Shows
Reasonably SpeakingThe Rise of the Nationwide Injunction and What It Means for the CourtsIn this episode of Reasonably Speaking, ALI President David Levi moderates a timely and incisive discussion on nationwide (or universal) injunctions—court orders that extend relief beyond the parties in a case, often halting federal policy nationwide. Featuring legal scholars William Baude and Samuel Bray, along with Judge Robin Rosenberg and former Judge Gregg Costa, the conversation explores the constitutional debates, practical consequences, and political implications of these powerful judicial tools. From forum shopping and the shadow docket to potential reforms like three-judge courts, this panel examines whether the nationwide injunction is a necessary check—or a threat to judicial legi...2025-05-061h 16
Advisory OpinionsJudge v. (Unethical) LawyerSarah Isgur and David French react to Donald Trump’s latest legal battles and talk to friend of the pod Judge Amul Thapar about his new wellness Substack.\The Agenda:—Birthright citizenship oral argument—Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act blocked—The FAFO bucket—Criminal contempt proceedings against the Trump administration—'An opinion for the ages'—Judges Thapar’s wellness adviceShow Notes:—Justice Alito's dissent on Alien Enemies Act—William Baude on the birthright citizenship oral argumentAdvisory Opinions i...2025-04-221h 12
We the PeopleFor or Against Constitutional Originalism?Jonathan Gienapp of Stanford University and Stephen Sachs of Harvard Law School join Chief Scholar Thomas Donnelly to discuss Gienapp’s new book, Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique. They review the history of originalism and debate the role of originalism in constitutional interpretation today. This conversation was originally streamed live as part of the NCC’s America’s Town Hall program series on October 8, 2024.
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 Wes...2025-01-031h 01
cmdX anDre Articles "Law of WE "podcastFor or Against Constitutional Originalism?Jonathan Gienapp of Stanford University and Stephen Sachs of Harvard Law School join Chief Scholar Thomas Donnelly to discuss Gienapp’s new book, Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique. They review the history of originalism and debate the role of originalism in constitutional interpretation today. This conversation was originally streamed live as part of the NCC’s America’s Town Hall program series on October 8, 2024. 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...2025-01-031h 01
Live at the National Constitution CenterFor or Against Constitutional Originalism?: A DebateStanford 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 Va...2024-10-151h 02
Le Jardin - podcast littérairePlaidoyer pour la paix : présentation des livres “Apeirogon” de Colum McCann et “Une journée dans la vie d'Abed Salama” de Nathan ThrallLa Guerre Israël-Hamas qui se déroule depuis des mois bouscule nos certitudes, questionne nos démocraties et nous horrifie par l’ampleur des atrocités commises dans un camp comme dans l'autre. Elle ne vient pas seulement s’ajouter à la longue litanie des guerres du conflit israélo-arabe, elle semble les dépasser toutes en drames humains et en intensité.Dans cet épisode, je vous présente deux livres, Apeirogon de Colum McCann, et Une journée dans la vie d'Abed Salama de Nathan Thrall, qui...2024-09-0259 min
Conversations from Harvard Law SchoolEp. 4: Beyond TextualismIn March 2023, University of Chicago Law Professor William Baude took on textualism, the increasingly common approach to legal interpretation that emphasizes the plain language of a statute. During a lecture at Harvard Law School, Baude argued that, in some cases, textualists must consider unwritten law to arrive at the correct interpretation.2024-07-2237 min
The Ben Joravsky Show"Hyde Park Scoop” and Monroe AndersonThe 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, rega...2024-03-131h 11
Onze Supremos#180 O Julgamento de Trump (com Rodrigo Becker)Nesta segunda, dia 4 de março, a Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos publicou a decisão que resolveu Trump v. Anderson, caso que julgou a possibilidade de um estado federado remover um candidato à presidência da corrida com base na Seção 3 da 14ª Emenda da Constituição americana. Com a ajuda de Rodrigo Becker, conversamos sobre o contexto de criação da Seção 3, discutimos a decisão em seus três votos e comentamos eventuais desdobramentos que podem ser esperados no futuro.
Lattes do convidado: http://lattes.cnpq.br/5271542102842429
Conheça o clube do livro jurídico d...2024-03-061h 17
Countdown with Keith OlbermannSUPREME COURT TRUMP/14th AMENDMENT ORAL ARGUMENTS TODAY - 2.8.24SERIES 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. I...2024-02-0841 min
Big BrainsCan Trump Legally Be President?, with William BaudeThe 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...2024-02-0636 min
The Ezra Klein ShowShould Trump Be Barred From the Ballot?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, writ...2024-01-121h 02
PoliticologyOrange Man Ban? —The Weekly RoundupTo join Politicology+, visit politicology.com/plus or subscribe in Apple Podcasts.On Monday, Egypt proposed a plan for a long-term ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war.On this weekly roundup, host Ron Steslow and guests Lucy Caldwell (Board Advisor to the Renew Democracy Initiative and advisor to the Forward Party) and Zack Czajkowski (Principal at Title Fight) discuss Hamas rejecting the plan and the bias in media coverage about the war. Then they dive into the plagiarism allegations levied against Harvard President Claudine Gay...2023-12-291h 16
PoliticologyTrump Disqualified in Colorado—The Weekly RoundupTo join Politicology+, visit politicology.com/plus or subscribe in Apple Podcasts.On Tuesday, the Colorado State Supreme Court ruled Donald Trump is eligible to be on the ballot in the state. On this weekly roundup, host Ron Steslow and guests Hagar Chemali and Susan Del Percio discuss the ruling and how it will impact the political landscape. Then they dive into the negotiations over border security, immigration reform and foreign military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and TaiwanNext, th...2023-12-221h 26
The Dispatch PodcastFlorida Man Blocked From Colorado Ballots | RoundtableSarah, Steve, and Jonah react to Trump being removed from Colorado ballots. Plus:—The William Baude argument—The end of Nikki-mentum—Measuring the vibes on Biden’s youth support—Claudine Gay’s “duplicative language”—Steve’s tap dance rant—Small interactions, large impact.Show notes:—Advisory Opinions on the Colorado Supreme Court decision—Justin Amash’s tweet Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices2023-12-221h 05
Amarica's Constitution2 Experts, 3 Courts, Section 3, Part 3 - Special Guests William Baude and Michael Stokes PaulsenThe 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 an...2023-12-121h 55
FedSoc EventsInsurrection and the 14th AmendmentUpdated 12/20/2023: The Colorado Supreme Court recently decided Former President Donald Trump in ineligible to appear on the 2024 ballot. Read that decision here. Featuring: Prof. William Baude, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Constitutional Law Institute, University of Chicago Law School Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution Moderator: Prof. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law and Joseph C. Carter, Jr. Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law2023-11-171h 01
Digging a Hole: The Legal Theory PodcastWill BaudeListeners – 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 d...2023-11-1657 min
PoliticologyMcCarthy Ousted— The Weekly RoundupFor 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 hurt2023-10-061h 15
Opening ArgumentsOA815: Trump Gagged, McCarthy Bagged, & GOP Dragged 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/View...2023-10-0458 minAdvisory OpinionsProf. Will Baude on Section 3, Insurrection, and TrumpProf. 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/adchoices2023-10-031h 30
Justice Matters with Glenn KirschnerTrump is Already Disqualified From Running for OfficeConstitutional 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...2023-09-0717 minJustice Matters with Glenn KirschnerTrump is Already Disqualified From Running for OfficeConstitutional 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...2023-09-0717 min
USApodden1800-talslagen som kan stoppa TrumpDiskvalificerar 14:e tillägget ex-presidenten? Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. 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...2023-09-0644 minAmarica's ConstitutionThe Two Experts, Part Two - Special Guests William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen***CLE Available*** 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 1...2023-09-061h 37
Gloria Moraga - Political WomanDonald Trump is NOT Eligible to Be President - The 14th Amendment, Section ThreeIn 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 f...2023-09-0422 min
Legal Talk Network - Law News and Legal TopicsTrump vs. the Constitution: Exploring Section 3 of the 14th AmendmentWith 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...2023-09-0133 min
Lawyer 2 LawyerTrump vs. the Constitution: Exploring Section 3 of the 14th AmendmentWith 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...2023-09-0133 min
cmdX anDre Articles "Law of WE "podcastIs President Trump Disqualified from Office Under the 14th Amendment?Two constitutional law scholars—Will Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen—recently published an in-depth article arguing that President Donald Trump is disqualified for running for reelection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In this episode, law professors Mark Graber and Michael McConnell join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss what Section 3 means and how it applies to disqualification from office; whether President Trump's actions qualify as engaging in insurrection; whether or not Section 3 is self-executing and who can enforce it, and more. Resources: William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen, “The Sweep and Force of Section Three” (Aug. 2023) Mark Graber, “Their Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 and...2023-09-0155 min
We the PeopleIs President Trump Disqualified from Office Under the 14th Amendment?Two constitutional law scholars—Will Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen—recently published an in-depth article arguing that President Donald Trump is disqualified for running for reelection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In this episode, law professors Mark Graber and Michael McConnell join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss what Section 3 means and how it applies to disqualification from office; whether President Trump's actions qualify as engaging in insurrection; whether or not Section 3 is self-executing and who can enforce it, and more. Resources:
William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen, “The Sweep and Force of Section Three” (A...2023-09-0155 minAmarica's ConstitutionThe Two Experts on Section Three - Special Guests William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen***CLE available*** 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...2023-08-301h 34
Slate NewsWho Won the Trump-less DebateThis 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, WisconsinJosh 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...2023-08-2657 min
The Legal Weekly W(h)ineEpisode 32: Does the 14th Amendment prevent Trump from being President?Does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prevent Donald Trump from running for or being President of the United States again?
This week, our legal team takes on the newest legal argument being proposed by Conservative law professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen that the 14th Amendment actually bars Donald Trump from being President again. Dr. John R. Vile - a noted expert of the Constitution, its Amendments, the Amending Process, and Constitutional Law talks with attorney Virginia Tehrani about whether this is a valid argument, whether there are loopholes to the argument, and how the constitutional...2023-08-251h 06The Legal Weekly W(h)ineEpisode 32: Does the 14th Amendment prevent Trump from being President?Does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prevent Donald Trump from running for or being President of the United States again?
This week, our legal team takes on the newest legal argument being proposed by Conservative law professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen that the 14th Amendment actually bars Donald Trump from being President again. Dr. John R. Vile - a noted expert of the Constitution, its Amendments, the Amending Process, and Constitutional Law talks with attorney Virginia Tehrani about whether this is a valid argument, whether there are loopholes to the argument, and how the constitutional...2023-08-251h 06
Slate Crime and JusticeWho Won the Trump-less DebateThis 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, WisconsinJosh 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...2023-08-2457 min
Political GabfestWho Won the Trump-less DebateThis 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, WisconsinJosh 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...2023-08-2457 min
The Michael Moore PodcastEp. 299: GOP-RIP, Thank You Fani, Help/No help, for Maui, Traitors, T**** and the 14th AmendmentIt’s a grab bag of insanity on Michael Moore’s podcast this week as he declares the Republican Party DOA (although he detects it’s still barely breathing and there’s no death certificate yet). Sooo…
Also, a big thank you to Fani Willis, the District Attorney in Atlanta for filing the indictment of indictments, a masterpiece of Justice. Her father was a criminal defense lawyer and a member of the Black Panther Party — she is the fighter we’ve needed. She’s gonna shut the whole Trump mob operation down.
All tha...2023-08-211h 00
Law and LegitimacyVivek Ramaswamy, Craig Robertson, 3rd & 14th Amendments (August 11, 2023)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...2023-08-1141 min
New Books in American StudiesStephen Vladeck, "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic" (Basic Books, 2023)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 decis...2023-06-261h 02
New Books in Politics and PolemicsStephen Vladeck, "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic" (Basic Books, 2023)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 decis...2023-06-261h 02
New Books in Public PolicyStephen Vladeck, "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic" (Basic Books, 2023)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 decis...2023-06-261h 02
New Books in American PoliticsStephen Vladeck, "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic" (Basic Books, 2023)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 decis...2023-06-261h 02
New Books in Political ScienceStephen Vladeck, "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic" (Basic Books, 2023)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 decis...2023-06-261h 02
New Books in LawStephen Vladeck, "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic" (Basic Books, 2023)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 decis...2023-06-261h 02
NBN Book of the DayStephen Vladeck, "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic" (Basic Books, 2023)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 decis...2023-06-261h 02
FedSoc ForumsWhat is the Future of Textualism?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 explored and advanced that debate with some of the leading minds in the field.Featuring:--Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School--Prof. William Baude, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School--Prof. Emily Bremer, Associate Professor of Law, University of...2023-06-011h 00
Onze Supremos#121 Originalismo (com Samuel Fonteles)Estamos de volta com nosso primeiro episódio de 2023 e contamos com uma participação que há muito tento trazer para o Onze, Samuel Fonteles. Seus estudos, como Visiting Scholar na Universidade de Stanford, envolvem o tema do originalismo, corrente hermenêutica que teve como um de seus grandes baluartes o falecido Justice Antonin Scalia.
Lattes do convidado: http://lattes.cnpq.br/6637057065794153
Conheça o clube do livro jurídico da Contracorrente: https://www.quebracorrente.com.br/
Índice
00:00 Vinheta
01:24 Apresentação do convidado
04:22 O que é e o que não é o Origina...2023-01-061h 47
Conversations with Bill KristolWilliam Baude: On the Supreme Court after DobbsAfter 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 sett...2022-09-2959 min
Divided ArgumentMaoist TakeoverWe open Season 3 with a live show at William and Mary Law School, part of the Scalia-Ginsburg Collegiality Speaker Series. With our first-ever guest, we discuss the limits of friendship and offer advice on civil disagreement. But first we break down the Supreme Court's ruling on an important stay application from Yeshiva University.
2022-09-191h 03
The Dispatch PodcastTexas Governor Fights Vaccine MandatesTo quote the great Ozzy Osbourne, “We’re going off the rails on the crazy train.” In today’s podcast, our hosts look at Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s ban on vaccine mandates, the DOJ memo aimed at school boards, an update to the January 6 committee, and President Biden's slumping numbers among independents. And finally, what does all of this mean for 2022 and (even though it’s way too early) 2024?
Show Notes:
-Abbott says businesses control their merchandise
-Abbott says businesses cannot control who is vaccinated in their store
-Merrick Gar...2021-10-141h 19
Conversations with Bill KristolWilliam Baude on Election Subversion: How Great a Threat?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 Bi...2021-10-081h 07
FindLaw's Don't Judge MeIs the Supreme Court's Shadow Docket as Ominous as it Sounds?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/2XnuVxH2021-08-1234 minFedSoc ForumsPrivate Entities and Public ConcernAside from the purely legal questions already addressed in this programming series, how should we think about the practical and philosophical questions at stake? Many of us start with the presumption that the social media companies are private businesses and therefore may operate according to viewpoint norms as their owners see fit. But the growing reliance on big tech platforms, combined with the behavior of such platforms in restricting the scope of permissible speech, has raised concerns across the political spectrum, including among those of generally libertarian policy preferences. And the new interest in considering a range of regulatory...2021-07-271h 38
The Standard of ReviewCommonwealth v. AlexanderSend us a textHost 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"P...2021-07-2655 minFedSoc ForumsSeverability and Article III PowersWhat 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...2021-07-121h 25
Opening ArgumentsOA479: No, Judges Should NOT Be Originalists, Part 2 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. 2021-04-061h 32Opening ArgumentsOA477: No, Judges Should NOT Be Originalists 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...2021-03-301h 11
Rationally Speaking PodcastUnfair laws / Why judges should be originalists (William Baude)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.2021-03-191h 03
Advisory OpinionsThe Shadow DocketSupreme 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 d...2021-02-261h 12
Explain It to MeThe legal doctrine that protects brutal policingCato'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 2020Relevant cases:Amy Corbitt, Petitioner v. Michael Vickers, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh CircuitJessop v. City of Fresno...2020-06-1944 min