Oral Argument

We talk about LARPing, emotions, meaning, exam writing, grading, happiness, and other things.

Is the common law efficient? Richard Posner, among many others, has argued that it is, perhaps even without judges ever themselves focusing on that goal. Daniel Sokol joins us to discuss how understanding law as a platform, like modular and open-source software platforms, helps to see how some areas of the law might indeed become more efficient over time while others might not.

Special Guest: Daniel Sokol.

We dip back into the mailbag to discuss verdicts, unpublished opinions, "based off," canons and anti-canons, and more.

With Zahr Said and Jessica Silbey, we discuss new narrative forms, their setting, and their influence on law and legal education. How do the natures of podcasts, twitter, fake news, and deep fakes affect the way we experience culture together and how do they construct that culture and our legal culture?

Special Guests: Jessica Silbey and Zahr Said.

Fast on the heels of her last appearance, Carissa Hessick joins us to talk about corpus linguistics, which means... well, we debate this, but, generally, the use of computer-based methods to draw inferences from large databases of texts. What is this enterprise? How can and should it be used to answer legal questions? What does it mean to mean something? These questions, thunder, sense, nonsense, and a continued delving into Joe's pscyhe all feature in this episode.

Special Guest: Carissa Hessick.

At long last, we discuss originalism with one of its foremost proponents, Lawrence Solum. In this conversation, we focus on Larry's recent effort to identify what constitutes originalism as a category of interpretive theories and what distinguishes it from other theories, including living constitutionalism.

This episode's links:

Special Guest: Lawrence Solum.

After discussion of failing memory, mispronunciation of names, and legal scholarship, we turn to a very serious topic with our guest, Eric Kades. The looming threat of dynastic wealth in the United States has been much discussed since, and even before, the publication of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century. We discuss Piketty's now-famous inequality, r > g, how certain legal rules handled the building of perpetual dynasties, the attack on those rules during the historically unusual period during which many of us have grown up, and Eric's proposed tax to fend off some of the dangers.

This episode's links:

Special Guest: Eric Kades.

Just Joe and Christian talking about, inter alia, a paper about judicial writing and practice by the late Judge Wald. Live to tape and shipped without editing. Buyer beware!

Kim Krawiec rejoins us to discuss "repugnant" transactions. One common target of this adjective is trade in human body parts. While on the one hand making more matching kidneys available saves lives and prevents large amounts of suffering, on the other hand revulsion and concerns about coercion and distributive fairness arise when kidneys are bought and paid for. In recent years, a number of innovative market designs have allowed strangers to exchange kidneys without engaging in impersonal, commodified market transactions. And now there have been several global examples of such exchanges, transferring not only kidneys but also the resources needed to perform transplants in poor countries. But are these alternative designs still "markets," and what exactly is our problem with markets in kidneys anyway?

Special Guest: Kimberly Krawiec.

If you were charged with a crime, would you rather it be one written down by a legislature and codified in the tomes of a state's laws or one marked out by the decisions of judges over time? You're hardly alone if you chose the first option, and it is in fact the conventional wisdom that we have rightfully abandoned and prohibited "common law crimes." Not so fast, says our guest, Carissa Hessick. Our system of criminal law is still host to a good deal of common law, in the interstices of statutory text, through explicit incorporation, and sometimes from thin air. More importantly, if what you care about is the rule of law, then our system of code, in which prosecutors exercise less visible and less precedent-governed authority than any common law judge, hardly fits the bill.

Special Guest: Carissa Hessick.