Ipse Dixit

By CC0/Public DomainSociety & Culture Philosophy

Ipse Dixit episodes

April 21, 2019 From the Archives 79: Justice Holmes' Decisions (1981)
In 1981, Caedmon released this LP of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's opinions, as read by E.G. Marshall, with commentary by Louis Nizer. The script was edited by William R. Van Gemert. The album was directed by Linda Morgenstern and produced by Daniel A. Wolfert.
The album ends with an audio recording of Justice Holmes, made on the occasion of his 90th birthday, for a special radio program.
Here is the tracklist:
A1Commonwealth V. Perry (1889) 139 Mass. 198 (public Nuisance, Piggery)3:15
A2Vegelahn V. Guntner (1896) 167 Mass. 92 (right Of Peaceful Picketing)9:56
A3Lochner V. New York (1905) 198 U.S. 45 ( Social Legislation In Ny Re Hours Of Work For Bakery Workers )5:49
A4Hammer V. Dagenhart (1918) 247 U.S. 251 (Child Labor Case)7:42
B1Abrams V. U.S. (1919) 250 U.S. 616 (freedom Of Speech)5:32
B2Missouri V. Holland (1920) 252 U.S. 416 ( Regulation Of Wildlife)8:42
B3Olmstead V. U.S. (1928) 177 U.S. 438 ((Wire-tapping)4:15
B4U.S. V. Schwimmer (199) 279 U.S. 644 ( Denial Of Citizenship)5:31
B5Justice Holmes delivers his 90th birthday speech ( in response to high praise given by many prominent figures during special radio program)1:23

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
38 min
April 20, 2019 Jessica Clarke on Nonbinary Gender Identity
In this episode, Jessica Clarke, Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School, discusses her article, "They, Them, and Theirs," which was published in the Harvard Law Review. Clarke begins by defining nonbinary gender identity and describing how nonbinary identity fits into modern civil rights doctrines. She details how nonbinary legal rights advocacy intersects with transgender and feminist legal arguments. She explains how a contextual, case-by-case approach can address many of the concerns regarding legal recognition of nonbinary identities, and goes over various regulatory schemes for nonbinary gender rights and their shortcomings. Clarke concludes by discussing a recent case involving a nonbinary intersex plaintiff and their lawsuit regarding gender markers on passports issued by the State Department, Zzyym v. Pompeo. Clarke is on Twitter at @clarkeja.

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.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
40 min
April 20, 2019 Bruce Boyden on the Melodramatic Origins of the Ordinary Observer
In this episode, Bruce Boyden, Associate Professor of Law at Marquette University Law School, discusses his article "Daly v. Palmer, or the Melodramatic Origins of the Ordinary Observer," which was published in the Syracuse Law Review. Boyden's article was part of the "Forgotten Intellectual Property" symposium sponsored by Syracuse Law School. He observes that the Daly v. Palmer case provided the standard for copyright law's "ordinary observer" test for infringement for quite some time, until it was supplanted by Arnstein v. Porter. He argues that understanding Daly v. Palmer in historical context can help us better understand the development of copyright doctrine. Boyden is on Twitter at @BruceBoyden.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
48 min
April 19, 2019 From the Archives 78: Foster Sylvers, Misdemeanor (1973)
Foster Emerson Sylvers (1962-) is an American singer-songwriter. He is best known for his hit single "Misdemeanor," which was written by his brother Leon Sylvers III, and which reached #7 on Billboard's R&B charts. He has recorded 5 albums, none of which achieved the success of his debut.
In 1994, Sylvers was convicted of a sex offense and incarcerated. He is currently a registered person.
Here are the lyrics of Misdemeanor:
Love tracks, setbacksAll can come back
Pick up on the factTake it in strideLove and devotionDon't confideIt's the tracks of lost emotionLet it glideIt's gonna subsideShe stole my heartLoved her from the start
Whatcha gonna doWhen I think I'm in loveAnd I catch my girl doin' me wrongToo badIt's just enoughTo slip back in the startLike when you get your first ticketFor illegal parking
But don't you knowIt's no big dealTake it slowShe's not for realLet it goFine you knowUntil she stole my heartShe stole his heart
But it's just a misdemeanorYou gotta get-a over itOh, he loved her from the start
Love tracks, setbacksAll can come back
Pick up on the factTake it in strideLove and devotionDon't confideIt's the tracks of lost emotionLet it glideIt's gonna subsideShe stole my heartOh, she stole his heart
But it's just a misdemeanorYou gotta get-a over itOh, he loved her from the start
Whatcha gonna doWhen I get to the goalAnd my friends aren't tellin' meWhen I'm playin' the fool
Oh, he loved her from the startYou gotta get over itLove tracks, set backsAll can come backOh, she stole his heart
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
3 min
April 18, 2019 Claudia Haupt on Professional Speech
In this episode, Claudia Haupt, Associate Professor of Law and Political Science at Northeastern University, discusses her article, "Professional Speech," in the Yale Law Journal and her two successive articles, "Professional Speech and the Content-Neutrality Trap" and "The Limits of Professional Speech" published in the Yale Law Journal Forum. Haupt begins by stating the contours of professional speech as the dissemination of the common knowledge of a knowledge community in the learned professions. She discusses the role of professionals in an asymmetrical professional-client relationship within the protections of the First Amendment, within their role as contributor to a well-informed democratic polity, and within the regulatory environment established by states. She discusses recent circuit and Supreme Court decisions on professional speech in regards to sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE), crisis pregnancy centers, and restraints established by states to regulate professional speech, laying out the details of each case and discussing when the "First Amendment sword" should be used to protect professional speech. Haupt concludes by providing her insights as to how the framework of professional speech she advances should be taken by regulators, courts, and the general public. Haupt is on Twitter at @CEHaupt.

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.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
38 min
April 18, 2019 Joanna Schwartz on Qualified Immunity
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.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
42 min
April 18, 2019 Jorge Roig on Lottocracy
In this episode, Jorge Roig, Associate Professor of Law and Director of Neighborhood Programs at Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, discusses his article "A Quantum Congress," which was published in the Chicago-Kent Law Review. Roig begins by observing that democratic governance is failing: there is an irreconcilable tension between representative government and free speech, at least in our current system. But he proposes an alternative: lottocracy, in which representatives are selected randomly, rather than by voting. He explains why lottocracy will make corruption impossible and make government more representative. Roig is on Twitter at @ProfRoig.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
32 min
April 18, 2019 Zachary Kramer on Individualizing Civil Rights
In this episode, Zachary Kramer, Associate Dean of Faculty and Professor of Law at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, discusses his new book "Outsiders: Why Difference is the Future of Civil Rights," which is published by Oxford University Press. Kramer begins by explaining the traditional structure of statutory civil rights law and how it conceptualizes discrimination. He explains how the traditional structure struggles to recognize and rectify forms of discrimination that have an individualized component. And he argues that civil rights law should be more attentive to individual difference, not just group membership. In Kramer's view, civil rights laws can encourage communication and help people reach mutually beneficial outcomes. Kramer is on Twitter at @zachary_kramer.
This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
47 min
April 17, 2019 Mike Fix on State Court Compliance with Supreme Court Precedent
In this episode, Dr. Michael P. Fix, Associate Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University, discusses his article "The Complexities of State Court Compliance with U.S. Supreme Court Precedent," which he co-authored with Justin T. Kingsland and Matthew D. Montgomery, and published in the Justice System Journal. Fix begins by describing his empirical research on when and why state supreme courts actually comply with United States Supreme Court opinions. He identifies the different variables he studied and why. He introduces the concept of "precedent vitality," and explains why it should be applied to State Supreme Courts, as well as the United States Supreme Court. He explains how he used the Supreme Court case Miller v. California to test his hypotheses. And he discusses how he plans to further pursue this research in future articles. Fix is on Twitter at @mpfix1.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
34 min
April 16, 2019 Sarah Hook on Fair Dealing and the Concept of Parody
In this episode, Dr. Sarah Hook, a lecturer at Western Sydney University School of Law, discusses her article "Dealing fairly with parody : how literary theory can inform legal definitions," which was published by the Australian Intellectual Property Journal. Hook begins by describing the concept of "fair dealing" under Australian copyright law and how it differs from the concept of "fair use" under United States copyright law. She explains the recent origin of "parody" as a category of fair dealing, and the current uncertainty about the meaning of parody under Australian law. She observes that literary theory offers sophisticated and helpful definitions of parody, and argues that Australian courts should look to those scholarly definitions in developing the legal concept of parody. Hook is on Twitter at @DrSarahHook.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
32 min

About Ipse Dixit

From the publisher's feed

Ipse Dixit is a podcast on legal scholarship. Each episode of Ipse Dixit features a different guest discussing their scholarship. The podcast also features several special series.