Oral Argument

What do the federal appeals courts’ striking down of same-sex marriage bans actually mean for marriage equality in the states? Are the state courts bound to follow these decisions while the Supreme Court pursues other interests? Well, Christian got this completely wrong last week, and luckily Michael Dorf is on the line to set us straight. Knowledge bombs galore are dropped.

This show’s links:

Special Guest: Michael Dorf.

The Supreme Court this week handed down a series of landmark non-decisions. We talk with PhD candidate and commentator Anthony Kreis about the confusing, hopeful, exciting, promising, uncertain, and evolving state of marriage equality. In the wake of a (so far) uniform wave of appellate court decisions striking down gay-marriage bans, the Supreme Court steps in and … lets them stand without taking them up for decision. Why? And what is the state of law? What is likely to happen, and what are local officials to do? (And if you’re in a position to hire a Visiting Assistant Professor or Fellow, you’d be crazy not to try to hire Anthony.)

This show’s links:

Special Guest: Anthony Kreis.

We discuss the common law and originalism with law, literature, and history scholar Bernadette Meyler. Some of today’s most intense constitutional controversies revolve around the proper sources of interpretive tools. Some forms of originalism, believing judging is legitimate only if it foregoes political choice and instead adopts the choices made by democratically accountable institutions, attempt to locate the sole meanings that constitutional text, whether “natural born citizen,” “habeas corpus,” or “ex post facto,” had in the common law at the time of its adoption. Bernie’s research reveals that the common law itself, rather than speaking with one voice, exhibited some of the same diversity of interpretation and opinion that we see in debates about meaning today. Nonetheless, she believes that interpretation that gives weight to those original debates, rather than non-existent singular meanings, is better justified than unmoored living constitutionalism. She calls this method “common law originalism.”

This show’s links:

Special Guest: Bernadette Meyler.

We discuss the role of design in the practice of law with renowned typographer-lawyer Matthew Butterick. The conversation ranges among very practical tips for making better documents, why so many legal documents are poorly designed, why lawyers should care about design, and what it even means to design a document. Matthew explains why IRS forms are some of the most well-designed legal documents around. Also, Joe manages to connect (positively) enjoying physical books with smelling gasoline.

This show’s links:

Special Guest: Matthew Butterick.

Can non-human animals be “victims” of a crime? The Oregon Supreme Court recently decided they could be. We talk with Matthew Liebman, senior attorney with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, about the law of animals. Why and how do we prohibit animal cruelty? Is it to protect our own feelings, the inherent rights of animals themselves, a little of both? Does prohibiting cruelty protect us from hurting one another? Does a housefly have a right to an education? We discuss the difficulties of being perfect, the omnipresence of trade-offs, whaling by native peoples, whether a chimpanzee can sue in habeas corpus. And, come to think of it, why does Joe pronounce chimpanzee incorrectly, and how did he get Christian to start doing the same? This is the one about the role of animals in a system of human cooperation, and it features an all to brief return of the monkey selfie. (And we finally get to some of the excellent listener feedback we’ve gotten. Keep it coming: [email protected].)

This show’s links:

Special Guest: Matthew Liebman.

We’re back with knees and gay marriage. And constitutional scholar Lori Ringhand. In the battle between recliners and knee defenders, Joe tells us the real enemy is the airline who has sold the same space twice. Somehow nose-punching, rapid window shade flipping, and the high arctic figure into the discussion. Turning to Judge Posner’s smackdown of midwestern marriage bans, we start with style: is there such a thing as too much smack? Then we turn to the really interesting bit, Posner’s reimagining of judicial scrutiny of discrimination. Also: speed traps.

This show’s links:

Special Guest: Lori Ringhand.

Our labor day episode, in which we discuss: Judge Posner’s castigation of state attorneys in gay marriage cases, professionalism (shiver) and politeness, the knee defender and recliners, airplane boarding and luggage retrieval, the exciting new adventures of the Town of Greece, satanists, and contempt of cop.

This show’s links:

Joe’s favorites case(s) part deux, Carolene Products, the filled milk case to end all filled milk cases. We talk about a case most famous for its fourth footnote. That’s right. This episode, alongside volumes upon volumes of legal scholarship, is almost entirely concerned with a footnote. But this one almost casually suggests a principle to divide the power of the federal government between courts and the political branches. Bonus content: an idea about returning to school later in life and follow-up on the monkey selfie.

This show’s links:

It’s our back to school episode. We pick up in the middle of a conversation about the order of the months of the calendar and then turn to our main topic: how to teach law. With Mehrsa Baradaran we delve into why classes might turn on you, how to manage the awkward student-teacher relationship, and presumptions of competence and incompetence. We dig into Mehrsa’s Teaching While Woman blog post and all our experiences with privileges, failures, and successes. First names, last names, cold-calling? Authenticity, professionalism, and, obviously, nudist colonies. Also: Mehrsa’s aspiration to be the Postmaster General and Joe’s to be, somehow, a “Lord High Chancellor."

This show’s links:

Special Guest: Mehrsa Baradaran.

Now we turn to Joe’s favorite case(s). And monkey selfies. First, some great listener feedback, and Joe’s argument that feedback should be at the end of the show. Then we dive into Erie, the first of two cases decided on April 25, 1938 that together are his favorite case(s). A man injured by an errant door on a passing train brings the case that fundamentally transforms the federal judiciary. Justice Brandeis transcends transcendental nonsense to recognize that courts make common law rather than discover it and thereby gives up power in a move Joe likens to George Washington declining to seek a third term. We close with a discussion of why no one “owns” the now-famous and delightful monkey selfie.

This show’s links: