Supreme Court ציבורי
[search 0]
עוד

Download the App!

show episodes
 
Brett and Nazim are two attorneys who hate being attorneys. Each week, they discuss current Supreme Court cases with the intent to make the law more accessible to the average person, while ruminating on what makes the law both frustrating and interesting. This podcast is not legal advice and is for entertainment purposes only. If anything you hear leads you to believe you need legal advice, please contact an attorney immediately
 
Decisions of the Supreme Court, summarized by the court itself.Readings of the Supreme Court slip opinion syllabi, With no personal commentary, you can make up your own mind about the decisions. See Wheaton and Donaldson v. Peters and Grigg, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) and United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. Photo by: Davi KellyPatrion:https://t.co/SpeNDawjyo?amp=1Paypal:https://paypal.me/SCOTUSsyllabus
 
The Queens Supreme Court podcast is the hilarious spinoff of the hit online series “The Queens Supreme Court” with Ts Madison. The premise of the weekly satirical show is to discuss pop culture and all the hot social media trends, topics and gossip THEN try them as cases, render judgements and sentence the crimes accordingly to determine the ultimate fate of each celebrity!
 
The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law U.S. Supreme Court podcast utilizes faculty experts from specific areas of law to discuss cases decided or pending by the Court, trends in the Court's decisions, or other issues facing the Court. Moritz faculty includes seven former Supreme Court clerks and experts from nearly every area of the law. The podcast is intended for scholars, students, legal professionals and journalists looking for thoughtful and concise commentary on some of the mo ...
 
News, views, and insight on the future of the Supreme Court. The ragtag gang of the usual suspects returns to chat about Justice Kennedy's retirement, and the nomination process to follow. This is the second season of the show following the Garland/Gorsuch* nominations. Following in the footsteps of our prior podcasts, Advice & Consent is insightful, not stodgy… opinionated, but not dogmatic. This is a serious process, but we find some entertainment along the way too. Advice & Consent is an ...
 
The Supreme Court of the United States is divided, and it's not the first time. For over two centuries, the justices on the nation's highest bench have argued with one another over the direction to take country. From Brown v. Board of Education to Roe v. Wade, the Court has repeatedly transformed American society and remains a polarizing political subject today. And yet no one really talks about what exactly happened in all of these cases. For instance, no one talks about how contraception, ...
 
The Supreme Court decides a few dozen cases every year; federal appellate courts decide thousands. So if you love constitutional law, the circuit courts are where it’s at. Join us as we break down some of the week’s most intriguing appellate decisions with a unique brand of insight, wit, and passion for judicial engagement and the rule of law. http://ij.org/short-circuit
 
Five-minute bites of background about the Court and Constitution — provides unbiased information and context for fully understanding the Supreme Court and ongoing disputes related to democracy and constitutional law. Learn to appreciate the complexity of constitutional questions, and make more informed decisions as voters and active citizens.
 
5-4 is a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks. It's a progressive and occasionally profane take on the ideological battles at the heart of the Court's most important landmark cases, and an irreverent tour of all the ways in which the law is shaped by politics. Listen each week as hosts Peter, Michael, and Rhiannon dismantle the Justices’ legal reasoning on hot-button issues like affirmative action, gun rights, and campaign finance, and use dark humor to reveal the high court's bias ...
 
The question whether or not gays have the right to marry marches through the courts toward the Supreme Court. Hollywood preaches that children raised with two mommies or two daddies are just fine, and with the new breakthroughs in genetics who needs either a dad or a mom? How did the ultimate Supreme Court Judge get excluded from the discussion? Who do you believe has the right to define marriage and family, and how does all this impact Christ's Family--the Church?
 
Drama has unfolded in these courtrooms for more than 130 years, from serial murderers and gangland wars to multimillion-dollar commercial disputes and celebrity defamation cases. Take a step behind the bench of one of Australia’s oldest institutions and hear from judges as they explain why they make the decisions they do. Gertie's Law takes a deep dive into some of the lesser-known, misunderstood or complex parts of the court’s work, such as sentencing, mental health, juries and the criminal ...
 
Deborah is Haida Indian born on January 3rd. Her great grandfathers John Wallace and Dwight Wallace were Haida Chiefs, and famous Totem Pole carvers. Her family lived with Charles Willis Jr., President, and CEO of Alaska Airlines prior to moving to Alaska in 1976. Charles Willis Jr. recruited Dwight Eisenhower to run for President., On Jan. 3, 1959, President Dwight Eisenhower signed a proclamation admitting Alaska to the Union as the 49th state. Deborah formed the first political group Alas ...
 
SCOTUScast is a project of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies. This audio broadcast series provides expert commentary on U.S. Supreme Court cases as they are argued and issued. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues. View ou ...
 
Millions of people feel passionately about Roe v. Wade. And yet, how many of us can explain it? What arguments were made for—and against—the right to abortion? Who made them? How did the Supreme Court justices react? Which ideas won the day and why? The first season of We’ll Hear Arguments takes you inside the Supreme Court for the surprisingly dramatic arguments of Roe. v. Wade. Join Rewire News Group legal experts Jessica Mason Pieklo and Imani Gandy as they analyze and explain the case th ...
 
Attorney Melaniece Bardley McKnight is originally from Gary, Indiana and the founding partner of Bardley McKnight & Associates, LLC. McKnight attended undergraduate school at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale on a full basketball scholarship where she earned a bachelor’s degree in political science. Attorney McKnight earned a Juris Doctorate degree from North Carolina Central University School of Law in Durham, North Carolina.While pursuing her law degree, McKnight was Secretary of ...
 
Loading …
show series
 
QUESTION PRESENTED: A noncitizen may not apply for relief from deportation, including asylum and cancellation of removal, if he has been convicted of a disqualifying offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The categorical approach (including its "modified" variant) governs the analysis of potentially disqualifying convictions. Under …
 
For the fourth year in a row, the Institute for Justice has teamed up with the University of North Carolina Federalist Society Chapter to preview cases for the Supreme Court’s upcoming term. IJ’s Justin Pearson and Erica Smith join with UNC Professor Andy Hessick to share their wisdom on what’s interesting, and what may get even more interesting, i…
 
Episode Notes: Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, to discuss voting and the crisis of legitimacy facing a Supreme Court embroiled in politics, the election, and an epochal shift to the right. In our Slate Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Brian Fallon of Dema…
 
What is with up with the torrent of election law cases coming out these days? IJ’s Diana Simpson and Anthony Sanders are here to give you the scoop. Actually, quite a few scoops, served up in the circuit courts of appeals the last few weeks, and even a couple Supreme Court cases, and a state supreme court case, thrown in. Cut down on just a smidgen…
 
The hosts discuss options for reforming the court — from court packing, to term limits for judges, to stripping the court of jurisdiction to hear cases pertaining to new laws. They also speak to Congressman Ro Khanna about court reform, and about the bill he has introduced to limit Supreme Court Justices' tenure. But they remain clear on their pref…
 
On October 14, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Torres v. Madrid. The question before the court was whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits and the New Mexico Supreme …
 
Regardless of the outcome of the election, the Supreme Court has already entered a new era. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Heather Cox Richardson for a big-picture conversation about what that means: minority rule and the court’s role, past and present, in changing visions of democracy. In our Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern updates us on all t…
 
On October 14, 2020, the Supreme Court heard Pereida v. Barr, an immigration case. The question before the court was whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act. More sp…
 
We don’t recommend converting apartments into condos in San Francisco. But if you do, it might be hard to bring a takings claim, as we find out why from a recent denial of en banc review in the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, the question at the D.C. Circuit is whether butterflies mix with walls. Specifically, The Wall. Turns out, the National Butterfly …
 
On October 13, 2020, The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding United States v. Collins (consolidated with United States v. Briggs). The question before the court was whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding – contrary to its own longstanding precedent – that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prose…
 
The hosts reflect on the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings, then move on to discussing gerrymandering, the practice of drawing up voting districts to favor a particular political party. Specifically, they talk about Rucho v. Common Cause, a 2019 case in which the Supreme Court not only refused to rule on two states’ gerrymandered maps, they f…
 
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. on October 7, 2020. Two questions were before the court: the first was whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; the second was whether, as a jury found, Google's use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes …
 
The boys are back, folks. This week's episode discusses the many ridiculous Voter Suppression lawsuits that have popped up over the last few weeks and whether the State action in question is valid, or just looking to stop people from voting. The law starts at (12:45), but this episode's namesake begins at (07:10). Also, our apologies for the sound …
 
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the author of The Lie that Binds to discuss the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett and what her nomination to the Supreme Court means for reproductive rights. In our Slate Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Professor Pa…
 
On October 6, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Tanzin v. Tanvir, a case involving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, commonly referred to as RFRA. The issue in this case is whether RFRA permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees. Stephanie Taub joins us to discuss this case’s oral argu…
 
On October 5, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Carney v. Adams, a First Amendment case involving a longstanding Delaware state constitutional provision that limits judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a “bare majority” on the state’s three highest courts. The leftover seats are reserved for the “other…
 
QUESTION PRESENTED: Police officers shot Petitioner, but she drove away and temporarily eluded capture. In this excessive force suit, the district court granted summary judgment for the officers on the ground that no Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurred. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that an officer's application of physical force is not a s…
 
19-357 CITY OF CHICAGO V. FULTON DECISION BELOW: 926 F3d. 916 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 18-2527, 18-2793, 18-2835, 18-3023 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether an entity that is passively retaining possession of property in which a bankruptcy estate has an interest has an affirmative obligation under the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay, 11 U.S.C § 362, t…
 
19-108 UNITED STATES V. BRIGGS DECISION BELOW: 78 M.J. 289 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 16-0711 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding-contrary to its own longstanding precedent-that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was …
 
A case in which the Court will decide whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding—contrary to its own longstanding precedent—that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.…
 
The hosts discuss the past, present, and future of the Electoral College, and all the ways it could be used to stage a procedural coup in the upcoming election. They also talk about how the Electoral College could be restructured to give greater representation to states with large populations, like California. But if it were up to them, they’d get …
 
Good morning. This week, Brett is joined by Gabe Roth from Fix the Court, an organization aimed at Supreme Court reform. Brett and Gabe discuss term limits, the proper role of the Supreme Court in democracy and ethical obligations of the justices. Gabe can be reached at @FixtheCourt on twitter. The regular show will return next week.…
 
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Robert Raben, a former senior Hill staffer, former assistant attorney general in Bill Clinton’s Department of Justice, and founder of the Raben Group, for some real talk about next week’s Senate confirmation hearings. Next, Brian Kalt, Michigan State University College of Law professor and author of Unable: The Law, Pol…
 
19-368 FORD MOTOR CO. V. MONTANA EIGHTH DISTRICT COURT DECISION BELOW: 443 P.3d 407 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: OP 19-0099 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Due Process Clause permits a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant only when the plaintiff’s claims“arise out of or relate to" the defendant's forum activities…
 
QUESTION PRESENTED:The Copyright Act provides that, while "original works of authorship" are generally eligible for copyright protection, 17 U.S.C. 102(a), "[i]n no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of th…
 
QUESTION PRESENTED:Thirty-six States have enacted legislation to curb abusive prescription drug reimbursement practices by claims-processing middlemen-known as pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)-who make money on the spread between the rates at which they reimburse pharmacies and the drug prices they charge health plans. In response, Respondent Pharm…
 
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER:QUESTION PRESENTED:To resolve disputes about use of the Pecos River, Texas and New Mexico entered into the Pecos River Compact. This Court subsequently entered an amended decree ordering New Mexico to comply with its Compact obligations and appointing a River Master to perform the annual calculations of New Mexico's water-de…
 
QUESTION PRESENTED:1. Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bbet seq., permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.SUPPORT what we are doing here by contributing to our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/supremecourtעל ידי Austin Songer
 
QUESTION PRESENTED:1. Does the First Amendment invalidate a longstanding state constitutional provision that limits judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a "bare majority" on the State's three highest courts, with the other seats reserved for judges affiliated with the "other major political party''?2. Did the Third Circuit…
 
On October 16, 2020 the Center for Judicial Engagement is hosting a special online event, our forum on judicial engagement and the Pennsylvania Constitution. Register today at the link below to join in the state constitutional fun! (Plus free CLE for PA bar members.) In the meantime, we discuss a few recent Pennsylvania cases as the warm-up act for…
 
Loading …

מדריך עזר מהיר

זכויות יוצרים 2020 | מפת אתר | מדיניות פרטיות | תנאי השירות
Google login Twitter login Classic login