Oral Argument

Oral Argument

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

Oral Argument episodes

  • Episode 207: Bribery

    Sometimes in law, as in other areas of life, we think we know something, but the more we think about, the more we realize we don't know it at all. Legal scholars have focused on puzzles like this before, like why blackmail should be illegal. Deborah Hellman joins us to discuss her attempt to answer a question you might not have known you had: What is wrong with bribery, and what is bribery anyway? The difficulties here shed some light on recent events.

    • Deborah Hellman's faculty profile and writing
    • Deborah Hellman, A Theory of Bribery
    • Oral Argument 206: What Are We?

      • Special Guest: Deborah Hellman.

      1 hr 23 min
    • Episode 206: What Are We?

      Joe and Christian discuss Christian's latest paper, on the way we define and separate markets, including European football, campaign finance, surrogate motherhood, and water bottles in disaster zones.

      • Christian Turner, The Segregation of Markets (SSRN) (SocArXiv)
        • 1 hr 41 min
      • Episode 204: Theocracy

        We discuss new calls to integrate church and state. The conversation ranges over liberalism, religion, religious zeal, and, obviously, some nonsense.

        • Micah Schwartzman and Jocelyn Wilson, The Unreasonableness of Catholic Integralism
        • Adrian Vermeule, Integration from Within
        • Christina Deardurff, "The Depths of the Church Are Not to Be Disturbed": An interview with Adrian Vermeule
          • 1 hr 32 min
        • Episode 203: Fifty-Four

          On immaturity, defensiveness, art, the intellect, models, and the self. And mailbag on scholarship and practice, Title VII, and Star Trek. It's Joe's birthday.

          1 hr 44 min
        • Episode 202: Conversations

          We discuss dictionaries, up and down on maps, and excellence in seminar conversation.

          • Joseph Miller, Suggestions for Law School Seminars
          • Seminar Skills – Learning Collaboratively
            • 1 hr 25 min
          • Episode 201: The Bag

            Just Joe and Christian, lumbering into season 2, talking about tipping and fraud in the gig economy, bar exam fiascos, legal scholarship, and fireworks.

            • Andy Newman, DoorDash Changes Tipping Model After Uproar From Customers
            • Donna Hershkowitz, The State Bar of California, Statement on July 2019 Bar Exam Release of General Topics
            • Oral Argument 61: Minimum Competence (guest Derek Muller)
            • The Weeds, Vox's podcast for politics and policy, the episode Dysfunctional Federalism with David Schleicher is accessible within their player or, obv, in your podcast app
              • 1 hr 46 min
            • Episode 200: Cite Me, Don't Slight Me

              We kick off Season 2 with assorted nonsense before diving into our second SCOTUS round-up, which consists entirely of the Supreme Court's decision on the census citizenship question.

              • Dep't of Commerce v. New York
                • 2 hr 12 min
              • Episode 199: Offended Observer

                We discuss items from the mailbag and go ahead and conduct our annual, absurd Supreme Court round-up (fifty minutes in).

                • James Macleod, Ordinary Causation: A Study in Experimental Statutory Interpretation
                • Obriecht v. Splinter
                • Johari Canty, Florida Deputies Find Sign Warning Drivers About Upcoming Speed Trap
                • American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n
                • Knick v. Township of Scott
                  • 2 hr 12 min
                • Episode 198: The Means of Randomization

                  How would you feel if you found out you were unwittingly the subject of an experiment testing two alternatives? You got A, and another group got B. Many people object to this. But what if neither A nor B was at all objectionable and in fact each is served up at many other places unilaterally and without reason for preferring one to the other? Why should we object to being randomly given A or B for the purpose of testing, when we would not object to having either uniformly and arbitrarily imposed? We are joined again by Michelle Meyer to discuss this problem, made famous recently by Facebook and other A/B testing entrepreneurs.

                  • Michelle Meyer’s web page, faculty profile, and writing
                  • Michelle Meyer et al., Objecting to Experiments that Compare Two Unobjectionable Policies or Treatments
                  • Oral Argument 72: The Guinea Pig Problem (guest Michelle Meyer)

                    • Special Guest: Michelle Meyer.

                    1 hr 34 min

                  About Oral Argument

                  From the publisher's feed

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