Oral Argument

Oral Argument

By Joe Miller and Christian TurnerSociety & CultureEducationPhilosophy
Download on the App Store

Oral Argument episodes

  • Episode 77: Jackasses Are People Too

    Why take the time to write show notes if whether I write them is already determined? We’re joined by Adam Kolber to talk about free will, moral responsibility, determinism, and criminal law.

    This show’s links:

    • Adam Kolber’s faculty profile, writing, and blog
    • Adam Kolber, Standing Upright: The Moral and Legal Standing of Humans and Other Apes
    • Oral Argument 33: Other Minds (guest Matthew Liebman)
    • Adam Kolber, Free Will as a Matter of Law (many of the other references in the show can be found here)
    • Oral Argument 67: Monstrous Acts (guest Josh Lee)
    • Special Guest: Adam Kolber.

      1 hr 11 min
    • Episode 76: Brutality

      We start with, among other things, some decidedly negative feedback. But then we’re joined by the endlessly fascinating Al Brophy to discuss the history of slavery, Nat Turner’s rebellion and its aftermath, Thomas Cobb and pro- and anti-slavery intellectuals and judges, whether we should revere our Constitution, and what to do with symbols and monuments to the cause of slavery.

      This show’s links:

      • Al Brophy’s faculty profile and writing
      • Jack Ewing, Volkswagen Says 11 Million Cars Worldwide Are Affected in Diesel Deception
      • Oral Argument 41: Sense-Think-Act (guest Ryan Calo)
      • The 30th Annual Technology Law Institute, at which we will be recording an episode as part of the program
      • Marco Arment, Just Doesn’t Feel Good, about pulling his top-ranked ad-blocking app from the App Store
      • Oral Argument 74: Minimum Curiosity (guest Amanda Frost)
      • Rick Hasen’s ELB Podcast and UCI Law Talks, a show featuring UC Irvine law professors
      • Robert Cover, Justice Accused
      • State v. Mann
      • Harriet Beecher Stowe, Dred: A Tale of the Great Dismal Swamp
      • Alfred Brophy, Thomas Ruffin: Of Moral Philosophy and Monuments
      • Shawn Regan, DeChristopher Case Begs Question [sic]: What If Enviros Were Allowed to Bid on Oil Leases?
      • About Thomas R.R. Cobb
      • Thomas Cobb, An Inquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery in the United States of America
      • Alfred Brophy, The Nat Turner Trials
      • Blackhead Signpost Road (Google Maps); see also Al’s post with his own pictures and those of Henry Louis Gates Jr.
      • Sean Wilentz, Constitutionally, Slavery Is No National Institution; see also David Waldstreicher, How the Constitution Was Indeed Pro-Slavery
      • NFIB v. Sibelius (the Obamacare I case)
      • Alfred Brophy, Is the Confederate Flag Unconstitutional?
      • Tyler Hill, University to Retire “Racist” Portrait
      • Special Guest: Al Brophy.

        1 hr 45 min
      • Episode 75: Air Gap

        We start with some feedback and thoughts on the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, criminal law, and Christian’s brush with Upstream Color greatness. Also Joe’s thank-you notes. Then we’re joined by Mary Ellen O’Connell to talk about international law, weapons, hacking, Stuxnet, war, and killer robots. Mary Ellen maintains that the law we have is perfectly capable of dealing with what seem like new challenges.

        This show’s links:

        • Mary Ellen O’Connell’s faculty profile and writing
        • Danielle Allen, Our Declaration
        • The Declaration of Independence
        • Upstream Color
        • Dan Goodin, Meet “badBIOS,” the Mysterious Mac and PC Malware that Jumps Airgaps
        • Oral Argument 70: No Drones in the Park (guest Frank Pasquale)
        • Mary Ellen O’Connell, 21st Century Arms Control Challenges: Drones, Cyber Weapons, Killer Robots, and WMDs
        • About Stuxnet
        • Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, including Article 51, which Mary Ellen references
        • Mary Ellen O’Connell, Banning Autonomous Killing
        • Special Guest: Mary Ellen O'Connell.

          1 hr 27 min
        • Episode 74: Minimum Curiosity

          Should judges surf the web to scrutinize the truth of facts in front of them? With Amanda Frost, we discuss a recent case in which Judge Posner did just that. Some basic internet research cast serious doubt on a prison doctor’s medical opinion suggesting a prisoner did not need Zantac before meals to control a serious esophageal condition. While the websites Posner visited and cited did not control the outcome, they supported his conclusion that the evidence in the district court was insufficient to throw out the prisoner’s case.

          This show’s links:

          • Amanda Frost’s faculty profile and writing
          • Rowe v. Gibson
          • Coleen Barger, On the Internet Nobody Knows You’re a Judge
          • Alli Orr Larsen, The Trouble with Amicus Facts; see also Alli Orr Larsen, Factual Precedents, which Christian must have had rolling around in his head somewhere
          • Alli Orr Larsen on the Colbert Report discussing amicus briefs and factfinding
          • Amanda Frost, The Limits of Advocacy
          • Brianne Gorod, The Adversarial Myth: Appellate Court Extra-Record Factfinding
          • Zantac’s Comparison of OTC Heartburn Treatment Options
          • Mitchell v. JCG Industries (dissent and concurrence in the denial of a rehearing and Posner’s defense of the court’s staff’s trying on protective gear to gauge the plausibility of the claim that it took more than fifteen minutes)
          • Special Guest: Amanda Frost.

            1 hr 18 min
          • Episode 73: Looking for the Splines

            We open the burgeoning mailbag. And oh what a bounty! Side A: 1. Georgia’s assertion of copyright over its annotated statutes. 2. Law school application, rankings, and preparation. 3. The utility for law of having a Ph.D. 4. Substantive due process and Lochner. 5. Would law school be better without the study of the Supreme Court or constitutional law? Side B: 6. Voting rights and proportional representation. 7. Whether we’ve had a fair discussion of the death penalty. 8. What makes legal writing good or bad? 9. Other podcasts. 10. Race and the law. 11. The utilitarian case for manual override of driverless cars. 12. Facebook’s ability to create “bad” desires and preferences. Drugs and entertainment. 13. The rogue Kentucky clerk and the difference between civil disobedience and sabotage or revolution.

            This show’s links:

            • Oral Argument on Twitter and on Facebook
            • About Carl Malamud
            • Georgia Accuses Public Records Activist of Information “Terrorism”
            • Episode 68: Listen to My Full Point and Episode 12: Heart of Darkness
            • Episode 62: Viewer Mail
            • Episode 30: A Filled Milk Caste
            • Episode 66: You’re Never Going to Get It All Done (guest Kareem Creighton) and Kareem Creighton’s tweet to us about this question
            • Chris Elmendorf, Making Sense of Section 2: Of Biased Votes, Unconstitutional Elections, and Common Law Statutes
            • Episode 56: Cracking and Packing (guest Lori Ringhand)
            • Episode 67: Monstrous Acts (guest Josh Lee)
            • Callins v. Collins (Scalia’s concurrence citing the brutality of a murder in a case in which the defendant was later proved innocent)
            • Danielle Allen, Our Declaration; Robert Cover, Violence and the Word ; Jedediah Purdy, After Nature: A Politics for the Anthropocene
            • Undisclosed: The State v. Adnan Syed, a podcast recommended to us
            • Episode 69: Contaminated Evidence (guest Brandon Garrett); see also Episode 45: Sacrifice, Episode 64: Protect and Serve (guest Seth Stoughton)
            • The Our National Conversation about Conversations about Race podcast
            • Episode 70: No Drones in the Park (guest Frank Pasquale)
            • Episode 72: The Guinea Pig Problem (guest Michelle Meyer)
            • A youtube of David Foster Wallace talking about drugs and entertainment in Infinite Jest (2m23s)
            • Anthony Kreis’s tweet about civil disobedience
            • 1 hr 30 min
            • Episode 72: The Guinea Pig Problem

              With Michelle Meyer, a scholar of bioethics and law and a longtime listener of this show, we talk about human testing and Facebook. There’s a lot to talk about, but it doesn’t dissuade us from our customary, introductory nonsense, this time including a gift from listener Michelle, Star Wars, Joe’s mangling of last names, and Joe — and this actually happened — eating dog food. If you hate fun and want to get right to the colloquium part of America’s Faculty Colloquium, it starts a little after 23 minutes in. Should corporations be able to experiment on its customers and employees without their consent? Don’t they all do that, and haven’t they always? Don’t we all do that? Does it matter whether Facebook is more like a burrito stand or a utility? Mmmm… burritos.

              This show’s links:

              • Michelle Meyer’s web page, faculty profile, and writing
              • America’s Team
              • The excellent Phantom Menace poster
              • Vindu Goel, Facebook Tinkers with Users’ Emotions in News Feed Experiment, Stirring Outcry
              • Christian Sandvig, Karrie Karahalios, and Cedric Langbort, Uncovering Algorithms: Looking Inside the Facebook News Feed
              • Michelle Meyer, Everything You Need to Know about Facebook’s Controversial Emotion Experiment (Wired)
              • About social comparison theory and emotional contagion
              • Adam Kramer, Jamie Guillory, and Jeffrey Hancock, Experimental Evidence of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion Through Social Networks
              • The Belmont Report
              • The Common Rule
              • Michelle Meyer and Christopher Chabris, Please, Corporations, Experiment on Us (N.Y. Times)
              • James Grimmelmann, Illegal, Immoral, and Mood-Altering (Medium)
              • Michelle Meyer et al., Misjudgements Will Drive Social Trials Underground (Nature)
              • Michelle Meyer, Two Cheers for Corporate Experimentation: The A/B Illusion and the Virtues of Data-Driven Innovation
              • Michele Meyer, More on the A/B Illusion: IRB Review, Debriefing, Power Asymmetries and a Challenge for Critics
              • Special Guest: Michelle Meyer.

                1 hr 56 min
              • Episode 71: Rolex Tube Socks

                With IP scholar Mark McKenna, we discuss a body of law we at least all agree should exist: trademark. Why is it essential? What are design patents? (Christian didn’t really know. But he opposes them nonetheless.) How do and should they differ from trademarks? Should there be a much shorter but partly functional protection for innovators’ identities as innovators? We discuss the example of Apple, Samsung, Android, and dilution.

                This show’s links:

                • Mark McKenna’s faculty profile and writing
                • About the escutcheon
                • About Joe Miller, the Alaskan politician
                • The A.V. Club’s Podmass, featuring a write-up about our show by Dan Jakes!
                • Mark McKenna, Trademark Year in Review
                • Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co.
                • Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Brothers
                • Traffix Devices v. Marketing Displays
                • Mark McKenna, Confusion Isn’t Everything
                • Apple v. Samsung (order denying attorneys’ fees but reviewing the substance of the trade dress claims)
                • Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Stiffel Company
                • Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.
                • In re Webb (reversing a ruling that a prosthesis, unobservable once implanted, could not be the subject of a design patent)
                • Christopher Jobson, Welcome to Dismaland: A First Look at Banksy’s New Art Exhibition Housed Inside a Dystopian Theme Park
                • Mark McKenna and Katherine Strandburg, Progress and Competition in Design
                • Steve Jobs’ slide containing smartphones as they existed at the moment (source article)
                • Special Guest: Mark McKenna.

                  1 hr 16 min
                • Episode 70: No Drones in the Park

                  Drones and robots are or soon will be watching you, driving you, delivering to you, and maybe even trying to kill you. They’re loud, nosy, deadly, useful, safe, and dangerous. There are many different kinds of them and many different kinds of us. What should we do when, say, a man shoots a camera-bearing drone out of the sky above his property? Or when a creditor remotely shuts down your car when you’re behind on your payments but, unfortunately, while you’re on the highway? For some answers and more questions, we chat with delightfully deep-thinking Frank Pasquale.

                  This show’s links:

                  • Frank Pasquale’s faculty profile and writing
                  • Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society
                  • Oral Argument 41: Sense-Think-Act (guest Ryan Calo)
                  • Robot or Not?, a podcast of one to two-minute episodes
                  • Jeff John Roberts, Man Arrested for Shooting $1,800 Drone Won’t Apologize, Cites Privacy
                  • DJI, drone purveyor, which company’s name Christian managed to mangle, Joe-style
                  • Michael Froomkin and Zak Colangelo, Self-Defense Against Robots and Drones
                  • Frank Pasquale, Air Traffic Control for Drones
                  • Jacque v. Sternberg Homes, Inc.
                  • Desnick v. ABC
                  • United States v. Causby
                  • Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport
                  • See, e.g., Field v. Google (on copyright claims against Google for search results)
                  • Margot Kaminsky, Drone Federalism: Civilian Drones and the Things They Carry
                  • Thomas Frey, 55 Jobs of the Future
                  • Timothy Lee, Amazon Has a Plan for Thousands of Drones to Fill the Sky
                  • Yoko Kubota, Google Reshoots Japan Views after Privacy Complaints
                  • The FAA’s interpretive rules for recreational drones (line-of-sight and less than 400 feet, among other restrictions) and proposed rules for commercial drones (including weight limitations, line-of-sight, daylight-only, less than 500 feet, and more)
                  • Foster v. Svenson (finding no statutory privacy right to prevent artistic show of photographs taken unsuspecting through open windows via telephoto lens)
                  • AP, Enrique Iglesias Recovering After Fingers Sliced at Concert, video
                  • Patrick Hubbard, 'Sophisticated Robots': Balancing Liability, Regulation, and Innovation
                  • 99% Invisible 170: Children of the Magenta (Automation Paradox, pt. 1); see also part 2
                  • Turn Your Key, Sir!
                  • Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone
                  • Frank Pasquale, Do Corporations Enjoy a 2nd Amendment Right to Drones?
                  • Jathan Sadowski and Frank Pasquale, The Spectrum of Control: A Social Theory of the Smart City
                  • Jathan Sadowski and Frank Pasquale, Creditors Use New Devices to Put Squeeze on Debtors
                  • Dale Carrico, We Are the Killer Robots; see also Dale Carrico, Natality, Tech “Disruption,” and Killer Robots
                  • Mary Ellen O’Connell, 21st Century Arms Control Challenges: Drones, Cyber Weapons, Killer Robots, and WMDs
                  • Samuel Bowles and Arjun Jayadev, One Nation Under Guard; see also Samuel Bowles and Arjun Jayadev, Garrison America
                  • Frank Pasquale and Glyn Cashwell, Four Futures of Legal Automation
                  • Special Guest: Frank Pasquale.

                    1 hr 19 min
                  • Episode 69: Contaminated Evidence

                    Brandon Garrett is one of the leading scholars on the problem of getting it wrong in criminal cases. Eyewitnesses who believe they know what they do not know, suspects who confess to crimes they did not commit, and the actually guilty parties who go free when convict the innocent: why and how does this happen?

                    This show’s links:

                    • Brandon Garrett’s faculty profile, author page, and writing
                    • Hold Up!, the (probably) one-off movie podcast we recorded
                    • Oral Argument 44: Serial
                    • Brandon Garrett, The Banality of Wrongful Executions
                    • Brandon Garrett, Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong
                    • Brandon Garrett, Contaminated Confessions Revisited
                    • About Elizabeth Loftus
                    • Oral Argument 48: Legal Truth (guest Lisa Kern Griffin), discussing Lisa Kern Griffin, Narrative, Truth, and Trial; see also links and discussion from Oral Argument 45: Sacrifice
                    • James Liebman et al., The Wrong Carlos, a fascinating website collecting photos, interviews, and other evidence concerning the conviction and execution of Carlos DeLuna, who was likely innocent
                    • This American Life, Confessions, Act One, an interview with Jim Trainum about botched confessions
                    • Benjamin Weiser, Settlement Is Approved in Central Park Jogger Case, but New York Deflects Blame
                    • National Research Council, Identifying the Culprit
                    • Alex Kozinski, Criminal Law 2.0
                    • About the Criminal Cases Review Commission
                    • Innocence Project at the UVA School of Law
                    • Special Guest: Brandon Garrett.

                      1 hr 6 min
                    • Episode 68: Listen to My Full Point

                      Just Christian and Joe focusing on a few topics from listener feedback. Our discussion includes: BPA-free containers, Joe’s health, John Pfaff in the news on prison reform and mass incarceration, Pluto and seagulls, listener Anthony’s good news, the Church of Marijuana, religious exemptions, racist appointments, what “tuition” means, how to choose a law school, how to prepare for law school (we disagree), what law schools should be, and feedback we decide to delay.

                      This show’s links:

                      • Oral Argument 51: The Faucet (guest John Pfaff)
                      • German Lopez, Mass Incarceration in America, Explained in 28 Maps and Charts (vox.com)
                      • Oliver Roeder, Releasing Drug Offenders Won’t End Mass Incarceration (538.com)
                      • Oral Argument 6: Productive Thoughtlessness
                      • Emily Lakdawalla, First Look at New Horizons' Pluto and Charon images: “Baffling in a Very Interesting and Wonderful Way"
                      • The picture of the comet
                      • About Leviathan
                      • Monica Davey, A Church of Cannabis Tests Limits of Religious Law in Indiana
                      • Oral Argument 66: You’re Never Going to Get It All Done (guest Kareem Crayton)
                      • Oral Argument 12: Heart of Darkness (about the US News rankings)
                      • Alexia Brunet Marks and Scott Moss, What Makes a Law Student Succeed or Fail? A Longitudinal Study Correlating Law Student Applicant Data and Law School Outcomes
                      • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Free Will and on Retributive Justice
                      • 1 hr 26 min

                      About Oral Argument

                      From the publisher's feed

                      A podcast about law, law school, legal theory, and other nerdy things that interest us.