POPULARITY
5 episodes with William Baude
3 episodes with William Baude
3 episodes with William Baude
4 episodes with William Baude
2 episodes with William Baude
2 episodes with William Baude
3 episodes with William Baude
6 episodes with William Baude
4 episodes with William Baude
Sarah Isgur and David French are joined by William Baude, professor at the University of Chicago Law School, to discuss the scandalizing origins of originalism. But first, a recap of SCOTUS cases. The Agenda:—Narrowing the Fourth Amendment— Where is Kilmar Abrego Garcia?—AARP v. Trump is an unfortunate case name—Facebook post raises eyebrows for Maine lawmakers—Correcting the color of our briefs—Dissents, dissental, disgrantle—Move over Robert Bork 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, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Stanford University professor Jonathan Gienapp, author of the new book, Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique, is joined by Stephen Sachs of Harvard Law School to discuss Gienapp's challenge to originalists' unspoken assumptions about the Constitution, the history of originalism as a constitutional methodology, and its role in constitutional interpretation today. Thomas Donnelly, chief content officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. Additional Resources Jonathan Gienapp, “Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique” (2024) Stephen Sachs and Will Baude, “Originalism and the Law of the Past” (Law and History Review, 2019) Michael Stokes Paulsen and Vasen Kesavan, “Is West Virginia Unconstitutional?” (90 Cal L. Rev. 291, 2002) William Baude, Jud Campbell, and Stephen Sachs, “General Law and the Fourteenth Amendment” (76 Stanford L. Rev 1185, 2024) Jud Campbell, “Four Views of the Nature of the Union” (47 Harvard J. Law & Public Policy 2, 2024) Fletcher v. Peck (1810) District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) United States v. Rahimi (2024) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at programs@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate
The Hyde Park Herald has a scoop—interviewing William Baude, the conservative U of C law professor who figured out that Trump was ineligible to run for prez cause he's an insurrectionist. Ben riffs. Monroe Anderson offers his theory about why the Illinois Supremes recused themselves on Burke, demonstrating that Monroe is he even more cynical than Ben. After last week's state of the union speech, Monroe doubles down on his Biden-beats-Trump prediction. A few words about the NYT's lame political coverage and the Baby Bobby/Aaron Rodgers bromance. And more cynicism from Monroe—in this case, regarding the Bears and Arlington Heights,See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
SERIES 2 EPISODE 119: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SPECIAL COMMENT: Today we begin to find out if we still have a Constitution. Because the Constitution, in the third clause of the fourteenth amendment, says no person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector, or hold any office, civil or military… who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States to support the Constitution shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. It does NOT say that that person has to be CONVICTED of insurrection or rebellion. It does NOT say that that person has to be disqualified from the ballot by a judge or a legislature or a plebiscite. It does NOT say that the president is NOT an officer of the United States or that a President is exempt. It does NOT say that the disqualification of an insurrectionist from being president is any different than is the disqualification of a foreign citizen, nor any different than is the disqualification of a 14-year old, that all of them are self-executing. It does NOT say that this clause of the constitution can only be enforced if all the voters agree. It does NOT say that this clause of the constitution can only be enforced AFTER somebody ineligible is elected. It does NOT say that this clause of the constitution can only be enforced if the insurrectionist's cult and gangs and militias and stochastic terrorists promise not to threaten civil war. It does NOT say that this clause of the constitution can only be enforced if a majority of justices of the Supreme Court can't make up a bullshit excuse for NOT enforcing it. It DOES say that this clause of the constitution CAN be overridden if Congress removes the disqualification of an individual by a vote of two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate. PERIOD. I will quote extensively from the two Federalist Society constitutional scholars whose extraordinary research into the 14th Amendment really mainstreamed it: Professors William Baude and Michael Pearson. And I'll quote a third Professor they quote, at the crux of the real argument here: if the Justices should find an excuse to make up some rule to NOT enforce our Constitution out of fear of Trump and violence. From Daniel Epps of Washington University: "The Supreme Court shouldn't rule that Trump is ineligible for the presidency for engaging in insurrection, because if they do Trump will definitely stage an insurrection." B-BLOCK (20:18) POSTSCRIPTS TO THE NEWS: If at first you don't impeach, try try again. Next Tuesday, in fact. And meet Valentina Gomez, trying to win the GOP nomination for Secretary of State of Missouri. She too is fed up with book banning. Her platform moves directly to book BURNING. (25:41) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Trump calls Grammy ratings "anemic" even though they exceed his last four hour-long network specials COMBINED. UK's Prime Minister shames himself. As do Tucker Carlson and the very gullible rightwing nut job Juanita Broadddrick. C-BLOCK (33:30) EVERY DOG HAS ITS DAY: Can you help out Guidry's Guardian Foundation? (34:45) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: Somebody mentioned he went to a baseball event and got applause and support. So let me tell you about the baseball event at which I found out Rudy Giuliani was nuts. We are approaching its 30th anniversary! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Supreme Court's decision on whether Colorado can take former President Donald Trump off the ballot in the 2024 election may be one of the most consequential in its history. The case will turn on the court's interpretation of Amendment 14, Section 3 of the Constitution, which bars any previous elected official from holding office if they participated in an insurrection. When making their case, Colorado followed the logic of a law review article co-authored last year by University of Chicago Prof. William Baude. The article drew a ton of attention, in part because Baude is a conservative legal scholar and member of the Federalist Society.As the Supreme Court begins oral arguments on Feb. 8, Baude joined Big Brains to make his case for why he thinks Section 3 applies to Trump. But this isn't an episode about what should happen at the Supreme Court, it's about what could happen. Whether you agree with Baude or not, understanding the legal theory behind his argument is crucial to understanding any decision that may come from the court. And, as we walk through the scholarship on Section 3, it'll become clear that there are more than just two outcomes: on or off the ballot, but many outcomes…some with ramifications—including a possible constitutional crisis—all the way to Jan. 6, 2025.
There's this incredible dissonance at the center of our politics right now. On the one hand, all the polling suggests that Donald Trump is about to win Iowa Republican caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. He seems overwhelmingly likely to be his party's nominee, and so possibly our next president. On the other hand, he could be constitutionally disqualified from taking office.Colorado and Maine concluded as much, and tossed him off their ballots. And now the Supreme Court is poised to take on this unprecedented question of whether a little-known provision of the Constitution, written in the aftermath of the Civil War, can bar Trump from running and scramble the election in 2024.The Times Opinion columnist David French has been on the show before, as both a guest and a guest host, to break down the criminal cases against Trump. This time, I've asked David back to make his case for why Trump is constitutionally disqualified. We discuss some of the biggest objections, what the Supreme Court is likely to do, and how the possible options risk destabilizing the country in different ways.Mentioned:Researcher applicationAssociate engineer application“The Sweep and Force of Section Three” by William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen“The Case for Disqualifying Trump Is Strong” by David French“Snakebit” by Nick CatoggioBook Recommendations:Operation Pedestal by Max HastingsInto the Heart of Romans by N. T. WrightManhunt by James L. SwansonThoughts? 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.This episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” was produced by Rollin Hu. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris, with Kate Sinclair and Mary Marge Locker. Our senior engineer is Jeff Geld, with additional mixing by Efim Shapiro. Our senior editor is Claire Gordon. The show's production team also includes Annie Galvin and Kristin Lin. Original music by Isaac Jones. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The executive producer of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser.
The question of Donald Trump's disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is before the courts. Last week the Colorado Supreme Court heard appeals of the District Court rulings. As they consider their decision, we have the privilege of hearing from the nation's two leading experts on the subject, the author of The Sweep and Force of Section Three - the universally acknowledged definitive article. (Note: this episode is uploaded a day early because of the timing of the case.) They respond to the arguments made in court, as well as those that have been put forth in media and elsewhere - and we also consider the two other cases, in Michigan and Minnesota. The previous appearance by Profs. Baude and Paulsen were the highest rated episodes in Amarica's Constitution's 3 years, and this may be even more important for clerks, judges, and citizens to hear and consider.
Featuring:Prof. William Baude, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Constitutional Law Institute, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover InstitutionModerator: Prof. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law and Joseph C. Carter, Jr. Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Listeners – our apologies. We've given you interesting topic after interesting topic, distinguished guest after distinguished guest. But we've strayed from the promise of the podcast, which is legal theory, and legal theory means arguing ad nauseam about whether we're positivists or normativists. For a recent intervention in that debate, we're delighted to bring you today's guest, William Baude, the Harry Kalven, Jr. Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Constitutional Law Institute at the University of Chicago Law School and a member of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, to discuss his 2023 Scalia Lecture at Harvard Law School, “Beyond Textualism?”. We recommend you give the paper a skim before listening – Sam and David don't waste any time getting into it on this episode. David presses Baude on the relationship between textualism and democracy while Sam is skeptical that Baude's project is properly textualist at all. Next, we try to make sense of how the law-policy distinction maps onto the common law and the so-called general law past and present. Our tour continues to statutory interpretation before we get to the normativist-positivist debate (or: what's the difference between Will Baude and Adrian Vermeule?). We end by discussing Baude's recent foray into celebrity and whether the Constitution bars Donald Trump from running for president. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings A Matter of Interpretation by Antonin Scalia “Finding Law” by Stephen Sachs “General Law and the Fourteenth Amendment” by Will Baude, Jud Campbell, and Stephen Sachs Legalism by Judith Shklar “The ‘Common-Good' Manifesto” by Will Baude and Stephen Sachs “The Real Enemies of Democracy” by Will Baude
For the first time in American history, the Speaker of the House of Representatives was ousted in a vote of no confidence. On this weekly roundup, host Ron Steslow and guests Mike Madrid (Lincoln Project cofounder) and Scott Tranter (Investor and Advisor to Decision Desk HQ) discuss the Republican infighting, the reforms Matt Gaetz asked for, what it means, and where we go from here . Then they break down Robert F. Kennedy Jr. teasing a third party presidential run, who it could help and who it could hurt Finally, they look at the organized labor stories all over the headlines and what the renewed strength of organized labor could mean for our elections. Segments to look forward to: (02:28) McCarthy loses the Speaker's gavel (33:45) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. flirts with a third party presidential run [Politicology+] The realignment in working class voters and rising organized labor Politicology+ is our private, ad-free version of this podcast, with subscriber-only episodes, strategy, and analysis. To join us there, visit politicology.com/plus or subscribe in Apple Podcasts. Listen to Will Baude on Advisory Opinions: https://bit.ly/3LN5snH Listen to William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen on America's Constitution with Akhil Amar: Part 1: https://apple.co/48IK7W6 | Part 2: https://apple.co/48IKiRg Check out Hands Off my Rewards: https://handsoffmyrewards.com/ Follow this week's panel on X (formerly Twitter): https://twitter.com/RonSteslow https://twitter.com/stranter https://twitter.com/madrid_mike Related reading: Segment 1: NYT—Behind Kevin McCarthy's Extraordinary Downfall as House Speaker - The New York Times CNN—October 3, 2023 - Kevin McCarthy ousted as Speaker of the House The Hill—5 takeaways from the ouster of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker | The Hill NYT—Gaetz's Ouster of McCarthy Draws Attention to His Ethics Issues - The New York Times WP—Months of bad blood between McCarthy and Democrats help sink his speakership Segment 2: NYT—Robert Kennedy Jr. Hints Strongly at Third-Party Presidential Bid - The New York Times Politico—Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s super PAC preps for him to run for president as an Independent - POLITICO The Dispatch —RFK JR. Could Play Spoiler, but Not for Biden - Chris Stirewalt - The Dispatch Echelon Insights Verified Voter Omnibus Nate Silver —RFK Jr. probably won't hurt Biden. He might even help him. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today, Liz and Andrew tackle the two biggest stories: Matt Gaetz having ousted Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House, and Donald Trump's civil trial in New York. All that AND an Andrew Was Wrong featuring more on the 14th Amendment. In the Patreon bonus, the two tackle a Liz Was Not Wrong about why Trump doesn't have a jury trial in New York. Hint: yes you can still make fun of Alina Habba! Notes Justice Engoron Order https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=op8OyfqVHpc6eGTx9LOw3Q== OAG v. Trump appellate decision https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=ReQsiVyUL/PE7F5_PLUS_RuqoMw== CBS News story on Trump conceding to $27 million valuation for Mar-a-Lago https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-mar-a-lago-1-8-billion-own-company-said-it-was-too-high/?espv=1 SCOTUS orders 10/2 https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100223zor_5368.pdf Eastman petition for cert https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-1138/267263/20230519131455424_230516%20PWC%20corrected.pdf Trump Fulton County docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142 FC indictment https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23909542/23sc188947-criminal-indictment.pdf Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Governor Newsom, Laphonza Butler, and the Constitution's Plain Text,' New Reform Club (Oct. 2, 2023, 3:54 PM), ; Josh Blackman & Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section 3: A Response to William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen,' 28(2) Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth. circa Mar. 2024) (posted on: Sept. 12, 2023), . Is There A Constitutional Right to a Jury Trial of Equitable Defenses in New York?, 74 St. Johns L. Rev. 1 (2000) https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=lawreview -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com
Prof. William Baude joins Sarah and David to explain why he thinks Trump's actions in 2020 might be constitutionally disqualified from running for president again. Show notes: -Prof. Michael McConnell, Responding About the Fourteenth Amendment, "Insurrection," and Trump -The Sweep and Force of Section Three -AO episode about the law article Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Constitutional scholars, both Republican and Democrat, are unifying behind one position: section 3 of the 14 Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from holding any federal office in the future, including the presidency, because he engaged in an insurrection against the United States, after taking an oath to support the Constitution. Scholars say the constitutional disqualification is self-executing, requiring no act of Congress, no act of any state legislature, and no court proceeding, civil or criminal. Glenn breaks down, in layman's terms, the arguments made in a lengthy law review article authored by two conservative constitutional law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen. Then, more and more of Donald Trump's aides, associates, and underlings are beginning to point the criminal finger at Donald Trump. As Politico reported, " Trump's co-defendants are already starting to turn against him." Glenn points out - in large conspiracy cases, there is always a point in time when co-defendants begin flipping against the bigger criminal fish. In Trump's prosecutions, that time has arrived.For our Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise shop, please visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Please consider becoming a #TeamJustice patron at: https://www.patreon.com/glennkirschnerAnd check out Glenn's website at glennkirschner.comFollow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Constitutional scholars, both Republican and Democrat, are unifying behind one position: section 3 of the 14 Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from holding any federal office in the future, including the presidency, because he engaged in an insurrection against the United States, after taking an oath to support the Constitution. Scholars say the constitutional disqualification is self-executing, requiring no act of Congress, no act of any state legislature, and no court proceeding, civil or criminal. Glenn breaks down, in layman's terms, the arguments made in a lengthy law review article authored by two conservative constitutional law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen. Then, more and more of Donald Trump's aides, associates, and underlings are beginning to point the criminal finger at Donald Trump. As Politico reported, " Trump's co-defendants are already starting to turn against him." Glenn points out - in large conspiracy cases, there is always a point in time when co-defendants begin flipping against the bigger criminal fish. In Trump's prosecutions, that time has arrived.For our Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise shop, please visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Please consider becoming a #TeamJustice patron at: https://www.patreon.com/glennkirschnerAnd check out Glenn's website at glennkirschner.comFollow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
We continue our exclusive discussion with the Professors Baude and Paulsen, authors of the bombshell article declaring Trump ineligible for the Presidency. This time we explore some concerns that have been voiced in the media and elsewhere; we look at how this provision might make itself effective in practice. We trace the possible routes such an effort might take; where would it be initiated - and importantly, who would be the final authority? Along the way we enter the Fed Courts classroom and look at - what else - the Constitution's voice on these matters, in the 14th amendment, and elsewhere.
Diskvalificerar 14:e tillägget ex-presidenten? USA:s tidigare president Donald Trump siktar på ett återtåg 2024. Men nu går två professorer i juridik ut och skriver att 14:e tillägget i konstitutionen gör honom olämplig för politiskt ämbete.William Baude och Michael Stokes Paulsen, båda engagerade i The Federalist Society, menar att Trumps roll i stormningen av kongressen 2020 diskvalificerar honom från valet nästa år.Vi pratar också om de höga fängelsestraffen som delats ut till ledarskiktet i högerextrema Proud Boys och om Mitch McConnells och Joe Bidens ålderskrämpor.Medverkande: Ginna Lindberg och Roger Wilson, Sveriges Radios korrespondenter i USA.Programledare: Sara StenholmProducent: Viktor MattssonTekniker: Linus Sjölund
In this Podcast Episode, I quote from “The Sweep and Force of Section Three," written by two law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen. The "Section Three" that is in the title is from the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Professors are Constitutional experts and members of the Conservative Federalist Society. They conclude that "Donal Trump is not eligible to hold the office of the Presidency. This quote is located at the end of their article. "At all events, if a President or former President of the United States; a current or former officer of the federal executive branch; a Member or former Member of Congress; a current or former state legislator or state executive official; or a current or former federal or state court judge, planned, supported, assisted, encouraged, endorsed, or aided in a material way those who engaged in the insurrection of January 6, or otherwise knowingly and willfully participated in a broader rebellion against the constitutional system, such persons are constitutionally disqualified from office. In such situations, Section Three's constitutional disqualifications can, should, and must be carried out." Please Subscribe.
With primaries set to start in spring of 2024, an upcoming presidential election, and a number of federal & state indictments against former President Trump, including the January 6th indictment, section 3 of the 14th amendment has taken center stage. It reads "no person who has taken an oath as an officer of the United States can hold office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”. So, will Section 3 of the 14th Amendment actually impact the presidential election and eliminate Donald Trump from the running? In this episode, host Craig Williams is joined by guest Ron Fein, the Legal Director for Free Speech For People. as they spotlight Section 3 and what this could mean for the upcoming presidential election. Mentioned in this Episode: The Sweep and Force of Section 3 by William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again by J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6 by Adam Liptak The 14Point3 Campaign Trump is Disqualified
With primaries set to start in spring of 2024, an upcoming presidential election, and a number of federal & state indictments against former President Trump, including the January 6th indictment, section 3 of the 14th amendment has taken center stage. It reads "no person who has taken an oath as an officer of the United States can hold office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”. So, will Section 3 of the 14th Amendment actually impact the presidential election and eliminate Donald Trump from the running? In this episode, host Craig Williams is joined by guest Ron Fein, the Legal Director for Free Speech For People. as they spotlight Section 3 and what this could mean for the upcoming presidential election. Mentioned in this Episode: The Sweep and Force of Section 3 by William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again by J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6 by Adam Liptak The 14Point3 Campaign Trump is Disqualified
In a special episode, the two distinguished authors of a recent major article, which dives deep into Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and finds that Donald Trump is disqualified from the Presidency, join us for a thoughtful and rigorous examination of the tough questions about their conclusions. These are leading conservative scholars who have gone where their methodologies, and the law, has taken them. Reaction has been swift and impassioned around the country, and in this episode they respond for the first time to some of the critiques, explore the implications of their work, and in doing so, they bring an integrity to our civic conversation. This is an important discussion of important issues, by real experts.
This week, John Dickerson is back and joins Emily Bazelon and David Plotz to discuss the first Republican primary debate and the simulcast Tucker Carlson interview of Donald Trump; the Republican law professors' debate about whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits another Trump presidency; and the United Diners of America. Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Colectivo Coffee in Madison, Wisconsin Josh Dawsey, Michael Scherer, and Marianne LeVine for The Washington Post: “Republican rivals clash sharply in combative debate with no Trump” Sam Levine for The Guardian: “Could Trump be barred under the constitution's ‘engaged in insurrection' clause?” William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review: “The Sweep and Force of Section Three” J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe in The Atlantic: “The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again” Eric Segall in Dorf on Law: “Of Insurrections, Presidents, and the Utter Failure of Constitutional Law to Address the Real Issues” Catherine Rampell for The Washington Post: “Where do socioeconomic classes mix? Not church, but Chili's.” Maxim Massenkoff and Nathan Wilmers: “Rubbing Shoulders: Class Segregation in Daily Activities” Freevee original “Jury Duty” on Amazon Julie V. Iovine for The New York Times: “Dog Parks Are Great for People. Too Bad They're Terrible for Dogs.” Applebee's America: How Successful Political, Business, and Religious Leaders Connect with the New American Community by Ron Fournier, Douglas B. Sosnik, and Matthew J. Dowd “Fancy Like (feat. Kesha)” by Walker Hayes Here are this week's chatters: John: “Weathervanes” by Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit; “Jason Isbell: Running With Our Eyes Closed“ on Max; “Volunteer” and “Cast Iron Skillet” by Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit Emily: Jeff Amy for AP: “Georgia prosecutors are suing to strike down a new state law that undermines their authority” David: Emily Heil for The Washington Post: “Eggo's ‘Brunch in a Jar' sippin' cream is a boozy, diabolical disaster”; Cheez-It Snap'd; City Cast DC 1 Year Anniversary Live Taping Listener chatter from Leonie: Ronan Casey for Classic Rock: “Meat Loaf, a flying wheelchair, and the greatest story ever told” For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, John, Emily, and David debate calendar invitations. In this month's edition of Gabfest Reads, Emily, David, and John talk with Barbara Kingsolver about her best-selling book, Demon Copperhead. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com or X us @SlateGabfest. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Jared Downing and Cheyna Roth Research by Julie Huygen Hosts Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz Follow @SlateGabfest on X / https://twitter.com/SlateGabfest Slate Gabfest on Facebook / https://www.facebook.com/Gabfest/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This week, John Dickerson is back and joins Emily Bazelon and David Plotz to discuss the first Republican primary debate and the simulcast Tucker Carlson interview of Donald Trump; the Republican law professors' debate about whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits another Trump presidency; and the United Diners of America. Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Colectivo Coffee in Madison, Wisconsin Josh Dawsey, Michael Scherer, and Marianne LeVine for The Washington Post: “Republican rivals clash sharply in combative debate with no Trump” Sam Levine for The Guardian: “Could Trump be barred under the constitution's ‘engaged in insurrection' clause?” William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review: “The Sweep and Force of Section Three” J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe in The Atlantic: “The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again” Eric Segall in Dorf on Law: “Of Insurrections, Presidents, and the Utter Failure of Constitutional Law to Address the Real Issues” Catherine Rampell for The Washington Post: “Where do socioeconomic classes mix? Not church, but Chili's.” Maxim Massenkoff and Nathan Wilmers: “Rubbing Shoulders: Class Segregation in Daily Activities” Freevee original “Jury Duty” on Amazon Julie V. Iovine for The New York Times: “Dog Parks Are Great for People. Too Bad They're Terrible for Dogs.” Applebee's America: How Successful Political, Business, and Religious Leaders Connect with the New American Community by Ron Fournier, Douglas B. Sosnik, and Matthew J. Dowd “Fancy Like (feat. Kesha)” by Walker Hayes Here are this week's chatters: John: “Weathervanes” by Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit; “Jason Isbell: Running With Our Eyes Closed“ on Max; “Volunteer” and “Cast Iron Skillet” by Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit Emily: Jeff Amy for AP: “Georgia prosecutors are suing to strike down a new state law that undermines their authority” David: Emily Heil for The Washington Post: “Eggo's ‘Brunch in a Jar' sippin' cream is a boozy, diabolical disaster”; Cheez-It Snap'd; City Cast DC 1 Year Anniversary Live Taping Listener chatter from Leonie: Ronan Casey for Classic Rock: “Meat Loaf, a flying wheelchair, and the greatest story ever told” For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, John, Emily, and David debate calendar invitations. In this month's edition of Gabfest Reads, Emily, David, and John talk with Barbara Kingsolver about her best-selling book, Demon Copperhead. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com or X us @SlateGabfest. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Jared Downing and Cheyna Roth Research by Julie Huygen Hosts Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz Follow @SlateGabfest on X / https://twitter.com/SlateGabfest Slate Gabfest on Facebook / https://www.facebook.com/Gabfest/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This week, John Dickerson is back and joins Emily Bazelon and David Plotz to discuss the first Republican primary debate and the simulcast Tucker Carlson interview of Donald Trump; the Republican law professors' debate about whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits another Trump presidency; and the United Diners of America. Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Colectivo Coffee in Madison, Wisconsin Josh Dawsey, Michael Scherer, and Marianne LeVine for The Washington Post: “Republican rivals clash sharply in combative debate with no Trump” Sam Levine for The Guardian: “Could Trump be barred under the constitution's ‘engaged in insurrection' clause?” William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review: “The Sweep and Force of Section Three” J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe in The Atlantic: “The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again” Eric Segall in Dorf on Law: “Of Insurrections, Presidents, and the Utter Failure of Constitutional Law to Address the Real Issues” Catherine Rampell for The Washington Post: “Where do socioeconomic classes mix? Not church, but Chili's.” Maxim Massenkoff and Nathan Wilmers: “Rubbing Shoulders: Class Segregation in Daily Activities” Freevee original “Jury Duty” on Amazon Julie V. Iovine for The New York Times: “Dog Parks Are Great for People. Too Bad They're Terrible for Dogs.” Applebee's America: How Successful Political, Business, and Religious Leaders Connect with the New American Community by Ron Fournier, Douglas B. Sosnik, and Matthew J. Dowd “Fancy Like (feat. Kesha)” by Walker Hayes Here are this week's chatters: John: “Weathervanes” by Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit; “Jason Isbell: Running With Our Eyes Closed“ on Max; “Volunteer” and “Cast Iron Skillet” by Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit Emily: Jeff Amy for AP: “Georgia prosecutors are suing to strike down a new state law that undermines their authority” David: Emily Heil for The Washington Post: “Eggo's ‘Brunch in a Jar' sippin' cream is a boozy, diabolical disaster”; Cheez-It Snap'd; City Cast DC 1 Year Anniversary Live Taping Listener chatter from Leonie: Ronan Casey for Classic Rock: “Meat Loaf, a flying wheelchair, and the greatest story ever told” For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, John, Emily, and David debate calendar invitations. In this month's edition of Gabfest Reads, Emily, David, and John talk with Barbara Kingsolver about her best-selling book, Demon Copperhead. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com or X us @SlateGabfest. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Jared Downing and Cheyna Roth Research by Julie Huygen Hosts Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz Follow @SlateGabfest on X / https://twitter.com/SlateGabfest Slate Gabfest on Facebook / https://www.facebook.com/Gabfest/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
SEASON 2 EPISODE 11: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SPECIAL COMMENT: “Donald Trump cannot BE president – cannot run FOR president – cannot BECOME president – cannot HOLD OFFICE – unless two thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on January 6th." That's from Will Baude, Faculty Director of the Constitutional Law Institute at the University of Chicago Law School, and member of the ultra-conservative FEDERALIST SOCIETY, and former clerk for Chief Justice Roberts. He was summarizing, for The New York Times, an article he and Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen will publish next year in the University of Pennsylvania law review. They insist that there is no doubt Trump has triggered the disqualification aspect of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and that it should be applied automatically by State Secretaries of State. “Section 3's disqualification rule may and must be followed – applied, honored, obeyed, enforced, carried out – by anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office.” The Federalist Society constitutional scholars say it's automatic. If you put Trump on the ballot, you are breaking the law. And as academic and theoretical and dilettantish as this all sounds, these guys think it should be made really real: “There are many ways that this could become a lawsuit presenting a vital constitutional issue that potentially the Supreme Court would want to hear and decide,” said Professor Paulsen. And Paulsen is a distinguished university chair and professor of Constitutional Law and Federal Courts at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. And Steven Calabresi, co-chairman of the Federalist Society, co-founder and co-chairman of the Federalist Society, says the Baude-Paulsen article is “a tour de force" that proves “Trump is INELIGIBLE TO BE ON the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” unquote – or they may be SUED. There could be enough to knock Trump off the ballot in individual states. And with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) having successfully sued to remove a January 6th insurrectionist from office in New Mexico, there is a guidebook to how to literally stop Trump before he starts. Also: Jack Smith really was pushing a Rocket Docket. He wants the J6 trial to launch on January 2. Meanwhile Trump's lawyers are so stupid they think the 2021 insurrection was three-and-a-half years ago, and his apologists like Jon Turley think January 2, 2024 is 18 days before the inauguration that the rest of us seem to believe doesn't happen until a YEAR and 18 days later. B-Block (23:00) POSTSCRIPTS TO THE NEWS: In Iowa, Ron DeSantis literally phones it in. Senator Tommy Tuberville - of Florida? And when it doesn't work the fascists only have one play: yell louder. So Laura Ingraham says they MUST RUN ON HAVING REPEALED ROE-V-WADE. For once I agree with her! (27:45) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Unbanned Twitter QAnon loser has a new conspiracy and a new made-up source; Florida GOP County Chair allegedly plagiarized his university Honors Thesis from Wikipedia; And when Conspiracy Theories collide: the Antivaxxer "running" for POTUS is endorsed by the guy whose father claimed he assassinated the Antivaxxer's uncle. C-Block (34:15) FRIDAYS WITH THURBER: My father so loved "I Went To Sullivant" that he literally listened as I read it to him one last time - and only when I finished did he pass away. Now THAT'S an endorsement!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Good Morning and Happy Friday #LALiens! Thank you for being here. If you're new, welcome. Don't be shy. Join the chat, bang that thumbs-up button, and make sure you're subscribed. . Today, Norm and Mike discuss: . › An emerging sentiment from the political right that Vivek's message is too on-the-nose . › Video footage of the FBI's killing of Utah man, Craig Robertson, emerged on X yesterday. The contents of the arrest warrant on more important now than ever. . › New law review article from William Baude and Michael Paulsen, "The Sweep and Force of Section Three, from the University Pennsylvania Law Review was published on August 9, 2023. . Join us. . For the rest of the year, creators will receive 100 percent of the revenue from the purchase of monthly subscription badges, which Rumble recently launched for the price of $5 per month. Please consider purchasing a subscription badge to LAL and be assured that LAL will receive every penny of that subscription through the end of the year. Your consideration and patronage is most sincerely appreciated! . Daily livestreams beginning at 8:00 am EST on: › Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/LawandLegitimacy › Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@lawandlegitimacy › X: https://twitter.com/LawPodDaily . Subscribe and turn on notifications! . Support Law and Legitimacy: . - Locals: https://lawandlegitimacy.locals.com/ - X: @LawPodDaily, @PattisNorm, and @MichaelBoyer_ - Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Audible, Spotify, or wherever you receive podcasts and rate LAL 5 stars. - Subscribe here on our Rumble and Youtube channels, give us a Rumble, and join our active community of free-thinkers, contrarians, and the unafraid on Locals!
Good Morning and Happy Friday #LALiens! Thank you for being here. If you're new, welcome. Don't be shy. Join the chat, bang that thumbs-up button, and make sure you're subscribed. . Today, Norm and Mike discuss: . › An emerging sentiment from the political right that Vivek's message is too on-the-nose . › Video footage of the FBI's killing of Utah man, Craig Robertson, emerged on X yesterday. The contents of the arrest warrant on more important now than ever. . › New law review article from William Baude and Michael Paulsen, "The Sweep and Force of Section Three, from the University Pennsylvania Law Review was published on August 9, 2023. . Join us. . For the rest of the year, creators will receive 100 percent of the revenue from the purchase of monthly subscription badges, which Rumble recently launched for the price of $5 per month. Please consider purchasing a subscription badge to LAL and be assured that LAL will receive every penny of that subscription through the end of the year. Your consideration and patronage is most sincerely appreciated! . Daily livestreams beginning at 8:00 am EST on: › Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/LawandLegitimacy › Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@lawandlegitimacy › X: https://twitter.com/LawPodDaily . Subscribe and turn on notifications! . Support Law and Legitimacy: . - Locals: https://lawandlegitimacy.locals.com/ - X: @LawPodDaily, @PattisNorm, and @MichaelBoyer_ - Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Audible, Spotify, or wherever you receive podcasts and rate LAL 5 stars. - Subscribe here on our Rumble and Youtube channels, give us a Rumble, and join our active community of free-thinkers, contrarians, and the unafraid on Locals!
Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively. But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. 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
Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively. But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science
Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively. But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies
Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively. But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy
Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively. But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics
Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively. But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law
Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively. But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively. But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day
Recently, the application of Textualism by the Supreme Court of the United States--the predominant method of statutory interpretation that favors the plain meaning of text over legislative intent, statutory purpose, or legislative history--has given rise to rich debate as to its legitimacy, vitality, and future application. This webinar will explore and advance that debate with some of the leading minds in the field. Featuring:Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolProf. William Baude, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Emily Bremer, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School[Moderator] Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Related Links: The 2023 Scalia Lecture: Beyond Textualism?, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 46, 2023, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4464561Interpreting the Administrative Procedure Act: A Literature Review, 98 Notre Dame L. Rev. (forthcoming 2023), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=4340363.
President Biden's plan to cancel billions of dollars in student debt will go before the Supreme Court Tuesday. A number of states have sued, citing government overreach. But do they have the right to do that? Danielle Douglas-Gabriel of the Washington Post and professor William Baude join us. Then, Major League Baseball implemented a pitch clock and other new regulations to speed up the game, which have caused some drama in spring training games so far. Washinton Post national baseball writer Chelsea Janes joins us to unpack the changes. And, Americans have long believed that free markets are a fundamental right. The new book "The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market" explores where that idea came from and its validity. Naomi Oreskes, who co-authored the book with Erik M. Conway, joins us.
After the historic Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, what should we look for as the Supreme Court begins a new term? How will the Court handle controversial subjects such as affirmative action and religious freedom? How should we understand the current Court's jurisprudence? To discuss these questions, we are joined by University of Chicago law professor William Baude. According to Baude, with its emphasis on originalist jurisprudence, the Court has become more willing to take bold actions—and likely will continue to do so this year. Yet Baude argues that the centrality of the Court today in settling the most controversial matters in our politics is as much a consequence of the failures of Congress as the judicial philosophy or temperament of Supreme Court justices. Kristol and Baude also discuss similarities and dissimilarities with eras like the New Deal when the Court acted as a counter-majoritarian force against a popular and unified Congress. Kristol and Baude also consider the threat of election subversion, a theme Baude addressed in greater depth in a memorable and important Conversation last year.
After the historic Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, what should we look for as the Supreme Court begins a new term? How will the Court handle controversial subjects such as affirmative action and religious freedom? How should we understand the current Court's jurisprudence? To discuss these questions, we are joined by University of Chicago law professor William Baude. According to Baude, with its emphasis on originalist jurisprudence, the Court has become more willing to take bold actions—and likely will continue to do so this year. Yet Baude argues that the centrality of the Court today in settling the most controversial matters in our politics is as much a consequence of the failures of Congress as the judicial philosophy or temperament of Supreme Court justices. Kristol and Baude also discuss similarities and dissimilarities with eras like the New Deal when the Court acted as a counter-majoritarian force against a popular and unified Congress. Kristol and Baude also consider the threat of election subversion, a theme Baude addressed in greater depth in a memorable and important Conversation last year.
In a recent law review article, University of Chicago law professor William Baude writes, After the 2020 presidential election, the peaceful transfer of power can no longer be taken for granted. How well did our institutions respond to the challenges? What vulnerabilities in our electoral processes and loopholes in our laws represent the most critical threats for the future? In this Conversation, Baude shares his perspective on the 2020 presidential election and its aftermath—and particularly the efforts in certain states and in Congress led by President Trump and those who fought for him to overturn the electoral victory of Joe Biden. Baude explains how these efforts to subvert the election create a dangerous precedent. Baude contends that the courts and other institutions resisted the attempt to overturn the election reasonably well. But, he argues, we cannot be complacent about concerted attempts to undermine the electoral process, and the threats to the rule of law in the years ahead.
In a recent law review article, University of Chicago law professor William Baude writes, After the 2020 presidential election, the peaceful transfer of power can no longer be taken for granted. How well did our institutions respond to the challenges? What vulnerabilities in our electoral processes and loopholes in our laws represent the most critical threats for the future? In this Conversation, Baude shares his perspective on the 2020 presidential election and its aftermath—and particularly the efforts in certain states and in Congress led by President Trump and those who fought for him to overturn the electoral victory of Joe Biden. Baude explains how these efforts to subvert the election create a dangerous precedent. Baude contends that the courts and other institutions resisted the attempt to overturn the election reasonably well. But, he argues, we cannot be complacent about concerted attempts to undermine the electoral process, and the threats to the rule of law in the years ahead.
In a recent law review article, University of Chicago law professor William Baude writes, After the 2020 presidential election, the peaceful transfer of power can no longer be taken for granted. How well did our institutions respond to the challenges? What vulnerabilities in our electoral processes and loopholes in our laws represent the most critical threats for the future? In this Conversation, Baude shares his perspective on the 2020 presidential election and its aftermath—and particularly the efforts in certain states and in Congress led by President Trump and those who fought for him to overturn the electoral victory of Joe Biden. Baude explains how these efforts to subvert the election create a dangerous precedent. Baude contends that the courts and other institutions resisted the attempt to overturn the election reasonably well. But, he argues, we cannot be complacent about concerted attempts to undermine the electoral process, and the threats to the rule of law in the years ahead.
In a recent law review article, University of Chicago law professor William Baude writes, After the 2020 presidential election, the peaceful transfer of power can no longer be taken for granted. How well did our institutions respond to the challenges? What vulnerabilities in our electoral processes and loopholes in our laws represent the most critical threats for the future? In […]
SCOTUS has been handing down summary decisions without public deliberation (sometimes in the middle of the night) regularly for the last several years. Law professor William Baude coined these procedurally variant decisions the Supreme Court's "shadow docket." FindLaw's new Sr. Editor Vaidehi Mehta joins the show for the first time to offer a look at what the shadow docket is and how the increasing use of the practice is raising questions. Laura's blog on the Supreme Court's 2020 term is here: https://bit.ly/2XnuVxH
Host Corrie Woods interviews fellow appellate attorney Aaron Marcus of the Defender Association of Philadelphia to discuss Commonwealth v. Alexander, in which SCOPA held that the Pennsylvania Constitution provides motorists greater privacy rights than the federal Constitution, requiring any search of an automobile in Pennsylvania be supported not only by probable cause, as the federal Constitution requires, but also by exigent circumstances that make it impracticable to obtain a warrant. Show Notes:Justice Donohue's OpinionJustice Baer's Concurring OpinionChief Justice Saylor's Dissenting OpinionJustice Dougherty's Dissenting OpinionJustice Mundy's Dissenting Opinion"Precedent and Discretion" by William Baude"Book Examines the History and Contemporary Role of Philadelphia's Public Defenders"Read more about Commonwealth v. Alexander and all of SCOPA's cases on SCOPAblog.
What should the Supreme Court do when it finds one provision of a statute unconstitutional? There is a significant split between current Justices on the question where Congress has not provided express instructions on severance within the statute. Several believe the Court should save the rest of the statute, while others have expressed skepticism towards this practice.This distinguished panel will explore the foundations of the severability doctrine and the authority of Article III judges in such cases. Panelists will offer their differing views of severability and discuss where the doctrine may be headed.Featuring:-- Prof. William Baude, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School-- Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston-- Erin M. Hawley, Senior Legal Fellow, Independent Women's Law Center -- Prof. Kevin C. Walsh, Assistant Professor, University of Richmond School of Law-- Moderator: Megan L. Brown, Partner, Wiley
A recent episode of the Rationally Speaking Podcast featured Originalist Law professor William Baude arguing for why judges should be originalist. Needless to say, it was not a good case and strawman arguments abounded. Andrew is here to give us part 2 of the deep-dive that will set the record straight on why originalism is still bad.
A recent episode of the Rationally Speaking Podcast featured Originalist Law professor William Baude arguing for why judges should be originalist. Needless to say, it was not a good case and strawman arguments abounded. Andrew is here to give us part 1 of the deep-dive that will set the record straight on why originalism is still bad. Then we've got Ace Associate Morgan Stringer on for some pop-law! She gives us the breakdown on the lawsuits filed against DeShaun Watson which allege sexual assault. Links: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), Gamble Decision with Thomas quote
Is there any justification for seemingly unjust laws like "qualified immunity," which allows cops to get away with bad behavior? William Baude, a leading scholar of constitutional law, explores how these laws came to be and why they're so hard to change. Also, Baude makes the case for originalism, the view that judges should base their rulings on the original meaning of the Constitution. And Baude explains how rationalist principles have influenced his teaching and legal scholarship.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made headlines last week for his dissent to the majority’s denial of cert in Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Veronica Degraffenreid. Even though his dissent mainly focused on the mootness of the case, many media outlets seized on the opportunity to mischaracterize Justice Thomas’ argument by claiming he promoted President Trump’s baseless voter fraud claims. After Sarah and David give us their spiel about how media outlets often botch Supreme Court coverage, University of Chicago Law professor William Baude joins today’s show for an extremely nerdy conversation about the Supreme Court’s shadow docket that you won’t want to miss. Show Notes: -Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Veronica Degraffenreid. -“Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims” by Mark Joseph Stern in Slate. -“Clarence Thomas Promotes Trump’s Voter Fraud Lies in Alarming Dissent” by John Fritze in USA Today. -“Foreword: The Supreme Court's Shadow Docket” by William Baude in the New York University Journal of Law & Liberty. -Feb. 18 House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Supreme Court’s shadow docket. -Supreme Court Practice by Eugene Gressman. -South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. -Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Podcast: Radiolab (LS 87 · TOP 0.01% what is this?)Episode: Enemy of MankindPub date: 2020-12-10Should the U.S. Supreme Court be the court of the world? In the 18th century, two feuding Frenchmen inspired a one-sentence law that helped launch American human rights litigation into the 20th century. The Alien Tort Statute allowed a Paraguayan woman to find justice for a terrible crime committed in her homeland. But as America reached further and further out into the world, the court was forced to confront the contradictions in our country's ideology: sympathy vs. sovereignty. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Jesner v. Arab Bank, a case that could reshape the way America responds to human rights abuses abroad. Does the A.T.S. secure human rights or is it a dangerous overreach? Additional music for this episode by Nicolas Carter. Special thanks to William J. Aceves, William Baude, Diego Calles, Alana Casanova-Burgess, William Dodge, Susan Farbstein, Jeffery Fisher, Joanne Freeman, Julian Ku, Nicholas Rosenkranz, Susan Simpson, Emily Vinson, Benjamin Wittes and Jamison York. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., who appears in this episode, passed away in October 2016. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at Radiolab.org/donate. The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from WNYC Studios, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Should the U.S. Supreme Court be the court of the world? In the 18th century, two feuding Frenchmen inspired a one-sentence law that helped launch American human rights litigation into the 20th century. The Alien Tort Statute allowed a Paraguayan woman to find justice for a terrible crime committed in her homeland. But as America reached further and further out into the world, the court was forced to confront the contradictions in our country’s ideology: sympathy vs. sovereignty. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Jesner v. Arab Bank, a case that could reshape the way America responds to human rights abuses abroad. Does the A.T.S. secure human rights or is it a dangerous overreach? Additional music for this episode by Nicolas Carter. Special thanks to William J. Aceves, William Baude, Diego Calles, Alana Casanova-Burgess, William Dodge, Susan Farbstein, Jeffery Fisher, Joanne Freeman, Julian Ku, Nicholas Rosenkranz, Susan Simpson, Emily Vinson, Benjamin Wittes and Jamison York. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., who appears in this episode, passed away in October 2016. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at Radiolab.org/donate.
Cato's Clark Neily joins Jane to discuss Qualified Immunity - where is came from, why it exists, and what's being done to eliminate it. Clark details how the Supreme Court invented the civil doctrine to protect public workers from personal liability, and details hows it's being used to cloak police officers from being held accountable for unlawful practices. *This interview was recorded on Monday, June 15th 2020 Relevant cases: Amy Corbitt, Petitioner v. Michael Vickers, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Jessop v. City of Fresno, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Sims v. Labowitz, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Relevant articles: "To Make Police Accountable, End Qualified Immunity" by Clark Neily, The Bulwark "Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?" by William Baude, California Law Review "Jury Rejects Damages for Victims of Pot Raid Based on Wet Tea Leaves" by Jacob Sullum, Reason "George Floyd’s Death Must Be a Catalyst for Accountability" by Clark Neily, Cato Please visit https://www.unlawfulshield.com/ for more information on Cato's efforts to eliminate Qualified Immunity Guest: Clark Neily (@ConLawWarrior) Vice President of Criminal Justice, Cato Institute Host: Jane Coaston (@cjane87), Senior Politics Reporter, Vox Credits: Jeff Geld, (@jeff_geld), Editor and Producer The Weeds is a Vox Media Podcast Network production Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a contribution to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts More to explore: Subscribe to Impeachment, Explained on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Overcast, Pocket Casts, or your favorite podcast app to get stay updated on this story every week. About Vox Vox is a news network that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Follow Us: Vox.com Facebook group: The Weeds Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On the first Monday in October, the Supreme Court session opens. Each fall, the University of Chicago Law School invites faculty members to offer insight into some of the issues the Court will hear in the upcoming year. This year we heard from William Baude, Professor of Law and Aaron Director Research Scholar, and Anthony J. Casey, Professor of Law. Recorded on October 15, 2019, at The Standard Club in Chicago.
On the first Monday in October, the Supreme Court session opens. Each fall, the University of Chicago Law School invites faculty members to offer insight into some of the issues the Court will hear in the upcoming year. This year we heard from William Baude, Professor of Law and Aaron Director Research Scholar, and Anthony J. Casey, Professor of Law. Recorded on October 15, 2019, at The Standard Club in Chicago.
In this episode, Joanna Schwartz, Vice Dean for Faculty Development and Professor of Law at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, discusses her article, "The Case Against Qualified Immunity," which was published in the Notre Dame Law Review. Schwartz begins by sketching a historical timeline of the idea of qualified immunity doctrine, from common law understandings of "good faith" extant in 1871 on the doctrine's introduction in Pierson v. Ray (1967) to further developments in the doctrine that has strayed from common law moorings toward a conception centered in the Supreme Court's policy ends. She explains that qualified immunity doctrine largely fails to complete its own policy ends, drawing from qualitative and quantitative research she conducted on law enforcement agencies and attorneys bringing constitutional civil rights litigation before federal courts, finding that qualified immunity doctrine's stated justifications fail to match real-world conditions. She details what circuit courts can do to better shape the ambiguous contours of qualified immunity doctrine, and what the Supreme Court can do to shape or eliminate qualified immunity doctrine. Schwartz concludes by discussing a recent amici curiae brief she and other scholars of the law of qualified immunity (William Baude, Karen M. Blum, Alan Chen, Barry Friedman, John F. Preis, and Fred O. Smith Jr.) submitted to the Supreme Court calling on the court to reconsider qualified immunity doctrine. Schwartz is on Twitter at @JCSchwartzProf.This episode was hosted by Luce Nguyen, a student at Oberlin College and the co-founder of the Oberlin Policy Research Institute, an undergraduate public policy organization based at Oberlin College. Nguyen is on Twitter at @NguyenLuce. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Today on Briefly we explore the controversial doctrine of "qualified immunity," a constitutional law doctrine that prevents executive officials like police from being brought into court for alleged constitutional violations, including acts of violence. Where does the immunity come from? Why does it exist? Is it to protect government officers from their deeds? Or is it to allow courts to expand civil rights without creating numerous court cases? We spoke to three scholars, Harvard’s Richard Fallon, the editor of Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System; William Baude, professor at the University of Chicago Law School and author of “Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?” in the California Law Review; and Joanna Schwartz, a professor at UCLA law whose empirical studies of qualified immunity in practice have been published in the Yale Law Journal and Notre Dame Law Review. This episode was produced by David Sandefer. Music from bensound.com
Steve Vladeck rejoins us on the law of civilian-military separation, whether Marbury v. Madison was rightly decided, and how his recent oral argument before the Supreme Court went (spoiler: amazingly but weirdly). (Ignore Christian's use of the term "basises" (wtf?) and other misstatements and inanities ... you try recording ever week between classes....) This show’s links: Steve Vladeck’s faculty profile (https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/stephen-i-vladeck) and academic writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=362455) The National Security Law Podcast 54: Family Ties or Family Matters? (https://www.nationalsecuritylawpodcast.com/ep-54-family-ties-or-family-matters/) First Mondays OT2017 #12: False Idol (http://www.firstmondays.fm/episodes/2018/1/22/ot2017-12-false-idol) (guest Steve Vladeck) SCOTUSblog page for Dalmazzi v. United States (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dalmazzi-v-united-states/) (including links to all the briefs and more) The oral argument: Oyez version (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-961), SCOTUS downloads (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2017/16-961), and transcript (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-961_08l1.pdf) Oral Argument 137: Steve Vladeck Pincer Move (http://oralargument.org/137) (where we discussed Dalmazzi at the cert stage) Burns v. Wilson (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13501152442303513103) Marbury v. Madison (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9834052745083343188) William Baude, Exciting Developments in Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction: Some Would Call It the Second Coming of Marbury v. Madison (http://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/08/exciting-developments-in-supreme-court-a) United States v. Coe (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18289973798213960260) ex parte Bollman and Swartwout (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=891096754227370578) Akhil Amar, Marbury, Section 13, and the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2019&context=fss_papers) Louise Weinberg, Our Marbury (https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/uploads/publication_files/ourmarburypub.pdf) Felker v. Turpin (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11980829158634315619); see also Oral Argument 84: Felker's Chickens (http://oralargument.org/84) United States v. Gray (http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2017OctTerm/170525.pdf) Special Guest: Steve Vladeck.
We talk with Greg Klass about the use of recent empirical studies to aid in the restatement of the law of consumer contracts - the one-sided, unread "agreements" that are ubiquitous in modern life. The conversation covers the purpose of restatements, the methodology of empirical legal scholarship, and more. This show’s links: Greg Klass's faculty profile (https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/klass-gregory.cfm) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363445) Greg Klass, A Critical Assessment of the Empiricism in the Restatement of Consumer Contract Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3001212) Oral Argument 133: Too Many Darn Radio Buttons (http://oralargument.org/133) (guest Jim Gibson) John Gruber, Apple to Release Software Update to Solve iOS 11 Issue When Typing the Letter "I" (https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/11/07/ios-11-i) About the ALI's draft Restatement of Consumer Contracts (http://www.thealiadviser.org/consumer-contracts/) Oren Bar-Gill, Omri Ben-Shahar, and Florencia Marotta-Wurgler, Searching for the Common Law: The Quantitative Approach of the Restatement of Consumer Contracts (http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol84/iss1/2/) Florencia Marotta-Wurgler, Does Contract Disclosure Matter? (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2736521); Yannis Bakos, Florencia Marotta-Wurgler, David Trossen, Does Anyone Read the Fine Print? Consumer Attention to Standard Form Contracts (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1443256) Arthur Leff, Contract as Thing (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2827/) William Baude, Adam Chilton, and Anup Malani, Making Doctrinal Work More Rigorous: Lessons from Systematic Reviews (http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/public_law_and_legal_theory/622/) Gregory Klass and Kathryn Zeiler, Against Endowment Theory: Experimental Economics and Legal Scholarship (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2224105) Special Guest: Greg Klass.
Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is one of the most polarizing Supreme Court cases of all time. So what is it actually about, and why did the Justices decide the way they did? Justice Anthony Kennedy, often called the “most powerful man in America,” wrote the majority opinion in the case. In this episode, we examine Kennedy’s singular devotion to the First Amendment and look at how it may have influenced his decision in the case. The key voices: Kai Newkirk, 99 Rise Michael Boos, vice president and general counsel of Citizens United Jim Bopp, lawyer, The Bopp Law Firm Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, a contributing editor of The Atlantic, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution Jeffrey Toobin, writer and contributor to The New Yorker and CNN Michael Dorf, professor of law at Cornell University and former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy Alex Kozinski, circuit judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy** The key cases: 2010: Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commision The key links: Citizens United "Money Unlimited," by Jeffrey Toobin Correction: A earlier version of this episode misstated the date of the last day of the 2009 term. Additional music for this episode by: Gyan Riley Kevin MacLeod "Bad Ideas (distressed)"Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Special thanks to Justin Levitt, Guy-Uriel Charles, William Baude, Helen Knowles, and Derek John. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. **This episode was taped prior to The Washington Post's reporting on Judge Alex Kozinski which was published on December 8, 2017.
Should the U.S. Supreme Court be the court of the world? In the 18th century, two feuding Frenchmen inspired a one-sentence law that helped launch American human rights litigation into the 20th century. The Alien Tort Statute allowed a Paraguayan woman to find justice for a terrible crime committed in her homeland. But as America reached further and further out into the world, the court was forced to confront the contradictions in our country’s ideology: sympathy vs. sovereignty. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Jesner v. Arab Bank, a case that could reshape the way America responds to human rights abuses abroad. Does the A.T.S. secure human rights or is it a dangerous overreach? The key voices: Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., son of activist Ken Saro-Wiwa Sr. Dolly Filártiga, sister of Joelito Filártiga Paloma Calles, daughter of Dolly Filártiga Peter Weiss, lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights who represented Dolly Filártiga in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala Katherine Gallagher, lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights Paul Hoffman, lawyer who represented Kiobel in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum John Bellinger, former legal adviser for the U.S. Department of State and the National Security Council William Casto, professor at Texas Tech University School of Law Eric Posner, professor at University of Chicago Law School Samuel Moyn, professor at Yale University René Horst, professor at Appalachian State University The key cases: 1984: Filártiga v. Peña-Irala 2013: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum 2017: Jesner v. Arab Bank The key links: Center for Constitutional Rights Additional music for this episode by Nicolas Carter. Special thanks to William J. Aceves, William Baude, Diego Calles, Alana Casanova-Burgess, William Dodge, Susan Farbstein, Jeffery Fisher, Joanne Freeman, Julian Ku, Nicholas Rosenkranz, Susan Simpson, Emily Vinson, Benjamin Wittes and Jamison York. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., who appears in this episode, passed away in October 2016. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.
For nearly 200 years of our nation’s history, the Second Amendment was an all-but-forgotten rule about the importance of militias. But in the 1960s and 70s, a movement emerged — led by Black Panthers and a recently-repositioned NRA — that insisted owning a firearm was the right of each and every American. So began a constitutional debate that only the Supreme Court could solve. That didn’t happen until 2008, when a Washington, D.C. security guard named Dick Heller made a compelling case. Sean Rameswaram interviews Black Panther co-founder Bobby Seale on the roof of the Oakland Museum of California, where “All Power to the People: Black Panthers at 50” was on display earlier this year. (Lisa Silberstein, Oakland Museum of California) Joseph P. Tartaro, president of the Second Amendment Foundation, at his desk in Buffalo, New York. (Sean Rameswaram) The key voices: Adam Winkler, professor at UCLA School of Law, author of Gunfight Jill Lepore, professor of American history at Harvard University Stephen Halbrook, attorney specializing in Second Amendment litigation Bobby Seale, co-founder of the Black Panther Party John Aquilino, former spokesman of the National Rifle Association Joseph P. Tartaro, president of the Second Amendment Foundation Sanford Levinson, professor at the University of Texas Law School Clark Neily, vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute, represented Dick Heller in District of Columbia v. Heller Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, helped finance Dick Heller’s case in District of Columbia v. Heller Alan Gura, appellate constitutional attorney, argued District of Columbia v. Heller on behalf of Dick Heller Dick Heller, plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller Joan Biskupic, author of American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Jack Rakove, professor of history and political science at Stanford University The key cases: 2008: District of Columbia v. Heller The key links: Black Panther Party protest the Mulford Act at the California State Capitol in Sacramento Dick Heller and his hat outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. (Sean Rameswaram) Dick Heller and his gun on the job at a federal building in Washington, D.C. (Sean Rameswaram) Special thanks to Mark Hughes, Sally Hadden, Jamal Greene, Emily Palmer, Sharon LaFraniere, Alan Morrison, Robert Pollie, Joseph Blocher, William Baude, Tara Grove, and the Oakland Museum of California. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.
One of the most important doctrines in civil rights litigation is qualified immunity, which holds police officers and other officials immune from suit for constitutional violations unless they act incompetently or knowingly violate the law. This Supreme Court term may mark an important inflection point for the doctrine. In recent years, the Court has aggressively enforced immunity that protects officers from suits, but last term Justice Clarence Thomas called for the doctrine of qualified immunity to be reconsidered. On Wednesday, October 4th, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in District of Columbia v. Wesby, the latest case that involves this doctrine of qualified immunity. Professor William Baude of the University of Chicago joined us for a Teleforum on the current state of the Supreme Court's qualified immunity jurisprudence and its trajectory in light of Wesby and other cases.Featuring: Prof. William Baude, Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
One of the most important doctrines in civil rights litigation is qualified immunity, which holds police officers and other officials immune from suit for constitutional violations unless they act incompetently or knowingly violate the law. This Supreme Court term may mark an important inflection point for the doctrine. In recent years, the Court has aggressively enforced immunity that protects officers from suits, but last term Justice Clarence Thomas called for the doctrine of qualified immunity to be reconsidered. On Wednesday, October 4th, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in District of Columbia v. Wesby, the latest case that involves this doctrine of qualified immunity. Professor William Baude of the University of Chicago joined us for a Teleforum on the current state of the Supreme Court's qualified immunity jurisprudence and its trajectory in light of Wesby and other cases.Featuring: Prof. William Baude, Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
William Baude, a professor at the University of Chicago School of Law, discusses comments made by Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor over past court decisions in cases concerning police and alleged victims of police violence. He speaks with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
William Baude, a professor at the University of Chicago School of Law, discusses comments made by Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor over past court decisions in cases concerning police and alleged victims of police violence. He speaks with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."
2017 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
2017 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
2017 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
2017 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
2017 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
2017 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
Jim Zirin graduated from Princeton University with honors and received his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School where he was an editor of the Michigan Law Review and a member of the Order of the Coif. For three years, he was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and served in the criminal division under Robert M. Morgenthau. William Baude is Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, where he teaches federal courts and constitutional law. His current research projects include papers on originalism, historical practice in constitutional law, federalism, the Supreme Court, and conflicts of law. Presented on November 28, 2016, by the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society.
Jim Zirin graduated from Princeton University with honors and received his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School where he was an editor of the Michigan Law Review and a member of the Order of the Coif. For three years, he was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and served in the criminal division under Robert M. Morgenthau. William Baude is Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, where he teaches federal courts and constitutional law. His current research projects include papers on originalism, historical practice in constitutional law, federalism, the Supreme Court, and conflicts of law. Presented on November 28, 2016, by the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society.
We’ve been asking for a true originalist to take us to the woodshed for all our prior doubts and dismissiveness of originalism as a method of interpretation. Enter Will Baude. This show’s links: William Baude’s faculty profile (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/baude) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=398074) About Ben Linus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Linus) First Mondays (http://www.firstmondays.fm) Legal Theory 101 (http://www.hydratext.com/legal-theory-101/) (and corresponding blog post (http://www.hydratext.com/blog/2016/11/2/legal-theory-101)) William Baude and Stephen Sachs, Originalism’s Bite (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2851986) William Baude and Stephen Sachs, The Law of Interpretation (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2783398) William Baude, Is Originalism Our Law? (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2672631) Oral Argument 113: The Entrails of Fowl (http://oralargument.org/113) (guest Charles Barzun) Lawrence Solum, Semantic Originalism (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1120244) Stephen Sachs, Originalism as a Theory of Legal Change (http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6059&context=faculty_scholarship) Richard Re, Promising the Constitution (http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1230&context=nulr) Two debates about interpretation between Justices Breyer and Scalia: Annenberg Classroom (http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/a-conversation-on-the-constitution-judicial-interpretation) and a joint Federalist Society and ACS event (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4n8gOUzZ8I) Richard Posner, Supreme Court Breakfast Table Entry 27: Broad Interpretations (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2016/supreme_court_breakfast_table_for_june_2016/richard_posner_clarifies_his_views_on_the_constitution.html) Radiolab Presents: More Perfect, The Political Thicket (http://www.wnyc.org/story/the-political-thicket) Mary Sarah Bilder, Madison’s Hand: Revising the Constitutional Convention (https://www.amazon.com/Madisons-Hand-Revising-Constitutional-Convention/dp/0674055276); see also a conversation with Bilder at the National Constitution Center (https://www.c-span.org/video/?401572-3/madisons-hand) Special Guest: William Baude.
Is originalism required by our law? We chat with Charles Barzun about his critique of the inclusive originalists, the new movement to claim that an originalist interpretive method is not only a good choice among possible methods but is the method which is mandated by a positivist approach to our law. This show’s links: Charles Barzun’s faculty profile and writing Charles Barzun, The Positive U-Turn William Baude and Stephen Sachs, The Law of Interpretation William Baude, Is Originalism Our Law? Oral Argument 98: T3 Jedi (guests Jeremy Kessler and David Pozen) Scott Shapiro, Legality (Amazon and Google Books) Brown v. Board of Education; Jack Balkin and Bruce Ackerman (eds.), What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said Charles Barzun, Inside/Out: Beyond the Internal/External Distinction in Legal Scholarship Oral Argument 77: Jackasses Are People Too (guest Adam Kolber) Special Guest: Charles Barzun.
2016 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
2016 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
2016 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
2016 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
2016 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
2016 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
First: oil can, a hymn, and feedback, including a discussion of the web and so-called social obligations. Is a hot dog a sandwich, and is it murder if your group of trapped spelunkers decides, unanimously, to draw lots and eat the loser? We end this part of the conversation (part two next episode and part three at a later date) there, just by asking the second question. This show’s links: Vienna Teng, The Hymn of Acxiom (“Leave your life open. You don’t have to hide. . . . Let our formulas find your soul.”) About Acxiom Peter Bright, Bob Ross Coming Back to Twitch with Weekly Broadcasts and Annual Marathons Shia LaBeouf’s #ALLMYMOVIES Hold Up! Oral Argument 45: Sacrifice Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories (DES litigation imposing liability based on market share without regard to individual proof of causation) William Baude pronouncing his name in what is also a fascinating talk on originalism Oral Argument 80: We’ll Do It LIVE! About the Lynx browser Judge John Hodgman’s settled law and print Oral Argument 70: No Drones in the Park (guest Frank Pasquale) Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law
Regulation can be a significant barrier to innovation, protecting incumbents and making it harder to bring new goods and services to market. Determining the appropriate regulation is all the more difficult when accelerating technology is creating many new opportunities as well as potential dangers. Can the administrative state itself innovate to promote beneficial innovation? Topics to be considered here will be the nature and scope of cost-benefit analysis, the use of experiments to guide regulation and prizes as an alternative to top-down regulation. Prof. William Baude, University of Chicago Law School Mr. Jon Dudas, Senior Associate to the President, University of Arizona and former Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Mr. Steve Lehotsky, Deputy Chief Counsel for Litigation, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center Prof. Jennifer Nou, University of Chicago Law School Moderator: Hon. Stephen Markman, Michigan Supreme Court This program was presented on February 20, 2015, as part of the 2015 Federalist Society National Student Symposium.
Regulation can be a significant barrier to innovation, protecting incumbents and making it harder to bring new goods and services to market. Determining the appropriate regulation is all the more difficult when accelerating technology is creating many new opportunities as well as potential dangers. Can the administrative state itself innovate to promote beneficial innovation? Topics to be considered here will be the nature and scope of cost-benefit analysis, the use of experiments to guide regulation and prizes as an alternative to top-down regulation. Prof. William Baude, University of Chicago Law School Mr. Jon Dudas, Senior Associate to the President, University of Arizona and former Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Mr. Steve Lehotsky, Deputy Chief Counsel for Litigation, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center Prof. Jennifer Nou, University of Chicago Law School Moderator: Hon. Stephen Markman, Michigan Supreme Court This program was presented on February 20, 2015, as part of the 2015 Federalist Society National Student Symposium.
2015 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
2015 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
2015 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
2015 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
2015 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
2015 Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation: Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference
Christian finds himself among two telecommunications and IP experts, Joe and guest Aaron Perzanowski, to discuss the FCC’s recently issued regulations mandating some form of “net neutrality” on broadband internet providers. Will these regulations hold up? Why does your cable company want to provide you with “antivirus” software? What did we receive in the mail last week? Which listener thinks we’re full of it? It’s all in this week’s show. This show’s links: Aaron Perzanowski’s faculty profile and writing Episode 52 and Episode 53 on King v. Burwell William Baude, Could Obama Bypass the Supreme Court?, and Michael Dorf, Obama Wouldn’t Circumvent SCOTUS on Subsidies We’ve reached North Dakota! Our earlier shows on net neutrality: Episode 49, Episode 16 (with Jim Speta), and Episode 10 (with Christina Mulligan) About the FCC’s Open Internet Order Download page for the Open Internet Order and Commissioner statements About the FCC Computer Inquiries of the 1960s and 1970s AT&T v. City of Portland National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services Verizon v. FCC About the FCC’s Incentive Auction for the 600MHz band Special Guest: Aaron Perzanowski.
At her confirmation hearing, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said that "we are all originalists." Is that true, and what would it mean for it to be true? In Is Originalism Our Law?, I argue that there is an important sense in which Justice Kagan was right. And if originalism is our law, it provides a new and better explanation for why judges today are bound to follow the decisions of the framers. William Baude is Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, where he teaches federal courts and constitutional law. His current research projects include papers on originalism, historical practice in constitutional law, federalism, the Supreme Court, and conflicts of law. His recent publications include "Rethinking the Federal Eminent Domain Power," and "Beyond DOMA: State Choice of Law in Federal Statutes." He also contributes to two legal blogs, the Volokh Conspiracy and SCOTUSBlog. This lecture was recorded on February 13, 2015, at the University of Chicago Law School.
At her confirmation hearing, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said that "we are all originalists." Is that true, and what would it mean for it to be true? In Is Originalism Our Law?, I argue that there is an important sense in which Justice Kagan was right. And if originalism is our law, it provides a new and better explanation for why judges today are bound to follow the decisions of the framers. William Baude is Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, where he teaches federal courts and constitutional law. His current research projects include papers on originalism, historical practice in constitutional law, federalism, the Supreme Court, and conflicts of law. His recent publications include "Rethinking the Federal Eminent Domain Power," and "Beyond DOMA: State Choice of Law in Federal Statutes." He also contributes to two legal blogs, the Volokh Conspiracy and SCOTUSBlog. This lecture was recorded on February 13, 2015, at the University of Chicago Law School.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
