, they posit that the United States can meaningfully connect public land law to the federal government's long-standing trust-based and treaty-based responsibility to promote the sovereign and cultural interests of Native Nations and enhance and engage in a new era of tribal co-management across the federal public land system. The article received honorable mention in this year's Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review (ELPAR), a 15-year collaboration between ELI and Vanderbilt University Law School. Vanderbilt Law students Connor Kridle and Thomas Boynton join in on the conversation. ★ Support this podcast ★

In recent years, many companies have required consumers and employees to agree to individually arbitrate any disputes that might arise, eliminating aggregate dispute resolution devices like class actions. In response, plaintiffs’ lawyers have begun filing masses of individual arbitration demands on behalf of employees and consumers against companies like Intuit, Uber, and American Express. The demands place companies on the hook for millions of dollars in arbitration fees, and companies have begun resisting payment and asking to return to court for aggregate dispute resolution, or to create aggregate arbitration procedures. Is this just deserts for corporations or an abuse of the system by plaintiffs’ lawyers? What about the claimants: does mass arbitration deliver for them? Our speakers will explore these and other questions in this lively and timely event.Featuring:Daniel Fisher, Chartered Financial Analyst, Walden Consultants, LLCMaria Glover, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterModerator: Brian Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School

Yesha Yadav is a law professor and associate dean at the Vanderbilt University Law School, where she works on banking and financial regulation, securities regulation, and the law of money and payment system. Yesha has written a recent paper titled, *The Failed Regulation of US Treasury Markets*, and she joins Macro Musings to discuss it. Specifically, David and Yesha talk about the implications of the 2020 Treasury market collapse, the fragmented nature of the Treasury market's regulatory structure, solutions for reform, and more.   Transcript for the episode can be found here: https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/tags/macro-musings   Yesha's Vanderbilt Law profile: https://law.vanderbilt.edu/bio/yesha-yadav Yesha's Google Scholar archive: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Dn5cmSQAAAAJ&hl=en   Related Links:   *The Failed Regulation of U.S. Treasury Markets* by Yesha Yadav https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3365829   *Fragile Financial Regulation* by Pradeep Yadav and Yesha Yadav https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3685404   David's Twitter: @DavidBeckworth David's blog: http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/

What role should publicly traded corporations play in democratic politics?The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?" The first showcase panel discussed "Social Activism and Corporate Leadership."Corporate resources are increasingly being used to advance social justice policy goals. This corporate engagement includes advocacy for what’s presented as the “corporate perspective” on divisive social questions. It also includes the use of economic leverage to influence public opinion, affect government policy, and induce private agreements to policy choices that have not been adopted through the political process.To some, this is a positive development: it is all to the good for corporations to advance a just cause. Their public leadership and their market power can help bring the country and the world along. To others, this is an abuse and confusion of power. The goals of the “social justice” and “woke” movements are among the most hotly contested questions of American politics and culture, and they should be resolved through democratic processes without corporations putting a thumb on the scale.We will explore these questions both as matters of principle and matters of law.As a matter of principle, should corporations have unfettered discretion to influence any sphere of American life? Is such discretion good for the democratic process, and is it good for individual liberty? Is the libertarian perspective -- that private actors should be largely able to do what they want, and if they overstep, market competition will fill the gap – adequate to this dynamic? Is there any limiting principle to corporations using economic power to influence politics? As a matter of law, are corporations permitted to use whatever levers are available to them to influence matters of politics? Is corporate leadership permitted to do so in publicly traded companies? Should corporate endorsement or support of a policy position or candidate be considered a reportable lobbying expense or campaign contribution and, if so, how should it be valued? What existing legal frameworks might apply to these questions? How does Citizens United fit into this picture?Featuring:Prof. Margaret Blair, Professor of Law Emerita & Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise Emerita, Vanderbilt University Law School; Senior Fellow, Brookings InstitutionProf. Jonathan Macey, Sam Harris Professor of Corporate Law, Corporate Finance, and Securities Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Luigi Zingales, Robert C. McCormack Distinguished Service Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance and George G. Rinder Faculty Fellow, University of Chicago Booth School of BusinessModerator: Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Autumn Witt Boyd works with influencers to help them avoid costly legal mistakes while scaling their businesses.I talk with Autumn and Chantee Hallett about the legal side of memberships. We talk about most of the legal things that you're probably not thinking about, but really should be thinking about, when it comes to having a membership in your business.Autumn Witt Boyd is the founder of the AWB Firm. Autumn graduated in the top 10% of her class from Vanderbilt University Law School. She spent the first ten years of her career battling over copyrights and business issues in courtrooms across the U.S. Autumn started AWB in 2015 to help entrepreneurs scale and protect their businesses. Chanteé Hallett is an attorney at the AWB Firm. She has a passion for intellectual property matters and helping creatives protect their brands and rights. Chanteé graduated from Charlotte School of Law in North Carolina with her Juris Doctorate.In this episode, you'll learn:Why you need a contract with your membersWhat information and details your contract should includeShould you trademark your membership or program's name?The downside of your content's copyright protectionThe pitfalls of enforcing your contract internationallyWhy having different payment tiers can get diceyShould you have a disclaimer in your contract?Do you have to disclose when you're an affiliate for someone?Links & ResourcesRick's InstagramRick's YouTube channelRickMulready.comThe Accelerator Coaching ProgramMighty NetworksSlackAutumn Witt Boyd's LinksAutumn Witt Boyd's InstagramThe AWB FirmAWB's Prep to Scale ChallengeChanteé Hallett's LinkChantee HallettFull show notes are available here

On October 1, 2021, the Gray Center hosted a conference to mark the twentieth anniversary of Elena Kagan's landmark published article on “Presidential Administration,” where authors and scholars discussed and presented seven new working papers and two new books on this important and timely concept, during a series of panel discussions. The first panel was introduced by Gray Center Co-Executive Director Adam White and The Ohio State University's John W. Bricker Professor of Law, Christopher Walker, and it focused on presidential administration and political polarization. It included a discussion featuring The George Washington University Law School's Richard Pierce, Jr., Michael Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law's Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, and Vanderbilt University Law School's Kevin Stack, which was moderated by the Center for Strategic and International Studies's Melanie Marlowe. Michael Rappaport's working paper, co-authored with Northwestern University's John O. McGinnis, is available at: https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2021/09/McGinnis-Rappaport-Presidential-Polarization.pdf Kevin Stack's working paper is available at: https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2021/09/Stack-Partisan-Administration.pdf This episode features Melanie M. Marlowe, Richard J. Pierce Jr., Michael B. Rappaport, Kevin M. Stack, Christopher J. Walker, and Adam White.

India is in a crisis. In September 2020, the Indian government passed three new agricultural bills that deregulate and privatize India's agricultural industry. Since then, farmers and farmworkers across India have taken to the country's capital, staging the largest protest in human history. By prioritizing corporations over people and the planet, many believe these laws further environmental degradation and economic oppression, deepening an already stark wealth disparity. These protests are as much about land rights as they are about human rights, as dissent continues to be silenced. In this urgent conversation, moderated by social impact advisor Manpreet Kaur Kalra, panelists Arjun Singh Sethi, a human rights lawyer, and Navyug Gill, scholar of modern South Asia and global history, unpack the history of industrialized agriculture in India and the geo-political factors influencing the protest that is unfolding today. Arjun Singh Sethi is a human rights lawyer, professor, author, and community activist based in Washington, DC. He works closely with Muslim, Arab, South Asian and Sikh communities, and holds faculty appointments at Georgetown University Law Center and Vanderbilt University Law School. In the wake of the 2016 election, Sethi traveled the country and met with a diversity of people to document the hate they experienced during the campaign and after inauguration. American Hate: Survivors Speak Out was released in August 2018r. Sethi also serves as Co-Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security, Terrorism & Treatment of Enemy Combatants at the American Bar Assocation and has served as a legal observer across the world, including military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. Navyug Gill is a scholar of modern South Asia and global history. He is Assistant Professor in the Department of History at William Paterson University. His research explores questions of agrarian change, labor politics, caste hierarchy, postcolonial critique, and global capitalism. Currently he is completing a book on the emergence of the peasant and the rule of capital in colonial Panjab. His academic and popular writings have appeared in venues such as the Journal of Asian Studies, Economic and Political Weekly, Al Jazeera, Law and Political Economy Project, Borderlines, and Trolley Times. Manpreet Kaur Kalra (she/her) is a social impact advisor, anti-racism educator, and Seattle-based activist working to decolonize storytelling. She navigates the intersection of impact communication and sustainable global development. She founded Art of Citizenry to support impact-driven businesses and organizations to address inclusion in all aspects, from business development to marketing strategy. Her activism focuses on the interconnectivity of economic, social, and climate justice. She educates using a variety of mediums, including the Art of Citizenry Podcast, where she shares her nuanced and unfiltered insights on building a more just and equitable future. Her work unpacks history and addresses systemic power structures. She serves on the board of the NYC Fair Trade Coalition and co-established the Justice Equity Diversity and Inclusion Committee of the Fair Trade Federation. Presented by Town Hall Seattle. To become a member or make a donation click here. 

For more than a decade, ELI and Vanderbilt University Law School have featured some of the year's best academic thinking on legal and policy solutions to pressing environmental problems via the Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review (ELPAR).  This episode gives listeners a preview to this year's issue, which hits the streets in August and features articles and commentary on climate change litigation, corporate ESG, environmental justice, and energy regulation. ★ Support this podcast ★

Autumn Witt Boyd graduated in the top 10% of her class from Vanderbilt University Law School before ultimately landing as a senior associate at the premier copyright litigation law firm. Autumn eventually left BigLaw behind to start the AWB Firm in 2015 so she could spend her days helping entrepreneurs build, protect, and scale their businesses the right way. Autumn drops some timeless law wisdom on this week's episode!   Key takeaways: How did Autumn get her start as a lawyer? What made Autumn decide to start her own law firm? Autumn really just wanted to start out small and as an independent lawyer, but she hit a ceiling with the amount of work she could do. Autumn really wanted to build a company that was friendly towards women as they were raising children. The corporate lawyer environment is rough and “part-time job” means 40 hours a week. Minimum. Be friends with your competitors! It's actually an excellent network to be tapped into. How does Autumn do a pretty traditional business all online? What can a lawyer do for a business owner? Autumn has some fantastic templates for online business owners that you can use! And! They regularly get updated. Kathy made so many legal mistakes. Ouch! You save money by paying for a bit of legal counsel. Why should you get a trademark? And when should you consider getting a trademark? Don't have a contract? Get yourself a contract! It protects both you and the client. Don't copy someone else's privacy policy or terms and conditions.   Resources: Awbfirm.com Autumn on LinkedIn   Quotes:   “A lot of entrepreneurs don't realize what a big risk employment law is, so we help with that.”   “You will save money, save yourself, and save your business by getting that legal advice upfront.”   “If you buy a template and nothing else, buy a template for your privacy policy. That is actually required by law.”

Featuring: Arjun Sethi,  political rights writer, human rights lawyer, and Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center and Vanderbilt University Law School. Arjun is also the  Co-Chair of the ABACJS Committee on Homeland Security, Terrorism & Treatment of Enemy Combatants.Arjun breaks down the recent actions taken on the federal level to mitigate hate crime, specifically the rise in Asian American hate crime due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Arjun walks us through both AG Garland's memo to the DOJ and the recently signed COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. We discuss it's potential impact as well as it's reception within the criminal justice field. Want to get involved with the Criminal Justice Section? Join us! https://www.americanbar.org/membership/join-now

Podcast: The Lawfare Podcast (LS 70 · TOP 0.05% what is this?)Episode: The Past, Present and Future of Sovereign ImmunityPub date: 2020-12-11This week, the Supreme Court returned once again to the complex and sometimes controversial Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, that protects foreign sovereigns from litigation before U.S. courts. At the same time, Congress is once again debating new exceptions to the protections provided by the FSIA on issues ranging from cybercrime to the coronavirus pandemic, an effort that may risk violating international law and exposing the United States to similar lawsuits overseas. To discuss these developments and where they may be headed, Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading scholars on sovereign immunity issues: Chimène Keitner, a professor at the UC Hastings School of Law and a former counselor on international law at the U.S. State Department, and Ingrid Wuerth, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and one of the reporters for the American Law Institute's Fourth Restatement on U.S. foreign relations law.The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Lawfare Institute, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

This week, the Supreme Court returned once again to the complex and sometimes controversial Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, that protects foreign sovereigns from litigation before U.S. courts. At the same time, Congress is once again debating new exceptions to the protections provided by the FSIA on issues ranging from cybercrime to the coronavirus pandemic, an effort that may risk violating international law and exposing the United States to similar lawsuits overseas. To discuss these developments and where they may be headed, Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading scholars on sovereign immunity issues: Chimène Keitner, a professor at the UC Hastings School of Law and a former counselor on international law at the U.S. State Department, and Ingrid Wuerth, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and one of the reporters for the American Law Institute's Fourth Restatement on U.S. foreign relations law.

“Things still aren’t perfect but we’re moving in the right direction.” — Casey Fiesler   The idea of technology and social media influencing a presidential election once would’ve sounded ridiculous. Today, it’s a reality that raises big questions about the tech industry’s ethical responsibility regarding everything from flagging misinformation to reflecting our diverse society.    Casey Fiesler, a research and assistant professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, is an expert on ethics in technology and the influence it has on our society. In this episode of Leading with Genuine Care, Casey explains the basics of tech ethics, why increasing inclusion in tech can create a better world, how rewriting a “bafflingly sexist” Barbie book on computer science helped Mattel improve how they teach girls about tech, and so much more.   In this episode, you’ll learn:   Why ethics in technology is important What it means to be ethical in tech About current tech ethic stories in the news What responsibility tech companies should have How Casey helped Mattel write better books about girls in computer science Why disinformation in the media creates ethical tech questions What Twitter’s “Civic Integrity” policy is Why tech companies need to follow more metrics than profit  How the election brought up many ethical tech issues Why diversity in tech design and leadership offers better solutions  What technical debt is How technology can invade privacy Why people must consider what they put on the internet If Casey thinks we’re on the right track And so much more!   More About Casey Fielser Casey Fiesler is an assistant professor and founding faculty in the Department of Information Science at the University of Colorado Boulder, where she researches and teaches in the areas of technology ethics, internet law and policy, and online communities.    She is also a public scholar and a frequent commentator and speaker on topics of technology ethics and policy, as well as women in STEM (including consulting with Mattel on their computing-related Barbies).    Originally from Atlanta, she holds a Ph.D. from Georgia Tech in Human-Centered Computing and a J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School.   Connect with Casey Fiesler  Website www.caseyfiesler.com Twitter https://twitter.com/cfiesler YouTubewww.youtube.com/c/CaseyFieslerPhD   Get Rob’s Weekly Newsletter Never miss an inspiring conversation about compassionate, positive leadership on the Leading with Genuine Care podcast plus other great articles and insights. Click below and you’ll also get a download of his favorite mindful resources.   https://www.donothingbook.com/resource-guide    Follow Rob Dube on Social Media  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/robdube  Facebook:  www.facebook.com/rob.dube.1  Twitter:  twitter.com/robddube    Rob Dube’s Website www.donothingbook.com   Buy Rob’s book, donothing: The Most Rewarding Leadership Challenge You'll Ever Takeamzn.to/2y9N1TK

This is a recording of the 2020 Annual John Gedid Lecture Series: The President and the Rise of Partisan Administration of the Law hosted by Widener University Commonwealth Law School, Law and Government Institute. This lecture series honors John Gedid, one of the founders of Widener Law Commonwealth, the school’s first vice-dean and the founder of Widener’s Law and Government Institute. Professor Gedid has served as a wonderful mentor to every faculty member the school has hired. The series showcases the work of nationally recognized young scholars much the same way Professor Gedid has fostered, encouraged, and applauded the work of those who joined the school he helped to found. Speaker Kevin M. Stack is Lee S. & Charles A. Speir Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School. He writes and teaches in the areas of administrative law, separation of powers, and statutory interpretation. In 2019, he was appointed as a Public Member of the Administrative Conference of the United States.  In 2013, he received the American Bar Association’s Annual Scholarship Award in 2013. He is co-author (with Lisa S. Bressman and Edward L. Rubin) of The Regulatory State, a casebook on statutes and administrative lawmaking. He served as law clerk for the Honorable Kimba N. Wood (S.D.N.Y) and the Honorable A. Wallace Tashima (Ninth Circuit). Before his J.D at Yale Law School, he earned a master’s degree in philosophy at Oxford University, supported by a Fulbright Scholarship, and a B.A. from Brown University. Widener University Commonwealth Law School is the Pennsylvania capital’s only law school, with three specialized centers of legal scholarship through its Law & Government Institute, Environmental Law and Sustainability Center, and Business Advising Program. Widener Law Commonwealth offers an exceptional learning experience that is personal, practical, and professional. Visit commonwealthlaw.widener.edu for more information. Follow the Law and Government Institute on Twitter @WidenerLG.     Music Credit: LeChuckz

Recently, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, lashed out at the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which guaranteed marriage equality, calling it ruinous for religious liberty. In response, the New Yorker posed a sobering question: “Does Clarence Thomas now speak for the majority of the Supreme Court on LGBTQ Rights?"The use of religious liberty to discriminate against LGBTQ people is nothing new. And marriage is not the only issue on the line. Among other things, the Trump administration has worked to discriminate against gay parents in foster care and adoption, take away vital healthcare under the ACA, and prevent transgender people from serving in the military. The attacks are not limited to the federal government either: This year alone, there have been clear, coordinated efforts at the state level to legalize discrimination against people based on their LGBTQ identity. What is the current legal landscape for LGBTQ rights and justice? What is the significance of the impending election for the rights of the LGBTQ community? What's at stake? Helping us to sort out these questions and more are very special guests: Jessica Clarke, professor of law, FedEx research professor and co-director of the George Barrett Social Justice Program at Vanderbilt University Law School. She studies constitutional and statutory guarantees of non-discrimination based on traits such as race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion and disability. T. Mychael Rambo, a regional Emmy Award winning actor, vocalist, arts educator and community organizer. He also an accomplished residency artist and professor in the College of Liberal Arts, Theatre Arts and Dance at the University of Minnesota. Chase Strangio, deputy director for transgender justice with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project and a nationally recognized expert on transgender rights. Strangio's work includes impact litigation, as well as legislative and administrative advocacy, on behalf of LGBTQ people and people living with HIV across the United States. Chase was counsel in the case of Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman whose historic lawsuit resulted in the landmark Supreme Court decision that federal civil rights law protects LGBTQ workers.Rate and review “On the Issues with Michele Goodwin" to let us know what you think of the show! Let’s show the power of independent feminist media.Check out this episode’s landing page at MsMagazine.com for a full transcript, links to articles referenced in this episode, further reading and ways to take action. Support the show (http://msmagazine.com)

Steve Hertz discusses why we need to change our relationship with feedback and how to develop the three skills that advance our careers. — YOU'LL LEARN — 1) Why you shouldn't take yes for an answer 2) The small things that make us more authoritative 3) How to keep conversations energizing and engaging Subscribe or visit AwesomeAtYourJob.com/ep590 for clickable versions of the links below. — ABOUT STEVE — Steve Herz is President of The Montag Group, a sports and entertainment talent and marketing consultancy. He is also a career advisor to CEOs, lawyers, entrepreneurs, and young professionals. Prior to joining TMG, Steve was the President and Founding Partner of IF Management, an industry leader whose broadcasting division became one of the largest in the space, representing over 200 television and radio personalities. Herz received his bachelor's degree in political science from the University of Michigan and his J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School. Steve is involved with several charities, including serving on the local leadership council at Birthright Israel. Steve is married with two children and lives on the Upper West Side of New York City. • Steve's book: Don't Take Yes for an Answer: Using Authority, Warmth, and Energy to Get Exceptional Results • Steve's website: StevenHerz.com — RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE SHOW — • App: Speako…!! • Study: A Study of Engineering and Education by Charles Riborg Mann • Book: How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie • Book: Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength by Roy Baumeister and John Tierney • Experiment: Project Oxygen • Past episode: 458: How to End Bad Behavior and Renew Your Team Amidst Change with Steve Ritter — THANK YOU SPONSORS! — • Pitney Bowes. Simplify your shipping while saving money. Get a free 30-day trial and 10-lb shipping scale at pb.com/AWESOME.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Many of us desire to have influence but seem to be stopped by some invisible force. No matter how much we try, it doesn't seem like anyone is listening. In today's show, we chat with Steve Herz on how three key communication tools: Authority, Warmth, and Energy (AWE) are the keys to unlock the potential inside of us. Steve has represented and coached dozens of sports, media, and entertainment leaders over the course of nearly three decades. Over those years Steve has helped those industry leaders reach their potential in part because of the AWE method he developed. We also talk about his career representing some of the biggest names in sports and broadcasting.Steve Herz's Website: https://stevenherz.comBook: Don't Take Yes for an Answer: https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Take-Answer-Steve-Herz/dp/006286971X/About Steve HerzSteve Herz is President of The Montag Group, a sports and entertainment talent and marketing consultancy. He is also a career advisor to CEOs, lawyers, entrepreneurs, and young professionals. Prior to joining TMG, Steve was the President and Founding Partner of IF Management, an industry leader whose broadcasting division became one of the largest in the space, representing over 200 television and radio personalities. The agency represents some of the biggest names in sports and news media, including NBC Sports Mike Tirico, ESPN’s Scott Van Pelt and Dan Shulman, and CNN Chief International Correspondent Clarissa Ward.Herz received his bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Michigan and his J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School. Steve is involved with several charities, including serving on the local leadership council at Birthright Israel. He has also been a volunteer tutor at the Horizon High School at Rikers Island Prison in NYC and the Harlem Academy Charter School. Steve is married with two children and lives on the Upper West Side of New York City.

Black Lives Matter: three words that profoundly capture the pain and inspiring resilience of the most marginalized minority group in the US. As a minority community that has faced its own anti-racist challenges, South Asians should empathize with the Black community, yet many feel angered by the rise of riots in our country this past June. In today's episode we speak with special guest Arjun Singh Sethi, a Sikh American civil and political rights writer, human rights lawyer, and Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center and Vanderbilt University Law School. Arjun helps Chit Chaat explore why South Asians may find it difficult to support Black Americans and why it's so important to listen to and stand by them in solidarity.

Steve Herz is President of The Montag Group, a sports and entertainment talent and marketing consultancy. He is also a career advisor to CEOs, lawyers, entrepreneurs, and young professionals. Prior to joining TMG, Steve was the President and Founding Partner of IF Management, an industry leader whose broadcasting division became one of the largest in the space, representing over 200 television and radio personalities. The agency represents some of the biggest names in sports and news media, including NBC Sports Mike Tirico, ESPN’s Scott Van Pelt and Dan Shulman and CNN Chief International Correspondent Clarissa Ward. Herz received his bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Michigan and his J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School. Herz is involved with several charities, including serving on the local leadership council at Birthright Israel. He has also been a volunteer tutor at the Horizon High School at Rikers Island Prison in NYC and the Harlem Academy Charter School. Steve is married with two children and lives on the Upper West Side of New York City.

In this episode, we discuss self represented litigation in Tennessee and across the United States by exploring the meaning and definition of a pro se litigant as well as provide advice on how pro se litigants can use state resources to gain more access to the court system and seek free legal advice. Guests include Justice Connie Clark of the Tennessee Supreme Court, Buck Lewis is the founder of Free Legal Answers, Professor Cat Moon is the Director of Innovation Design at Vanderbilt University Law School and Judge Fern Fisher who is now a professor at Hofstra University School of Law.

Heather Joy Hubbard is an attorney, speaker, author, and strategic coach. Through her personal and professional development company, she helps attorneys reduce stress, manage priorities, and build a book of business. Prior to her work helping professionals find more balance and success, Heather was a partner and practice group leader at an AmLaw 200 firm. She has been recognized by Best Lawyers in America in the areas of Copyright, Trademark, Intellectual Property Litigation and Patent Litigation, Mid-South SuperLawyers, Benchmark Litigation and Managing IP Stars. She was also named one of Nashville's Top 40 under 40 by the Nashville Business Journal. Heather graduated summa cum laude from the University of Louisville and received her juris doctorate from Vanderbilt University Law School.

COVID-19 Will Likely Mean More People Voting by Mail in November (0:32)Guest: Sonni Waknin, Legal Fellow, UCLA Voting Rights ProjectThe coronavirus pandemic did not stop Wisconsin from holding its primary election this week. Voters donned masks and tried to stay six feet apart. Some poll workers wore hazmat suits. Imagine the challenges we'll face keeping voters and poll workers safe if the coronavirus pandemic is still ongoing in November? How many people might just opt not to vote because they're concerned about the close quarters and shared surfaces of their polling location? One solution is to let anyone who chooses, vote by mail instead of in person. President Trump is not a fan. He tweeted earlier today, “Republicans should fight very hard when it comes to state wide mail-in voting. Democrats are clamoring for it. Tremendous potential for voter fraud, and for whatever reason, doesn't work out well for Republicans.” How Do You Calculate the Cost of Life? (19:33)Guest: W. Kip Viscusi, Professor of Law, Economics, and Management, Vanderbilt University Law School, Author of “Pricing Lives: Guideposts for a Safer Society”At some point in the coming weeks, countries will have to decide if the economic toll of pandemic closures and isolation has become more of a problem than the disease itself. To put it bluntly, the decision will be: Here's how many lives we can save if we keep everything closed. Are those lives worth it? Awful as that calculation sounds, insurance companies and policy makers do something like it all the time. Dangers Posed by Solar Flares (34:03)Guest: Justin Kasper, PhD, Space and Planetary Physicist, Professor of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering, University of MichiganPeriodically, the sun burps out giant bursts of radiation, and sometimes they hit the earth dead on. The last time a really big one happened like that, compasses went on the fritz and telegraph communications was out for days. But that was in the 1800s. Today we rely on so much more technology that a major solar flare could be catastrophic. Society's Prejudice Are Embedded in Automated Systems – From Algorithms to Sensors (49:44)Guest: Ruha Benjamin, PhD, Associate Professor of African American Studies, Princeton University, Author of “Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code.”A few years ago, this video went viral of two men trying to get soap out of an automatic dispenser in a public restroom. First a white man puts his hand under the dispenser and out comes the soap. Then a black man tries. No soap. He moves his hand up and down, waves it around under the dispenser. Nothing. Then he takes a white paper towel and puts that under the soap dispenser. Yep. It works. He tries just his bare black hand again. Nothing. “The soap dispenser is racist,” laugh the men making the video. Automated systems were supposed to be less biased than humans, but the opposite has happened, says Ruha Benjamin. Obesity Stigma Consensus (1:08:18)Guest: Robert H. Eckel, MD, Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes, Division of Cardiology, Professor of Physiology and Biophysics, University of ColoradoThe stigma surrounding obesity is so pervasive that it affects how doctors treat patients and it even affects how people with obesity think about themselves. Recently more than 100 medical and health organizations signed an international pledge to end the stigma of obesity. To understand what that pledge entails, we've got one of the co-authors of the statement, which was published in Nature Medicine. Uncle Sam Wants You (Women Included) (1:21:56)Guest: Debra Wada, Former Congressinal Staffer, CEO of Senshi Ame Advisors LLCWomen may soon have to join the military draft, if Congress listens to a commission that recently presented. The commission's research covered several years of surveys and concluded that women should have to sign up, too.

In this episode, host Daniel Raimi talks with J.B. Ruhl, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School who specializes in environmental, natural resources, and property law. Ruhl provides an overview of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the landmark law that permits lawsuits against federal agencies for any actions that are perceived to affect the quality of the environment. Drawing from his years practicing environmental law, Ruhl explains how NEPA lawsuits are especially complex—involving statutes, court opinions, and recent regulatory changes that are often at odds. He also discusses the implications of a proposed rule change by the Trump administration that could limit the types of litigation that can be pursued under NEPA. References and recommendations: "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond; https://wwnorton.com/books/Guns-Germs-and-Steel/ "Boomtown" podcast; https://www.texasmonthly.com/boomtown/

In this episode...Professor Victor Flatt, The Dwight Olds Chair in Law at The University of Houston Law Center and the 2019 Haub School of Law at Pace University Visiting Scholar, explains the requirements of Model Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.6(b), which permits attorneys to disclose information to prevent death or serious bodily harm and how bar associations can use the rule to prevent further climate change. He presents his theory in his most recent article, Disclosing the Danger: State Attorney Ethics Rules MEet Climate Change, to be published in the Utah Law Review.About our guest...Professor Victor B. Flatt returned to the University of Houston in 2017 as the Dwight Olds Chair in Law and the Faculty Director of the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources (EENR) Center. He also holds an appointment as a Distinguished Scholar of Carbon Markets at the University of Houston’s Global Energy Management Institute. He was previously the inaugural O’Quinn Chair in Environmental Law at UHLC from 2002-2009.Professor Flatt’s teaching career began at the University of Washington’s Evins School of Public Affairs, and he has previously taught at Georgia State University College of Law, and most recently at the University of North Carolina School of Law, where he was the inaugural Taft Distinguished Professor in Environmental Law and the Co-Director of the Center for Climate, Energy, Environment, and Economics (CE3).Professor Flatt is a recognized expert on environmental law, climate law, and energy law. His research focuses on environmental legislation and enforcement, with particular expertise in the Clean Air Act and NEPA. He is co-author of a popular environmental law casebook, and has authored more than 40 law review articles, which have appeared in journals such as the Notre Dame Law Review, Ecology Law Quarterly, Washington Law Review, Houston Law Review and the Carolina Law Review. Six of his articles have been recognized as finalists or winner of the best environmental law review article of the year, and one was recognized by Vanderbilt University Law School and the Environmental Law Institute as one of the three best environmental articles of 2010, leading to a seminar and panel on the article in a Congressional staff briefing.Professor Flatt has served on the AALS sub-committees on Natural Resources and Environmental Law and was chair of the AALS Teaching Methods Section. He has served on many other boards and committees in his career including the national board of Lambda Legal, and the Law School Admission Council’s Gay and Lesbian Interests section. He is currently on the Advisory Board of CE3, a member of the ABA’s Section on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Law Congressional Liaison Committee, and a member scholar of the Center for Progressive Reform.Law to Fact is a podcast about law school for law school students. As always if you if you have any suggestions for an episode topic concerning any matter related to law school, please let us know! You can email us at leslie@lawtofact.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. This episode is sponsored by Kaplan Bar Review. Getting ready for the bar exam means you’ll need to choose the study program that’s right for you. Kaplan Bar Review will get you ready to take on t

Part two of our conversation about regulatory compliance focuses on the gray areas of compliance. We discuss the challenges of sharing data, navigating compliance pitfalls when doing business internationally, and how new regulations can have unexpected outcomes for small businesses. We wrap up with a discussion of the rapidly growing job market for compliance professionals.Andrew Kaufman joined the University of Maine School of Law faculty in 2016, after more than 40 years in private practice as a corporate and transactional attorney. At Maine Law, Andy teaches advanced courses in corporate law and business associations, commercial law, and transactional practice, as well as the law school's course in risk management and compliance. In addition, he is the Director of the Compliance Certificate Program that the law school offers to compliance professionals in the business community. Andy received his bachelor's degree from Yale in 1971 and his law degree from Vanderbilt University Law School in 1974.Ross Hickey is the Assistant Provost for Research Integrity at the University of Southern Maine and the Director of MeRTEC (“MER-tech”), the Maine Regulatory Training and Ethics Center at USM. Ross has built a nationally-recognized research compliance office that serves not only USM, but institutions throughout the state of Maine. Ross is contacted on a regular basis to provide technical assistance to other institutions on regulatory compliance matters. Ross is a graduate of the University of Maine School of Law.

Whether we realize it or not, the field of regulatory compliance impacts almost every aspect of our lives. From the food we eat to the shampoo we use to the clothing we wear, everything we touch is impacted by a variety of laws and regulations that make up the surprisingly dynamic field of compliance. Our discussion today focuses on how compliance is more than following rules. Done well, compliance uses creativity, critical thinking and foresight to empower employees, build good businesses and ethical cultures as well as strong brands that serve their customers. We also discuss how organizations like Wells Fargo and Theranos have suffered the long term impacts of NOT having strong regulatory compliance functions.Andrew Kaufman joined the University of Maine School of Law faculty in 2016, after more than 40 years in private practice as a corporate and transactional attorney. At Maine Law, Andy teaches advanced courses in corporate law and business associations, commercial law, and transactional practice, as well as the law school's course in risk management and compliance. In addition, he is the Director of the Compliance Certificate Program that the law school offers to compliance professionals in the business community. Andy received his bachelor's degree from Yale in 1971 and his law degree from Vanderbilt University Law School in 1974.Ross Hickey is the Assistant Provost for Research Integrity at the University of Southern Maine and the Director of MeRTEC (“MER-tech”), the Maine Regulatory Training and Ethics Center at USM. Ross has built a nationally-recognized research compliance office that serves not only USM, but institutions throughout the state of Maine. Ross is contacted on a regular basis to provide technical assistance to other institutions on regulatory compliance matters. Ross is a graduate of the University of Maine School of Law.

Local governments often require developers to bear the costs of new infrastructure, termed “exactions.” But Professors Rossi and Serkin from Vanderbilt University Law School proposed imposing “energy exactions” to address the energy impacts of new residential or commercial growth. In this episode, students talk to the professors to learn more about this novel idea.

In Episode 40, Kyonzte Toombs talks about her educational journey as well as why she is running for Nashville Metro Council. When I first read about Kyonzte, I was blown away by her degrees and all that she has been involved in around Nashville. She is a Vanderbilt University Law School graduate. She is a […]

In Episode 40, Kyonzte Toombs talks about her educational journey as well as why she is running for Nashville Metro Council. When I first read about Kyonzte, I was blown away by her degrees and all that she has been involved in around Nashville. She is a Vanderbilt University Law School graduate. She is a […]

Casey Fiesler is a social computing researcher who primarily studies governance in online communities, technology ethics, and fandom. She is a Senior Fellow in the Silicon Flatirons Institute for Law, Technology, and Entrepreneurship, an ATLAS fellow, and holds a courtesy appointment in Computer Science. Also a public scholar, she is a frequent commentator and speaker on topics of technology ethics and policy, as well as women in STEM (including consulting with Mattel on their computing-related Barbies). Her work is supported in part by a $3 million collaborative National Science Foundation grant focused on empirical studies of research ethics. Fiesler holds a PhD from Georgia Tech in Human-Centered Computing and a JD from Vanderbilt University Law School. Click here to learn more about Casey Fiesler

Lecture summary: this lecture analyzes the tensions that arise, both domestically and internationally, when governments use the national security paradigm to regulate international economic relations. Professor Timothy Meyer is an expert in public international law, with specialties in international trade and investment law and international energy governance. He is Professor of Law; FedEx Research Professor; Director, International Legal Studies Program of Vanderbilt University Law School.

In this episode, Jessica Clarke, Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School, discusses her article, "They, Them, and Theirs," which was published in the Harvard Law Review. Clarke begins by defining nonbinary gender identity and describing how nonbinary identity fits into modern civil rights doctrines. She details how nonbinary legal rights advocacy intersects with transgender and feminist legal arguments. She explains how a contextual, case-by-case approach can address many of the concerns regarding legal recognition of nonbinary identities, and goes over various regulatory schemes for nonbinary gender rights and their shortcomings. Clarke concludes by discussing a recent case involving a nonbinary intersex plaintiff and their lawsuit regarding gender markers on passports issued by the State Department, Zzyym v. Pompeo. Clarke is on Twitter at @clarkeja.This episode was hosted by Luce Nguyen, a student at Oberlin College and the co-founder of the Oberlin Policy Research Institute, an undergraduate public policy organization based at Oberlin College. Nguyen is on Twitter at @NguyenLuce. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On February 7, 2019, The Federalist Society hosted a panel discussing the role of the bar in selecting Iowa's judges.Tom Levis is the President of the Iowa State Bar Association, and serves as an elected member of the Judicial Election District 5C Judicial Nominating Commission. He is a shareholder at the Brick Gentry law firm in Des Moines and has been an active member and leader of the Polk County and Iowa State Bar Associations. Professor Brian Fitzpatrick is a national expert on judicial selection. Prior to joining the faculty of the Vanderbilt University Law School, he practiced at Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C., served as a Special Counsel for Supreme Court Nominations for Senator John Cornyn, and clerked for Justice Scalia at the U.S. Supreme Court.Featuring:Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolTom Levis, President, Iowa State Bar AssociationIntroduction: Ryan G. Koopmans, Iowa Lawyers Chapter

On February 7, 2019, The Federalist Society hosted a panel discussing the role of the bar in selecting Iowa's judges.Tom Levis is the President of the Iowa State Bar Association, and serves as an elected member of the Judicial Election District 5C Judicial Nominating Commission. He is a shareholder at the Brick Gentry law firm in Des Moines and has been an active member and leader of the Polk County and Iowa State Bar Associations. Professor Brian Fitzpatrick is a national expert on judicial selection. Prior to joining the faculty of the Vanderbilt University Law School, he practiced at Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C., served as a Special Counsel for Supreme Court Nominations for Senator John Cornyn, and clerked for Justice Scalia at the U.S. Supreme Court.Featuring:Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolTom Levis, President, Iowa State Bar AssociationIntroduction: Ryan G. Koopmans, Iowa Lawyers Chapter

The Geek In Review - Episode 18 is ready just in time for your Thanksgiving travel enjoyment. Don't forget to subscribe on iTunes or Google (or where ever you listen to your podcasts) so that you automatically get the latest episodes. Comments can be sent to @glambert or @gebauerm. Also, if you like our new theme music, check out Jerry David DeCicca's new album on Spotify, or iTunes,  https://jerrydaviddecicca.bandcamp.com/ Nicholas Alexiou, Director of LL.M and Alumni Advising at Vanderbilt University Law School joins us for an in-depth discussion of what law schools are teaching students in the three years they have them. In an environment where students only care about things which are on the final, or on the bar exam, should professional development programs be required or affect GPA's? While 1Ls and 2Ls get lots of attention from the professional development course, 3Ls are left to their own devices. Greg thinks there is room for improvement with 3Ls professional development from the law schools, law firms, and vendors.  Marlene points out an MIT answer to "What is AI?" Sometimes a complicated concept can be explained on a napkin with a flowchart. This explanation is so simple, even Marlene's Mom can understand it. Now, if MIT would come up with a flowchart to explain to Greg's Mom what it is he actually does with a law degree and a masters degree in Library Science. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612404/is-this-ai-we-drew-you-a-flowchart-to-work-it-out/ Emily Feltren, Director of Government Relations at the American Association of Law Libraries, breaks down the post-election results and the upcoming lame duck and new Congressional sessions. It's never dull in DC, and Emily confirms that the action continues through the transition.

Suzanna Sherry, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, discusses President Trump's assertion that he can end birthright citizenship in America with an executive order, a claim that is likely to meet stiff resistance in the courts. Plus, Greg Stohr, Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter, discusses a class action lawsuit against Google, which could make it harder for companies to settle class action lawsuits in the future. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Suzanna Sherry, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, discusses President Trump's assertion that he can end birthright citizenship in America with an executive order, a claim that is likely to meet stiff resistance in the courts. Plus, Greg Stohr, Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter, discusses a class action lawsuit against Google, which could make it harder for companies to settle class action lawsuits in the future. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso. 

  Sean Perryman: How to Promote Diversity & Inclusion in Tech (Ep. 157) How do the internet sector's efforts to improve diversity and inclusion in tech align with its broader policy agenda? Sean Perryman joined us to discuss.   Bio   Sean Perryman (https://www.linkedin.com/in/seanperryman/) is the Director of Diversity and Inclusion Policy and Counsel at the Internet Association. He is responsible for leading IA’s advocacy efforts around diversity, inclusion, and workforce-related policies at the local, state, and federal level. Prior to joining IA, Sean served as Counsel on the House Oversight Committee, Democratic staff where he advised on technology policy including AI, cybersecurity, and privacy issues. Before working on the Oversight Committee, Sean practiced civil litigation both in Texas and D.C. Sean is passionate about issues of equity and inclusion. In his spare time he serves as Education Chair for the Fairfax County NAACP. He also regularly writes about issues related to race and advocates for a more equitable society. Sean earned his B.A. from City University of New York- Baruch College. He received his J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School. A Brooklyn, New York native, he now resides in Fairfax, Virginia with his wife and daughter. Resources Internet Association Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America by Ibram X. Kendi News Roundup DOJ indicts 7 Russian intelligence officers for conspiracy The Department of Justice indicted 7 Russian intelligence officers on Thursday on  charges that they conspired to conduct malicious cyberattacks against the U.S., Canada, and Europe. Morgan Chalfant reports in the Hill that on that same day, the UK and the Netherlands announced that they had thwarted a Russian-led cyberattack against The Hague’s global chemical weapons watchdog. The indicted officials allegedly work for Russian military intelligence GRU. FBI special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 GRU officials earlier this year for their alleged role in hacking the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Google+ bug exposes 500,000 users to potential data breach Google announced that as many as 500,000 of its users may have had their personal data exposed from a breach in its unpopular social media platform, Google Plus. The company announced that it discovered the bug back in March but that there is no evidence that anyone exploited the bug. The company also announced that it will be shuttering Google Plus by August of next year. Facebook executive stokes internal conflict at Facebook for supporting Kavanaugh Joel Kaplan – Facebook’s vice president for global public policy is under internal fire at Facebook for supporting Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. Kaplan sat directly behind Kavanaugh at the hearing, then threw a party for him to celebrate his confirmation, which reports say Kavanaugh and his wife attended. Kaplan and his wife hosted the party despite apologizing, in a note to Facebook’s staff, in which Kaplan said he recognizes that this moment is a painful one. Kaplan, however, as a private supporter and personal friend of Kavanaugh’s, did not break any company rules, according to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Victim’s Fitbit data leads to arrest of 90-year-old murder suspect A Fitbit has led to the arrest of a 90-year-old San Jose man for allegedly murdering his 67-year-old stepdaughter after dropping off a homemade pizza and biscotti, according to police. The police tied the suspect to the victim’s heart rate which, according to her Fitbit device, surged and then rapidly declined while the suspect was still in the house. This was corroborated by surveillance footage, also synced up to internet time, that allegedly shows that his car was still parked outside, thus placing him in the house, when the victim expired. Amazon announces $15/hour minimum wage but cuts bonuses Amazon has announced a $15 minimum wage for all of its 250,000 employees, engendering the support of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Amazon also announced that it will begin lobbying Congress to raise the national minimum wage. Target’s minimum hourly wage stands at $12 while Walmart’s stands at $11. Ranking Member Pallone questions tech CEOS about Russian influence on Kavanaugh hearing House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone sent several questions to the CEOs of Alphabet, Facebook, and Twitter to determine the extent to which Russian trolls impacted debate on the Kavanaugh hearing in ways that resembled Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election. U.S. officials believe that Russians have continued their hacking operations against the U.S. Pallone noted that one Facebook Group that was vocal about supporting Kavanaugh, also advocated for boycotting Nike and Colin Kaepernick. Ali Breland reports in the Hill. Trump administration relaxes restrictions on driverless trucks Finally, the Trump administration has decided to relax restrictions on driverless trucks—shifting the onus for safety away from the federal government to companies who develop driverless technologies. But transportation Secretary Elain Chao says that the administration continues to be concerned about the effect that driverless vehicles will have on the workforce.  

My guest is Arjun Sethi. In his new book American Hate: Survivors Speak Out (https://www.amazon.com/American-Hate-Survivors-Speak-Out/dp/1620973715), he chronicles the stories of individuals affected by hate. In a series of powerful, unfiltered testimonials, survivors tell their stories in their own words and describe how the bigoted rhetoric and policies of the Trump administration have intensified bullying, discrimination, and even violence toward them and their communities. Arjun Singh Sethi is a community activist, civil rights lawyer, writer, and law professor based in Washington, DC. He works closely with Muslim, Arab, South Asian, and Sikh communities and advocates for racial justice, equity, and social change at both the local and the national levels. His writing has appeared in CNN Opinion, The Guardian, Politico magazine, USA Today, and the Washington Post, and he is featured regularly on national radio and television. He holds faculty appointments at Georgetown University Law Center and Vanderbilt University Law School, and presently co-chairs the American Bar Association’s National Committee on Homeland Security, Terrorism, and Treatment of Enemy Combatants. Special Guest: Arjun Singh Sethi.

Hello and welcome to The Rob Burgess Show. I am, of course, your host, Rob Burgess. On this our, 118th episode, our guest is Arjun Singh Sethi. Arjun Singh Sethi is a community activist, civil rights lawyer, writer, and law professor based in Washington, DC. He works closely with Muslim, Arab, South Asian, and Sikh communities and advocates for racial justice, equity, and social change at the local and national levels. His writing has appeared in CNN Opinion, The Guardian, Politico Magazine, USA Today, and The Washington Post, and he is featured regularly on national radio and television. He holds faculty appointments at Georgetown University Law Center and Vanderbilt University Law School, and presently co-chairs the American Bar Association's National Committee on Homeland Security, Terrorism, and Treatment of Enemy Combatants. He lives in Washington, D.C. His new book, "American Hate: Survivors Speak Out," will be published Aug. 7. Join The Rob Burgess Show mailing list! Go to tinyletter.com/therobburgessshow and type in your email address. Then, respond to the automatic message. I have a Patreon account, which can be found at www.patreon.com/robburgessshowpatreon. I hope you'll consider supporting in any amount. Also please make sure to comment, follow, like, subscribe, share, rate and review everywhere the podcast is available, including iTunes, YouTube, SoundCloud, Stitcher, Google Play Music, Facebook, Twitter, Internet Archive, TuneIn and RSS. The official website for the podcast is www.therobburgessshow.com. You can find more about me by visiting my website, www.thisburgess.com. If you have something to say, record a voice memo on your smartphone and send it to therobburgessshow@gmail.com. Include “voice memo” in the subject line of the email.

With the announcement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement we just had to stop and ask: If we were making "America From Scratch" today, would we elect our Supreme Court Justices? Host Toussaint Morrison is joined by Suzanna Sherry, Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School, Jacob Hillesheim, Rewire journalist and educator and producer Josef Lorenzo to talk nominations and term limits.

Caitlin "Cat" Moon is Director of Innovation Design for the Program in Law and Innovation (PoLI) at the Vanderbilt University Law School and an entrepreneur, creating Ledger.Law, a consultancy from blockchain related advice to regulation, policy, and legal structure.  Professor Moon also is a co-organizer of the Music City Legal Hackathon, sponsored by PoLI and part of the global Legal Hackers community, which brings together legal professionals, technologists, designers and other professionals to create technology solutions serving access to justice and legal services. Lawyers on Fire spoke with Cat at design.legal, Europe’s coziest conference on legal design, tech and innovation.

A Mindset of Curiosity and Empathy Today’s guest is Cat Moon a practicing lawyer, educator and business leader with more than 20 years of experience in human-centered design, agile project management, strategic communication, and the practice of law. Human-centered design is a process, a set of tools, a mindset of curiosity and empathy.  It’s putting you in the shoes of the client; asking excellent questions and listening intently before offering solutions. Human-centered design is reorienting how you work and delivery service by putting the client in the center. Along with human-centered design, Cat and her colleagues at Vanderbilt University Law School are teaching and practicing collaborative skills with cognitively diverse teams. Cognitively diverse teams are both efficient and effective in solving today’s business problems, serving client more broadly and with stronger conclusions than non-diverse teams. Reflecting on her own experience as a practicing lawyer, Cat’s advice to others includes going above and beyond for clients and seeing feedback as affirming and valuable.   She also encourages embracing ambiguity, asking questions and gaining insight before presenting a solution. Cat Moon is the Director of Innovation Design, Program in Law and Innovation at Vanderbilt University Law School; where she is also an adjunct professor.  Cat is the Chief Operating Officer, Chief Design Officer and Co-founder at Legal Alignment – a company focused on creating alignment in legal workflow through legal process management training and global certification.

Immigration law is a mystery. Unless you’re an immigrant seeking relief under the law, or you’re an immigration law attorney, it’s an unknown. Then, earlier this year, Karla McKanders, a professor of immigration law at Vanderbilt Law School sent us an email. Her law students were producing their final reports on immigration and refugee law as audio stories, and would Life of the Law be interested in listening to, and possibly publishing their work as part of our New Voices series? Absolutely. Tony Gannon, our senior producer and I met with the class for a conference call workshop but they were well on their way to building their stories. Today, Life of the Law presents three of the stories produced by the students in Professor McKanders' immigration law class at Vanderbilt University Law School. A note - they were not asked to approach the project as journalists, but as law students, so some of their stories include their perspectives on immigration and refugee law. Many refugees leave their home country because of a well-founded fear they will be persecuted if they remain. As Joshua Minchin reports, how “well-founded fear” is defined and interpreted can make a profound difference for individuals seeking refuge in the United States. Our first story is Well Founded Fearby Joshua Minchin. So if a refugee appears in a US Immigration court with a claim of well founded fear, will they receive a fair neutral hearing by the court, or do judges bring their own bias to the bench in asylum hearings? Our second story is Wrong Judge, at the Wrong Time by Simina Grecu. Our final story… is from Rachael Pikulski. The US places an important role in helping refugees throughout the world by providing funding to the United Nations. But this year, the Trump Administration cut funding to the UN agency that provides services to refugees. Rachael Pikulski took a look at the impact of these cuts on one group of refugees, Palestinians. Production Credits: This episode of Life of the Law was produced by Joshua Minchin, Simina Grecu and Rachael Pikulski, students in Professor Karla McKanders' Immigration Law Class at Vanderbilt Law School. It was edited by Life of the Law’s Senior Producer, Tony Gannon and Associate Producer, Andrea Hendrickson, who also composed the music. Additional music by Alex Blank. Our Social Media Editor is Rachael Cain. We are a non-profit project of the Tides Center and we’re part of the Panoply Network of Podcasts from Slate. You can also find Life of the Law on PRX, Public Radio Exchange. © Copyright 2018 Life of the Law. All rights reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on State Of Cannabis we are joined by Perry N. Salzhauer, J.D. LL.M. & Bradley Blommer, J.D. of Green Light Law Group Perry is a corporate and environmental attorney who brings over a decade of experience providing strategic and compliance guidance and legal advice to public and private entities. Perry received his J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, TN, and an LL.M. in Environmental and Natural Resources Law from Lewis & Clark Law School here in Portland, OR. He began his legal career in 2002 with the Corporate Securities and Transactions group at Sidley Austin LLP in Washington D.C. and first moved to Oregon in 2005. He has since served as both outside and in-house counsel to a variety of companies, investors, and government agencies throughout the United States, and has already helped launch several marijuana industry companies and projects. As an attorney, advisor, and manager, Perry specializes in streamlining operational, compliance, and management processes to create efficiencies which increase productivity and revenue. In addition to his experience and expertise in all aspects of marijuana-related matters, Perry’s years of experience providing guidance to clients with respect to business processes, SEC, and environmental compliance, makes him uniquely qualified in the emerging cannabis space where navigating compliance with new regulatory requirements, many of which remain to be implemented, looms large as a barrier to entry and ultimate success. Brad Blommer is a litigation and real estate attorney with over 17 years experience. He began his legal career as judicial law clerk to a trial court judge and practiced in Washington D.C. and Maryland for seven years, which included numerous bench and jury trials and appellate arguments in the D.C. Court of Appeals and in the Circuit Court of Appeals (DC Circuit) before now Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John G. Roberts, Jr. Brad fell in love with Portland on a trip with friends and moved to Oregon in 2005. With significant experience in all areas of trial practice, real estate transactions and disputes, foreclosure law, and creditor’s rights, along with a detailed understanding of the current marijuana laws, Brad provides legal advice and counseling from a diverse perspective. Additionally, having founded and run a real estate investment company in Oregon, Brad has significant real world business experience to better serve his clients.

On March 19, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Sveen v. Melin, a case involving the relationship between Minnesota’s revocation-upon-divorce statute and the U.S. Constitution’s “Contracts clause,” which declares that no state may pass a law “impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”In 2002, Minnesota amended its probate code to incorporate life insurance beneficiary designations into its revocation-upon-divorce statute. Mark Sveen purchased a life insurance policy in 1997, months before marrying Kaye Melin, who Sveen designated as the primary beneficiary on the policy. His two adult children, Ashley and Antone Sveen, were listed as contingent beneficiaries. Melin and Sveen divorced in 2007, but Sveen never removed Melin as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Both Melin and Sveen’s adult children sought to claim the insurance proceeds. In light of Minnesota’s extension of the revocation-upon-divorce statute to life insurance policies, Sveen’s insurance company sought clarification in federal district court regarding whether Melin should still be considered the primary beneficiary. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Sveens, applying the revocation-upon-divorce statute retroactively to remove Melin as a beneficiary. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit reversed that judgment, however, reasoning that retroactive application of the statute in these circumstances would violate the Contracts clause. The Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to consider that core issue: whether the application of a revocation-upon-divorce statute to a contract signed before the statute’s enactment violates the contracts clause. To discuss the case, we have Prof. James Ely, Professor of Law Emeritus at Vanderbilt University Law School. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On March 19, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Sveen v. Melin, a case involving the relationship between Minnesota’s revocation-upon-divorce statute and the U.S. Constitution’s “Contracts clause,” which declares that no state may pass a law “impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”In 2002, Minnesota amended its probate code to incorporate life insurance beneficiary designations into its revocation-upon-divorce statute. Mark Sveen purchased a life insurance policy in 1997, months before marrying Kaye Melin, who Sveen designated as the primary beneficiary on the policy. His two adult children, Ashley and Antone Sveen, were listed as contingent beneficiaries. Melin and Sveen divorced in 2007, but Sveen never removed Melin as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Both Melin and Sveen’s adult children sought to claim the insurance proceeds. In light of Minnesota’s extension of the revocation-upon-divorce statute to life insurance policies, Sveen’s insurance company sought clarification in federal district court regarding whether Melin should still be considered the primary beneficiary. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Sveens, applying the revocation-upon-divorce statute retroactively to remove Melin as a beneficiary. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit reversed that judgment, however, reasoning that retroactive application of the statute in these circumstances would violate the Contracts clause. The Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to consider that core issue: whether the application of a revocation-upon-divorce statute to a contract signed before the statute’s enactment violates the contracts clause. To discuss the case, we have Prof. James Ely, Professor of Law Emeritus at Vanderbilt University Law School. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, and Carl Tobias, a professor at University of Richmond School of Law, discuss a decision by Senator Al Franken to withhold his blue slip for David Stras, who President Trump has nominated to fill a gap on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They speak with June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, and Carl Tobias, a professor at University of Richmond School of Law, discuss a decision by Senator Al Franken to withhold his blue slip for David Stras, who President Trump has nominated to fill a gap on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They speak with June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

A panel of evidence law experts discusses UVA Law Professor Barbara Spellman’s book, “The Psychology of Evidence Law,” which explores the connections between psychology and the rules of evidence law. The panel consists of Ann Murphy of Gonzaga University School of Law, Edward Cheng of Vanderbilt University Law School, and Kimberly Kessler Ferzan and Greg Mitchell, both of UVA Law. UVA Law Dean Risa Goluboff introduces the panel, and UVA Law Professor Frederick Schauer acts as moderator. (University of Virginia School of Law, Feb. 28, 2017)

In recent years, the Supreme Court appears to have taken a greater interest in "business" issues. Does this reflect a change in the Court's orientation, or is it the natural outcome of the appellate process? Is the Court "pro-business"? If so, in what ways do the Court's decisions support business interests and what does that mean for the law and the American public? Business and the Roberts Court provides the first critical analysis of the Court's business-related jurisprudence. Author and Editor Jonathan Adler joined us along with two chapter authors, Brian Fitzpatrick and Richard Lazarus, to discuss their contributions to this important volume. -- Featuring: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick , Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School; and Prof. Richard J. Lazarus, Howard and Katherine Aibel Professor of Law, Harvard Law School.

For months, Syrian and Russian warplanes have bombed Aleppo, killing and wounding residents. Russian officials have referred to the siege as “diplomacy backed by force.” The US Ambassador to the UN has called it “barbarism.” The US and France have called for a War Crimes investigation, but any meaningful action at the UN has been blocked by Russia’s place on the Security Council. In this Teleforum, two distinguished professors with extensive practical experience examined the status of the siege under the Law of Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law. -- Featuring: Prof. Laurie R. Blank, Clinical Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law and Michael A. Newton, Professor of the Practice of Law Director, Vanderbilt-in-Venice Program, Vanderbilt University Law School.

On June 27th, the Supreme Court wrapped up its term with some standout cases. Immigration, affirmative action, abortion clinic restrictions, guns and domestic violence, and public corruption are only a few cases that have ended an eventful and, at some times, controversial Supreme Court term. These cases alongside a vacant seat on the Supreme Court have made this term an interesting one to say the least. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, hosts J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi join Tony Mauro, Supreme Court correspondent for the National Law Journal and Suzanna Sherry, the Herman O. Loewenstein professor of law at Vanderbilt University Law School, as they discuss the Supreme Court's end of term. They will take a look back at the standout cases, the last cases before the term ended, the impact of the loss of Justice Scalia and one less justice, and look forward to the start of next term in October. Tony Mauro is the Supreme Court correspondent for the National Law Journal. Tony has covered the Supreme Court for over 30 years. During his tenure, Tony has also written about the First Amendment and food, reviewing restaurants for various publications. He lives in Alexandria, Virginia, with his wife, Kathy Cullinan, and his daughter, Emily Mauro, lives nearby in Arlington. Suzanna Sherry is the Herman O. Loewenstein professor of law at Vanderbilt University Law School. Her writing focuses primarily on constitutional law and procedures and doctrines of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. She is the author of seven books, including four textbooks, and more than 75 articles. She received her A.B. from Middlebury College and her J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

What regulatory approach best fosters commercial innovation? Traditionally, it had been thought that ex post, decentralized approaches that exploit private attorney generals like the common law were best, but many business interests today advocate ex ante, centralized, public sector approaches like federal statutes or federal rulemakings that preempt the common law. This panel will explore which attributes of regulation best serve innovation: ex ante or ex post? Decentralized or centralized? Public sector or private sector? -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School; Prof. Brian Galle, Georgetown University Law Center; Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; and Mr. Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University. Moderator: Hon. Rachel Brand, Chairman, Litigation Practice Group.

Rachel Gore Freed is Senior Program Leader for Rights at Risk with the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC). She is giving you a personal account of what is happening at the 3 Detention Centers in Texas at Dilley and Karnes;  and Berks, Pennsylvania. Rachel will share what you can do to help. Background: It’s not a crime to seek asylum in the United States. Yet, at least 1,500 refugee women, many of whom are mothers, are currently detained in jail-like conditions in Texas and Pennsylvania. Many of these women have passed reasonable fear interviews and have been denied parole. Although bonds are afforded to mothers whose fears of returning to their home countries are found to be “credible” by an asylum officer, neither ICE nor the immigration judges will grant bonds to families passing the “reasonable” fear process (an even higher standard of proof for people not eligible for credible fear interviews). The withholding of bond along with the ICE policy of denying parole to all positive reasonable fear applicants have resulted in excessively long detention of these families. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, at least 100 such families are currently being held in family detention facilities located in Karnes and Dilley, Texas, as well as Berks, Penn. On average, these children and their mothers are detained for nine months to one year, with several having already been detained for more than a year. Continuing to detain these women deeply conflicts with our U.S. values, including due process. One of these refugee women is 19 years old and the mother of a four-year-old. She and her child fled Honduras and are now being held inside Karnes County Residential Center. Under the stress of living in detention, she attempted suicide. She is not alone. At the Berks County facility, another young mother — distraught over being detained for 11 months and counting —attempted to end her life. This spring nearly 80 other women detained at the Karnes facility participated in a hunger strike in hopes of bringing attention to their plight. Human rights lawyers and advocates have reported that conditions inside these centers are similar to jail; they expose refugees to trauma, malnutrition, and depression. Standing up for these women and their families is a moral imperative. UUSC video about who they are: Bio: Rachel Gore Freed is a human rights lawyer with a wealth of domestic and international experience. As the Rights at Risk senior program leader, Freed spearheads, plans, and implements UUSC’s work responding to humanitarian crises and advancing the rights of people who are most overlooked or discriminated against in the midst of crises such as forced migration, large-scale conflicts, genocide, and natural disasters. Prior to joining UUSC, Freed litigated several environmental justice suits with the National Environmental Law Center. A passionate civil rights advocate, she previously represented low-income immigrants and detained asylum seekers pursuing relief from unjust deportation in New York City. She has also worked with the List Project on Iraqi refugee policy and served as cochair of the American Bar Association International Refugee Committee. Freed began her legal career clerking with the Charles Taylor prosecution team at the Special Court for Sierra Leone, where she focused on witness protection. In addition, she has worked with the Irish Center for Human Rights, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the American Society for International Law. Freed holds a bachelor’s degree with a focus in international development from the George Washington Eliot School of International Affairs and a doctor of law degree from Vanderbilt University Law School. Favorite Quote: “To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places.

In The Invisible Line, Daniel Sharfstein follows three families, from the Revolutionary Era up to the Civil Rights movement, as they straddle the color line and change their racial identification from black to white. While previous stories of "passing" have focused on individuals' struggles to redefine themselves, Sharfstein's subjects managed to defy the legal definitions of race within their own communities. For members of the Gibson, Spencer, and Wall families, what mattered most was the ways that their neighbors treated them in spite of their racial differences.Daniel Sharfstein teaches at Vanderbilt University Law School, focusing on the legal history of race in the United States. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School.Recorded On: Wednesday, March 9, 2011