Oral Argument

Episode 170: The Starters

05.27.2018 - By Joe Miller and Christian TurnerPlay

Download our free app to listen on your phone

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

We talk with Charles Barzun about what it means to be a legal pragmatist. But first we start with the ending and then talk John Hodgman, the F words (Framers and Founders), the old 2x debate, and finally (at 13:31) about legal pragmatism and its many senses. We connect the topic to interpretation, ethics, the age of our legal asteroid, families, infidelity, rupture, continuity, Justice Souter, quietism agonistes, and more.

This show’s links:

Charles Barzun’s faculty profile and writing

Charles Barzun, Three Forms of Legal Pragmatism

About Shane Carruth, director of Primer and Upstream Color

Judge John Hodgman and John Hodgman, Vacationland

Brian Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law

Charles Barzun, Inside/Out: Beyond the Internal/External Distinction in Legal Scholarship

Guy Kahane, Evolutionary Debunking Arguments

Charles Barzun, Justice Souter’s Common Law

Oral Argument 146: Somehow in the Middle (with Charles discussing Justice Souter)

Special Guest: Charles Barzun.

More episodes from Oral Argument