Podcast appearances and mentions of Warren E Burger

April 18th, 2023, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode We have been talking about various aspects of employee recruitment and selection, often as it intersects with diversity, equity, and inclusion.  This brought up the topic of the power imbalance surrounding employee selection.  Traditionally, job candidates enter the selection process in a powerless and sometimes even in a belittling position.   The NACM Model Code of Conduct, Canon 1.4 states “A court professional treats litigants, co-workers, and all others interacting with the court with dignity, respect, and courtesy.” So, the questions arise: · Is the power imbalance in the hiring process real? · Is it disrespectful to job candidates? · Do we who hire court employees actually have any interest in altering that power imbalance? Most of us have been on both sides of the interview table.  And most of us can agree that applying for a job can be competitive and it can be nerve-wracking; can it also be demeaning?    Today's Panelists   Karl Thoennes, Court Administrator for the Second Judicial Circuit Court, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Karl began his career in the courts in Alaska in 1988, working as a division supervisor at the state's largest trial court in Anchorage.  He was appointed as Court Administrator in Todd County, Minnesota in 1998, and then Stearns County, St. Cloud, two years later.  In 2004 he was appointed as Administrator for the Second Judicial Circuit in South Dakota. Karl has guest lectured at St. Cloud State University on court structure and management, spoken on international public ethics in Minneapolis, and completed two graduate seminars in public policy in Sapporo, Japan, first as a student and then guest speaker.   He holds a Masters degree in public administration from the University of Alaska. Rick Pierce, Judicial Programs Administrator for the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts. As judicial programs administrator, Rick is responsible for program implementation and education in court administration at the general and limited jurisdiction court levels. Rick served as the President for the Mid-Atlantic Association for Court Management for 2005-2006. Previously he has served on the MAACM advisory board from 1997-2005. A graduate from Washington and Lee University, Rick received his Masters in Public Administration from Shippensburg University in 1995. He has been an active member of the Pennsylvania Association of Court Management, (PACM) since its inception in 1989. He has served as a board member from 1994-2001, culminating in his presidency in 2000-2001. Liz Rambo, Trial Court Administrator for the Lane County Circuit Court in Eugene Oregon. As the TCA for one of Oregon's largest courts, Liz is responsible for all non-judicial court functions including budget, human resources, technology, facilities, and business efficiency.   A 31-year court employee, Liz has a history of advocacy for the mission of the Oregon Judicial Department and the service that the Oregon Judicial Branch provides to the public.  Liz has served on a variety of judicial branch leadership committees including as Chair of the Chief Justice Communications Committee, member of the Chief Justice Strategic Planning Committee, Law and Policy Workgroup, Internal Audit Committee, the Oregon eCourt Steering Committee.  For the last five years, Liz has worked closely with Lane County leadership toward building a new Lane County Courthouse and will continue to bring her years of experience to that ongoing project through design and construction. Liz graduated with high scholarship from Oregon State University with a BA in history and has an MBA from Portland State University.  She is a long-time member of the National Association of Court Management and holds a Court Manager certification from the National Center for State Courts. Liz is the recipient of the 2023 Warren E. Burger award for excellence in court administration.

Freedom of speech and of the press. The First Amendment broadly protects the rights of free speech and free press. Free speech means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision what to say as well as what not to say. Free press means the right of individuals to express themselves through publication and dissemination of information, ideas and opinions without interference, constraint or prosecution by the government. The Supreme Court of the United States characterized the rights of free speech and free press as fundamental personal rights and liberties and noted that the exercise of these rights lies at the foundation of free government by free men. In Bond v Floyd (1966), a case involving the Constitutional shield around the speech of elected officials, the Supreme Court declared that the First Amendment central commitment is that, in the words of New York Times Co. v Sullivan (1964), "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." The Court further explained that just as erroneous statements must be protected to give freedom of expression the breathing space it needs to survive, so statements criticizing public policy and the implementation of it must be similarly protected. The Supreme Court in Chicago Police Dept. v Mosley (1972) said: "But, above all else, the First Amendment means that the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."" The level of protections with respect to free speech and free press given by the First Amendment is not limitless. As stated in his concurrence in Chicago Police Dept. v Mosley (1972), Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said: "Numerous holdings of this Court attest to the fact that the First Amendment does not literally mean that we "are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship." This statement is subject to some qualifications, as for example those of Roth v United States (1957); Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942). Refer also to New York Times Company v Sullivan (1964)." Attached to the rights of free speech and free press as the core rights to utter and to print are several peripheral rights that make these core rights more secure. The peripheral rights encompass not only freedom of association, including privacy in one's associations, but also, in the words of Griswold v Connecticut (1965), "the freedom of the entire university community", for example, the right to distribute, the right to receive, and the right to read, as well as freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach. The United States Constitution protects, according to the Supreme Court in Stanley v Georgia (1969), the right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, and to be generally free from governmental intrusions into one's privacy and control of one's thoughts. As stated by the Court in Stanley: "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving the government the power to control men's minds." --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Amazing episode with THE one and only Judge Ken Starr!Ken Starr has had a distinguished career in academia, the law and public service. Currently Of Counsel to The Lanier Law Firm, Ken served as president and chancellor of Baylor University and dean of the Pepperdine School of Law. He continues to teach law, write articles of interest, and serves as a commentator for Fox and various radio programs. He serves on the boards of Advocates International and the Christian Legal Society as well as the Advisory Board of Alliance Defending Freedom. Throughout his professional career, he has championed the cause of religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all persons. Ken has argued 36 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including during his service as U.S. Solicitor General. He served as United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, as Counselor and Chief of Staff to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith, and law clerk to both Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and to Fifth Circuit Judge David W. Dyer. He was appointed to serve as Independent Counsel for five investigations, including Whitewater, from 1994 to 1999. He is author of Religious Liberty in Crisis (published April 2021); plus First Among Equals:The Supreme Court in American Life; Bear Country:The Baylor Story; and Contempt:A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation (a NY Times best seller in 2018). He and his wife Alice have been married since 1970 and live in Waco, Texas. They are blessed with three children and eight grandchildren.

On August 10, 1970, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger (1907-1995) of the Supreme Court of the United States delivered a "State of the Judiciary" speech, which was broadcast on CBS. Burger and others hoped that Congress would resolve to ask the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to make an annual State of the Judiciary address before both houses of Congress, but Congress was unenthusiastic.This recording is from the Michigan State University G. Robert Vincent Voice Library collection. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.