35 Burst results for "Harvard Law"
Retired Justice Stephen Breyer joining Harvard law faculty
"Now that he's off the Supreme Court Stephen Breyer is heading back to school Breyer graduated from Harvard Law and taught there for nearly three decades The school says he's coming back as a Professor of administrative law Breyer literally wrote the book co authoring a textbook on the law surrounding government agencies It's you mister college student that you mister law school students earlier this year the 83 year old Breyer said he wants to make sure younger generations are ready to keep up what he calls America's great constitutional experiment They'll determine whether the experiment still works Sagar Meghani Washington
The Democrats Gender Confusion
"I think we are at peak woke. It now begins to destroy itself because it's on display. And that's my, that's my proposition I'm sticking to it. Do you agree with me that if Democrats refuse to say that women are women and men are men and only women can have babies that they will suffer at the polls because Americans are not in to the hard left ideology of it's called critical legal studies and you came out of its birthplace Harvard Law School and see critical legal studies became critical race theory became critical birth theory. It's just crazy. It is crazy to you and I can't say for equal or not that's really not in our hands in the hands of the Democrats whether or not they want to start sounding like normal people again and defending the interest of normal people because remember to you, it's not just saying silly things like persons who are capable of becoming pregnant. It's also neglecting the priorities of working class Americans in favor of their abstract academic concerns.
There Is No Such Thing as Your Truth
"So I have had three big dialogs with the famous lawyer Alan Dershowitz. Oh, yes, Harvard Law professor. That's right. He's a Harvard Law professor exactly and he is a lifelong liberal lifelong Democrat. He's not a leftist. And he's very courageous and he's lost all his friends because he's not a leftist. He's a liberals who are true to liberalism are anti left. That's the way it works. But anyway, so we dialog in New York City in Miami and in LA. The first one was in New York City. This is at least 20 years ago. And it was about, should you be liberal or conservative? And the issue arose about belief in the Torah, the central book of Judaism and of Christianity for that matter. And that's the first 5 books of the Bible. So at some point, I said, ladies and gentlemen, I just realized the biggest difference between Alan Dershowitz and myself. When professor Dershowitz differs with the Torah, he thinks he's right. Right. And a tour is wrong. And when I differ with the tour, this is you speaking, I think I'm wrong in the tours, right? Yes. You said that in your commentary. In which commentary. And your genesis commentary. Oh, oh, did I? Yeah, you quoted that. I thought that was great. So did I write in the commentary what his reaction was? He said that's absolutely right. Yeah, so the first type that I did is that I agree. I highlighted that, I mean, of course I highlight everything. I'm sorry, it's a compliment, but it's true. I highlight everything in that commentary. But I really appreciated that because I identify with that so much. I feel the same way when it comes to religion or to my elders, people who are older than I am, of course, I don't just blindly follow my parents, but I am happier knowing that I am not as wise as the
Alger Hiss and 'Gods of Deception' With David Adams Cleveland
"To you about the book gods of deception. So what's the general plot of this novel gods of deception with this background we've been discussing? Well, one of the things that fascinated me was how his managed to assemble a defense team. Most of them were Harvard Law School guys. They were, they were people that knew his pretty well. But I mean, when the evidence started coming through, I just couldn't believe how could these guys really believe their client was innocent? As the evidence, they had papers. It's top secret State Department papers with his handwriting on them. They had documents that have been typed on the Hiss typewriter, it was quite clear that Hiss was guilty. So how was it that his defense team could have stood by him through all of this? So the way I worked the fictional arc of the book was having one of the main characters be one of his defense lawyers who had actually defended him in the trial. And come 50 years later, the now the Edward demick is known as the judge in the book, is writing his memoirs. And he enlists his grandson. Who is a Princeton astrophysicist to help him to write these memoirs. And it's actually the grandson's exploration of what's in the memoirs and talking to his grandfather to try to figure out what had really happened in the algebra his case. And
Josh Hammer Reflects on Sen. Amy Klobuchar's Abortion Comments
"Yeah, I want to play a clip for you here from senator Klobuchar. That I think, you know, when we talk about the constitutionality of roe V wade and obviously Casey sort of, in my opinion, obviously I think you would agree that it's unconstitutional. I think Alito's opinion was a skewered the original road decision. But let's play senator Klobuchar here, and I want to get your take on what she says because actually what she's saying from a sitting U.S. senator is something. I mean, this is not mazie hirono here talking here. I mean, which we just assume is she's going to say the most Atlantic, you know, far left out to see kind of the type of things. Is it senator Klobuchar, who many think is sort of moderate or left of center, but not far left. Listen to cut 6. Why should a woman in Texas have different rights and a different future and a different ability to make decisions about her body and her reproductive choices than a woman in Minnesota? How can that be in this country that we'd have a patchwork of laws? Your response. So senator Klobuchar and I actually went to the same law school and, you know, I would like to think that when she was in common law back in her law school day, she knew better about the actual constitutional law underpinning the roe versus wade and its murderous successor, of course, Planned Parenthood versus Casey 92. Now, look, I mean, John Hart Eli, okay? There are so many liberals who have criticized roe versus wade's fallacious reasoning or beers. But John Hart Eli, who is a longtime constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, he was the dean of Stanford law school as well. He was personally liberal progressive he supported abortion rights, but he famously said in 1982 that roe versus wade was not constitutional law and barely even gave a semblance of purporting to be constitutional law. It was literally no less a feminist leftist progressive icon than the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself. We said the roe versus wade overstepped that the court should not have acted there when it did. They should have stayed cool, let it play out democratically in the states. So, you know, what I hear from senator Klobuchar there is, you know, it's constitutional illiteracy. It's also moral illiteracy, of course. We can't forget we're talking about it. You are talking about the wanton murder of now 63 million unborn children since roe versus wade came down in 1973. 63 million. I mean, it's really just difficult to kind of wrap your mind around around that kind of number. But you know, there's something about you said there, Andrew, that I think there's a modicum. There's a small, small sliver of correctness. Where I think she's correct, is that it ultimately is unsustainable for in the long term. My personal perspective in the long term for this to actually be a state
John Zmirak on Ketanji Brown Jackson's Child Porn Sentences
"John's Merrick, let's continue this disturbing story. Okay, so ketanji Brown Jackson wrote an article in the Harvard Law reviews criticizing the efforts of worried parents to get longer sentences and mandatory sentences for pedophiles, child molesters and child pornography users. On the bench, she has repeatedly flouted the law by refusing to give even the minimum sentences required by law to child pornography users. She, from the bench, was once talking, speculating that one of them might not actually be a pedophile, but he might just be collecting this material because he thinks that technology is cool or because of peer pressure. She was making excuses for people found with hundreds of images of child pornography on their computes. She has repeatedly advocated for these people. Now, the Democrats do believe the children of the future. Eric, they do want abortion pills inventing machines at high schools. They do want partial birth abortion. They do want 7 and 8 year olds to start undertaking sex transition take opposite sex hormones before they hit puberty. One organization that sings for Democrat events is the San Francisco gay men's choir. Gay men's cause. And they did a video any of you can look up on YouTube called we will convert your children. And it's all about how they plan to help get hold of our kids and make them gay or make sure. And wait. Several of the members of that chorus are convicted, sex offenders who have molested miners. And here they are in the video singing about it. I want that song to be performed at the next Democrat national convention so that the Democrats values are clear to everyone. And I would like also to testify before the Senate on how judge catan Jean sexually molested me at some point in the 1980s.
American Express Goes 'Woke'
"American Express Kenny has disavowed capitalism, talk to me about that. American Express brought in a Harvard Law professor, no surprise. His name is Khalil Muhammad, he came in and spoke to all of the employees. This is based on the sources that I've witnessed. He came and spoke to the employees about how capitalism is racist. And by the way, how American Express should lower credit requirement for black Americans. That's what he said. And so if American Express takes their advice and judging by how woke they've gotten a majors do that, they're going to become an explicitly racist company in the name of wokeness. This is why we have to stop this is why we have to fight back. We have to organize the ordinary Americans against American expresses woke
"harvard law" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Great show. Sometimes you eat the bar and sometimes the bar while he eats you. And now it's time for T three BE, Thomas tries to be ethical, answer time. Let's see. Dude, does the streak continue? Perfect on this exam. We'll see though. Could I have gotten this wrong? Yeah, this is a mandatory reporting question. So this is an attorney, 5 person, 5 lawyer, law firm, learned that one of her partners defrauded a client charged personal expenses to a client, fraudulently represented that the expenses were related to the client's representation after being confronted with evidence of the fraud that partner resigned. The attorney then told the client made them whole refunded the money and said, hey man, do you want me to report this lawyer who defrauded you to the ethics to the state bar commission? And the client was like, he'd do whatever you want. Client did not object to the disclosure, but left the decision to the attorney must is the attorney required to report the partner's conduct to the disciplinary authority. You went with yes. You went with B, yes, because the conduct raises a substantial question as the partner's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, Thomas, you are 7 for 7 on a fixed question. Nailed it. I was hoping this because this is, I bet that we get a number of lawyers who go with a no answer here. Because in practice, I will tell you that lawyers do not comply with this provision. This rule is rule 8.3. For example, the Harvard Law review hasn't reported whatever asshole wrote that's stupid article. Oh no, that's me. They're going to write to us about it. But you know what? You're right. I resent that because maybe they did report them. I don't know. I love you, Thomas. Rule 8.3 of the model rules of professional conduct sets out mandatory reporting and reporting professional misconduct subsection a this is under maintaining the integrity of the profession, and you've heard me talk about that. It is a thing. I take seriously. I think a lot of lawyers take seriously. But here's how broad the rule is. It says, a, a lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the rules of professional conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority. Mandatory reporting. So you know they violated the rules and hear charging personal expenses to a client is a per se violation of the rules. And if it raises a substantial question as to honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law, you have to report it. I would daresay in day to today life most lawyers have a threshold that is somewhat higher than that in terms of mandatory reporting. That you look, you see, you say, man, that really feels like somebody who was flouted the ethics rules, but I don't know that it rises to the level of my filing an attorney grievance complaint against them. Maybe I'm wrong on that. But certainly that is my perception from being in practice for a very, very long time. I have never had a case that has come to me that I thought clearly met rule 8.3 and I've never filed a far grievance complaint against another lawyer. A thought about it in a few cases. But in the end, I've sort of erred on the side of not reporting. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that most lawyers probably apply a somewhat higher standard in their mind. Because any violation, you know, it's hard for me to imagine a violation of the rules that doesn't raise a question about your honest, right? An accident, I suppose. I have stole a pen, you know. Yeah. Yeah. That was my reasoning. There's just something kind of minor that could be looked at as you remedied it. It wasn't something that spoke to your character. It was just kind of a mistake sort of thing. Yeah, I could see that, but I doubt it. You doubt what? What do you mean? Well, I got the answer right, didn't I? What study did I get it right for the wrong reason or what? No, you got it absolutely right for the right reasons. Sorry, when I say I doubt it, I mean that I think that there are more cases than just inadvertent I stole the pen. I didn't really mean it right. I think that in real practice lawyers probably have a higher standard. Well, I'm just too ethical, Andrew. The world can't handle it. Let's find out if somebody is equally ethical or if this question tripped anybody up, we'll see. Well, Thomas, this week's winner is catron on Twitter who writes. There was a limerick, then a sonnet, try a haiku. And then gives us answer B it is when it comes to money you must always report. Well, how could I pass up a haiku? I think this is technically a sen re, right? I'm sure I'm getting the pronunciation wrong, but the subcategory or relation to haiku that doesn't involve an allusion to nature. Unless you think money is natural. So either way, congratulations to catron on being, this week's winner everyone, let's give them a follow they are at catron 67 on Twitter that is at 6 7. Congratulations catron for being this week's poetic winner.
"harvard law" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Interpreted charitably, you would then say, look, like, are you sure that you trust Amy Coney Barrett with adjudicating these decisions? Maybe if we had the same logic apply to roe V wade, look, we just want to hand it to the states, and I'm doing my best here. Well, your best isn't good enough on this one. Stop defending this person. Unless they're listening to the show, then that's a great it's Conrad Michaels. That's true. We will be rescinding this episode. No, but look, it is if what you're thinking about is, how do we limit federal court jurisdiction so as to avoid the onslaught of right-wing activism that we're 5 years in and maybe 35 years to go, I get that, but again, the problem is that you don't have to limit federal court jurisdiction for state court to sit on top of that. It is already a part of existing federal precedent that, again, ignored in Bush versus core. But that federal court should defer by and large to state courts in terms of how they interpret their own electoral rules. And if you had a state court, if you had a state constitutional provision that went above and beyond. And by the way, if you're in a blue state, we should be passing these laws, you know, yesterday. If you're in a state that does not have a constitutional protection of the right to vote in every election, including presidential elections, we need to get those on the ballot. If that becomes a part of the state constitution, then there's nothing that that's an additional protection that the federal constitution doesn't offer. And there's nothing Amy Coney Barrett can do to take that away from you. So I do not find the reasoning persuasive, but you know, that's my best effort to say maybe it is a well meaning OA listener who just happens to get it wrong. Well, I suppose we'll find out in the email inbox. And thank you. And now it's time to thank our Hall of Famers, our all time greats on Patreon dot com slash law, and we are on..
"harvard law" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"So this is the very, very worst part of the argument. It begins with repeating the language from Bush versus gore that says state legislatures have the power to forgo elections altogether and just appoint presidential electors. I want to say this because we have not tackled this argument on the show. That is stated as though it were a fact in Bush V gore. It is just dicta in Bush V gore. Bush V gore as we've done from all the way back in episode one of the podcast. Bush V gore is an unsigned per curiam opinion that is expressly limited to the facts of that case, and of dubious presidential value, the courts have said that. I for one, and we should do this in a deep dive Tuesday in the future. I would be prepared to argue in court that it is no longer the case that state legislatures could reclaim the right to appoint presidential elections. I will need time to develop that argument. I want to concede that it is not, it would not be a majority argument, right? I'd have to make the argument there are arguments to the contrary, but I think any fair lawyer would concede that I could make that argument in good faith. That I could write a law review article that says, given where we are right now and given the case law that has developed, you can not rescind that right. I don't care what the Supreme Court said in Bush V gore in dicta. They got that wrong. So they begin with that principle, and then they make what is a truly terrible argument. I'm going to read it directly. Recognizing the authority of states that is to do whatever they want in terms of setting limitations on ballot access. Would reflect the basic interpretive rule that the greater includes the lesser. For instance, Congress has the power not to create the lower federal courts. And that power implies the ability to create courts of less than maximum jurisdiction. The application of that proposition to presidential elections is straightforward, because states need not hold popular elections, they may therefore hold those elections in a limited way. Just as the power includes the ability to hold presidential elections based on geographic divisions, it could also include the ability to hold elections without certain candidates or with stringent voting requirements, in addition to its logical force, this principle allows for compromise. For example, imagine a state so concerned about voter fraud that it believed conducting an honest presidential election would be impossible under rules that would survive Anderson burdick, giving that state a freer hand would discouraging it from choosing not to hold an election at all. A lot of bad arguments packed into that paragraph. So the last one sounded particularly stupid to me. Yeah, so let's try and unpack that. The first is, it is true that one of the canons of statutory interpretation is that the greater includes the lesser. It is also true that that is of particularly limited force when you were talking about allocating basic rights. So, for example, let's give an obvious counter example. States could decide not to hold presidential elections for their presidential electors. So totally okay if they restrict the right to vote to white people. Now, I would not survive because that group of people is less. The greater power includes the lesser, right? So yeah, and again, that's a very simplistic argument. The article itself notes that as a caveat later on. So I don't mean to suggest that the author of this note has not considered that argument. I do mean to suggest that the principle in my view of the greater includes the lesser is of highly limited utility because it's very easy to envision a lesser standard that is way worse than just not having it at all. It's easiest to envision how those standards would suck when they are on the basis of protected classes. But let me give something that, for example, would not necessarily run afoul of the Fifteenth Amendment, prohibiting access on the basis of explicitly on the basis of race. But let's have like supercharged poll taxes. Let's say for presidential elections, the state of the state of Ohio says it's going to be $1 one vote. And what we're going to do is we're going to have a fund, the fund will go to fund public schools. Everybody gets to vote and you get in every, you know, for every dollar you donate here, you get one ballot. Under this article's framework, I think that would be fine. And certainly under this justification of like, well, come on, you'd rather have only people paying for votes than have a system with no votes whatsoever, right? That's the last sentence, giving that state a freer hand would discouraging it from would discourage it from choosing not to hold an election at all, right? Right. The idea is we got to let him get away with whatever they want because this hypothetical is worse. Yeah, and the hypothetical before that is a state so concerned about voter fraud, it believed conducting an honest presidential election would be impossible under rules that would survive Anderson burdick. Let's unpack what that means. That means having dipshits, QAnon level conspiracy theorists take over a state legislature like in say Arizona and say, okay, well, we got to have these levels of scrutiny before we can consider votes to be legitimate. And that level of scrutiny would not survive Anderson burdick because it would be a major restriction on your right to vote. That's the kind of vote that this article wants to protect. And I just reject that argument outright. If a state is going to craft restrictions that rise to the level of being, and again, remember the Supreme Court's term here is severe restriction on your right to vote, then no. That's not preferable to not having a vote. Yeah, what's preferable is just being like, nah, don't do that. What would you prefer? Would be recognizing the right to vote. And again, I realized that I have to articulate the argument as to why that is inherent in the constitution today. We get this delightfully out of touch, kind of thing that could only be written in a note in the Harvard Law review. Another value underpinning the Electoral College is put bluntly elitism. In extolling the virtues of the Electoral College, Alexander Hamilton note that it would place the selection of the president in the hands of a small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass. Indeed, because electors can not be federal officials, one original purpose of the Electoral College may have been to ensure that the power to select the president was vested in a group independent of both the government and the broader population..
"harvard law" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Box dot com slash OA head on over there right now. Free fillet mignon for a year. This show is brought to you by athletic greens. It's time to tell you once again. I don't have a lot of time in the morning. No, that's a lie. Again, I keep telling you the same line. I have plenty of time in the morning. Don't have the wherewithal. And if you're like me, and you want something to get your day started on the right foot, try athletic greens. I love a good health drink. The greener the better, I think. What I love about athletic greens is it's basically an all in one nutritional insurance. And I like to think about it that way. Because look, I don't remember which vitamins do what? I'm as bad at remembering vitamins as I am at which amendment is what, you know, there's roughly 50 of them and can't remember what's ones are good or bad. That's like vitamins, same thing. I can't keep that all straight. I don't want to keep that all straight. Athletic greens is your insurance and your reason to not have to keep up with all that. Athletic greens supports better sleep quality and recovery supports mental clarity and alertness and athletic greens uses the best of the best products based on the latest science with constant product iteration and third party testing. And here's the thing about athletic greens, if you tried to line up all these supplements and vitamins on your own, the founder tried this, it cost him a $100 a day to get all this different stuff for his gut health and his vitamin zoos trying to do. That's why he invented this. It's way cheaper than getting all that stuff yourself. So take advantage of his leg work there. Get your optimal nutrition routine all in one delicious scoop. So, right now, it's time to reclaim your health and arm your immune.
"harvard law" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"You know, I live and I give my address. Oh, I see, yeah. And they match it without me having to physically hand over a document and proof. The reason that that works in most states is because voter fraud is nothing. Your master plan is to pose as somebody else to vote one meaningless vote and the penalty you face for doing so if you're caught is like imprisonment all for one more meaningless vote. Yeah, that is not how any kind of and by the way is not how the fraud that the kraken lawyers allege in connection with the 2020 election, right? The things they allege are not things that would be solved by voter ID laws. Oh yeah. Nevertheless, they're in favor of voter ID laws because they deter individuals who are otherwise deterred from seeking identification, right? Valid voters who don't have the money don't have a car, and therefore tend to vote democratic. So the question then was, is this case was called Crawford versus Marion county election board. The question was, is a voter ID is that a severe is that a law that severely restricts the right to vote, or is it a non severe nondiscriminatory restriction? That's kind of how that got clarified. That case was sort of a mess in terms of there were a bunch of different concurring opinions. But ultimately, the court said voter ID laws are okay. Even though the law had partisan motivations, you could nevertheless justify the actual implementation through nonpartisan. So the court came up with an excuse for them. Yeah, it did, right? It said, look, because Indiana said, right, our legitimate state interest is preventing voter fraud. The Democratic Party of Indiana said, no, here's testimony from Republicans. State legislators that it will help them and hurt us. And the Supreme Court was like, well, yeah, probably. But you know, if they had meant to do this thing, that would be a valid interest, so therefore. We're going to uphold the law on the basis of the Anderson burdick test. And then you had a justice Scalia concurrence that was like, yeah, I don't see why we would care. This is not a huge infringement on your right to vote, so it's fine. It doesn't really matter how strong or how weak the motivation of preventing voter fraud is because this is a non severe nondiscriminatory restriction. So kind of put all of that together. And I have tried to sort of lead you down the path that I think the Harvard Law review wants to lead you down, which is Anderson burdick doesn't seem great as a rule for adjudicating how states can restrict the qualification of voters. So their argument, and again, this is very, very typical in a law review article is okay, well let's get rid of Anderson burdick. That's where I think it kind of runs off.
"harvard law" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"So Andrew, I got a question for you. What the hell is going on with Harvard Law review? Because they seem to be it's big lie adjacent or something. I don't know what's going on here. Is there some benign explanation for this note they released on elections? I believe that there is, but I understand why folks are really agitated about this, and I disagree strongly with almost all of this note, right? So let's break this down. This is a February 10th, 2022 note entitled as the legislature has prescribed. That is a quote from Bush V gore, by the way. Removing presidential elections from the Anderson dash burdick framework. And if you're thinking, gosh, that sounds exactly like how lawyers would title a note. What is a note? Well, great question. It's not actually lawyers who write the note. The note. Did they just roll it up like in grade school? And then they write the thing on it, and they throw it to you. Like that kind of note? No, a note is written by a student or multiple student members of the law review. It is unsigned. So much of what gets published in the Harvard Law review in other legal journals are articles that are written by practitioners or law professors, right? Those are the two major sources of people who write law review articles. I've written law review articles. But also, when you're on the law review, you can write a student article. And that student article is called a note and is very often, at least on the Harvard Law review, unsigned. So think of it as kind of like, I don't know. It's probably not fair to call it a per curiam opinion, right? But it is a way for it. Remember, if you're on Harvard Law review, chances are pretty good, you're pretty full of yourself, right? How do I mean that? I mean that with all with all due respect and love for my brother's sister siblings out there on Harvard Law review. But you're thinking, I got into the best law school in the country, and then I got into add it on to the most prestigious thing at the best law school. Like, okay, I'm really super smart. And you are, but you're not one thing you are not, is a practicing lawyer. And this article is, in my view, has an awful lot of things that are wrong with it. So let's talk generally about that framework and the efforts to sort of characterize the conclusions. And by the way, the conclusion is that questions of how presidential electors are chosen should either be viewed as non justiciable political questions, right? That is nothing the court can do about it, or that we should nevertheless the Supreme Court should overrule its two primary cases that serve as precedent on voter qualification Anderson and burdick, right? That's why the Anderson dash burdick test. So this is a pretty radical article. It is kind of shocking to see it come from the Harvard Law review because again, it feels, I think you're not wrong to say it feels big lie adjacent. Yeah. And I think it is the result of the author feeling overly clever, I really, really hope that there is not just a nonzero, there is, I think, a pretty significant chance that the author or some of their friends might listen to the show. So we'd love to talk to you. Send an email to open arguments to Gmail dot com. I'm going to mention some things that I think may be benign motivations for wanting to write this. But let's kind of start out with where it starts out, which is a little bit of a sleight of hand. And typically you do this when you're reaching one political outcome here, a conservative political outcome. And you want to try and imply that it also is a good thing for folks who are on the other political side. And so here, they begin with a discussion of California Senate Bill 27. You may not remember that. That was a 2019 piece of legislation that said that candidates for president and governor wishing to appear on the state's ballot had to file the candidates 5 most recent income tax returns with the California Secretary of State who would then publish redacted versions in order to appear on the ballot. We did a whole thing on that, didn't we? Yeah. And obviously, that was in response to Donald Trump. Ultimately, that qualification was rejected by the California Supreme Court as violating the California constitution, not violating that was a case called Griffin versus Padilla was decided by the California Supreme Court in 2019 that said that the legislation was incompatible with existing protections under California state law. So it does not apply. Now, it was also appealed up in the federal courts to the 9th circuit, and there were opinions that there was an injunction initially granted at the trial court level in the eastern district of California, on the Anderson burdick, the federal test. But at the end of the day, this is not an example of where federal law prohibited California from imposing those requirements, it was state law. So there's a little bit of sleight of hand here, right? They do it bit. The issue was resolved without any definitive decision as to whether California's law violated the federal constitution. But it's only a matter of time before the question comes up again. And it points out that in 2011, racist governor of Arizona then governor of Arizona Jan brewer wanted a birther bill that would require that candidates have to disclose their birth certificate and proof of citizenship to appear on just well, that would have been fine because Obama was born in Hawaii. Yeah, shocker. Really weird that they but you know, my understanding from all this from a lot of the coverage of 2020 and all that, is that states do have pretty wide latitude on this. I even think we've talked about it with the electoral count reform, all that stuff. States can if they wanted to ahead of time, come up with all kinds of ways to allocate their electors and do all kinds of things like that. So this idea that there's going to be this inevitable clash between state election rules and the constitution is that is that right? I think your analysis is correct. States do have wide latitude and as a result, the test that has developed from the two cases that I've alluded to, the first case is a case called Anderson versus celebrity. It's from 1983, and the second is from burdick versus takushi, which is a case from 1992. So the first one involved a law in Ohio and the second one involved an absolute prohibition on right in candidates in Hawaii. So let's talk about Anderson first..
"harvard law" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Show. Down. Down. So what's our Madison Cawthorn update? Did we win? Did we get them? So here's what's going on. I had a whole bunch of updates prepped on this that may or may not wind up being significant in light of the letter that was sent literally like an hour before we started recording the show. So what you need to know since we discussed this on episode 5 68, I have maintained this is a thing that is being taken very, very seriously. So the complaining witnesses move to intervene in the case. Cawthorn opposed that. Cawthorn moved to consolidate an expedite. The board opposed that. The North Carolina Republican Party filed an amicus brief. It's terrible, by the way. I'm not going to go through it. All of this is, you know, an awful lot of activity if you're of the belief that the board was just going to kind of get a come to some, well, you know, we can't really say one way or the other. You know, if the fix we're in, this is a hell of a lot of effort. But the preliminary injunction hearing has already taken place, it took place yesterday as of the time that you're hearing this. So Monday, February 28. And you might recall that all of the proceedings were stayed pending the resolution of legal challenges to gerrymandered districts in North Carolina. Well, those challenges have now been resolved by court of competent jurisdiction. And that means that stay is lifted and that has direct implications for what's happening here. So, let me tell you a little bit about the court order. It approved the remedial state Senate and House plants. The state House and again, this is at kind of a top level. The state Senate plan seems bad, right? The revised plan that passed the Congress still looks like it pretty strongly favors Republicans. The state House plan looks a little better in 5 or 6 areas. It is considerably more favorable to Democratic Party than to Republicans. So buncombe county was one Republican to Democrats. It's now three democratic leaning districts. A bunch of other districts gained democratic seats or competitive districts. And so it looks like that was improvement in the right direction, but the significant news was that the court rejected the remedial congressional districts plan that was drawn up by the heavily Republican state legislature. And so that means that they will be using the plan developed by the independent special masters. And that plan will take North Carolina's 14 congressional districts. There will be 7 Republican seats, 6 democratic seats, and one toss up seat. And by the way, that probably should accord with our intuitions. North Carolina seems like a slightly pink tinged competitive state. And so that seems to pass the straight face test. Now, there are still questions about it, but here's what that means in terms of the ongoing litigation. Madison Cawthorn's district, the 13th, in which he has filed, has been redrawn. Oh, okay. Yeah, it's different. And so the filing deadline, this is the end of this week. The filing deadline is march the fourth. So as you were hearing this, Madison Cawthorn will have a couple more days, he may decide in the, you know, in the interim between when we record this and when this goes live, whether he wants to run in the 13th district or not, whether he wants to run somewhere else. I will tell you this. North Carolina has a very, very, very, very weird rule. That weird rule is this. Although the congressional candidate need not reside in the district in which he's running Madison Katherine's case, the voters challenging that candidates eligibility must reside in that district. So yeah, so what that means is the existing voters are no longer eligible challengers under North Carolina general statute one 6 three one two 7.1. They are not any qualified voter registered in the same district as the office for which the candidate has filed or petitioned. Can you do a clean swap? Can you do a, you know? Like the Indiana Jones, you know, just swap swap in different voters, a bag of them. So we will, we will ascertain this on yesterday's hearing. I suspect you will be able to do that, right? So the state board, as of today, as of us recording this show Thursday, February 24th, has announced that on the slate of existing voters, they will not refer this matter on to be resolved because they are no longer eligible challengers. I think that it is incredibly likely that the court will give the board the opportunity to allow it or the interveners to amend the complaint to add in new complainants from within the district. Remember, there are only 5 of these to begin with, right? Like it's not like you need to amass tens of thousands of signatures. You just have to find somebody who lives in the district. And there will be somebody who lives in the new doesn't want mass and Catherine to be on the ballot. That should be pretty easy. Who thinks that Madison Cawthorn is an insurrectionist because he is? That shouldn't be hard. It could be you. Listener, you know? Check in. Yeah, absolutely. Check out where that new district is. And if you're within those lines, contact the North Carolina board of board of elections. Get your name out there. So like I said, deadline is March 4th, you know, if this were dismissed, it would be dismissed without prejudice and you could just so long as it is a timely filing and we will know which district Cawthorn is in by March 4th. It would be valid to refile that. If Cawthorn does nothing, he will presumptively stay a challenger in the 13th district. Because that's what he filed for before the redistricting and North Carolina law says, if we redistrict after you filed you are presumed to stay in the district for which you initially filed, even if the geographic boundaries change, right? So if he does nothing, he'll stay there. Was that rule about you don't have to live in the district? Was that just when this kind of thing happens, or can you truly just run for any district in North Carolina if you live in the state? So I have only read it in the context of redistricting. So I don't fully know the answer to that question, but it's definitely the case in redistricting. So it would be weird. But states we're going to get to this in the Harvard Law segment like states have wide latitude to ascertain and impose qualifications on voters. All right, so that's our update. It's not really, it sounds like it's not really good or bad news. It's going forward. I think it's good news in that North Carolina is not using a partisan created gerrymandered map. They are using the independent special masters plan for congressional districts and that will provide pickup opportunities for Democrats in the state of North Carolina. How does that person introduce themselves? Hi. I'm a special man..
How Biden Undermined Ketanji Brown Jackson's Impressive Background
"A very impressive background too bad he undermined it by saying he's going to choose a black female. She served 8 years as a federal judge in Washington, D.C., where she was born. She was appointed to the D.C. Court of Appeals last year by Joe Biden. She went to Harvard undergraduate, where she graduated cum laude in 1992, and then from Harvard Law School in 1996, where she was supervising editor for the law review. As mentioned born in D.C. to two public school teachers, one of whom her father went to law school at night. It became an attorney for the Miami dade county school board. Mother was a school teacher, public school teacher, and became a principal at a public magnet school. She married to a surgeon, admit star Georgetown university, his name is Patrick Jackson. They have two daughters.
Biden nominates Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court
"President Biden is nominating could kanji brown Jackson for the Supreme Court Jackson says her interest in the law began as a preschooler while her dad was in law school they'd sit at the dining table she with coloring books he with law books she eventually graduated from Harvard law just last year the president elevated her to the federal appeals court for the DC circuit to wear three current justices also sat Jackson bird three GOP votes while being confirmed the fifty one year old was a federal trial court judge before that if confirmed this time would be the high court's first black female justice Sager met Ghani at the White House
Freedom Comes From Obeying What God Wants for Your Life
"That people are becoming less free, the more that we degrade the moral guardrails of our society. That people are free when they actually abide to the law. There's this great quote they're going to take it down soon as soon as they discover it, because I mentioned it way too much at the Harvard Law School. It's far too wise for Harvard. It's just where this is great quote where it says the law are the wise restraints that keep men free. That freedom. And the sooner students realize this the better, and I pray that this is being taught to you, hopefully, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. That freedom comes in the earthly sense. Of course, from Jesus Christ and obeying to the scriptures, but that's the big one. Obeying what God wants for your life, right? Which is that you will be free, not from going to do whatever you want to do, things that make you feel good immediately, but instead, obeying the commands as how God wants you to live. That will be a state of freedom and I'll prove it to you. All of us, no alcoholics in our life. It's a very serious thing. Those people are not free. They do whatever they want to do. A lot of times whenever they want to do it. But unfortunately, that is not a state of freedom. That is a safe. That is a state of bondage to a certain substance that unfortunately then takes control of their mind and their body and hopefully not their
Derrick Bell Pushed for Marxist Model in America, Created Critical Race Theory
"And so what happened was they said well this isn't working We're not going to be able to overthrow the American system this way So there were splinter theories And one of them came out of Harvard Law School that I've been in a med Derrick bell who was an average or worse law professor In the 1970s And he felt that we should basically apply this Marxist model to race In many of his contemporaries thought he was unhinged Thought that he was a fringe 80 lock Thomas Saul used it announced him is really kind of a dumb guy who didn't make a whole lot of sense But dumb or not doesn't matter Over time he taught enough people and another professors joined in as they became more and more radicalized And this is something that has now permeated throughout colleges and universities starting in law schools In starting in the Ivy League schools And it's called critical race
What Does the Constitution Really Say About Freedom of Religion?
"Americans really now need to understand what does the constitution say about religion. And I remember years ago, Hillary Clinton referred to freedom of worship, and I remember chuck Coleman at the time saying, wait a minute, forget about freedom of worship. It's about freedom of religion. Freedom of worship. They have in China. You go into your little weird building on Sunday morning. Do your little weird mystical stuff. And when you come out, you bow to the secular authority of the state. That's the opposite of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion says 24 7, you can exercise your faith. You can live out your faith. You can talk about your faith. You can do things with regard to your faith. You can refuse to do things with regard to your faith. That is an incredibly broad right. And we, in America, because we've been so blessed with freedom, have really just taken our eye off the ball in terms of what it is. And so when somebody says, do something you go, oh, okay, without realizing, like, wait a minute. I am free. Well, just to be clear, let's say let's speak theoretically, right? I'll be like Arthur Miller with a Harvard Law School. He used to do these round table things on PBS or something. You need to say, well, what about in this case? What if it's the Bubonic plague? It's not COVID, which where people get a cold and they inflate the numbers and make it sound like everybody's dying. Let's say tons of people are dying in the streets. That becomes a different issue. In other words, if somebody says, hey, I don't mind spreading the Bubonic plague. You'd say, well, your religious liberty doesn't extend to that because people are dying in the streets because the science actually backs
Should ecocide become an international crime?
"The international criminal court at the hague in the netherlands prosecutes only four categories of crime genocide crimes against humanity the crime of aggression and war crimes but in june an international panel of lawyers proposed a definition of a new type of international crime. I can summarize it and what the definition says is that causing widespread severe or long lasting damage to the environment is the crime of echo side. Alex whiting of harvard law. School served on the panel. He says that for the international criminal court to prosecute people for crimes of eko side nations will need to adopt and ratify an amendment to the courts. Charter getting to that. Point could take years of debate and deliberation getting states to agree to this to bind themselves to an international agreement to an international crime is a long complicated process but getting started is important. He says already the work they've done to define eko side. As an international crime is motivating nations to think about their own environmental laws. And it's sparking debate about new ways to hold people accountable for polluting. The atmosphere and harming the earth
President Trump Takes Sec. Mike Pompeo Over Sec. Antony Blinken Any Day
"But I want you to hear from President Trump. He was on Hannity last night, and it was a tremendous interview by Sean With the president. And I want you to hear a little piece of this. Because I have something additional to say about it and try and set this straight once and for all. So stick with me. It will all make sense. Cut three Go. No, they have the cards with this group, and there are things you can do to counter it and things you can do to counter it very strongly, but they have the cars. But when you say secretary of state when you watch the decisions that are going to be made and being made, and you know what's going to be made because they played all their cards and look at the great job that Mike Pompeo did because he's tough. And he's smart number one of his class at West Point and a great student of the Harvard Law School. He was He did a great job, as secretary said, but he was tough and he knew what was happening with this, and he knew what was happening with China and Russia, and we would talk. Often. We had it all planned out, and then they decided to move the military out. And let's not follow the plan. It's like the only thing is, it's like the water wall. Nobody could handle it Worse were the greatest. We had the greatest protection that we've ever had on our southern border, and now we have the worst. And it was the worst nightmare to watch it that looks good by comparison to what's happening in Afghanistan. Okay? Something shocking happened. The Associated Press and our friend that right school, Brian Pointed it out. Biden has been saying all along that he was pinned into withdrawing from Afghanistan based on Trump's agreement with the Taliban. And he said more than that. Or we had to pour in, you know an enormous number of military resources. But stunningly, the AP points out how untrue
"harvard law" Discussed on The Working Experience
"How to equip the current rising students to manage both the flood of information to be able to assess what it is. They're getting when they type into their phone and they get something whether it's something to believe or not believe on the one hand there's more available knowledge at the fingertips of everyone than ever in human history on the other hand. There's less recognized methods for knowing what to trust whatnot address. Yeah like being a critical reader like putting things in context. Yeah that that's very difficult. So the internet was supposed to be this big democratizing tool however it is doesn't seem to be helping free speech so get like how is this a threat to free speech. My focus is really on the news industry. you know. there's certain kinds of expression that the internet may help although the flooding of our attention with a made up messages and hateful messages. I don't know if it's actually. Promoting speech is not promoting listening. But my focus is really on the news industry. You know. there's only one private industry mentioned in the united states constitution. And it's the press the only one and an accident because again the founders understood you can't have a democracy if you don't have an operational news industry that asks people in power. What are they doing tracks down when there's corruption and so forth that's what worries me It is certainly true. There are other issues about whether anybody trusts anything that they read or hear or But i'm right now really focused on. How can we recognize the ongoing importance of news. Meaning reporting events and tracking down. What's true with some kind of integrity you know. The journalist got together at the turn of the twentieth century developed. Basically a code of conduct all private but standards like two two sources for a story Standards like you know checking if someone is a conflict of interest when they're telling you something And those standards really elevated the news operations and created the golden age of journalism With investigative reporting with news magazines with exposing really misconduct and improving democracy. All of that is really in dire straits. The challenge is that a lot of people say well. What can you do about it. This is just nature it's just the market and the government could certainly not do anything. Because of the first amendment i amendment well mike my urge what i'm urging everyone else to do is read the first amendment. It says government shall not abridge the freedom of speech so no censorship but as it does not say anything about investing in public media and nonprofit media using any trust tools to make sure there's competition making sure that consumer protection is enforced when there's a term of service agreement with your internet service provider. That is never a dear to like you know. They don't remove the made up accounts and in fact when you look at the history united states. That's exactly what's happened. The government has massively subsidised starting with the postal service subsidies for newspapers from the beginning of the nation all the way through investing in the development of the telegraph. In fact it was a government grant government research for reduced the internet and the government of course deeply involved in structuring broadcast radio and television and cable are regulating it and requiring a fairness and public interest. So we have a long history of government involvement. We have good reasons to be careful and cautious and a guard against government censorship. But we need to do something more now both to regulate the internet companies. Make them responsible. Make them pay for the news that they take without paying for it and Guard against fraud and also the build a public. Internet's building alternatives.
"harvard law" Discussed on The Working Experience
"Everyone and i hope you enjoyed this episode of the working experience. Though working experience ninety three north is almost at a standstill yet. So rub one out there. The sporting snow and sleet them. It's no service on an clear of the closing doors please. Minutes mantra and traffic must make sure johnny that report on that presentation charlotte to see his team meeting at ted. Thanks bye. Work makes the dream work and after the meeting. we'll have a breakout session. Where am i hot michael that hello everyone and welcome to this episode of the working experience. Podcast my guest. Today is professor martha minot. Professor minnow has taught at harvard law. School since nineteen eighty-one. She's an expert in human rights and advocacy for members of racial and religious minorities and for women children and persons with disabilities latest saving. The news addresses the decline of reliable news reporting and how to preserve freedom of speech. Welcome professor munaf right to be here in the spirit of full disclosure. My father did attend harvard. Law school back in nineteen sixty something or other so you're never extended family wonders. Yeah yeah he actually did the moot court there for a number of years to curious. Yeah so so. Could you tell us a little bit about yourself. Where you're from your background. Sure i was born in chicago or just outside of chicago. I family lived there and also in washington. Dc and i went to the university of michigan and attended graduate school in education and then law and became a law professor after clerking at the court of appeals and the united states supreme court and today is actually my fortieth year in law teaching while yeah nineteen ninety-one nineteen twenty twenty one. What is it. What do you like best about teaching. The students are fabulous. I learn something every day. They're always open and willing to explore ideas. They come from all over the world. Have a great questions to ask and law school. Education is very much an interactive experience So working with them is phenomenal. This past year. During the pandemic i another cali created a colloquium a weekly discussion series about legal issues affecting and affected by the pandemic and we could students to write blog posts and so all through the year we maintained a blog and we learned a lot. They learned a lot and we hope we should were able to educate anyone who found the blog. Will it seems like just from reading the bio on the harvard law school website. You cover a lot of ground constitutional law and many many different areas. So i mean we could do probably ten podcasts. On everything that you do but We're going to focus on one particular area that your your book covers so the full title is saving the news. Why the constitution. 'cause for government action to preserve freedom of speech and you've written a number of bucks but i'm just wondering what brought you to write this specific book at this specific time. And why is it so relevant right now really came to the subject a couple years ago but the problems that it addresses have become only more choose. The problems are the rapid decline of the traditional news industry. Newspapers television stations have been shedding staff rapidly. I am cova. Da only accelerated that. The internet has opened up many possibilities but they also disrupted the business model of news and even the expectation that anyone would pay reporters to report the news. Instead you get it for free from your aunt or your cousin posting something or making something up and further there is a kind of subsidy that the internet companies are getting. they're not subject to the same kinds of rules. In liabilities that apply to conventional media. It was an effort by congress to actually promote new fledgling industries. It's been wildly successful. Some of the most well capitalized. Those successful companies in the world are now internet platform companies and in addition of course we've experienced Not just in this country but in this country to questions about what's reliable what's trustworthy. What state news what's propaganda. What's up robots Generated message and all that has produced really a chaotic downward spiral of an experience in one of the things that really prompted me to write the book Besides my own struggle to find reliable news sources Was this recognition that over. A thousand communities in the united states now have no local news no local newspaper cable broadcasts. No one covering what's going on and what that means is that the premises of the founders of the country. That democracy could work because people would know what's going on in their communities is really up for grabs and right now life and death is. You can't find out whether or not There is a an upsurge of the of the pandemic in your community or where to get the vaccine or whether there's lead in your water Journalism has had a long history. It's not always been fabulous but the again the founders of the country understood that if people in power actually abused power unless someone's watching unless someone's questioning unless they're accountable there's sunshine and right now that's a that's a dimming hope in america has always been yellow journalism i believe that was coined directed at the hearst. Papers zach correct and the idea of selling papers because if it bleeds. It leads Violence scandal. That that certainly has been a feature of journalism In this country and the hearst papers found a way to sell so many papers for a penny or two each That they didn't have to actually charge much money. They could have a whole staffer reporters but they would have. Yes on front page stories. That were scandalous but being able to then take the revenues and supports Other kinds of journalism again. One thing the internet has done is unbundled content. You get your sports your weather Even your scandal in lots of different places and so you don't have to pay a sore the news enterprise.
"harvard law" Discussed on Consider This from NPR
"Absolutely insane that all of that was buried in the headlines of the following months there was the election and then trump's failed attempts to overturn it and the january six insurrection but as things began to calm down earlier this year republican lawmakers state legislatures started drafting their own bills that looked similar to trump's executive order. They probably oklahoma. They pop new hampshire and iowa florida etcetera and nearly all of these proposed bills and resolutions were using the term critical race theory. Of course the issue is that they're not actually talking about critical race theory. They're more brought the.
General Mark Milley Fails to Acknowledge Communist Roots of Critical Theory
"Isn't it isn't a typical though, like a lib. You're attacking the military. So now we're attacking the military. Those of us who are trying to protect the military try to get them back in their lane. The military that's buckling. To the propaganda and the programming. The most radical elements in our society and our law schools. Push by our so called Commander in chief. Now we You and I are attacking the military by defending the military. What kind of a jerk is this? That guy who likes Being the head of the joint Chiefs because this is the only way it works when your complete sell out, and he's a complete seller. Go ahead. Seeing some theories that are out there that was started Harvard Law school years ago, and it proposed that there were laws in the United States actually started before Harvard. Nice try. Why don't you mention Herbert? Marcus is a communist. Why don't you mention then he came to the United States from Berlin and the Franklin swill of Communists. Why don't you mention that he is the founding father of critical theory? And then you say it came from Harvard Law School. It came from him first. Then it worked its way to Stanford and Harvard and all the rest. Why don't you mention the marks is underpinnings of this ideology, But you didn't not once.
Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors Set For UCLA Commencement Speech Despite Anti-Israel Comments
"Was set to deliver a virtual commencement address for use UCLA's Luskin School of Public Affairs. Despite scrutiny of her past critical remarks concerning is rather school's dean. Confirm, Colliers called for an end to the Israeli state. While participating in a 2015 panel at Harvard Law School, So an end to the Israeli state would mean a second Holocaust. You would need to slaughter the Jews. Because they're the indigenous peoples there so you'd have to literally slaughter the Jews a second Holocaust. That's what the Black lives matter. Co founder is advancing. People wearing this name on their shirts. They might as well put swastikas on their shirts as far as I'm concerned. And I'm very serious about this, and it's about time. Everybody talk up here. It's it's Pass no more passes. She called for an end to the Israeli state. Which means what It's like Talib. Pushing them into the river into the, uh into the Mediterranean Sea. People talking like this. It's unbelievable. Palestine is our generation South Africa, Collier said at the event. Now, how could it be our generation South Africa when the Jews of the indigenous people I wanted to democracy that allows Non Jews to participate fully in the process. If we don't step up boldly and courageously to end the imperialist project that's called Israel Word doomed, she says. Meanwhile, U C L. A S decision to host Colliers as a commencement speaker. Despite her anti Semitism didn't seem to have enough concern. You see La Luskin School of Public Affairs Dean Gary Segura. Defended the decision in a statement of the Jewish Journal He said. Respect for diversity of opinion on matters of public concern is a key tenet. Okay? He goes on. Diversity of opinion. Somebody wants to wipe you out. That's a
Critical Race Theory: What Is It?
"Is critical Race theory? Yes. So critical Race theory began around the 19 seventies with the law professor Derrick Bell and a couple of other legal scholars trying to understand the ways. That race and American law intersected how history of slavery and segregation was sort of codified and continue to influence American law Today. Adam Harris is a staff writer at the Atlantic. His most recent article was titled The GOP S Critical Race Theory Obsession, Harris says. One of the first instances we started to see critical race theory being used as a political bludgeon was in the early 19 nineties, President Bill Clinton nominated Atlantic near to the Justice Department. She was a legal scholar who done a lot of work and voting rights and conservatives effectively used her previous work in voting rights to sort of tag her as someone who was arguing for racial quotas in voting for the amount of seats that people should hold on city councils. They also tagged her as championing a radical school of thought. Called Critical Race Theory. Amid mounting pressure from conservatives, President Clinton has withdrawn his nomination of Lani Guinier to head up the Justice Department's civil rights division, claiming veneers writings lent themselves to views that he could not embrace the president cut her loose rather than fight a divisive battle on Capitol Hill. From there you have A kind of dormant period. It's not really until after George Zimmerman was acquitted in the murder of Trayvon Martin, the Jesse Jackson like race profiteer race grievance industry says everything's about race. America's a racist nation. You see a mention of critical race theory after a video surfaces of President Barack Obama hugging Derek Bell in 1990, you know When he was a law student at Harvard Law. The president is actually kind of aligning himself here with a well known campus radical. There is a conservative back last thing that he believes in this radical critical race theory. And then they're a kind of a couple of mentions up until 2020 shortly after George Floyd is murdered, You start to see a
Attorney Dershowitz Sues Netflix for $80M Over Epstein Show
"I might cross your reporting attorney Alan Dershowitz sues Netflix attorney and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz is suing Netflix for eighty million dollars for his portrayal in the series filthy rich about sex offender Jeffrey Epstein the lawsuit filed in Miami federal court contends Netflix intentionally misled Dershowitz regarding his appearance in the series the lawsuit also claims Netflix defamed Dershowitz by falsely asserting he had sex with one of Epstein's victims Virginia to fray Dershowitz who once represented abstain has denied accusations from two free that they had sex Epstein died in August twenty nineteen at a New York jail in what was ruled a suicide hi Mike Rossi up
"harvard law" Discussed on WBSM 1420
"Four years I've ever had working. Yeah. No, I think it's I think that's the that's what a lot of people could say to him. But you used to be the best four years and again. They came after eight years of just total stagnation and and Higher taxes, more regulations and the new normal. That's what that's what Obama call that the new normal was everybody was going to get screwed, and government workers and government was going to get fat and rich and the deep state was going to prosper and Trump said. I don't think so. And he did it for four years. Thanks for the call Tim. John. You're next with Howie Carr. Go ahead, John. Hey, Good afternoon. Well, you know, I haven't heard this from anybody yet. This impeachment. To me. It sounds like a kangaroo court. Yeah, that Z because it is a kangaroo court. I think John Yeah, I'll be saying anything. Number Kangaroo put. Alan Dershowitz was saying that this is patently unconstitutional. The impeachment trial in the Senate is to remove somebody. If the guy isn't there, How can you remove somebody who's not there? It's a new It's unconstitutional. I agree with Dershowitz. It's just on its face. You don't need to be a Harvard law School scholar. Just look at the look at the wording in the Constitution. How could you? It's like trying somebody for a crime who's dead. You can't punish somebody who's dead. You can't you can't remove somebody who's been removed. That's ridiculous. Thanks for the call, John. Rick, You're next with Howie Carr Go ahead wreck. How we Thanks for taking my call. I'd like to thank the president for a couple of things all the great rallies that he had throughout the year today and for driving joy Bejo crazy Joy Behar among millions of others. Driving everybody on the view Crazy everybody at the CNN, MSNBC Washington Post New York Times He drove them all insane. Thanks. We're gonna take some more calls when we come back, But we're gonna take a break right now. 844 542 42 844 542 42 Every new year, All you hear is new year Nu Nu MAI that usually means talking. You'll be tape picking better habits or trying new things. And if you do take up a new hobby, it's even better when you have amazing audio that will make the experience even better. That's why I recommend wireless ear buds from rake on every morning. I'm out of the dog. Riding my bike of flat stretch of land in in Florida. It's great riding, but it's ah, sometimes it's gets a little boring, but it's a lot more entertaining and I entertain myself if I have good music, and that's what I do with my rake on wireless ear buds. Today, I was listening to Blonde on Blonde by Bob Dylan,.
"harvard law" Discussed on WMAL 630AM
"Harvard students seek to revoke Trump graduates diplomas after Capitol Hill violence Well, how about after all the riots over the caress of the last year? Again. I looked up more stuff. It's what I do. Today, and it turns out the riots over the summer last Wednesday, Doesn't you know that's a drop in the ocean? The riot's over the summer more than $2 billion in damage That is the largest dollar figure for riots in the history of the country, and the news media will never even mention it. Nobody in the corrupt news media will ever even mention it more than $2 billion coast to coast. The greatest dollar figure. Largest dollar figure from riots in the history of the United States. More than 2000 police officers injured wounded hundreds hospitalized by the left wing riots across the country. The news media will never mention that alright, Trump people are all terrorists. And and so on, Right? And now here come the friend and they're never gonna bring it up. How many thousands of businesses we may never know who is David Dorn, not a single Democrat in America knows Harvard students think to revoke Trump graduates diplomas after capital of odds revoked degrees off Kayleigh Mcenany, or, I think is Harvard and Harvard Law School. Ted Cruz, who I think may be Harvard and Harvard Law School. Also, I know he's Harvard Law School. And representative Dan Crenshaw. I lost his I've fighting the troubling tights from hell Seeking to destroy civilization. Dan Crenshaw. He went to Harvard to what about Tom Cotton? He went to Harvard. On Harvard long You should go to repeal them, too. Didn't work for Trump. So this is this is the unpersuaded as George Orwell is not what it was to be a nun person on the UN person Ng of people and Harvard. They're in it up to their eyeballs. This anti American, It's it's Harvard. I mean, honestly, they discriminate based on race against Asians because Asians are too smart. For Harvard and Harvard is too stupid for Asians, so they actively and openly discriminate against rations and white people because they're Racists. That's the short version. So the petition to revoke the degrees is called circulated by students there that go to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Naturally, I was reading from one of the Radicals own played audio of one of the radicals at the Kennedy School of Government, saying absolutely UN American Radical stuff. Yesterday on MSNBC. I played the audio They're prepared to take a stand for representative democracy that that they don't know what these words mean. They're brainwashed, indoctrinated radicals, and they want to destroy the electoral college. No true democracy is one man. One vote. Yeah, Yeah. One time. A Z wave scene again and again and against the violent white supremacy. This is what they say, prepared to take a stand for representative democracy that means doing away with the Electoral college, which would completely corrupt everything and lead to violent civil work. And about 10 years take about watch the documentary on Amazon called Safeguard about the electoral college and then get back to me, okay? And against violent white supremacy. There's here they say that protest last week is white supremacy because they used the words, but they don't know what they mean. So they want all the Trump administration people that and Cruz and crunch are not Trump Administration people..
"harvard law" Discussed on WBSM 1420
"Stories on the South Coast from the W. B S M Standard Marine Outfitters newsroom Here's Mary Surratt is thes W B S, UM news Associate justice Kimberly Bud has been nominated. By Governor Charlie Baker to serve as chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Bud would replace Chief Justice Ralph Gans, who recently died if confirmed, but would be the first African American woman to lead the state's highest court. She is a graduate of Georgetown and Harvard Law. She was a bigger appointee who first joined the sGC in 2016. Her colleagues today described her as brilliant, astute and collegial. Three more New Bedford businesses have been fined for covert violations. The city's Health department announced today that Elka Rib restaurant on Brock have exposed convenience store on Dartmouth Street and Crown Fried Chicken on a Krishna have must pay fines in the amount of one or $200. Inspectors said workers there We're not wearing masks. Earlier this month, the city issued finds 26 restaurants for similar infractions. New Bedford Police have announced another drug bust, and they say they also took another gun off the street. Last week, they raided an apartment at presidential heights in New Bedford Housing Authority property. They found 119 G of fentanyl, a loaded 45 around $4300 in cash. Two men were arrested. They both face drug trafficking charges, and one faces an additional firearm charge. Cicak. Police have their own news to share this afternoon, They initiated a traffic stop and found a driver in possession of a loaded gun. They say they found narcotics, including methamphetamines and ecstasy. What's more, the search yielded body armor and a compound bow with metal tipped arrows. Roland Morgan of Providence was placed under arrest Turns out he was also wanted on two active warrants. U Mass. Dartmouth just scored another big grant from the U. S. Navy for 0.2 million will support research and naval undersea warfare. The university is a world renowned center for Marine and undersea technology in sports. Fans of the Dodgers were dancing in the streets after Los Angeles won their first World Series title in 32 years. Things did get out of hand in some areas. Police made several arrests. Meanwhile, back home, the New England Patriots are getting ready for their game Sunday against the Buffalo Bills. Cam Newton is still.
"harvard law" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030
"Car, but then SKW Visi Boston's news radio. Good morning. I'm Tom Huff. Here is what's happening. The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, BBC TV's Christina Rex tells us Ginsberg briefly briefly attended attended Harvard Harvard Law Law School. School. Justice Justice Ruth Ruth Bader Bader Ginsburg Ginsburg started started her her loss loss schooling schooling here here at at Harvard Harvard Back Back in in 1956. 1956. Eventually, Eventually, she she moved moved to to New New York York to to finish finish her her law law studies. Students here at the college tonight. Tell me, they're shocked and saddened by the news of her death. It's gonna take a while to process. The news of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is death hit Harvard students deeply as they got news alerts on their phones first found out I couldn't believe it because I think RBG fact that she's continued to stick with that and continue to fight. For us kind of. I kind of thought that you know she'd win. Keep going. This makes the Supreme Court one of the most important issues in the presidential election. Kent Green Fields of BC Law is a former Supreme Court clerk, he says Ruth Bader Ginsburg, affectionately known as RBG is an idol for young girls. My home It'll daughter knows who RBG is, and is saddened by the news to May. And I think they're know the story of my daughter is the story of a millions of little girls around the country. She she looks like this frail little woman, but she was a fierce warrior for justice. I think that many of us who loved her and loved her work just to really just wanted her to live forever. The thought on so many people's minds right now, what does
"harvard law" Discussed on Biz Talk Radio
"Oxford, You attended Harvard Law School and You have had the most amazing life. Including an invention. And so What? What an example. You have been to anyone out there that says I can't do that. I have limitations, because it's obvious to me that your blindness Actually. Enhanced her life. If I could say that. Yes, you can in this way. Well blindness, My vision. Also opened as you suggest a new world. Long that had no horizons. A world without limits. And I've done everything I could Explore and great the endless space I was presented with. Since I like lying Did I see a picture of you playing basketball? Yes, you did play to it, Bradley. Yeah, That's what I was just going to say. With Bill Bradley. Yeah, yeah. You know, Sandy? This is such an inspiration. Way all need this book. This book is so important. Because many people are feeling very limited by this virus very limited. In their scope of what they could do and how they're feeling. And I think your book Hello, darkness. My old friend opens up an opportunity. Of new possibilities that are available for everybody. Thank you for saying that. No, it's true. It's really true. And your friendship with with art continues to develop and grow through the years. His for his forward is just absolutely beautiful. Don't you think? He is the beer. The Lord speak up. Yes, Yes. Tell us about your Invention. It started when I returned to Colombia in my senior year is blind, stupid. I have many people who have the most important of all those Ivy. And I had a tape recorder very large one when they were called something. Called a reel to reel tape recorder. And I'd like to spend Reels faster to make 315 more minutes Pace. Goal much faster, double or triple. But by doing that, you've got a lot of distortion. So I thought about what Could I do about it? What would be the next step? And I learned very early out. Taking problem or trying to think through a problem in advance really is difficult, but do it up front and pay attention to him. Hastens the pace of your Achieving the call. In my case, I thought about it and realized For the past 15,000 years. We've been communicating principally by speaking Listen. It's only been a last 500 years. The Gutenberg came along with a printing press. It might be genetic, historically. We might be able to adapt to the spoken word. Yes, I'm going. I'm going to let you finish that story. I'm going to let you finish that story. In just a moment. We have to take a quick break Joining us today. Sandy Greenberg. His book is called Hello, Darkness, my old friend how daring dreams and unyielding friendship. Turned one man's blindness into an extraordinary vision for life. And what's the best website as we go to break what your website Stan Greenberg We'll be right back. I'm Frankie Boyer. This's biz talk radio. You like business content? I mean, if you.
"harvard law" Discussed on KLIF 570 AM
"Is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School and I think it is worthy of a brief discussion as well beyond originalism the dominant conservative philosophy for interpreting the constitution has served its purpose and scholars ought to develop more moral framework this is part of the common good conservatism wing of the conservative movement there's a really interesting ideological battle that's been put to the side obviously during a global pandemic but it's kind of interesting and and fun discuss because it will rear its head very quickly I think in the near future and that is there's a side of conservatism right now our side of the conservative movement and basically suggest the government is there to do the common good thank that government is there to chronicle do justice which is that seems big and scary to you that's because it is big and big really frightening and that the sort of libertarian ash wing of the the classical liberal wing of the Republican party says the government is there to perform the functions that independent society cannot perform and it is there to enforce neutral rules that that it that the goal of the government is to essentially prevent harms from one person to another person on the federal level and then when it comes to local government insecurity when it comes to me and my friends in my local government creating rules for the community wish to live in as long as people can leave and you have a little bit more leeway with what you can do with government that's sort of the traditional classical liberal view that mixes a bit of Barron's Montesquieu localism with the classical liberal philosophy of John Locke along with probably some John Stuart Mill the the sort of non harm role right that's sort of the the that's sort of where I come down then there's the common good conservatism view and that's it just that all the things that I like right family and church and marriage and social networking right now all of that sort of stuff on to be promoted by the government even if that means violating the restrictions on government the government ought to be grown now the most dangerous form of this is being expanded by professor vermeil it or by my Adrian Vermeule he is suggesting basically conservatives ought to embrace this not as a legislative strategy not just as we get elected to the federal government now we're going to push laws that that we we think promote the common good which is a sort of lefty perspective on how to use government itself but that we ought to use the judiciary in order to do so which is a complete violation of the checks and balances the regionally set forth by the founders one of the reasons that the founders took a more classically liberal view of what government ought to do is because they have very little trust in the people who run government if all the people who run government are ambitious track I think the people who run government are incompetent check I think the people who run governments are willing to use powers in ways that most people are not happy with absolutely this is why the institute checks and balances common good conservatism suggest sort of like early twentieth century progressivism that those checks and balances ought to be put by the wayside in favor of the common good yeah that's scares me because to me the government as a giant gun I called it a giant lumbering area before it is the government's giant lumbering idiot so that means they really only want to try lumbering idiot awakened when there is nearly one hundred percent approval for an action we have the power to do that through building a consensus in emergency everyone is on board right I'm a I'm a libertarian ash reason engine is fully libertarian nobody is calling for everybody on the streets in the government can't do anything it's doing right so emergencies we understand we need the government but in non emergencies what those checks and balances to apply it ran for meal is basically expanding the the opposite he's saying that we want government to be able to do whatever Adrian Vermeule wanted to do today which sounds a lot like if I do they ring for militants a lot more like the leftist version of our government ought to do stuff I like then like the principled containment of government for the preservation of individual liberty Adrian Vermeule writes originalism in the judiciary which is the perspective of the constitution itself ought to be strictly interpreted such that you can't add stuff to the powers of government right the the constitution is a document of delegated powers and it says exactly what the government can do and everything it doesn't have to come into the government not to that's what the constitution is designed to do an originalist on the judiciary our job is to interpret the constitution strictly like any other piece of law people one left on the court have for generations suggested about a broadly construe the constitution such that we can read our own moral once into the vague language of the constitution for meals as concerned as you do the same thing is originally has outlived its utility has become an obstacle to the development of a robust substantively substantively conservative approach to constitutional law interpretation such an approach one might call a common good constitutionalism should be based on the principles the government helps direct persons association and society generally toward the common good and it's strong rule in the interest of attaining the common good is entirely legitimate now remove the conservatism hard then I'm to read that sentence again and that is indistinguishable from what you read a Jacobin magazine government helps direct persons associations and society generally toward the common good and that strong rule in the interest of attaining common good is entirely legitimate does that sound like the checks and balances conservatism you know about no doesn't sound anything like that because it isn't anything like that real says in this time of global pandemic the need for such an approach is all the greater so again quick quick point anybody who gives you the cheat it is a cheat anybody who gives you the cheat I'm suggesting that pandemic politics are normal politics is not to be trusted any time abandoned that that that you know if somebody breaks into my house in the middle of the night and I go in Iraq my shotgun and then I know they're on the other side of the wall and I can hear them clicking on the other side along if I blow a hole through the wall to get the guy on the other side of the wall of my shotgun that's a legitimate response to me creeping around in my house don't know who it is I can see my camera it's not a family member and I blow a hole through a wall that does not suggest any normal non prowler in the house situation I should randomly go around blowing holes in my wall with my Mossberg okay that that is and yet anybody that that's what this pandemic politics people are saying they're saying it's pandemic see how we need government during a pandemic that means we should use government like destroying a non pandemic we see this from from Democrats routinely with regard to the language of war as we get the war on poverty is take it the the the the war on want's result Franklin Roosevelt in his four freedoms speech suggested freedom from once was a key freedom no freedom from want is is not eight a freedom that is guaranteed by the constitution a freedom of speech is guaranteed by the constitution freedom from want is something that should be accomplished through community and social networks and social fabric but again equating everything's a time of war according everything to a time of pandemic is a cheap way to to move toward dictatorship vermeil's as alternatives to regionalism have already have always existed on the right loosely defined one is a libertarian constitutionalism which emphasizes principles of individual freedom that are often an uneasy tension but the constitution's original meaning and the founding a generation's norms the founding year was hardly libertarian a number of fronts and that little today such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion well this is why I have not suggested that it is a particularly originals perspective to for example suggest that flag burning was enshrined by the US constitution I I'm not sure that constitutional decision by justice Scalia wasn't keeping with original intent so I think the flag burning was a dummy I think they're counterproductive but I also I'm not sure that they should be ruled out by the constitution nonetheless vermeil continues he says that another alternate is broken traditionalism which tries to slow the pace of legal innovation here too the difference with originalism is clear original as miss sometimes revolutionary consider the court's originalist opinion declaring a constitutional right to own guns a standing break with the court's longstanding presidencies contrasting his vision with these other visions he says circumstances have changed hostile environment to meet originalism useful rhetorical and political expedient is now gone outside the legal academy legal conservatism is no longer the siege if president trump is reelected some version of legal conservatives will become the laws animating spirit for a generation of more or more so in other words what he wants is the Judiciary Committee activist judiciary on behalf of things Adrian Vermeule likes that have nothing to do with the constitution how do we know that he is now nearing the perspectives of left because he called people on the left he says I'm talking about a different more ambitious project one that abandons the defensive crouch of originalism and it refuses any longer to play within the terms set by legal literalism Ronald Dworkin legal scholar and philosopher used to urge moral readings of the constitution common good constitutionalism is methodological war canyon but advocates a different set of substantive moral commitments and priorities come to work and which were of a conventionally left liberal bands many tries to proclaim it is not legal positivism meaning that it is not tethered to the particular written instruments of civil law what the will of legislators who created them instead it just draws on the tradition of the western canon the interlocutor the activity of washing follow in order to that should follow in order to function well as law is not libertarianism sound legal liberalism its aim is not to maximize individual autonomy bottom line is that there's no limiting principle here is not limiting principles it finally unlikely beloved legal of religion says Adrian Vermeule coming to constitutionalism constitutionalism does not suffer from a horror of political domination hierarchy because it sees that the law is parental a wise teacher in in cocaine of good habits yeah that sounds exactly like Barack Obama and his knowledge strategy for what want to do it ought to make us better people will want to make it your parents ought to make a better people your religious community us make a better person your moral teachings on to make a better per person if you're relying on the government to make you moral and wise let's just say that there's not a long history of that being particularly effective just authority in rulers as Adrian Vermeule can be exercised for the good of subjects if necessary even against the subject's own perception of what is best for them perceptions that may change over time anyway as the one teachers the **** was and reforms them okay this is what I'm sorry this is dystopian language it really is if this were written by somebody left with all the calling and Tierney to pretend that constitutional law that common to constitutionalism as anything other any arbitrary application of government power to a set of principles that you like even if I like the same principles is to completely reject the founding vision of a limited government.
"harvard law" Discussed on KNST AM 790
"Out of law school and joining the army but friends of his in the army said finish law school me what the hell you started it finish it and then you can join and that's exactly what he did Mister but is he gonna harbor finished Harvard Law School then in listed the United States Army in the middle of the Iraq war but the front end of the Iraq war actually he served saw combat in Iraq certain saw combat here in the bronze star did you know here in the bronze star he also served in Afghanistan he served overall to towards total of five years before eventually would run for the house of representatives a between a store in Iraq and Afghanistan was part of what they call the old guard which watchers watches over the tomb of the Unknown Soldier he had written a book about this in these men look over the term the Unknown Soldier you see the March there twenty four seven day in and day out.