Dissed

In 1952, the Supreme Court smacked down President Truman’s attempt to seize the nation’s steel mills. The dissenters—who happened to be Truman’s poker buddies—would have given the president flexibility to deal with this purported emergency, but the majority issued a swift rebuke. And one justice’s concurrence has continued to shape the way we think about executive power and emergencies to this day.

Thanks to our guests John Q. Barrett, Jennifer Mascott, Steve Simpson, and Noel Francisco (aka Justice Jackson).

Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod

And check out more of PLF’s work on emergency powers: https://pacificlegal.org/emergency-powers/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Antitrust is making headlines, with figures as diverse as Josh Hawley and Elizabeth Warren seeking to use it as a shiny new tool to rein in big tech. But some of the policies they’re pushing were tried before in the 1960s, and they ended up penalizing perfectly competitive conduct just out of animosity for “big business.” A Supreme Court dissent that paved the way for a consumer-first antitrust standard offers lessons about why we shouldn’t be so eager to return to 1960s anti-trust policy and gives us some insight into why big isn’t always bad.

Thanks to our guests Joshua Wright, Ashley Baker, Yaron Brook, and Hannah Cox.

Special thanks to Judge Douglas Ginsburg for his dramatic reading.

Follow us on Twitter @anastasia_esq @ehslattery @pacificlegal #DissedPod

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the landmark ruling District of Columbia v. Heller, Justices Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens wrote dueling originalist opinions examining the right to keep and bear arms. They both looked to the Second Amendment’s text, history, and tradition to reach … opposite conclusions about its original meaning.

Thanks to our guests Paul Clement, David Lat, Clark Neily, and Adam Winkler.

Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The idea of “court-packing,”⸺that is, adding seats to the court for political purposes⸺has recently gained steam for the first time in nearly 100 years. The last time we heard about court-packing, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s plan to add more justices was supposedly staved off by the infamous “switch in time that saved nine.” As the story goes, Justice Roberts (no, not THAT Roberts) strategically cast his vote in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish in way that subdued popular support for FDR’s proposal. But a closer look into that case reveals that not everything is as it seems, as well as the perils that come with trying to pack the Court.

Thanks to our guests Mark Tushnet, Barry Cushman, and Ilya Shapiro, and to singer Jenni Kim-Etimos for her jazzy rendition of our court-packing ballad.

Follow us on Twitter @anastasia_esq @ehslattery @pacificlegal #DissedPod

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 1883, a Supreme Court ruling signaled the end of federal efforts to protect newly freed slaves and ushered in the era of Jim Crow laws. One justice, later called the Great Dissenter, stood alone in dissent. Join us as we explore the once-forgotten dissent of John Marshall Harlan in the Civil Rights Cases and how it saw a rebirth nearly a century later.

Thanks to our guests Peter Canellos, Christopher Green, and Melvin Urofsky. Special thanks to Judge Benjamin Beaton for embodying the substance & spirit of Justice Harlan.

Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this bonus episode, the Political Orphanage's Andrew Heaton joins the ladies to discuss big cases (guns, abortion, and executions, oh my!) coming up in the Supreme Court's new term. Stay tuned for a SUPREME poetry slam.

Check out our guest's podcast here:  https://mightyheaton.com/dissed. Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this bonus episode, the ladies discuss the cursing cheerleader case, Pacific Legal Foundation’s win in a property rights case, and two fractured, mind-boggling separation-of-powers cases. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!”

Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!

Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this bonus episode, the ladies discuss the Supreme Court’s recent opinions and dissents related to the Affordable Care Act and a dispute involving Catholic Charities, same-sex couples, and foster care. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!”

Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!

Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the story of the most consequential Supreme Court case in history: Dred Scott v. Sandford. It was a catalyst for Abraham Lincoln’s famous “House Divided” speech, which catapulted him onto the national stage. It led a dissenting justice to resign in protest. And it plunged our nation into its darkest hour—a civil war that nearly tore us apart. Join us as we explore what it means for our country and our Constitution today.

Thanks to our guests Jeffrey Rosen, Mark Graber, Earl Maltz, Tim Huebner and voice actors Steven Anderson and David Deerson.

Special thanks to Toni Giménez for his rendition of “Yankee Doodle” on banjo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLxJR4-JNuI.

Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A license to arrange flowers? Laws mandating higher prices during difficult financial times? Government lawyers defending economic regulations on the basis of possible extraterrestrial activity? Welcome to the wacky world of the constitutional right to earn a living, which since the 1930s has been relegated to the lowest level of protection by the Courts.

In this episode, the ladies discuss the origins of the “tiers of scrutiny” that apply depending on whether you’re talking about judicially favored rights, like free speech, or other rights, like the right to earn a living. In a scorching hot dissent from the 1930s, one justice seemed to predict how this lax treatment by the courts would affect entrepreneurship, innovation, and employment today.

Thanks to our guests Hadley Arkes, Timothy Sandefur, and Adam Thierer.

Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal #DissedPod

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.