Podcast appearances and mentions of Warren Court

Featuring Aziz Rana on the making of the American project and its legitimation through popular worship of the US Constitution. This episode, the second in a three-part series, takes the story from World War I's hyper-nationalist, xenophobic First Red Scare, through the convulsions of the middle decades of the 20th century: the Communist Party USA, the New Deal, World War II, the civil rights movement, the Warren Court, and ultimately the Cold War, when American liberalism, anti-communism, and empire triumphed. Buy Iran in Revolt at Haymarketbooks.com Subscribe to Jacobin in print for $15/yr at bit.ly/digjacobin and Catalyst in print for $20/yr at bit.ly/digcatalyst Support The Dig at Patreon.com/TheDig

Featuring Aziz Rana on the making of the American project and its legitimation through popular worship of the US Constitution. This episode, the second in a three-part series, takes the story from World War I's hyper-nationalist, xenophobic First Red Scare, through the convulsions of the middle decades of the 20th century: the Communist Party USA, the New Deal, World War II, the civil rights movement, the Warren Court, and ultimately the Cold War, when American liberalism, anti-communism, and empire triumphed. Buy Iran in Revolt at Haymarketbooks.com Register for the Socialism Conference at Socialismconference.org before April 25th for an early bird discount! Support The Dig at Patreon.com/TheDig

American history, Clay Risen reminds us, has an uncanny knack of repeating itself. In Red Scare, his important new book about blacklists, McCarthyism and the making of modern America, Risen suggests that Trump and MAGA have happened before. First as the tragedy of Joe McCarthy then as farcical Donald Trump? Or might today's latest chapter in the paranoid style of American history actually be its most consequential and thus tragic?Here are the 5 KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways in this conversation with Risen:* Historical Parallels to Today: Risen suggests that there are striking parallels between the McCarthy era and current American politics under Trump, with similar tactics being used to target perceived enemies and "others" within society. The infrastructure created during previous periods of paranoia (like the FBI and certain immigration laws) is being repurposed in the present day.* Bipartisan Nature of the Red Scare: While often associated with Republicans, the Red Scare had bipartisan elements. Risen explains that Democrats like Harry Truman implemented loyalty programs, and figures like JFK positioned themselves carefully regarding anti-communist sentiment. This challenges the notion that such movements are solely partisan.* Targeting Vulnerable Groups: Both historically and today, political movements often target the most vulnerable groups first. During the Red Scare, Risen explains that was suspected communists and homosexuals; today, transgender people face similar targeting as political pawns and scapegoats.* Impact Beyond the Obviously Political: Risen reminds us that the Red Scare affected ordinary Americans across many sectors - teachers, Hollywood professionals, government workers - whose lives were ruined based on rumors, associations, or past affiliations. This led to widespread conformity as people self-censored to avoid scrutiny.* The Role of Institutions as Backstops: Risen is cautiously optimistic about how America's current paranoid periods might end. He suggests that the judicial system (particularly the Supreme Court) represents the most effective backstop against MAGA excesses, much as the Warren Court eventually helped end McCarthy-era abuses of civil liberties.Clay Risen, a reporter and editor at The New York Times, is the author of Red Scare: Blacklists, McCarthyism, and the Making of Modern America. His other recent books include The Impossible Collection of Whiskey (October, 2020) and Single Malt: A Guide to the Whiskies of Scotland (October, 2018). He is also the author of the spirits bestseller American Whiskey, Bourbon & Rye: A Guide to the Nation's Favorite Spirit, now in its sixth printing with more than 100,000 copies sold. It is widely considered the bible on American whiskey and placed Risen among the leading authorities on the history, business, and diversity of U.S. spirits. Risen has served as a judge on multiple spirit award committees, including the prestigious Ultimate Spirits Challenge. In addition to Red Scare, Risen is the author of The Crowded Hour: Teddy Roosevelt, the Rough Riders and the Dawn of the American Century, a New York Times Notable Book of 2019 and a finalist for the Gilder-Lehrman Prize in Military History; A Nation on Fire: America in the Wake of the King Assassination; and The Bill of the Century: The Epic Battle for the Civil Rights Act. A graduate of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service and the University of Chicago, Risen grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, and now lives in Brooklyn, New York, with his wife and two children. Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to this probing, brand-new, fact filled episode of Light ‘Em Up.We are currently being actively downloaded in 119 countries, globally.  Please spread the word with a friend regarding our podcast! Remember, we are here for you and because of you!We tackle the topics that touch your lives!We hear so much talk about the topic of Qualified Immunity — but few really know what it is and what it consists of in much detail.  THIS episode will put to bed ALL of those questions.Bringing a §1983 Civil Rights lawsuit against any government entity is not an easy task to accomplish.Qualified immunity is a judicially crafted legal doctrine and concept created by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Pierson v Ray in 1967.The doctrine was created to protect government officials, particularly law enforcement officers, from frivolous lawsuits and financial liability when they acted in good faith in legally unclear situations.We discuss the requirement (as the law states) that there must be a constitutional violation that infringed upon the rights of a person that was “clearly established” at the time it was committed.Many legal scholars argue that qualified immunity has no legal basis and is not grounded in the text or history of the relevant statutes at 42 U.S. Section 1983.  Many argue that the doctrine signals a retreat from the protections afforded to Black victims of racial terror by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act).Several of our guests on Light ‘Em Up have run face first into the stone-cold, hard truths and effects of qualified immunity.—      As a case study we'll examine the fact pattern in a case called Betts v Brennan whereby an officer was sued for using his taser on a non-compliant motorist.—      We examine and amplify on the historic background of the concept of qualified immunity.—      Drilling down on the original intent, pro's/con's and purposes of the law.—      Search out how this doctrine, for lack of a better description, has become “twisted and perverted”, providing what for all intents and purposes is a never-ending “get out of jail free card” to members of law enforcement (and other governmental agents) — even when they violate the law.We share inconvenient truths how qualified immunity (as it has been regularly implemented):—      erodes justice and public trust—     blocks accountability—     sets an unreasonably high legal barrier—     serves to further injure those who have already been injured — as victims must identify a near-identical precedent, meaning they have to cite a similar case that a prior victim experienced to challenge misconduct, as we mentioned, an often “insurmountable legal hurdle”.As education is always a foundational pillar of Light ‘Em Up, we introduce you to the concept of Respondeat superior:  A legal doctrine and Latin term that literally means, “let the master respond”.It holds employers liable for the actions of their employees — which is also known as vicarious liability.And we empower you with six of the Supreme Court's landmark decisions that have further defined and carved out this judicial doctrine since its inception by the Warren Court.This episode is jam-packed with rock-solid research and information regarding the legal concept of qualified immunity. After today, after tuning in, you will speak with authority about the topic — forever setting you head and shoulders above and apart from everyone else — who speak without knowing.Tune in and be educated and empowered you with the facts, not fiction!Follow our sponsors:  Newsly & Feedspot.We want to hear from you!

What happens when a cornerstone of democracy begins to show cracks? On this episode of After America as we scrutinize the U.S. Supreme Court's transformation and its far-reaching impacts on American democracy. We trace key moments from Justice Antonin Scalia's death to the rapid confirmation of conservative justices under President Trump. This episode unpacks the historical roots of the judiciary, its intended role as an independent arbiter of justice, and the seismic shifts that have led to a 6-3 conservative supermajority.We confront the controversies marring the Supreme Court's image, from contentious nomination processes to ethical dilemmas involving Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. We also explore how these controversies are eroding public trust and threatening the judiciary's credibility.  Landmark cases like Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization underscore the judiciary's evolving influence on societal values and individual liberties, and alert us to the grave consequences of increasing partisan divides in judicial appointments.Is American democracy at risk? We discuss how the judiciary might bolster or dismantle democratic values amid these challenges. From the strategic delays in confirming justices to the potential chaos of a future Trump presidency, this episode offers a sobering look at the judiciary's pivotal role in safeguarding—or undermining—democratic principles. Guests: Dr. Sara Benesh, Dr. Tara Grove, Dr. David Faris, Dr. Tom Ginsburg, and Stephen Marche Credits:Infados - Kevin MacLeodDark Tales: Music by Rahul Bhardwaj from Pixabay-------------------------Follow Deep Dive:InstagramYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

Could Joe Biden sue a faithless delegate? Would Brown v. Board exist if a supermajority had opposed integration? Is the next generation of lawyers doomed? In a special live recording at the American Enterprise Institute, Sarah and David contemplate a series of worst-case hypotheticals and answer audience questions. Bonus: originalist David French (somewhat) defends the Warren Court. Agenda: —Bound, free, and faithless DNC delegates —How the 12th Amendment could cause a 13th-hour, three-way race for president —What the 25th Amendment might mean for Vice President Kamala Harris —The legitimacy of a counter-majoritarian Supreme Court —SCOTUS as a lagging indicator —The fairness problem of the “Stolen Seat” —Common-good constitutionalism, originalism, and the battle for the legal right —Expertise and the elites Show Notes: —Brown v. Board of Education —Plessy v. Ferguson —Advisory Opinions' “Chevron is Dead, Long Live Chevron” —The Dispatch's fact-check of Project 2025 —Gallup & Pew's SCOTUS polling —New York Times: “Donors to Pro-Biden Super PAC Are Said to Withhold Roughly $90 Million” —Bostock v. Clayton County —Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt —June Medical v. Russo —Buck v. Bell —The Atlantic: “How Liberal College Campuses Benefit Conservative Students” —Kamala Harris' viral “coconut tree” moment Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Get your brapanadas ready because we're bringing empanadas back, baby! Maybe with some colonial-era tea and Madeira.We rewind to Warren Court, Clinton School trivia, and Green Door Studio. We're looking forward to Inspired Minds, MayFest, HoliFest, Mychal Threets, SOMA Community Yoga for AAPI, Painters in the Park, All the Tea at Durand-Hedden House, Repair Cafe, Back to the 70s, Plotting Intrigue, and A Curious Hunger.Three Things with SOMA Action, South Mountain Conservancy, and Maplewoodstock.If you like this sort of thing, give us a rating and a review on the podcast platform of your choice. Also, to hear all the juicy bloopers and other extra content, become a Patreon.LINKSReproductive Justice CommitteeSouth Mountain Conservancy Free guided hikesMake the Right Call

“When someone lies to me . . . there's a reason they're lying. And for me, I think it's part of my ethical responsibility as a lawyer to expose someone.”In this episode of Voices of NCAJ, host Amber Nimocks interviews Alex Charns, a criminal defense attorney in Durham who has written a book about the FBI's secret tapes on the Supreme Court of the 1960s and his decades-long battles to access them. After being inspired by David Garrow's book on FBI tactics against Martin Luther King Jr., Charns has embarked on a career-spanning pursuit of uncovering hidden truths through FOIA requests and litigation against the FBI. His latest book, FBI Snitches, Blackmail, and Obscene Ethics at the Supreme Court, sheds light on his 13-year legal battle to release secret FBI files, revealing shocking revelations about unethical behavior and blackmail involving a Supreme Court justice.

This Day in Legal History: Earl Warren is BornThis day in legal history, March 19, 1891, Earl Warren was born in Los Angeles, California. Warren would go on to become one of the most influential Chief Justices in the history of the United States Supreme Court. He was appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 and served as Chief Justice until 1969.As a jurist, Warren is best known for the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which unanimously ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. His opinion in that case helped spark the civil rights movement and began the process of ending legalized racial discrimination in America.Under his leadership, the Warren Court also issued key rulings expanding civil liberties, criminal procedure rights, and the separation of church and state. Other famous cases included Gideon v. Wainwright, requiring legal representation for criminal defendants, and Miranda v. Arizona, mandating procedural safeguards for suspects interrogated while in police custody.As the head of the Warren Commission, Earl Warren played a pivotal role in investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which occurred on November 22, 1963. Under Warren's leadership, the commission conducted thorough inquiries and interviews, culminating in the 1964 Warren Report, which concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating the president. Warren's stewardship of the commission solidified his legacy in American history.Earl Warren's tenure coincided with turbulent social changes and he steered the Court in a liberal, egalitarian direction through a series of historic rulings protecting individual freedoms and equal rights. Warren passed away on July 9, 1974, but his impact on American law and society endures.The federal judiciary has introduced updated financial disclosure rules mandating justices and judges to report the value of free trips, a response partly spurred by public scrutiny over Justice Clarence Thomas' travels funded by a billionaire benefactor. This move, aimed at enhancing transparency, now classifies these travel-related gifts with their respective values, moving away from the previous categorization under "reimbursements." This change comes amid calls for ethics reform within the U.S. Supreme Court, highlighted by reports of Thomas' extravagant trips provided by real estate developer Harlan Crow. The revisions include specific guidance on reporting "transportation that substitutes for commercial transportation," which now cannot be exempted as "personal hospitality." Under the new rule, Thomas' previously listed travels as "reimbursements" will now need to be disclosed as gifts, reflecting an effort to align more closely with statutory requirements and ensuring comprehensive reporting.It is worth noting that rules such as any Supreme Court ethics guidelines, lacking enforcement mechanisms or clear consequences for violations, warrant significant skepticism. In the absence of accountability measures, the efficacy of these rules is undermined, leaving room for potential misconduct without repercussions. With impeachment as the sole remedy for addressing the actions of a rogue justice, the practicality of achieving such a recourse is exceedingly challenging. This deficiency in accountability and enforceability highlights the need for robust mechanisms to ensure judicial integrity and uphold public trust in the judiciary.Judiciary Adopts New Financial Disclosure Rules for Free TripsThe US Supreme Court has extended the temporary hold on a Texas law designed to allow the state to arrest and deport individuals entering the country illegally, without setting a definitive end date for the pause. This action underscores the ongoing legal battle between the Biden administration, which argues that the law encroaches on federal authority over immigration policy, and Texas, which claims it has the right to defend itself against illegal immigration under the Constitution.Supreme Court Extends Pause on Texas Migrant Deportation LawDraftKings Inc. has escalated its legal battle against a former executive, Michael Hermalyn, who is accused of stealing company secrets to benefit his new employer, Fanatics Inc. The allegations include the unauthorized downloading of client files and confidential marketing strategies, as well as attempts to recruit DraftKings employees, some of which reportedly occurred while Hermalyn was staying at the home of Fanatics' CEO. Despite a temporary restraining order, DraftKings is seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce Hermalyn's non-compete agreement for a full year, preventing him from working at Fanatics. The court has so far denied Hermalyn's request to loosen the restraining order, allowing him to work for Fanatics only if he refrains from using DraftKings' confidential information. DraftKings claims to have uncovered extensive evidence of Hermalyn's misconduct, including a "deletion spree" of documents and misleading statements during his deposition. Meanwhile, Hermalyn has countered with a lawsuit in California seeking to nullify his non-compete agreement, arguing that the matter should be settled there rather than in Massachusetts, where DraftKings is headquartered. The case, which has sparked significant legal and competitive controversy, is set for a hearing on April 2.DraftKings Alleges Ex-VP Stole Secrets While Houseguest of RivalThe U.S. Department of Justice, under the leadership of Ismail Ramsey, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, is intensifying its efforts to combat fraud among artificial intelligence (AI) and tech start-ups, particularly those that deceive investors in the lead-up to their initial public offerings (IPOs). Situated in the heart of Silicon Valley, Ramsey's office is taking a stance against the "fake it til you make it" mentality that has marred the tech industry, evidenced by notorious cases like Theranos and uBiome Inc., which misled investors about their technological capabilities and business prospects. Ramsey highlighted the challenges in policing private companies, which face less scrutiny compared to public entities and require investors to be more vigilant in their due diligence. With the burgeoning investor interest in AI technologies, Ramsey emphasizes that this sector is especially prone to fraudulent claims, setting the stage for a targeted crackdown. The appointment of Jina Choi, with her extensive background in corporate crime at the SEC and a law firm, to lead a team focusing on such frauds, underscores the seriousness of the Justice Department's initiative. Additionally, Ramsey has established a dedicated unit for cybersecurity and intellectual property theft, demonstrating a broadened approach to safeguarding the integrity of the U.S. financial and technological landscape.US DOJ to target pre-IPO artificial intelligence frauds, top attorney says | ReutersWashington, Colorado, and Minnesota are the latest states to announce their adoption of the Next Gen bar exam, with scheduled transitions in July 2026, July 2027, and July 2028, respectively. This move aligns them with 14 other jurisdictions preparing for a significant shift in the way future lawyers are assessed. The Next Gen bar exam represents the first substantial revision of the bar exam in a quarter-century, initiated by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) in 2021, with a goal to more accurately measure candidates' practical legal skills rather than their rote memorization capacity. Unlike the traditional bar exam, which is segmented into multiple-choice questions, essay exams, and performance tests, the Next Gen exam consolidates these elements into a unified, computer-based test, shortening the duration from 12 to nine hours. This overhaul aims to reflect a more realistic and applicable approach to evaluating readiness for legal practice. However, several key states, including California, New York, Florida, and Texas, have not yet disclosed when they will transition to this new format. The change indicates a significant shift in legal education and licensure, highlighting a move towards prioritizing functional legal knowledge and skills.Revamped bar exam gains traction as three more states sign on | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Discover the seismic shifts within the highest court of the United States as legal scholar and former Clerk to Supreme Court Justice William Douglas,  Lucas Powe, and Shawn unravel the conservative turn of the Roberts Court. We dissect the landmark decisions that have not only redefined the legal landscape but have also sparked debates about the very legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Our discussion ventures into the ethical complexities faced by Justices Alito and Thomas, and how recent rulings may influence crucial elections looming on the horizon.Join us for a profound analysis of the Supreme Court's ideological journey, where we juxtapose the court's modern conservative ethos with the liberal undertones of the Warren Court era. We scrutinize the court's recent forays into Second Amendment rights, affirmative action, and the unsettling reluctance to adhere to precedent. Through our dialogue, we probe the philosophical underpinnings of originalism and deliberate on whether the court is swaying too far from its historical moorings, risking its own integrity.As we peer into the intricate dance between the Supreme Court and public opinion, we tackle the question of judicial reform, including the contentious debate on imposing term limits for justices. We seek to illuminate the court's alignment with certain societal values and its consequential role in shaping our democracy. It's a pivotal moment for judicial independence and impartiality, and we emphasize the importance of maintaining these principles to uphold the democratic promise of justice and fairness, particularly as we stand at the cusp of critical electoral decisions.Recommended: The Warren Court and American Politics - Lucas Powe-------------------------Follow Deep Dive:InstagramPost.newsYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com **Artwork: Dovi Design **Music: Joystock

Filmmaker Dawn Porter's documentaries run the spectrum of the political world and process, including Bobby Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign, the legacy of Congressman John Lewis, the Tulsa massacre, Civil War spies, abortion and more. Her latest project, the mini-series “Deadlocked,” is a history of the modern Supreme Court, from the Warren Court to the present, and how politics have changed the court, and how the court has changed politics.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Filmmaker Dawn Porter's documentaries run the spectrum of the political world and process, including Bobby Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign, the legacy of Congressman John Lewis, the Tulsa massacre, Civil War spies, abortion and more. Her latest project, the mini-series “Deadlocked,” is a history of the modern Supreme Court, from the Warren Court to the present, and how politics have changed the court, and how the court has changed politics.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by award-winning documentarian and lawyer Dawn Porter for a conversation about two projects shining a light on the law and how we can shape it: Porter's new Showtime documentary series Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court, and the paperback release of Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America.  Together they trace the political shifts and cultural earthquakes from the Warren Court to the Burger, Rehnquist and now Roberts Court, and they discuss how the courts current crisis of legitimacy cannot be cured with a moratorium on criticism. In both Lady Justice and Deadlocked a truth surfaces: when it comes to the rule of law, there is no “plan b”, so the challenge to Dawn's audience, Dahlia's readers and Amicus listeners is the same: to use the law as a tool for progress and justice.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is now out in paperback. It is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. https://books.supportingcast.fm/lady-justice Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by award-winning documentarian and lawyer Dawn Porter for a conversation about two projects shining a light on the law and how we can shape it: Porter's new Showtime documentary series Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court, and the paperback release of Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America.  Together they trace the political shifts and cultural earthquakes from the Warren Court to the Burger, Rehnquist and now Roberts Court, and they discuss how the courts current crisis of legitimacy cannot be cured with a moratorium on criticism. In both Lady Justice and Deadlocked a truth surfaces: when it comes to the rule of law, there is no “plan b”, so the challenge to Dawn's audience, Dahlia's readers and Amicus listeners is the same: to use the law as a tool for progress and justice.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Dahlia's book  Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is now out in paperback. It is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. https://books.supportingcast.fm/lady-justice Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by award-winning documentarian and lawyer Dawn Porter for a conversation about two projects shining a light on the law and how we can shape it: Porter's new Showtime documentary series Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court, and the paperback release of Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America.  Together they trace the political shifts and cultural earthquakes from the Warren Court to the Burger, Rehnquist and now Roberts Court, and they discuss how the courts current crisis of legitimacy cannot be cured with a moratorium on criticism. In both Lady Justice and Deadlocked a truth surfaces: when it comes to the rule of law, there is no “plan b”, so the challenge to Dawn's audience, Dahlia's readers and Amicus listeners is the same: to use the law as a tool for progress and justice.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is now out in paperback. It is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. https://books.supportingcast.fm/lady-justice Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Before the 1950s, the Supreme Court was best known as an institution that adhered to the status quo. It often sought to protect the rights of property owners and businessmen, shying away from cases that took direct aim at controversial social or political issues.But when a popular former California governor became Chief Justice in 1953, all that changed. Earl Warren's court would take on some of the hottest issues of the times, ruling on cases where individual rights would take precedent, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Baker v. Carr, and where First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights would be strengthened, such as Engle v. Vitale and Miranda v. Arizona.For sixteen years, the Warren Court would radically reshape the legal and social landscape of America.Listen ad free with Wondery+. Join Wondery+ for exclusives, binges, early access, and ad free listening. Available in the Wondery App. https://wondery.app.link/historytellersSupport us by supporting our sponsors!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In his new book, The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America, Michael Waldman identifies three times the U.S. Supreme Court caused a public backlash against itself—and warns the court may be well along the path to a fourth massive public backlash. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Waldman walks the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles through the prior episodes of backlash, starting with the fallout from the Dred Scott decision in 1857. He explains the “switch in time that saved nine,” when in 1937 the court narrowly avoided President Franklin D. Roosevelt's plan to change the makeup of the court by unexpectedly upholding the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. And he posits that much of the contentious legal wrangling of the past half-century can be seen as a backlash to the Warren Court's decisions like Brown v. Board of Education. Waldman, a constitutional lawyer who is the president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law and a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, says that over the period of three days in June 2022, “the Supreme Court changed America.” With decisions overturning Roe v. Wade, loosening gun restrictions and reducing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, Waldman argues that the court's six conservative justices signaled a sea change for the court. He warns that the change from a 5-4 ideological balance to what he terms a “supermajority” of conservative justices will mean a more turbulent relationship between the public and the Supreme Court. In this episode, Waldman shares his thoughts on the position of Chief Justice Roberts in the new balance, his advice on how the public can respond when the Supreme Court acts in opposition to the public will, and a counter-intuitive theory on why having more former politicians on the Supreme Court might have made the court less politically divisive.

In his new book, The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America, Michael Waldman identifies three times the U.S. Supreme Court caused a public backlash against itself—and warns the court may be well along the path to a fourth massive public backlash. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Waldman walks the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles through the prior episodes of backlash, starting with the fallout from the Dred Scott decision in 1857. He explains the “switch in time that saved nine,” when in 1937 the court narrowly avoided President Franklin D. Roosevelt's plan to change the makeup of the court by unexpectedly upholding the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. And he posits that much of the contentious legal wrangling of the past half-century can be seen as a backlash to the Warren Court's decisions like Brown v. Board of Education. Waldman, a constitutional lawyer who is the president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law and a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, says that over the period of three days in June 2022, “the Supreme Court changed America.” With decisions overturning Roe v. Wade, loosening gun restrictions and reducing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, Waldman argues that the court's six conservative justices signaled a sea change for the court. He warns that the change from a 5-4 ideological balance to what he terms a “supermajority” of conservative justices will mean a more turbulent relationship between the public and the Supreme Court. In this episode, Waldman shares his thoughts on the position of Chief Justice Roberts in the new balance, his advice on how the public can respond when the Supreme Court acts in opposition to the public will, and a counter-intuitive theory on why having more former politicians on the Supreme Court might have made the court less politically divisive.

In his new book, The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America, Michael Waldman identifies three times the U.S. Supreme Court caused a public backlash against itself—and warns the court may be well along the path to a fourth massive public backlash. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Waldman walks the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles through the prior episodes of backlash, starting with the fallout from the Dred Scott decision in 1857. He explains the “switch in time that saved nine,” when in 1937 the court narrowly avoided President Franklin D. Roosevelt's plan to change the makeup of the court by unexpectedly upholding the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. And he posits that much of the contentious legal wrangling of the past half-century can be seen as a backlash to the Warren Court's decisions like Brown v. Board of Education. Waldman, a constitutional lawyer who is the president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law and a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, says that over the period of three days in June 2022, “the Supreme Court changed America.” With decisions overturning Roe v. Wade, loosening gun restrictions and reducing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, Waldman argues that the court's six conservative justices signaled a sea change for the court. He warns that the change from a 5-4 ideological balance to what he terms a “supermajority” of conservative justices will mean a more turbulent relationship between the public and the Supreme Court. In this episode, Waldman shares his thoughts on the position of Chief Justice Roberts in the new balance, his advice on how the public can respond when the Supreme Court acts in opposition to the public will, and a counter-intuitive theory on why having more former politicians on the Supreme Court might have made the court less politically divisive.

The most critical part of a homeschool curriculum must be. . .what?  History.  But how do you know you are teaching the RIGHT history?  We go through some of the basics, drawing in Andrew Jackson, Samuel Worcester, Sheridan, Hitler, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Eisenhower and the Warren Court. Be sure to hear the stories, but be sure you are aware of the absolutely indispensable elements of an essential, comprehensive, right-worldview-based history curriculum. This program includes: 1. The World View in 5 Minutes with Adam McManus (Victoria Jackson opposes homosexual behavior; Somalia's drought; Bible Society poll: 86% think America in moral decline) 2. Generations with Kevin Swanson

The most critical part of a homeschool curriculum must be. . .what----History.--But how do you know you are teaching the RIGHT history----We go through some of the basics, drawing in Andrew Jackson, Samuel Worcester, Sheridan, Hitler, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Eisenhower and the Warren Court. Be sure to hear the stories, but be sure you are aware of the absolutely indispensable elements of an essential, comprehensive, right-worldview-based history curriculum.--This program includes---1. The World View in 5 Minutes with Adam McManus -Victoria Jackson opposes homosexual behavior- Somalia's drought- Bible Society poll- 86- think America in moral decline---2. Generations with Kevin Swanson

Anti-miscegenation laws. In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws were passed by most states to prohibit interracial marriage, and in some cases also prohibit interracial sexual relations. Some such laws predate the establishment of the United States, some dating to the later 17th or early 18th century, a century or more after the complete racialization of slavery. Nine states never enacted such laws; 25 states had repealed their laws by 1967, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that such laws were unconstitutional (via the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868) in the remaining 16 states. The term miscegenation was first used in 1863, during the American Civil War, by journalists to discredit the abolitionist movement by stirring up debate over the prospect of interracial marriage after the abolition of slavery. Typically defining mixed-race marriages or sexual relations as a felony, these laws also prohibited the issuance of marriage licenses and the solemnization of weddings between mixed-race couples and prohibited the officiation of such ceremonies. Sometimes, the individuals attempting to marry would not be held guilty of miscegenation itself, but felony charges of adultery or fornication would be brought against them instead. All anti-miscegenation laws banned marriage between whites and non-white groups, primarily black people, but often also Native Americans and Asian Americans. In many states, anti-miscegenation laws also criminalized cohabitation and sex between whites and non-whites. In addition, Oklahoma in 1908 banned marriage "between a person of African descent" and "any person not of African descent"; Louisiana in 1920 banned marriage between Native Americans and African Americans (and from 1920 to 1942, concubinage as well); and Maryland in 1935 banned marriages between black people and Filipinos. While anti-miscegenation laws are often regarded as a Southern phenomenon, most states of the Western United States and the Great Plains also enacted them. Although anti-miscegenation amendments were proposed in the United States Congress in 1871, 1912–1913, and 1928, a nationwide law against mixed-race marriages was never enacted. Prior to the California Supreme Court's ruling in Perez v Sharp (1948), no court in the United States had ever struck down a ban on interracial marriage. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court (the Warren Court) unanimously ruled in Loving v Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. After Loving, the remaining state anti-miscegenation laws were repealed; the last state to repeal its laws against interracial marriage was Alabama in 2000. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

This Christmas Eve, I'm giving my readers the gift of a very special podcast. Marc Andreessen and Rob Henderson join me to talk about The Shield, which ran on FX from 2002 to 2008. We debate whether we are supposed to root for the Strike Team or not, with Rob saying no, and Marc and me strongly disagreeing. Building on our discussions on Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, Marc gives his Nietzschean interpretation of the show. To me, this was the most right-wing show I've ever seen. The lesson is basically that white cops who actually care about what happens on the streets are the only thing maintaining order, which they are able to do as long as they are not stopped by affirmative action, criminal defense lawyers, or the weakness and inertia of government. While the Strike Team does bad things, their actions are, for most of the series at least, directed towards protecting the innocent and ultimately the greater good. Sam Bankman-Fried would approve.Marc discusses the show in the context of the history of policing in Los Angeles, and posits that places go through cycles in which crime increases, and there is then a demand for someone to keep order. I point out that some civil liberties that many Americans think are a deep part of our heritage were actually invented by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, including criminals having the right to a court-appointed attorney and being read their Miranda rights. I see The Shield as critiquing the pro-criminal jurisprudence of the Warren Court, and making clear its practical consequences. A lesson seems to be that the reason crime hasn't been even worse is that certain cops are willing to disobey the letter and spirit of the law, at great personal risk, for the sake of protecting their community.People have said the show is based on the Ramparts scandal. Having read the New Yorker piece that Marc suggests, I think that there's no more than a superficial resemblance. Nonetheless, the article is worth reading, as it shows the interconnectedness between crime, the civil rights machines, and affirmative action in policing. The most corrupt cops were tied to gang bangers, and when one of them was killed by a fellow police officer in what is widely acknowledged to have been a justified shooting, the association of black officers demanded “an official police funeral with full honors, a ceremony reserved for policemen killed in the line of duty.” Civil rights law demanded more black cops, quotas were set, and when those hired turned out to be corrupt, that fact became the basis for civil rights lawsuits filed on behalf of criminals! There's no part of the criminal justice system that isn't touched by the cancer of identity politics. Part of our discussion centers around Mara. I found her arc particularly touching. We of course talk about the ending, which hit me harder than any show I can remember watching. As we all acknowledge, the Strike Team is far from morally blameless. But I still think that, as tragic as their story was or how many mistakes they made, they lived by a code, and were ultimately the defenders of a divided and ungrateful community. Listen here or watch our conversation on YouTube.LinksMe and Marc Andreessen discuss Better Call Saul and Breaking BadMe, Marc Andreessen, and Chris Nicholson on the series finale of Better Call SaulRandall Sullivan, Labyrinth: Corruption & Vice in the L.A.P.D.Peter Boyer, “Bad Cops.” (The New Yorker, May 13, 2001)LAPD Blues (Frontline Documentary)James Elroy, LA Confidential.James Elroy, White Jazz.Tim Golden, “The Cienfuegos Affair: Inside the Case that Upended the Drug War in Mexico.” (The New York Times, December 8, 2022)Rob Henderson, “Good Cop and Bad Cop Left for the Day. I'm a Different Kind of Cop.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit richardhanania.substack.com/subscribe

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It may appear to be a rogue court today but the truth is the Supreme Court has long led the fight against democracy. Our guest today historian Steve Fraser points out that the liberal Warren Court was the real aberration. The post The Tyranny of the Supreme Court is Nothing New, It’s Tradition appeared first on Keeping Democracy Alive.

From shifts in the law to public reaction to its rulings, the US Supreme Court's just-concluded term appears to be a blockbuster like no other. Since the Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s, “I don't think we've seen any term that comes close to the one we just saw,” said A.E. Dick Howard, a constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia and a former clerk to Justice Hugo Black. During the term that wrapped up June 30, the court overturned the 1973 landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade and broadened the reach of the Second Amendment for the first time in over a decade. The justices also continued to establish a robust right to religious freedom at the expense of other priorities, and set up severe limits on the so-called administrative state. Howard Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to put in prospective how the term fits with the court's more than 230-year history. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

In the past few weeks alone, the Supreme Court has delivered a firestorm of conservative legal victories. States now have far less leeway to restrict gun permits. The right to abortion is no longer constitutionally protected. The Environmental Protection Agency has been kneecapped in its ability to regulate carbon emissions, and by extension, all executive branch agencies will see their power significantly diminished.But to focus only on this particular Supreme Court term is to miss the bigger picture: In the past few decades, conservative court majorities have dragged this country's laws to the right on almost every issue imaginable. Shelby County v. Holder gutted the Voting Rights Act and opened the door for states to pass restrictive voting laws. Rucho v. Common Cause limited the court's ability to curb partisan gerrymandering. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission unleashed a torrent of campaign spending. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 weakened unions. A whole slew of cases, including some decided on the shadow docket during the Covid-19 pandemic, undercut federal agencies' power to help govern in an era of congressional gridlock. And that's only a partial list.Kate Shaw is a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, a co-host of the legal podcast Strict Scrutiny and a former clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens. In this episode, she walks me through the most significant Supreme Court cases over the past 20 years, from the court's decision to hand George W. Bush the presidency in 2000, to the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act, to the assertion of an individual's right to bear arms.Along the way, we discuss the right's decades-long effort to transform American law from the bench, how Republican-appointed judges have consistently entrenched Republican political power, the interpretive bankruptcy of constitutional originalism, how the Warren Court radicalized the conservative legal movement, what might happen to decisions like Obergefell v. Hodges now that the court majority seems to be so comfortable throwing out precedent, what cases to watch in the Roberts Court's next term, and more.Mentioned:“After Citizens United: How Outside Spending Shapes American Democracy” by Nour Abdul-Razzak, Carlo Prato and Stephane Wolton“The Most Important Study in the Abortion Debate” by Annie LowreyBook recommendations:The Turnaway Study by Diana Greene FosterTorn Apart by Dorothy RobertsWho Decides? by Jeffrey S. Sutton51 Imperfect Solutions by Jeffrey S. SuttonThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin and Rogé Karma; fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Rollin Hu, Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair; original music by Isaac Jones; mixing by Isaac Jones; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Special thanks to Kristin Lin, Kristina Samulewski, David A. Kaplan, Ian Millhiser, Aziz Rana and Kate Redburn.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Alabama that would have opened the justices up to revisiting a landmark 1964 decision that established libel law for journalists across the country.That said, Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying that the standard for libel needs a judicial revisit by the nation's highest legal body. Justice Neil Gorsuch had previously sought such a relook. What could this possibly mean for radio and television newsrooms, and any on-air personality, when it comes to what is said on the air?RBR+TVBR Editor-in-Chief Adam R Jacobson turned to Davis Wright Tremaine Partner Robert Corn-Revere, who defended CBS Corporation against the FCC in the infamous Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction" case, for his expert insight on the matter.What would the implications on U.S. broadcast media be if The New York Times v. Sullivan, a 9-0 opinion of the Warren Court, were to be struck down? We learn more in this InFOCUS Podcast, presented by dot.FM.

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

Voting rights in the United States, specifically the enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of different groups, has been a moral and political issue throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is governed by the United States Constitution and by federal and state laws. Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older); the constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights during 1787 thru 1870, except that if a state permitted a person to vote for the "most numerous branch" of its state legislature, it was required to permit that person to vote in elections for members of the United States House of Representatives. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction; in addition, states and lower level jurisdictions establish election systems, such as at-large or single member district elections for county councils or school boards. Beyond qualifications for suffrage, rules and regulations concerning voting (such as the poll tax) have been contested since the advent of Jim Crow laws and related provisions that indirectly disenfranchised racial minorities. A historic turning point was the 1964 Supreme Court case Reynolds v Sims that ruled both houses of all state legislatures had to be based on electoral districts that were approximately equal in population size, under the "one man, one vote" principle. The Warren Court's decisions on two previous landmark cases—Baker v Carr (1962) and Wesberry v Sanders (1964)—also played a fundamental role in establishing the nationwide "one man, one vote" electoral system. Since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Twenty-fourth Amendment, and related laws, voting rights have been legally considered an issue related to election systems. In 1972, the Burger Court ruled that state legislatures had to redistrict every ten years based on census results; at that point, many had not redistricted for decades, often leading to a rural bias. In cases of county or municipal elections, at-large voting has been repeatedly challenged when found to dilute the voting power of significant minorities in violation of the Voting Rights Act. In the early 20th century, numerous cities established small commission forms of government in the belief that "better government" could result from the suppression of ward politics. Commissioners were elected by the majority of voters, excluding candidates who could not afford large campaigns or who appealed to a minority. Generally the solution to such violations has been to adopt single-member districts (SMDs), but alternative election systems, such as limited voting or cumulative voting, have also been used since the late 20th century to correct for dilution of voting power and enable minorities to elect candidates of their choice. The District of Columbia and five major territories of the United States have one non-voting member each (in the United States House of Representatives) and no representation in the United States Senate. People in the U.S. territories cannot vote for president of the United States. People in the District of Columbia can vote for the president because of the Twenty-third Amendment.

French postcards were as close as one could get to Playboy in the 19th century. And apparently, they were ubiquitous in America, particularly during the Civil War. And according to our guest, Professor Brett Gary, that's a good starting point to talk about the history of censorship in America. Anthony Comstock served in the Civil War and was appalled by the volume of pornography enjoyed by Union soldiers. After the war, he manifested his dedication to upholding Christian morality by becoming an anti-vice activist to root out obscene literature. To be sure, many were committed to this cause. But it was Comstock who had the power to impose his righteousness on others because of his positions as the U.S. Postal Inspector and secretary of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. Later, the federal and many states' mini Comstock laws were named after him. With these laws, the vice squad raided bookstores, threatened publishers, and removed books from libraries. And surprisingly, these laws are still on the books, even if they are rarely enforced. But as time wore on, the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly during the Warren Court, restricted the scope of the Comstock laws. So in our time, while there is no censorship of adult literature, school literature continues to be subject to local scrutiny and banning. The latest high-profile such censorship was in Tennessee, where "Maus", a Pulitzer Prize-winning book about the Holocaust was banned. Professor Gary takes us through the history of censorship, including the pre-Civil War fear of "race suicide", all the way to the story of "Maus." He teaches at NYU's Dept. of Media, Culture, and Communication, and his recent book is titled Dirty Works, Obscenity on Trial in America's First Sexual Revolution. Enjoy this episode. Adel Host of ThePeel.news podcast Who are Ukrainians? Who are Kazakhs? History of Wars in Ukraine. Podcast Series: post-USSR SUPPORT: please click here and join our other supporters in the news peeler community. Thank you.

Drs. David Johnson (University of Texas) and Patrick Loehrer (Indiana University) host the first of two Oncology, Etc. episodes featuring Mr. Paul Goldberg, book author, investigative reporter, and Editor and Publisher of The Cancer Letter. In part one, Mr. Goldberg reflects on his two main interests − human rights and cancer, and his early career as a journalist and novelist. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org.   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pat Loehrer: Hi I'm Pat Loehrer, I'm the director of the Center for Global Oncology and Health Equity here at Indiana University. Dr. David Johnson: Hello, my name is David Johnson. I'm at UT Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. And we've got a great guest today and we're excited about the interview. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Yeah, it's very timely too, I think it's terrific. Before we go on to that, are there any recent books that you've read that you want to recommend? Dr. David Johnson: Yeah, actually, I do. It's somewhat related to our topic today. I just finished a book entitled, Presumed Guilty by Erwin Chemerinsky, who's the Dean of the Law School at the University of California, Berkeley. It's actually recommended to me by a lawyer friend. I think most of our audience knows the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments to the Constitution are the ones that provide protection for people accused of crimes. And I think most of us are familiar with the Warren Court in the 50s and 60s, which seemed to be a very, quote-unquote liberal court that provided many of the protections that you see on TV shows, police TV shows de including the Miranda protections, but as Chemerinsky points out in his book, that really is a historical aberration, that the Supreme Court from its founding really right through today is then on the opposite side of the fence in terms of protection to the accused can many landmark rulings over the last several years, including Terry versus Ohio and City of Los Angeles vs. Ryan, have actually provided protection and sanction stop in frisk activities, limited suits against police departments to institute reform, and even provided some benefit for the use of so-called lethal chokeholds. Smaller than I think, in light of what's happened over the last several months, really provided some insight, to me at least, about how the Supreme Court looks at the protection of the accused. I thought it was a very interesting book to read. And Chemerinsky does a great job of explaining these landmark cases in a way that simpleton like myself can understand them. So, I recommend it to you. I think you'd enjoy it. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Yeah, there's a book called “Just Mercy” by Bryan Stevenson. I'm not sure if you've ever had a chance to read that. It is an outstanding read. They made a movie out of it but if you get a chance to read the book, it's really terrific. Again, it talks a lot about the inequities in terms of how our court systems have prosecuted people of color for minor crimes compared to people that are in the majority here. But I think both of those would be great reads. Dr. David Johnson: Yeah, I haven't read it, but I will. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Yeah, it's terrific. Go for it. Going ahead in getting started, it's our great pleasure to have Mr. Paul Goldberg join us today. Anyone in oncology knows him. He is the editor of the Cancer Letter. Interestingly, he was born in Moscow and emigrated here to the United States at the age of 14, where he went to Virginia. He got his undergraduate degree at Duke in economics. And shortly thereafter, he worked in a newspaper in Reston, Virginia, where he met his future wife. I think from there, they went to the Wichita Eagle in Kansas. His wife was actually the daughter of the founder of what was to become the Cancer Letter, Jerry Boyd. He rose to associate editor and finally editor in 1994, and publisher and editor about a decade ago. The Cancer Letter is the go-to newspaper for us in oncology. Over 200 institutions subscribe. There's not a cancer center director in the country that does not look forward every week. One is to see if it's in there, you hope it isn't. And then if it is, you hope that there are really some platitudes in there about how wonderful you are, and then you can go ahead and read the rest of the article. The New York Times once said that everybody who's anybody in the cancer field reads this newsletter. He's won a number of awards, including the Washington DC professional chapter of the Society of Professional Dermatologists and some Gerald Loeb awards. His investigative work has uncovered some extraordinary events, including the Duke scandal with genomics, the ImClone scandal, as well as some of the workings of SIPRAD and MD Anderson, and I think he is really a flashlight that looks in the dark corners of our world, but also is there also to cheer on some of the accomplishments in oncology, and he knows Brawley and have written a book together, How We Do Harm. They're also doing the history of oncology together. He's a novelist. He's a nonfiction writer, and he's an extraordinary individual. And I think we're really looking forward to spending a few minutes with you here, Paul, thank you for joining us. Paul Goldberg: Thank you for inviting me. This is really a pleasure to spend some time with friends. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Well, by the time this gets aired, hopefully, the crisis in Ukraine will be over. But just last week, the Russians invaded Ukraine, and I think it's very timely to hear more about this and the fact that you grew up in Moscow and Russia. Tell us a little bit about your early life, your upbringing, your family background, and what prompted your family to immigrate here to the United States? Paul Goldberg: Well, it suddenly became possible and it was something that my father wanted to do. So, we just sort of ran as soon as we could, and certainly, I had kind of a fascinating time that I've been chewing on for many years as a novelist. In fact, they've just turned it into a novel, which will be published not this coming summer, but the following summer, it's called The Dissident. It's about the Soviet human rights movement and it's set in 1976. By then I was here, actually. But it's kind of like material that found me and really weirdly, it's also why I'm in oncology, where I'm covering oncology. My material kind of found me when I was in college, my drinking friend's mother, Ludmila Alexeiava was one of the founders of the Moscow Helsinki group. Interestingly, also, my first book was about the Moscow Helsinki watch group, which is really the beginning of human rights monitoring, which is really a staple, let's say the beginning of the NGOs. It's a staple of world order to rely on people within the country that it's being written about covering themselves in a way. It's kind of like free social media. And then, of course, enhanced greatly by social media. That was my beginning, but what was also interesting is that being a writer, and I really wanted to be a novelist, I did not want to then write nonfiction, but the material was so good that I had to jump in. Then I also had to, like, temporarily at least, make a living doing something else. So, my former father-in-law, my dad at the time, my father-in-law, now my late former father-in-law, terrific guy, Jerry Boyd, just hired me to do some work for him. I started some stuff and he used to brag that he's the only guy who's ever made money off son-in-law. Dr. David Johnson: But Paul, I'd be really interested to know, where did your interest in cancer begin? Was it with the Cancer Letter or had there been some interest prior to that? Paul Goldberg: Well, when I was working for the Wichita Eagle, I kind of got interested, I always gravitated towards stories about things like insurance, for example, the value of life, anything that had to do with these sorts of very complicated philosophical questions. That was kind of the beginning of my interest. That's why I didn't say, oh, no, this is too wonky. I don't want to have anything to do with this. Also, when people realize, it's always interesting, there's a fair amount of that in oncology. So, I was trying to find that, and just the complexity and the characters. You'll run into characters in oncology that you kind of wish to run into because you can have half an hour-long conversations or two-hour-long conversations or three-hour-long conversations with a lot of folks without really getting off-topic. I mean, I get a lot of criticism from the kids and my staff telling me that I'm nonlinear in my thinking, but that's linear in this field. It's also once you get into questions like ethics, that's really the fundamentals of oncology, and that's also the fundamentals of my other interest, which is human rights. It's also the artistic potential of this field is incredible. It just kind of grew on me but basically, it all began as a kind of a way to make up for unevenness in cash flow from writing books. And then it just became so great. If you want, I can tell you what the actual events were that made me just say, this is my field. Dr. David Johnson: Yeah, I'd love to hear that, tell us. Paul Goldberg: Two early ones. One of them was the beginning of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. I was initially taking a nap at the Senate hearing. I was editing a manuscript that was around 1992. I was editing a manuscript that got a little bit boring for me to just sort of listen to most things and I just fell asleep. And then I heard Fran Visco's voice booming through and I had no idea who Fran Visco was, nobody had any idea who Fran Visco was. He was giving her “Men in Suits” speech, which is like the beginning of the patient's movement in breast cancer. I kind of woke up and I pushed the button on my tape recorder and I got it. It was just unbelievably cool. I said, okay, so conversations that they had in the kitchens, wherever, there are these people who are talking about setting up a public movement, because there was never a public movement really of patients in oncology. For the most part, it just felt a little bit boring. I started working around the corners of oncology around 1985-86, really, 5 or 6 years later, I was writing other books. And I was bored a little bit because there were a bunch of white guys making decisions behind closed doors. They stopped smoking a few years before, but there were still white guys behind closed doors. Suddenly, this was something completely different. This was a public movement. And I could recognize the public movement because I'd seen them, I'd written about them, I did a story about them. So, there was that. Then came up about that very same time, really roughly the same time came the NSABP scandal. The Cancer Letter was writing fairly short stories. Now, it has been around since 1973. So, there's just this incredibly rigorous device for monitoring the history of oncology, you can just crack the thing. But it was different because Jerry didn't write 5000-word stories. Sometimes he did but mostly he didn't. But I can't really express myself briefly, I kind of have to go, and so, I started realizing that I could just return to this story over and over and over till I understood it, until everybody else got, so because of drilling, probably I must have written 40 stories on NSABP, maybe more. I don't know, over the years, maybe I'd written, but they just sort of said to me, hey, this is a field that's now politicized in a way that kind of sustains journalism. Controversy is unbelievably cool with this because here's a group of patients who are saying, we don't really care about NIH funding, in this case, but we care about just funding for breast cancer, and we want to do it our way. Let's do it through DOD. That was an amazing story to cover. Then there's the story of Bernie Fisher, who was like the great man of oncology, getting kind of pulled through the wringer on this thing, and it was awesome. Then another thing started happening. I started going to the meetings, mostly I loved ODAC. I always loved ODAC and I still love ODAC. I haven't missed an ODAC for maybe 40 years or something. And the same goes of course, for NCAB.  Basically, here is a discussion as a spectator sport. Oh, wow! I kind of got passionate about this whole thing. Like, covering ODAC like Dave Johnson's ODAC was hilarious. It was a comedy show. Basically, Dave was doing some really cool stuff. Really good material, not really quotable because the jokes were a little loud. Schilsky was hilarious in the ODAC. Raghavan was really funny on ODAC. And then there was Sledge. It was also very, very funny.  So, there was this sort of a discussion of this very complicated stuff that I just started quoting. I think I must have quoted Dave's joke. I think you learned from your grandfather, a box turtle on top of a fencepost didn't get there by accident.  Dr. David Johnson: It's correct.  Paul Goldberg: Yeah, it became an obsession to just follow the characters.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: But by the way, Paul, we did interview Rick Pazdur a short time ago, and Rick did not say that Dave was funny. I just want to let you know. There was no comment about that at all. So, there's just another side to this story.  Paul Goldberg: Well, the funniest bit was when Derek Raghavan once asked, we need a translator here for southern English, why does it need a box turtle on a fence and it gets there by accident? I don't think Dave explained that that time, but I have to look at my story because I would just get into these digressions of this. I think that was also where Rich Schilsky invented the term, toxic placebo.  Dr. David Johnson: Yes, we had a study, we had to review that showed, frankly, that the placebo was actually better in some ways than the actual alleged, like the drug but with a lot of side effects.  So, Paul, you've been in the midst of a lot of really interesting stories, some would say controversial ones. ImClone, Pat mentioned earlier, the Duke scandal, where do you get your information? Without divulging.  Paul Goldberg: Well, some of them I can't really divulge. But some of them I can. The beauty of the internet now is that people can come up with an email address and send me stuff and I can actually communicate with them, and I don't even have to protect my source because I have no idea who my source is.  There was one of these stories you've mentioned, I'm not going to say which one where I could just sort of dial in the question. Like, I could just email this person whose nickname could be Mickey Mouse. I mean, I think that was Mickey Mouse. So, I can just send the question to Mickey Mouse, what happened at XYZ? I'd like to see a picture of XYZ, and then Mickey Mouse would send me something.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: This is like all the president's men?  Paul Goldberg: It's a lot like that. It's much easier because you don't have to count back or whatever and hang up, although I've done that it's kind of funny. Yeah, sometimes things show up anonymously.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: Well, that concludes part one of our intriguing interview with the cancer letter Editor Paul Goldberg. Stay tuned for part two of this conversation, where we'll learn more about the literary works of Mr. Goldberg, who's developed these works outside of the Cancer Letter.  We'll see and hear about his incredibly important insight into the Russian Ukrainian conflict and much more. Thank you to all our listeners for tuning into Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO education podcast where we will talk just about anything and everything. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to see on the show, please email us at education@asco.org.    Thank you for listening to the ASCO education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes. Please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the comprehensive education center at education that asco.org.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO the mention of any product service organization activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. 

Welcome Back to IAN WANTS TO LEARN w/ Patrick and Ian Ever wonder what, exactly, our freedoms are? Are we truly the freest country in the world? Freedom of speech, right!? We Fight for that all around the world! You wanna say FUCK, say SHIT! Cause you got Freedom! Of. Speech! But Without consequence? Can we really say whatever we want and be protected? Carry guns or not be punished cruelly or unfairly? Ship porn from state to state or holler our support for hate organizations? What IS freedom and how free are we as Americans? You wanna know? Well give a listen! We'll get around to answering all that in a vague, roundabout, chit-chatty sort of way.  It'll be fun.  Come LEARN something 00:01- A... sad(?) intro to the show ------------------- 01:02- What do you want to Learn about Today? 02:45- Graffiti helps us all with a little exposition 06:30- Time to Learn about FREEDOM 07:15- Germany 09:15- Comstock Act 10:39- U.S. Recognized Free Speech Restrictions. and limitations 11:57- "Dear God"- What a flick! 13:10- Back to Comstock 13:36- Tariff act (1922) 13:52- Espionage Act (1917) 15:20- The Warren Court ('53-'69) Changes things 15:32- Brandenburg v. Ohio 17:05- Freedom of Religion 17:47- Your Freedoms are not Absolute 18:29- You CAN flip off a cop 20:20- "Don't make shit personal with a cop..."  22:10- Patrick Pull-over anecdote 25:17- Alex Jones is liable 28:04- Conservative Constitutional Approach      28:27- 'Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech..." 31:25- 2nd Amendment      21:56- D.C. v. Heller 34:29- National Firearms Act 35:50- Patrick is probably on 'A List' now 36:30- 8th Amendment 37:50- Largest Bail Ever Set (3 billion for The Jinx, Robert Durst) 38:33- Cruel and Unusual Punishment...?      39:17- Unusual examples 44:33-  Ian Learned and Goodbye We hope you ALSO learned something, or were at least Entertained! (and not too bothered by the audio) IG- IanWantsToLearn Twitter- IanWantsToLearn DISCLAIMER: We are not Experts. We do not claim to be. We use the internet, just like you! So between raising a child and working a Fulltime job Patrick does his best to teach Ian. So, you know, enjoy it, but maybe don't swear by it! Essentially: We Google so you don't have to. ENJOY!

On the 12th day of Christmas, the Warren Court gave to us:Loving Day on June 12th;11 December 1952 - final day of argument in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka;Nationalization of the first ten amendments;Nine concurring justices;(8-1 in Reynolds v. Sims);Seven birth control pills a week;Sixth Amendment right to counsel;Five Miranda rights;Fourth Amendment protections;Three expansions of due process;Brown v. Board of Education II;And one man, one vote.The full version of this premium episode is available exclusively to our Patreon supporters. To join, visit www.patreon.com/fivefourpod. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jack answers a listener question about the current direction of the Supreme Court by asking us to cast our minds back half a century to try imagining what it felt like to conservatives as the Warren Court got going with its liberal revolution. He also examines the impact of anti-intellectualism on our current political discourse.

Much has been said about police officers and departments who violate civil rights or enforce the law in discriminatory ways. But not as much attention has been paid to the ways in which the U.S. Supreme Court has enabled police excesses and insulated police from civil or criminal responsibility, says Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law and author of the new book Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Chemerinsky discusses why the Supreme Court did not address police powers during the first century of its existence; why the Warren Court was an aberration when it came to curtailing police powers; and what his experience was like when he investigated the Los Angeles Police Department's notorious Rampart Division in 2000. While Chemerinsky is not in favor of abolishing police, he also suggests several pathways for the American people to reform policing systems and buttress Fourth Amendment protections without relying on the Supreme Court to hold police accountable. He also shares how he was able to finish his book on an accelerated deadline while juggling his work as an ABA Journal columnist and a dean of a law school during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Much has been said about police officers and departments who violate civil rights or enforce the law in discriminatory ways. But not as much attention has been paid to the ways in which the U.S. Supreme Court has enabled police excesses and insulated police from civil or criminal responsibility, says Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law and author of the new book Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Chemerinsky discusses why the Supreme Court did not address police powers during the first century of its existence; why the Warren Court was an aberration when it came to curtailing police powers; and what his experience was like when he investigated the Los Angeles Police Department's notorious Rampart Division in 2000. While Chemerinsky is not in favor of abolishing police, he also suggests several pathways for the American people to reform policing systems and buttress Fourth Amendment protections without relying on the Supreme Court to hold police accountable. He also shares how he was able to finish his book on an accelerated deadline while juggling his work as an ABA Journal columnist and a dean of a law school during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Much has been said about police officers and departments who violate civil rights or enforce the law in discriminatory ways. But not as much attention has been paid to the ways in which the U.S. Supreme Court has enabled police excesses and insulated police from civil or criminal responsibility, says Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law and author of the new book Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Chemerinsky discusses why the Supreme Court did not address police powers during the first century of its existence; why the Warren Court was an aberration when it came to curtailing police powers; and what his experience was like when he investigated the Los Angeles Police Department's notorious Rampart Division in 2000. While Chemerinsky is not in favor of abolishing police, he also suggests several pathways for the American people to reform policing systems and buttress Fourth Amendment protections without relying on the Supreme Court to hold police accountable. He also shares how he was able to finish his book on an accelerated deadline while juggling his work as an ABA Journal columnist and a dean of a law school during the COVID-19 pandemic.

U.C. Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky is one of the country's most respected constitutional scholars. In his new book Presumed Guilty, he says that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the perpetuation of racist policing by presuming that suspects, especially people of color, are guilty before being charged. Dean Chemerinsky argues that the fact that police are nine times more likely to kill Black men than other Americans is no accident but rather the result of an elaborate body of doctrines. He says the pro-defendant Warren Court was a only brief historical aberration and that this more liberal era ended with Nixon's presidency and the ascendance of conservative justices, whose rulings have permitted stops and frisks, limited suits to reform police departments, and even abetted the use of chokeholds. Come hear Dean Chemerinsky's thoughts on necessary steps to create a more robust court system that will enhance civil rights. SPEAKERS Erwin Chemerinsky Dean, University of California, Berkeley, Law School; Author, Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights In conversation with Brian Watt KQED News Anchor In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we are currently hosting all of our live programming via YouTube live stream. This program was recorded via video conference on August 30th, 2021 by the Commonwealth Club of California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

U.C. Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky is one of the country's most respected constitutional scholars. In his new book Presumed Guilty, he says that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the perpetuation of racist policing by presuming that suspects, especially people of color, are guilty before being charged. Dean Chemerinsky argues that the fact that police are nine times more likely to kill Black men than other Americans is no accident but rather the result of an elaborate body of doctrines. He says the pro-defendant Warren Court was a only brief historical aberration and that this more liberal era ended with Nixon's presidency and the ascendance of conservative justices, whose rulings have permitted stops and frisks, limited suits to reform police departments, and even abetted the use of chokeholds. Come hear Dean Chemerinsky's thoughts on necessary steps to create a more robust court system that will enhance civil rights. SPEAKERS Erwin Chemerinsky Dean, University of California, Berkeley, Law School; Author, Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights In conversation with Brian Watt KQED News Anchor In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we are currently hosting all of our live programming via YouTube live stream. This program was recorded via video conference on August 30th, 2021 by the Commonwealth Club of California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode of Now & Then, “Judging the Supreme Court,” Heather Cox Richardson and Joanne Freeman discuss the recently-concluded Supreme Court term, and they place the Roberts Court in the context of other consequential Supreme Courts throughout American history, from the Marshall Court of the early 19th century, to the Taney Court and its infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, to the progressive Warren Court of the mid 20th century, and finally to the modern era.  Join CAFE Insider to listen to “Backstage,” where Heather and Joanne chat each week about the anecdotes and ideas that formed the episode. And for a limited time, use the code HISTORY for 50% off the annual membership price. Head to www.cafe.com/history Thank you for listening! Join us each Tuesday for new episodes of Now & Then. To RSVP to Thursday's live taping, head to cafe.com/live. For references & supplemental materials, head to: https://cafe.com/now-and-then/judging-the-supreme-court/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Michael Knowles is the celebrated host of “The Michael Knowles Show” at the Daily Wire, “The Book Club” at PragerU, and “Verdict with Ted Cruz.” In 2017, Michael published the #1 national bestselling treatise Reasons to Vote for Democrats, which President Donald Trump hailed as “a great book for your reading enjoyment.” In late 2020, after an appearance guest-hosting “The Rush Limbaugh Program,” it was announced that Michael's daily podcast would be syndicated to terrestrial radio. Michael has appeared regularly on Fox News Channel and other major networks, and his writing has been featured on the Daily Wire, the American Mind, Fox News, and the Daily Caller. Michael is a graduate of Yale University and has lectured at colleges and universities around the country. Thanks to our sponsors! https://magbreakthrough.com/impossible http://betterhelp.com/impossible The Culture War is over, and the culture lost. His latest book is Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling MindsThe Left's assault on liberty, virtue, decency, the Republic of the Founders, and Western civilization has succeeded. You can no longer keep your social media account—or your job—and acknowledge truths such as: Washington, Jefferson, and Columbus were great men. Schools and libraries should not coach children in sexual deviance. Men don't have uteruses. How did we get to this point? Michael Knowles of The Daily Wire exposes and diagnosis the losing strategy we have fallen for and shows how we can change course—and start winning. In the groundbreaking Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds Knowles reveals: How the “free speech absolutists” gave away the store The First Amendment does not require a value-neutral public square How the Communists figured out that their revolution could never succeed as long as the common man was attached to his own culture Where political correctness came from How, comply or resist, political correctness is a win-win game for the bad guys Why taking our stand on “freedom of speech” helps put atheism, decadence, and nonsense on the same plane with faith, virtue, and reality The real question: Will we shut down drag queen story hour, or cancel Abraham Lincoln? For 170 years the First Amendment was compatible with prayer in public school How the atheists got the Warren Court to rule their way To this day, there's a First Amendment exception for obscenity. What exactly is the argument that perverts' teaching toddlers to twerk is not obscene? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode discussion topics Our right to vote is under siege by proposals across 43 out of 50 states in the Union (Washington Post, March 11, 2021). This is one of the rare cases DC is fortunate not to have a statehouse. We provide a May round-up on what's passed, below under the more info section. First, we review a "brief" timeline on the Hokey Pokey dance for who could vote when and where within the United States. Thank you to Wikipedia for the info. (Full list here, accessed Jun 4, 2021). 1789 The Constitution of the United States grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population).[1] However, some states allowed also Black males to vote, and New Jersey also included unmarried and widowed women, regardless of color. Since married women were not allowed to own property, they could not meet the property qualifications.[2] 1791 Vermont is admitted as a new state, giving the vote to men regardless of color or property ownership.[5] 1807 Voting rights are taken away from free black males and from all women in New Jersey.[2] 1870 The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents states from denying the right to vote on grounds of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era began soon after. Former Confederate states passed Jim Crow laws and amendments to effectively disfranchise African-American and poor white voters through poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses and other restrictions, applied in a discriminatory manner. During this period, the Supreme Court generally upheld state efforts to discriminate against racial minorities; only later in the 20th century were these laws ruled unconstitutional. Black males in the Northern states could vote, but the majority of African Americans lived in the South.[17][18] Women in Utah get the right to vote.[21] 1882 Chinese-Americans lose the right to vote and become citizens through the Chinese Exclusion Act.[11] 1883 Women in Washington Territory earn the right to vote.[24] 1887 Citizenship is granted to Native Americans who are willing to disassociate themselves from their tribe by the Dawes Act, making those males technically eligible to vote. Women in Washington lose the right to vote.[24] Women in Utah lose the right to vote under the Edmunds–Tucker Act.[25] Kansas women earn the right to vote in municipal elections.[20] Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, and South Dakota grant partial suffrage to women.[13] 1913 Direct election of Senators, established by the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, gave voters rather than state legislatures the right to elect senators.[31] White and African American women in the Territory of Alaska earn the right to vote.[32] Women in Illinois earn the right to vote in presidential elections.[25] 1914 Nevada and Montana women earn the right to vote.[20] 1917 Women in Arkansas earn the right to vote in primary elections.[20] Women in Rhode Island earn the right to vote in presidential elections.[25] Women in New York, Oklahoma, and South Dakota earn equal suffrage through their state constitutions.[25] 1918 Women in Texas earn the right to vote in primary elections.[33] 1920 Women are guaranteed the right to vote by the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In practice, the same restrictions that hindered the ability of non-white men to vote now also applied to non-white women. 1924 All Native Americans are granted citizenship and the right to vote through the Indian Citizenship Act, regardless of tribal affiliation. By this point, approximately two thirds of Native Americans were already citizens.[35][36] Notwithstanding, some western states continued to bar Native Americans from voting until 1948.[37] 1943 Chinese immigrants are given the right to citizenship and the right to vote by the Magnuson Act.[39] 1948 Arizona and New Mexico are among the last states to extend full voting rights to Native Americans, which had been opposed by some western states in contravention of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.[37][40] 1961 Residents of Washington, D.C. are granted the right to vote in U.S. Presidential Elections by the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution.[11] 1962-1964 A historic turning point arrived after the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren made a series of landmark decisions which helped establish the nationwide "one man, one vote" electoral system in the United States. In March 1962, the Warren Court ruled in Baker v. Carr (1962) that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question, thus enabling federal courts to hear redistricting cases.[45] In February 1964, the Warren Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) that districts in the United States House of Representatives must be approximately equal in population.[46] In June 1964, the Warren Court ruled in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) that each chamber of a bicameral state legislature must have electoral districts roughly equal in population.[47][48][49] 1964 Poll Tax payment prohibited from being used as a condition for voting in federal elections by the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[30] 1965 Protection of voter registration and voting for racial minorities, later applied to language minorities, is established by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[11] This has also been applied to correcting discriminatory election systems and districting. In Harman v. Forssenius the Supreme Court ruled that poll taxes or "equivalent or milder substitutes" cannot be imposed on voters.[30] 1966 Tax payment and wealth requirements for voting in state elections are prohibited by the Supreme Court in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections.[23] 1970 Alaska ends the use of literacy tests.[44] Native Americans who live on reservations in Colorado are first allowed to vote in the state.[50] 1971 Adults aged 18 through 21 are granted the right to vote by the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This was enacted in response to Vietnam War protests, which argued that soldiers who were old enough to fight for their country should be granted the right to vote.[31][51][52] 1973 Washington, D.C. local elections, such as Mayor and Councilmen, restored after a 100-year gap in Georgetown, and a 190-year gap in the wider city, ending Congress's policy of local election disfranchisement started in 1801 in this former portion of Maryland—see: D.C. Home rule. 1986 United States Military and Uniformed Services, Merchant Marine, other citizens overseas, living on bases in the United States, abroad, or aboard ship are granted the right to vote by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.[59] 2013 Supreme Court ruled in the 5–4 Shelby County v. Holder decision that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Section 4(b) stated that if states or local governments want to change their voting laws, they must appeal to the Attorney General.[62] Call to Action:  Email or call your Congressional Senator to voice your support for  HR1 - For the People Act of 2021 which passed the House and sits on the doorstep of the Senate. Now is a critical time. Also, it's worth mentioning that a more focused bill, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act seems to have enough support to pass the Senate, as of this moment anyway. Find out what it takes to vote in your county and get it taken care of, then vote in candidates who support everyone's access and right to vote. Your hosts: Michael V. Piscitelli and Raymond Wong Jr. More info According to Voting Laws Roundup: May 2021 by the Brennan Center for Justice, states have already enacted more than 20 laws this year that will make it harder for Americans to vote — and many legislatures are still in session. Between January 1 and May 14, 2021, at least 14 states enacted 22 new laws that restrict access to the vote. At least 61 bills with restrictive provisions are moving through 18 state legislatures. Just to illustrate the variety of voting conditions available to citizens across the thousands of counties among the 50 states, here's a chart.  :-) Please feel free to share your thoughts through our Contact Us page or on Facebook. Learn more and reach out Head to Citizens Prerogative for additional information and log in or sign up to leave a comment. Don't forget to join our free newsletter and get 10% off at our shop! Go the extra mile by supporting us through Patreon. Please contact us with any questions or suggestions. Special thanks Our ongoing supporters, thank you! Our sponsor CitizenDoGood.com. Graphic design by SergeShop.com. Intro music sampled from “Okay Class” by Ozzy Jock under creative commons license through freemusicarchive.org. Other music provided royalty-free through Fesliyan Studios Inc. 

Will is joined by UChicago Law Professor David Strauss to discuss Congress's power to enforce the Constitution, recognized by Katzenbach v. Morgan, and whether there's still any room today for the principles of the Warren Court.Audio clips are from Oyez.org

The 5th case added in the Nintendo DS rerelease, Rise From The Ashes, and overall concluding thoughts on Phoenix Wright. Also, balancing games using the player's time, and the Warren Court. Also, announcing our next episode: episode 100 of Old Game Plus! Please send us any questions or topics you'd like to hear about at: Twitter @ogpluscast oldgamepluscast@gmail.com

Voting rights in the United States, specifically the enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of different groups, has been a moral and political issue throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is governed by the United States Constitution and by federal and state laws. Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older); the constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights during 1787–1870, except that if a state permitted a person to vote for the "most numerous branch" of its state legislature, it was required to permit that person to vote in elections for members of the United States House of Representatives. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction; in addition, states and lower level jurisdictions establish election systems, such as at-large or single member district elections for county councils or school boards. Beyond qualifications for suffrage, rules and regulations concerning voting (such as the poll tax) have been contested since the advent of Jim Crow laws and related provisions that indirectly disenfranchised racial minorities. A historic turning point was the 1964 Supreme Court case Reynolds v Sims that ruled both houses of all state legislatures had to be based on electoral districts that were approximately equal in population size, under the "one man, one vote" principle. The Warren Court's decisions on two previous landmark cases—Baker v Carr (1962) and Wesberry v Sanders (1964)—also played a fundamental role in establishing the nationwide "one man, one vote" electoral system. Since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Twenty-fourth Amendment, and related laws, voting rights have been legally considered an issue related to election systems. In 1972, the Burger Court ruled that state legislatures had to redistrict every ten years based on census results; at that point, many had not redistricted for decades, often leading to a rural bias. In other cases, particularly for county or municipal elections, at-large voting has been repeatedly challenged when found to dilute the voting power of significant minorities in violation of the Voting Rights Act. In the early 20th century, numerous cities established small commission forms of government in the belief that "better government" could result from the suppression of ward politics. Commissioners were elected by the majority of voters, excluding candidates who could not afford large campaigns or who appealed to a minority. Generally the solution to such violations has been to adopt single-member districts (SMDs), but alternative election systems, such as limited voting or cumulative voting, have also been used since the late 20th century to correct for dilution of voting power and enable minorities to elect candidates of their choice. The District of Columbia and five major territories of the United States have one non-voting member each (in the United States House of Representatives) and no representation in the United States Senate. People in the U.S. territories cannot vote for president of the United States. People in the District of Columbia can vote for the president because of the Twenty-third Amendment. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

All it took was a NY Times op-ed article on the (misunderstood) legacy of Justice John Marshall Harlan’s famous dissent in the 1896 Plessy (“separate but equal”) case to set off a classic “Lucretia” rant: I find the NYT piece more damaging to the cause of equality before the law even than critical race theory.  I think [the author] perpetuates that subterfuge that makes it possible for milquetoast lefties to ignore the radicalism of the militant left. . .   In other words, Canellos pretending that any of the principled rationale from Harlan’s Plessy  dissent actually found its way into the Brown decision—or subsequent civil rights cases—is positively ludicrous.  Brown, as well as most everything up to and including the modern DIE industry, is a complete embrace of Plessy’s central rationale—that the only important consideration is the stigma caused by separateness. So naturally we decided to unpack the ambiguity (and that’s being charitable) of the Brown decision’s treatment of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Even though the Court decided correctly in striking down segregated schools, it did lasting damage to our jurisprudence with its obfuscation of the 14th Amendment. For example, take in the fourth paragraph of Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion: Reargument [of the case] was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. Translation: We have no idea what the equal protection clause should mean (though that didn’t stop the Court from deploying it recklessly in the 1960s when it suited them), so we’re going to make it up as we go along, and decide the Brown case on a different basis: modern psychology rather than fundamental law. This was made explicit in two short subsequent passages in the opinion: Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. [Emphasis added.] Why limit the reach of this opinion just to public education? The real reason is to keep open the possibility of using racial classifications in the law to enable redistribution schemes like racial reparations, etc. Let’s recall, then Harlan’s clear language: But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. It is therefore to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a State to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race. In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott Case. . . . The destinies of the two races in this country are indissolubly linked together, and the interests of both require that the common government of all shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law. By contrast, the majority opinion in Plessy held: The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. The point is: today’s race-conscious civil rights jurisprudence of the left is identical to Plessy‘s majority opinion that distinctions based upon color are permissible. Almost no one perceives this, and the left has an interest in concealing this. Bonus: At the end, we talk a bit about the current fascination with UFOs, which make more sense than the legal reasoning of the Warren Court.

Campaign Finance Laws The Supreme Court often operates like a conservative activist group to help the GOP. One of the most egregious ways they've tipped the scales is in campaign finance. Starting with their infamous Buckley ruling in 1976, SCOTUS categorized corporate political donations as free speech. Their 2011 follow-up, Citizens United, removed almost all limitations on political spending, creating a vast increase in campaign spending. Rich Americans and corporations are now free to give as much as they want to whoever they want. This has greatly benefitted Republicans at the cost of electoral fairness. Poverty The liberal, pro-New Deal, Warren Court was replaced in 1969 by the conservative Burger Court. The contrast was stark. One of the Warren Court's last cases provided significant due process protections to poor Americans whose welfare benefits were in danger. As soon as the Nixon-appointed Burger stepped in, decisions changed. The Burger Court immediately heard a case involving family caps on welfare and ruled in the opposite direction. Families with more than four children could only receive benefits for the maximum cap of four children, exacerbating poverty for large families. With that ruling, a new tone was struck and SCOTUS has ruled against the poor ever since. Education The conservative Burger Court also devastated public education. It reversed a Texas decision, which had ruled that the state must fund rich and poor school districts equally. This SCOTUS decision essentially created a tiered school system with affluent neighborhoods on the top and poor ones on the bottom. Next, it ruled that desegregation efforts in schools could not cross urban/suburban lines. This transformative ruling undercut desegregation efforts and exacerbated schooling inequities. Today, many schools are segregated by both race and class because of these rulings. Find out more: Adam Cohen, a former member of the New York Times editorial board and senior writer for Time magazine, is the author of Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court's Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America. He is also the author of Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck and Nothing to Fear: FDR's Inner Circle and the Hundred Days That Created Modern America. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he was president of volume 100 of the Harvard Law Review. You can follow Adam on Twitter @adamscohen.

When President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1953, he assumed the former California governor would be a force for reliably conservative force on the court. Warren was widely popular and seen as a safe, moderate and respectable But under Warren’s leadership, the Court took on a new direction, making decisions that improved the lives of working people, the poor and the disadvantaged. Eisenhower would refer to Warren as one of only two mistakes he made while in office Before the 1950s, the Supreme Court was best known as an institution that adhered to the status quo. It often sought to protect the rights of property owners and businessmen, shying away from cases that took direct aim at controversial social or political issues.But when a popular former California governor became Chief Justice in 1953, all that changed. Earl Warren’s court would take on some of the hottest issues of the times, ruling on cases where individual rights would take precedent, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Baker v. Carr, and where First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights would be strengthened, such as Engle v. Vitale and Miranda v. Arizona. For sixteen years, the Warren Court would radically reshape the legal and social landscape of America.Listen ad free with Wondery+. Join Wondery+ for exclusives, binges, early access, and ad free listening. Available in the Wondery App. https://wondery.app.link/historytellersSupport us by supporting our sponsors! Hims - Today Hims is giving you their best offer yet! If you’re not happy with your results after 90-days, Hims will give you a full refund. You can get their first visit absolutely free! Go to forhims.com/tellers.Sleep Number - During the Ultimate Sleep Number Event, save 50% on the Sleep Number 360® Limited Edition smart bed. For a limited time, only at Sleep Number stores or sleepnumber.com/TELLERS.

Highlights:“There was nothing, absolutely nothing the Democrats could do to stop Amy Coney Barret. They were utterly humiliated… And that includes of course the mainstream Marxist media.”“Conservatives have been waiting for this moment for nearly 70 years since the days of the old Warren Court going all the way back to the 1950s.”“It was that one institution, the Supreme Court, that leftist tyrants could rely on to shove their secular globalist leftwing ideology down our throats. And now with the seating of Amy Coney Barret, they have now officially lost it.”“What do you think will be the fate of leftwing judicial activism in the lower courts from now on?… Actually, it’s even worse than liberals can imagine. You’re not gonna believe what President Trump did.”“No president has even come close to appointing as many appeals court judges as our dear President Donald Trump at this point in his presidency.”Timestamps:    [03:08] Amy Coney Barret’s confirmation and on Democrats Doug Jones and Joe Manchin[05:00] The mainstream Marxist media’s reaction and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s tweet[05:49] ACB as the fifth official conservative on the Supreme Court and how for 70 years the Supreme Court is legislature for the political left[07:50] What will happen now with the political left[09:23] How President Trump is transforming  the judiciary and what is a federalist society[11:20] The solid conservative five-vote majority in the Supreme Court and the beginning of a new conservative ageResources: REGISTER TODAY for our ‘ON THE BRINK’ VIRTUAL CONFERENCE! Join me and special guests on SATURDAY OCTOBER 31st for a SPECIAL ONLINE CONFERENCE Just DAYS Before the ELECTION! Get your Extended Price Sale Tickets now before they're gone at: https://onthebrink.turleytalks.com/Download your FREE “President Trump and Our Post-Secular Future” Ebook here! (Limited-time offer only)Get your copy of the critically-acclaimed “The Return of Christendom: Demography, Politics, and the Coming Christian Majority” here! (50% OFF at limited-time offer only!)Thank you for taking the time to listen to this episode.  If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review.Do you want to be a part of the podcast and be our sponsor? Click here to partner with us and defy liberal culture!If you would like to get lots of articles on conservative trends make sure to LIKE Dr. Steve Turley’s Facebook Page and sign-up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts. 

Professor Geof Stone joins Supreme Myths to discuss current events, free speech in America, the Warren Court, and why Justice Scalia boycotted the University of Chicago for a few years because of something Geof wrote.

https://news.gsu.edu/podcast/episode-15-geof-r-stone/ () Professor Geof Stone joins Supreme Myths to discuss current events, free speech in America, the Warren Court, and why Justice Scalia boycotted the University of Chicago for a few years because of something Geof wrote.

What Dwight Shares: Is this the worst, most contentious election in history? What should we do with our emotions during this time? Why is he spending his retirement working as a Mayor of a small town? How to decide where to donate, where to give money or time The historical role of the Supreme Court?   What You Will Hear: Historical contention during elections Do emotions belong in politics? Most people agree more than they disagree, when we get beyond labels Orienting to blue within politics How to deal with overwhelm when there is so much suffering Acknowledging what is actually possible What to do when you get into the rabbit hole What about homeless people living in Del Mar? What happened with that? Does your vote matter? Small donations matter because candidates need money but they count the people that contribute Democratic National Committee distributes money to the other causes (Senator and Representative candidates What happens if the Senate goes 6-3? What do you think about extending the number of seats? Supreme Court traditionally was conservative and in favor of corporations and business, against the individual The Warren Court changed the court, and we may be going back to pre Warren Court. Echo chambers of news sources and listening to news on both sides. No common source of information any more Learning how to relate beyond labels The US is partially socialist Should we have hope? Progress is sometimes minimizing backsliding Are the debates important? Does this format work? Trump exemplifying an unhealthy fight response in debate- and how we see authority We’ve trained ourselves to expect a game show, not a debate Why running a country is not like run a business

This episode, with former University of Chicago Law School Dean and University of Chicago Provos Geoffrey Stone, is part 1 of our Supreme Court Debrief. We discuss two cases this episode — Harris Funeral Home vs EEOC, which involved whether employers could fire transgender employees for how they sexually identify, and June Medical, which looked at whether a Louisiana law that required doctors who perform an abortion in a clinic to have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital was unconstitutional — along with Professor Stone's latest book, "Democracy and Equality: The Enduring Constitutional Vision of the Warren Court." Professor ​Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. Professor Stone joined the faculty in 1973, after serving as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. Professor Stone was appointed by President Obama to serve on the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, which evaluated the government’s foreign intelligence surveillance programs in the wake of Edward Snowden’s leaks. He has also written amicus briefs for constitutional scholars in a number of Supreme Court cases, including Obergefell v. Hodges, the marriage equality case, and Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt, the abortion case involving admitting privileges for doctors in Texas. Intergenerational Politics is a video series created by Jill Wine-Banks and Victor Shi dedicated to engaging all generations in politics with weekly unfiltered conversations with experts across the nation.

Supreme Court’s Agenda Although we are taught to believe the Supreme Court is a neutral institution whose primary concern is justice, it is actually an extremely powerful legal body with its own agenda. For the last 50 years, that agenda has been staunchly conservative. Instead of functioning as a check on executive and legislative powers, it operates as its own power building machine, often making decisions that favor itself or the conservative lawmakers who put a majority of the justices in power. The Supreme Court is confident in its position and its conservative views, and has no qualms about overruling democratic decisions to keep itself—and conservative lawmakers—in power. Far-Reaching Impacts Decisions made by the Supreme Court have long and far-reaching consequences. On the positive side, single Supreme Court decisions helped desegregate American schools, create due process protections like Miranda Rights, and legalize same-sex marriages. At the same time, the conservative Supreme Court has greatly inflated the power of corporations over ordinary citizens; consistently ruled against the poor and welfare rights; and allowed our electoral system to become overrun by powerful interests with their campaign finance rulings. Their decisions have very real consequences for everyday Americans, whether we all understand that or not. Anti-Poor With the exception of the progressive Warren Court of the 1950-60s, the Supreme Court has showed itself to be antagonistic towards America’s poor. It has continually ruled against welfare rights, labor rights, voting rights, and even equal funding for education. The court has also refused to give poor Americans the protected minority status they so desperately need. Instead, the court has repeatedly ruled in favor of America’s rich and on behalf of corporations, further exacerbating the plight of the poor. Companies have substantially increased protections in their power over workers, while organized labor has lost much of their ability to protect workers. Find out more: Adam Cohen, a former member of the New York Times editorial board and senior writer for Time magazine, is the author of Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court's Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America. He is also the author of  Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck and Nothing to Fear: FDR's Inner Circle and the Hundred Days That Created Modern America. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he was president of volume 100 of the Harvard Law Review. You can follow Adam on Twitter @adamscohen. Thank you to Podcorn for sponsoring this episode. For more information, visit Podcorn.com

Topic: Qualified Immunity, Law, Police Accountability, Right to jury trial Title: Qualified Immunity: Unreasonable Standards Participants: John Burton, Civil Rights Attorney www.johnburtonlaw.com Release Date: 08/02/20 Homepage : http://www.dreport.org, Send comments about this segment to: comments@dreport.org Discussion Topics: What is qualified Immunity? How does qualified immunity relate to the national mass movements for police accountability? The modern era of police misconducted litigation starts in the 1960's with the Warren Court. What is the Federal Civil right act of 1871? Why is section 1983 of 1871 Civil right act important? What is an unreasonable seizure under the 4th amendment? How did the good faith defense under common law turn into qualified immunity? If the officer did not know that her/ his actions violated a prior existing law, then does qualified immunity apply? Is qualified immunity judge-made? Is an unreasonable arrest, a violation of the 4th amendment? Does qualified immunity undercut congressional policy and the intent of section 1983 of Civil rights Act of 1871? How do you overcome qualified immunity? If the police officers did not know that their actions apply to a violation of a specific law, then qualified immunity averts a trial? How does qualified immunity deprive plaintiffs from their 7th amendment right, a right to jury trial? How did video change the perception of police actions of abuse? How did cases of police misconduct change after the 1992 Rodney King case? What is the relationship of police militarization and the current issue of police abuse? What is the role of police in a capitalist society? Is qualified immunity intended to protect the personal assets of police officers as individuals? If an officer violates the constitution, then the agency of the officer is responsible for the damages? Can police officers be held to the same legal standard as drivers and doctors? How does qualified immunity maintain class relationships intact? Why does the repeated practice of relying on prior cases of constitutional violations to prove as standards, results in a deterioration potential clear standard to serve as objective tests? Qualified Immunity takes the decisions of a trial from the jury and gives it to the judges? What are current supreme court cases dealing with qualified immunity? Congress has the power to end qualified immunity.

This episode of The Future of Democracy takes a deep-dive on issues of speech and expression in a time of turbulence and change, with guest Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor and leading thinker on free speech in times of crisis. Mr. Stone is an Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service professor at the University of Chicago. After serving as a law clerk to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. of the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Stone joined the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School in 1973 and served as dean of the University of Chicago Law School (1987-1994) and Provost of the University of Chicago (1994-2002). Mr. Stone is the author or co-author of many books on constitutional law, including, among others, Democracy and Equality: The Enduring Constitutional Vision of the Warren Court (2020); The Free Speech Century (2019); Sex and the Constitution (2017); Top Secret: When Government Keeps Us In the Dark (2007); and Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime (2004).

Loving Day is an annual celebration held on June 12, the anniversary of the 1967 United States Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia which struck down all anti-miscegenation laws remaining in sixteen U.S. states. In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws were U.S. state laws banning interracial marriage, mainly forbidding marriage between 2 different races, until the Warren Court ruled unanimously in 1967 that these state laws were unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the court majority opinion that "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."  This week we are joined by Brandon and Indira, an interracial couple in their first year of marriage. We talk about their journey as a couple, navigating the potential landmines, the impact of microaggressions, and we talk about the importance of difficult conversations. For my information and resources please check out the link below linktr.ee/NationalResourcesList

On the fifth episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the 1968 ruling by the Warren Court that that paved the way for stop-and-frisk laws around the country.

Part 1: The Perils of CronyismA summary of the Supreme Court's place in United States society through the lenses of white supremacy and the process of nominating new justices. It covers the development of African-American-driven civil rights case law as a pressure on American politics. Ultimately, Part 1 is about what lead to the Warren Court's famously liberal rulings, the effects those rulings had on the United States, and then the retirement of Earl Warren. President Lyndon Johnson's preference for promoting his loyal followers, including Abe Fortas, lead to a delay in Warren's retirement that allowed President Nixon choose Warren's successor. This, among social factors also explored, lead to a sharp right-wing turn for the Court.Timestamps:[00:00:00] Part 1 Introduction[00:01:55] Prologue[00:05:50] 1) The Beginnings of a Battle[00:41:42] 2) The Nature of the Court[01:18:03] 3) The Abiding Issue[01:46:08] 4) The Warren Court Leads[02:24:15] 5) The Black Seat[03:11:15] 6) The Perils of CronyismGod Save This Honorable Court: The Supreme Court Crisis, Part 1 by Louis M. Kohlmeier, Jr.This episode of Lex Phonographica was read by Mike Overby of Amicus Lectio. You can find the individual chapters on the Internet Archive. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Geoffrey Stone and David Strauss, professors at the University of Chicago Law School, discuss the landmark decisions of the Warren Court regarding desegregation, criminal justice and voting rights, and their new book, "Democracy and Equality: The Enduring Constitutional Vision of the Warren Court." They speak to host June Grasso.

Geoffrey Stone and David Strauss, professors at the University of Chicago Law School, discuss the landmark decisions of the Warren Court regarding desegregation, criminal justice and voting rights, and their new book, "Democracy and Equality: The Enduring Constitutional Vision of the Warren Court." They speak to host June Grasso. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Michael Bobelian has written a history of the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968. In Battle for the Marble Palace: Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and the Forging of the Modern Supreme Court (Schaffner, 2019), he reminds us of the intense political battle over Lyndon Johnson's legacy nomination of then-associate justice Abe Fortas to the chief justiceship. Bobelian's account, relying upon a wealth of archival materials, including primary sources from presidential libraries, Senate hearings, and interviews, recreates the political world of Washington, D.C. in the 1960s, during the height of the Warren Court's influence. Bobelian assesses the motives for various actors, such as segregationist Strom Thurmond, moderate Robert Griffin, and liberals Abe Fortas and Earl Warren, in their roles in the nomination process. He makes the argument that the politicization of the nomination process did not begin with Robert Bork's nomination in 1987, but truly began with the nomination of Fortas. Bobelian also considers the political and popular responses to the then-novel consistently activist Warren Court and how the Fortas nomination and the opposition to it were motivated by combinations of jurisprudential ideology, institutional prerogatives, and the dynamics of personal relationships. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Michael Bobelian has written a history of the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968. In Battle for the Marble Palace: Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and the Forging of the Modern Supreme Court (Schaffner, 2019), he reminds us of the intense political battle over Lyndon Johnson’s legacy nomination of then-associate justice Abe Fortas to the chief justiceship. Bobelian’s account, relying upon a wealth of archival materials, including primary sources from presidential libraries, Senate hearings, and interviews, recreates the political world of Washington, D.C. in the 1960s, during the height of the Warren Court’s influence. Bobelian assesses the motives for various actors, such as segregationist Strom Thurmond, moderate Robert Griffin, and liberals Abe Fortas and Earl Warren, in their roles in the nomination process. He makes the argument that the politicization of the nomination process did not begin with Robert Bork’s nomination in 1987, but truly began with the nomination of Fortas. Bobelian also considers the political and popular responses to the then-novel consistently activist Warren Court and how the Fortas nomination and the opposition to it were motivated by combinations of jurisprudential ideology, institutional prerogatives, and the dynamics of personal relationships. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Michael Bobelian has written a history of the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968. In Battle for the Marble Palace: Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and the Forging of the Modern Supreme Court (Schaffner, 2019), he reminds us of the intense political battle over Lyndon Johnson’s legacy nomination of then-associate justice Abe Fortas to the chief justiceship. Bobelian’s account, relying upon a wealth of archival materials, including primary sources from presidential libraries, Senate hearings, and interviews, recreates the political world of Washington, D.C. in the 1960s, during the height of the Warren Court’s influence. Bobelian assesses the motives for various actors, such as segregationist Strom Thurmond, moderate Robert Griffin, and liberals Abe Fortas and Earl Warren, in their roles in the nomination process. He makes the argument that the politicization of the nomination process did not begin with Robert Bork’s nomination in 1987, but truly began with the nomination of Fortas. Bobelian also considers the political and popular responses to the then-novel consistently activist Warren Court and how the Fortas nomination and the opposition to it were motivated by combinations of jurisprudential ideology, institutional prerogatives, and the dynamics of personal relationships. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Michael Bobelian has written a history of the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968. In Battle for the Marble Palace: Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and the Forging of the Modern Supreme Court (Schaffner, 2019), he reminds us of the intense political battle over Lyndon Johnson’s legacy nomination of then-associate justice Abe Fortas to the chief justiceship. Bobelian’s account, relying upon a wealth of archival materials, including primary sources from presidential libraries, Senate hearings, and interviews, recreates the political world of Washington, D.C. in the 1960s, during the height of the Warren Court’s influence. Bobelian assesses the motives for various actors, such as segregationist Strom Thurmond, moderate Robert Griffin, and liberals Abe Fortas and Earl Warren, in their roles in the nomination process. He makes the argument that the politicization of the nomination process did not begin with Robert Bork’s nomination in 1987, but truly began with the nomination of Fortas. Bobelian also considers the political and popular responses to the then-novel consistently activist Warren Court and how the Fortas nomination and the opposition to it were motivated by combinations of jurisprudential ideology, institutional prerogatives, and the dynamics of personal relationships. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Michael Bobelian has written a history of the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968. In Battle for the Marble Palace: Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and the Forging of the Modern Supreme Court (Schaffner, 2019), he reminds us of the intense political battle over Lyndon Johnson’s legacy nomination of then-associate justice Abe Fortas to the chief justiceship. Bobelian’s account, relying upon a wealth of archival materials, including primary sources from presidential libraries, Senate hearings, and interviews, recreates the political world of Washington, D.C. in the 1960s, during the height of the Warren Court’s influence. Bobelian assesses the motives for various actors, such as segregationist Strom Thurmond, moderate Robert Griffin, and liberals Abe Fortas and Earl Warren, in their roles in the nomination process. He makes the argument that the politicization of the nomination process did not begin with Robert Bork’s nomination in 1987, but truly began with the nomination of Fortas. Bobelian also considers the political and popular responses to the then-novel consistently activist Warren Court and how the Fortas nomination and the opposition to it were motivated by combinations of jurisprudential ideology, institutional prerogatives, and the dynamics of personal relationships. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Michael Bobelian has written a history of the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968. In Battle for the Marble Palace: Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and the Forging of the Modern Supreme Court (Schaffner, 2019), he reminds us of the intense political battle over Lyndon Johnson’s legacy nomination of then-associate justice Abe Fortas to the chief justiceship. Bobelian’s account, relying upon a wealth of archival materials, including primary sources from presidential libraries, Senate hearings, and interviews, recreates the political world of Washington, D.C. in the 1960s, during the height of the Warren Court’s influence. Bobelian assesses the motives for various actors, such as segregationist Strom Thurmond, moderate Robert Griffin, and liberals Abe Fortas and Earl Warren, in their roles in the nomination process. He makes the argument that the politicization of the nomination process did not begin with Robert Bork’s nomination in 1987, but truly began with the nomination of Fortas. Bobelian also considers the political and popular responses to the then-novel consistently activist Warren Court and how the Fortas nomination and the opposition to it were motivated by combinations of jurisprudential ideology, institutional prerogatives, and the dynamics of personal relationships. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How the rise of the car, the symbol of American personal freedom, inadvertently led to ever more intrusive policing-with disastrous consequences for racial equality in our criminal justice system. When Americans think of freedom, they often picture the open road. Yet nowhere are we more likely to encounter the long arm of the law than in our cars. Sarah Seo reveals how the rise of the automobile led us to accept-and expect-pervasive police power. As Policing the Open Road: How Cars Transformed American Freedom (Harvard University Press, 2019) makes clear, this radical transformation in the nature and meaning of American freedom has had far-reaching political and legal consequences. Before the twentieth century, most Americans rarely came into contact with police officers. But with more and more drivers behind the wheel, police departments rapidly expanded their forces and increased officers' authority to stop citizens who violated traffic laws. The Fourth Amendment-the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures-did not effectively shield individuals from government intrusion while driving. Instead, jurists interpreted the amendment narrowly. In a society dependent on cars, everyone-the law-breaking and law-abiding alike-would be subject to discretionary policing. Seo overturns prevailing interpretations of the Warren Court's due process revolution. The justices' efforts to protect Americans did more to accommodate than to limit police intervention, and the new criminal procedures inadvertently sanctioned discrimination by officers of the law. Constitutional challenges to traffic stops largely failed, and motorists "driving while black" had little recourse to question police demands. Seo shows how procedures designed to safeguard us on the road ultimately undermined the nation's commitment to equal protection before the law. Stephen Colbrook is a graduate student at University College London, where he is researching a dissertation on the interaction between HIV/AIDS and state policy-making. This work will focus on the political and policy-making side of the epidemic and aims to compare the different contexts of individual states, such as California, Florida, and New Jersey. Stephen can be contacted at stephencolbrook@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How the rise of the car, the symbol of American personal freedom, inadvertently led to ever more intrusive policing-with disastrous consequences for racial equality in our criminal justice system. When Americans think of freedom, they often picture the open road. Yet nowhere are we more likely to encounter the long arm of the law than in our cars. Sarah Seo reveals how the rise of the automobile led us to accept-and expect-pervasive police power. As Policing the Open Road: How Cars Transformed American Freedom (Harvard University Press, 2019) makes clear, this radical transformation in the nature and meaning of American freedom has had far-reaching political and legal consequences. Before the twentieth century, most Americans rarely came into contact with police officers. But with more and more drivers behind the wheel, police departments rapidly expanded their forces and increased officers' authority to stop citizens who violated traffic laws. The Fourth Amendment-the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures-did not effectively shield individuals from government intrusion while driving. Instead, jurists interpreted the amendment narrowly. In a society dependent on cars, everyone-the law-breaking and law-abiding alike-would be subject to discretionary policing. Seo overturns prevailing interpretations of the Warren Court's due process revolution. The justices' efforts to protect Americans did more to accommodate than to limit police intervention, and the new criminal procedures inadvertently sanctioned discrimination by officers of the law. Constitutional challenges to traffic stops largely failed, and motorists "driving while black" had little recourse to question police demands. Seo shows how procedures designed to safeguard us on the road ultimately undermined the nation's commitment to equal protection before the law. Stephen Colbrook is a graduate student at University College London, where he is researching a dissertation on the interaction between HIV/AIDS and state policy-making. This work will focus on the political and policy-making side of the epidemic and aims to compare the different contexts of individual states, such as California, Florida, and New Jersey. Stephen can be contacted at stephencolbrook@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How the rise of the car, the symbol of American personal freedom, inadvertently led to ever more intrusive policing-with disastrous consequences for racial equality in our criminal justice system. When Americans think of freedom, they often picture the open road. Yet nowhere are we more likely to encounter the long arm of the law than in our cars. Sarah Seo reveals how the rise of the automobile led us to accept-and expect-pervasive police power. As Policing the Open Road: How Cars Transformed American Freedom (Harvard University Press, 2019) makes clear, this radical transformation in the nature and meaning of American freedom has had far-reaching political and legal consequences. Before the twentieth century, most Americans rarely came into contact with police officers. But with more and more drivers behind the wheel, police departments rapidly expanded their forces and increased officers' authority to stop citizens who violated traffic laws. The Fourth Amendment-the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures-did not effectively shield individuals from government intrusion while driving. Instead, jurists interpreted the amendment narrowly. In a society dependent on cars, everyone-the law-breaking and law-abiding alike-would be subject to discretionary policing. Seo overturns prevailing interpretations of the Warren Court's due process revolution. The justices' efforts to protect Americans did more to accommodate than to limit police intervention, and the new criminal procedures inadvertently sanctioned discrimination by officers of the law. Constitutional challenges to traffic stops largely failed, and motorists "driving while black" had little recourse to question police demands. Seo shows how procedures designed to safeguard us on the road ultimately undermined the nation's commitment to equal protection before the law. Stephen Colbrook is a graduate student at University College London, where he is researching a dissertation on the interaction between HIV/AIDS and state policy-making. This work will focus on the political and policy-making side of the epidemic and aims to compare the different contexts of individual states, such as California, Florida, and New Jersey. Stephen can be contacted at stephencolbrook@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How the rise of the car, the symbol of American personal freedom, inadvertently led to ever more intrusive policing-with disastrous consequences for racial equality in our criminal justice system. When Americans think of freedom, they often picture the open road. Yet nowhere are we more likely to encounter the long arm of the law than in our cars. Sarah Seo reveals how the rise of the automobile led us to accept-and expect-pervasive police power. As Policing the Open Road: How Cars Transformed American Freedom (Harvard University Press, 2019) makes clear, this radical transformation in the nature and meaning of American freedom has had far-reaching political and legal consequences. Before the twentieth century, most Americans rarely came into contact with police officers. But with more and more drivers behind the wheel, police departments rapidly expanded their forces and increased officers' authority to stop citizens who violated traffic laws. The Fourth Amendment-the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures-did not effectively shield individuals from government intrusion while driving. Instead, jurists interpreted the amendment narrowly. In a society dependent on cars, everyone-the law-breaking and law-abiding alike-would be subject to discretionary policing. Seo overturns prevailing interpretations of the Warren Court's due process revolution. The justices' efforts to protect Americans did more to accommodate than to limit police intervention, and the new criminal procedures inadvertently sanctioned discrimination by officers of the law. Constitutional challenges to traffic stops largely failed, and motorists "driving while black" had little recourse to question police demands. Seo shows how procedures designed to safeguard us on the road ultimately undermined the nation's commitment to equal protection before the law. Stephen Colbrook is a graduate student at University College London, where he is researching a dissertation on the interaction between HIV/AIDS and state policy-making. This work will focus on the political and policy-making side of the epidemic and aims to compare the different contexts of individual states, such as California, Florida, and New Jersey. Stephen can be contacted at stephencolbrook@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How the rise of the car, the symbol of American personal freedom, inadvertently led to ever more intrusive policing-with disastrous consequences for racial equality in our criminal justice system. When Americans think of freedom, they often picture the open road. Yet nowhere are we more likely to encounter the long arm of the law than in our cars. Sarah Seo reveals how the rise of the automobile led us to accept-and expect-pervasive police power. As Policing the Open Road: How Cars Transformed American Freedom (Harvard University Press, 2019) makes clear, this radical transformation in the nature and meaning of American freedom has had far-reaching political and legal consequences. Before the twentieth century, most Americans rarely came into contact with police officers. But with more and more drivers behind the wheel, police departments rapidly expanded their forces and increased officers' authority to stop citizens who violated traffic laws. The Fourth Amendment-the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures-did not effectively shield individuals from government intrusion while driving. Instead, jurists interpreted the amendment narrowly. In a society dependent on cars, everyone-the law-breaking and law-abiding alike-would be subject to discretionary policing. Seo overturns prevailing interpretations of the Warren Court's due process revolution. The justices' efforts to protect Americans did more to accommodate than to limit police intervention, and the new criminal procedures inadvertently sanctioned discrimination by officers of the law. Constitutional challenges to traffic stops largely failed, and motorists "driving while black" had little recourse to question police demands. Seo shows how procedures designed to safeguard us on the road ultimately undermined the nation's commitment to equal protection before the law. Stephen Colbrook is a graduate student at University College London, where he is researching a dissertation on the interaction between HIV/AIDS and state policy-making. This work will focus on the political and policy-making side of the epidemic and aims to compare the different contexts of individual states, such as California, Florida, and New Jersey. Stephen can be contacted at stephencolbrook@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How the rise of the car, the symbol of American personal freedom, inadvertently led to ever more intrusive policing-with disastrous consequences for racial equality in our criminal justice system. When Americans think of freedom, they often picture the open road. Yet nowhere are we more likely to encounter the long arm of the law than in our cars. Sarah Seo reveals how the rise of the automobile led us to accept-and expect-pervasive police power. As Policing the Open Road: How Cars Transformed American Freedom (Harvard University Press, 2019) makes clear, this radical transformation in the nature and meaning of American freedom has had far-reaching political and legal consequences. Before the twentieth century, most Americans rarely came into contact with police officers. But with more and more drivers behind the wheel, police departments rapidly expanded their forces and increased officers' authority to stop citizens who violated traffic laws. The Fourth Amendment-the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures-did not effectively shield individuals from government intrusion while driving. Instead, jurists interpreted the amendment narrowly. In a society dependent on cars, everyone-the law-breaking and law-abiding alike-would be subject to discretionary policing. Seo overturns prevailing interpretations of the Warren Court's due process revolution. The justices' efforts to protect Americans did more to accommodate than to limit police intervention, and the new criminal procedures inadvertently sanctioned discrimination by officers of the law. Constitutional challenges to traffic stops largely failed, and motorists "driving while black" had little recourse to question police demands. Seo shows how procedures designed to safeguard us on the road ultimately undermined the nation's commitment to equal protection before the law. Stephen Colbrook is a graduate student at University College London, where he is researching a dissertation on the interaction between HIV/AIDS and state policy-making. This work will focus on the political and policy-making side of the epidemic and aims to compare the different contexts of individual states, such as California, Florida, and New Jersey. Stephen can be contacted at stephencolbrook@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Old Testament. I summarize the OT in about eight minutes. The segment is closer to 11, but I throw in a couple of decidedly un-OT anecdotes. Words. A short look at a few unusual words. Lightning Segments. The ideal gin and tonic, The Adventures of Beer Man, Ira Gershwin, More. Radical Derrida? I know Derrida was radical, but I’m not sure three of his main conclusions—words don’t carry ultimate meaning, no text outside the text, and condemnation of binaries—are all that startling. I explain why, pulling from my personal experience, the Warren Court, and Lao Tzu.

David talks to Gary Gerstle about the history of the United States Constitution and its current role in American political life. Is it still fit for purpose in the twenty-first century and what could be done to change it?“American democracy is stuck, but because of the Constitution it also has a history of getting stuck.”Talking Points:The Constitution not only divided power between the federal government and the states; it also gave each level of governance a different theory of power.The Constitution strengthened the power of the central state—this was necessary for the fledgling country to take on larger challenges.But Americans were wary about centralized power. Their solution was the enumeration of powers: the federal government would only have those powers explicitly stated in the Constitution.Non-enumerated powers remained in the hands of the states, which have, historically, legislated far more intrusively than the federal government.The biggest changes to the Constitution are not through amendments but through interpretation and practice.Amending the Constitution is extremely difficult.Commentators often identify the Civil War as a constitutional inflection point. After the war, the Constitution was amended to abolish slavery (13th amendment) and protect the rights of citizens (14th and 15th amendments).But in the years that followed, the states successfully clawed back many of the powers they had been forced to relinquish. As a result, the force of the civil rights amendments was not felt until the 1960s when the Warren Court effectively imposed the Bill of Rights on the states.The 1960s saw a split between those who believed in originalism versus the living constitution.The Democrats say that the Constitution only works in a radically changing society if you interpret it liberally, in a living sense, for every generation.The conservatives say that the Constitution must be interpreted according to what the founding fathers intended.The root of the conflict between Democrats and Republicans is over the proper use of federal power.Today, federal paralysis means that there is a resurgence of activity on the state level.With a conservative court, the states could even become the vanguard of the progressive movement.In the post-Civil War, post-Warren court era, federalism may be able to work in a way that it never could before.Further Learning:Gary Gerstle’s fascinating book about American governanceGary and the panel recap the 2018 U.S. midterm electionsHow did the U.S. Supreme Court get so polarized?More on the Warren Court and where it stood on the issuesAnd as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talkingSet your alarm clocks… next week, Diane Coyle talks to David about economic well-being. What do the statistics miss and how has the digital revolution affected our quality of life? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Justice Brennan’s 1977 article “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights,” provoked many litigators to look to the state courts to enhance individual liberties beyond the scope of the federal constitution. This came at a time when the conservative legal movement developed out of a perception that the Warren Court and its successors had gone too far, with courts holding an influence far too powerful in American life. They called for a more restrained view of the judicial role, while those on the left looked to state courts to assert their role in protecting individual rights. This sparked a New Federalism that embraced more active and robust efforts to achieve litigation-oriented outcomes through state constitutional litigation. In recent years, many in the conservative legal movement have also come to embrace state constitutions as separate documents that best protect both individual and economic liberty. This panel will offer a historical overview of these trends as well as offer perspectives of the role of state constitutions from the federal and state bench.The Inaugural Wisconsin Lawyers Chapters Conference was held on May 4, 2018, in Madison, Wisconsin.Panelists:Hon. Stephen Markman, Chief Justice, Michigan Supreme CourtJoseph Ranney, Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School & Shareholder, DeWitt Ross & Stevens S.C.Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitModerator: Hon. Brian K. Hagedorn, Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Justice Brennan’s 1977 article “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights,” provoked many litigators to look to the state courts to enhance individual liberties beyond the scope of the federal constitution. This came at a time when the conservative legal movement developed out of a perception that the Warren Court and its successors had gone too far, with courts holding an influence far too powerful in American life. They called for a more restrained view of the judicial role, while those on the left looked to state courts to assert their role in protecting individual rights. This sparked a New Federalism that embraced more active and robust efforts to achieve litigation-oriented outcomes through state constitutional litigation. In recent years, many in the conservative legal movement have also come to embrace state constitutions as separate documents that best protect both individual and economic liberty. This panel will offer a historical overview of these trends as well as offer perspectives of the role of state constitutions from the federal and state bench.The Inaugural Wisconsin Lawyers Chapters Conference was held on May 4, 2018, in Madison, Wisconsin.Panelists:Hon. Stephen Markman, Chief Justice, Michigan Supreme CourtJoseph Ranney, Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School & Shareholder, DeWitt Ross & Stevens S.C.Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitModerator: Hon. Brian K. Hagedorn, Wisconsin Court of Appeals

We talk a great deal of our rights as we define and then redefine them for our present age and way of thinking.  This is not necessarily something that is new. It did not just suddenly start with the Emancipation Proclamation or Universal Suffrage, it did not begin with the Civil Rights Movement, the Warren Court or the Civil Rights Act. No, this has been something that we have discussed, debated, and even go to war over. Since before there was an American nation and an American people, before the Republic was born and the institutions of it came into being we have talked about our rights, at times even struggling with the theory versus the practical experience with them. But what is the American tradition of rights and where did the Bill of Rights come from? The truth? To truly appreciate our rights, and understand what they are and what they mean. We need to study them so that we can truly appreciate them. We need to do this from a perspective that transcends just our modern age and our modern understanding as we look at them through the context and the scope of history. It is only in this way that we will be able adequately protect our rights and stand firm for our liberties as we seek to answer the dominate questions that we face as a nation and a people. In this first Episode of an ongoing series about the Bill of Rights host Wyatt McIntyre begins the journey into the history of the document. Tracing back to the Magna Carta of 1215 and moving through the British Petition of Right and the English Bill of Rights, the three major Constitutional Documents join him as he explore the deeper questions of the history of liberty in America, drawing from the perspective of past, and tie it to our present age and our present thinking so that we can draw from the deeper lessons that are offered.

In this episode of the Conservative Conscience, Daniel spills his heart out on the state of the courts, what conservatives are looking for, and why Gorsuch, although a solid nominee, still doesn’t inspire full confidence that he is the best we could have done, given GOP control of the Senate.  Then again, with a Senate full of RINOs, who could have scuttled the nomination of someone in the mold of Clarence Thomas, could you really blame Trump?   Moreover, the entire process demonstrate why we will never really fix the courts simply by “picking better judges.”  “The capacity of a good judge to do good is nowhere near the capacity of a bad judge to harm our constitution, society, sovereignty, and security.  Even if we had a Clarence Thomas for every Republican SCOTUS pick and for every lower court pick, an impossibility (they don’t exist), we could never combat the malfeasance of the left.  The equivalent on the right of what the left does to advance their malevolent agenda through the courts would be to force people to own guns and to throw homosexuals and transgenders in jail.    This is one of the many reasons why we will not fix the judiciary by picking “good judges” alone; we need wholesale judicial reform.   Finally, Daniel praises Trump for staying the course but expresses concern about his enthusiastic embrace of Obama’s discriminatory policy of cutting off government contracts with businesses that don’t promote the transgender agenda.  The entire reason why we want to win back the courts is so they don’t promote social transformation without representation.  Yet, Trump is now codifying it on his own.  While we will continue to defend his courage on immigration, we must demand that social conservatives and even social libertarians are not sidelined by the Marxist cultural warriors.      Key Quotes:  “What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation.” ~ Justice Alito   “On the evidence, we must conclude, I think, that this tendency of courts, including the Supreme Court, is the inevitable result of our written Constitution and the power of judicial review. Even in the depths of the Warren Court era some of us thought that the Court’s performance, though profoundly illegitimate, could be brought within the range of the minimally acceptable by logical persuasion or the appointment of more responsible judges, or both. We now know that was an illusion. A Court majority is impervious to arguments about its proper behavior. It seems safe to say that, as our institutional arrangements now stand, the Court can never be made a legitimate element of a basically democratic polity.”   “Republican Presidents have used the nomination process in an effort to change the direction of the Court with almost zero results on the major issues. After twelve years of Presidents Reagan and Bush, each of whom made a determined effort to appoint Justices who would abide by the Constitution as originally understood, we seem farther than ever from a restrained Court.” ~Robert Bork   Show links: Rep. Ron Desantis’s excellent balanced statement on Gorsuch 7 reasons Neil Gorsuch’s nomination is only the beginning of taking back the judiciary 12 reasons why Federal Judiciary is irremediably broken What conservatives want and need in a Supreme Court Justice Fake judges violate 200 Years of Case law by staying Trump’s sovereignty order Incontrovertible proof that a nation has the right to exclude or deport any foreign national Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Justice Scalia also greatly influenced the law of statutory interpretation. By eliminating legislative history as a source of statutory meaning, Justice Scalia forced Congress to say what it meant in the text of the laws it adopted rather than hiding the ball in a forest of contradictory legislative history. Justice Scalia construed statutes by looking at the plain meaning of their texts. He revived the canons of statutory interpretations, which had fallen into disuse since the Legal Realist movement of the 1930's and 1940's. He even wrote a treatise on statutory interpretation, which no justice other than Justice Joseph Story in the early Nineteenth Century had done. In the Warren Court era, statutory cases rarely quoted the text of the statutes being interpreted and focused instead exclusively on the legislative history. Justice Scalia helped change that. Courts today always begin with the text of statutes and rarely look at the legislative history. Justice Scalia also played the key role in developing the doctrine of Chevron deference in Administrative Law, moving the interpretation of ambiguous delegations of legislative power to elected executive branch officials and away from courts. While it is clear why Justice Scalia expressed these views, he was also expressing, in the last years, great concern about how Chevron deference was working in practice. -- This panel was held on November 19, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. William Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law School; Prof. Abbe R. Gluck, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, The Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy, Yale Law School; Prof. Gary S. Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law; and Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Hon. Diane S. Sykes, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.