Dissed

By Pacific Legal Foundation

Listen to a podcast, please open Podcast Republic app. Available on Google Play Store.


Category: Government

Open in Apple Podcasts


Open RSS feed


Open Website


Rate for this podcast

Subscribers: 31
Reviews: 0

Description

Supreme Court dissents have it all: brilliant writing, surprising reasoning, shade, puns, and sometimes historic impact. Although they are necessarily written by the "losing" side, they’re still important: they can provide a roadmap for future challenges or persuade other justices. Sometimes they're just cathartic. 

 

In Dissed, attorneys Anastasia Boden and Elizabeth Slattery dig deep into important dissents, both past and present, and reveal the stories behind them. 


Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal 

 

Email us at Dissed@pacificlegal.org






See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.


Episode Date
The Great Dissenter
55:33

In 1883, a Supreme Court ruling signaled the end of federal efforts to protect newly freed slaves and ushered in the era of Jim Crow laws. One justice, later called the Great Dissenter, stood alone in dissent. Join us as we explore the once-forgotten dissent of John Marshall Harlan in the Civil Rights Cases and how it saw a rebirth nearly a century later.


Thanks to our guests Peter Canellos, Christopher Green, and Melvin Urofsky. Special thanks to Judge Benjamin Beaton for embodying the substance & spirit of Justice Harlan.


Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Nov 24, 2021
BONUS: A Supreme Court Preview
29:38

In this bonus episode, the Political Orphanage's Andrew Heaton joins the ladies to discuss big cases (guns, abortion, and executions, oh my!) coming up in the Supreme Court's new term. Stay tuned for a SUPREME poetry slam.

Check out our guest's podcast here:  https://mightyheaton.com/dissed. Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal


Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Oct 08, 2021
BONUS: Pop the Champagne
25:50

In this bonus episode, the ladies discuss the cursing cheerleader case, Pacific Legal Foundation’s win in a property rights case, and two fractured, mind-boggling separation-of-powers cases. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!”


Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!

 

Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal

 

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jun 23, 2021
BONUS: Justice Alito Is On Fire
22:04

In this bonus episode, the ladies discuss the Supreme Court’s recent opinions and dissents related to the Affordable Care Act and a dispute involving Catholic Charities, same-sex couples, and foster care. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!”


Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!


Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal


Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jun 17, 2021
Your Obedient Servant, B.R. Curtis
56:23

This is the story of the most consequential Supreme Court case in history: Dred Scott v. Sandford. It was a catalyst for Abraham Lincoln’s famous “House Divided” speech, which catapulted him onto the national stage. It led a dissenting justice to resign in protest. And it plunged our nation into its darkest hour—a civil war that nearly tore us apart. Join us as we explore what it means for our country and our Constitution today.


Thanks to our guests Jeffrey Rosen, Mark Graber, Earl Maltz, Tim Huebner and voice actors Steven Anderson and David Deerson.


Special thanks to Toni Giménez for his rendition of “Yankee Doodle” on banjo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLxJR4-JNuI.


Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jun 16, 2021
The Right to... WERK
50:14

A license to arrange flowers? Laws mandating higher prices during difficult financial times? Government lawyers defending economic regulations on the basis of possible extraterrestrial activity? Welcome to the wacky world of the constitutional right to earn a living, which since the 1930s has been relegated to the lowest level of protection by the Courts.


In this episode, the ladies discuss the origins of the “tiers of scrutiny” that apply depending on whether you’re talking about judicially favored rights, like free speech, or other rights, like the right to earn a living. In a scorching hot dissent from the 1930s, one justice seemed to predict how this lax treatment by the courts would affect entrepreneurship, innovation, and employment today.


Thanks to our guests Hadley Arkes, Timothy Sandefur, and Adam Thierer.


Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal #DissedPod



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jun 02, 2021
Affirmative Action and the March of Time
49:50

Since the Supreme Court first upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action in college admissions in 1978, the clock has been counting down to a time when it would no longer be necessary. Instead of winding down their use of racial preferences, colleges have doubled down, to the point that one justice called it “affirmative action gone berserk.” From Bakke to Grutter to Fisher and beyond, has the time come for the Supreme Court to embrace a Constitution that “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”? Tune in to find out!

 

Special thanks to guests Roger Clegg and John Yoo.

 

Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal


Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org




See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

May 19, 2021
The King Can Do No Wrong
44:58

42 U.S. Code § 1983, one of our nation’s most important civil rights statutes, offers plaintiffs a way to seek damages against state officials in federal courts. But in Pierson v. Ray, the Supreme Court created a defense under Section 1983, called qualified immunity, even if officials do in fact violate people’s rights. In his dissent, Justice Douglas called the doctrine “a more sophisticated manner of saying ‘The King can do no wrong.’” He was talking about immunity for judges, but his dissent was prescient when it comes to how qualified immunity prevents us from holding police officers accountable today.


In this episode, the ladies take listeners through the long, twisted journey of qualified immunity. Over the years it would turn out Justice Douglas was right…. just about the wrong thing.


Special thanks to guests Joanna Schwartz and Clark Neily.


Follow us on Twitter: @Anastasia_Esq @EHSlattery @PacificLegal


Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

May 05, 2021
BONUS: SCOTUS Crusades
24:04

In this bonus episode, the ladies discuss the Supreme Court’s recent opinions and dissents related to juvenile life sentences, disputes between states, and immigration proceedings. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!”


Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!


Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Apr 30, 2021
Don't Call It a Comeback
43:20

For much of our nation’s history, courts asked whether government physically intruded on property to determine if it violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court later adopted a standard looking at whether the government violated an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” But in recent years, the property-based approach has been making a comeback, most recently in Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent in Carpenter v. United States. Will the property-based approach knock out the reasonable expectation of privacy test? Tune in to find out!

 

Special thanks to guests Orin Kerr, James, Stern, and Jamil Jaffer.

 

Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal

 

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org




See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Apr 21, 2021
BONUS: COVID and Court Packin’
23:26

In the inaugural bonus episode, the ladies discuss the Supreme Court’s latest COVID order and Justice Breyer’s “dissent” on court packing. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!”

Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!

Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Apr 16, 2021
A Regulator Walks Into a Pandemic
37:23

Almost as soon as the government started passing measures to curb the spread of COVID-19, the lawsuits began. Many of them wound up arguing about Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 Supreme Court decision that said states had the power to impose mandatory smallpox vaccinations. If the government has the power to vaccinate you, surely---regulators argued---it has the power to do things like shutting down businesses. But the existence of another case that term, called Lochner v. New York, calls into question that narrative. What does Jacobson actually have to say about when a regulator walks into a pandemic? Tune in to find out.


Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!


Special thanks to guests David Bernstein, Richard Epstein, and Stephen Vladeck, and Jonny May for his ragtime pop covers.


Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Apr 07, 2021
The Last, Lonely Federalist
43:52

In the spring of 1837, Justice Joseph Story was despondent. A new chief justice—the infamous Roger Taney—had just joined the bench. And the Supreme Court decided Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge over Story’s dissent. The case signaled a shift from a court that favored strong federal power and robust constitutional protections for property rights, and gave way to the new populist, Jacksonian-influenced view opposing purported monopolies and seeking to invigorate states’ rights. Was Story the “last of the old race of judges”? Tune in to find out!


Special thanks to Toni Giménez for letting us use his rendition of “Yankee Doodle” on banjo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLxJR4-JNuI

 

Thanks also to our “voice actors” aka fellow PLF attorneys, Damien Schiff and David Deerson, and historians Tim Huebner and Richard Brookhiser.


Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends! 

Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal  

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dec 09, 2020
You're Fired
29:38

President Harry Truman once said, “I thought I was the president, but when it comes to these bureaucrats, I can’t do a damn thing!” In Justice Antonin Scalia’s most famous dissent, Morrison v. Olson, he argued that the President must have the power to remove executive branch officials, and Congress cannot limit that power. But for nearly a century, the Supreme Court has allowed Congress to do just that. This term, the Supreme Court will once again consider limits on the President’s removal power in Collins v. Mnuchin. Does the President have constitutional authority to tell executive officials, “You’re fired”? Tune in to find out!


Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends! 

Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal  

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org

 



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Nov 25, 2020
A Dissent Forgotten by History
35:49

What happens when a Supreme Court justice votes to dissent from a ruling but doesn’t actually write a dissenting opinion? Chief Justice Salmon Chase was too sick to write a dissent in Bradwell v. Illinois, where the majority said the 14th Amendment did not protect a woman’s right to practice law. Could a written dissent by Chase have changed the entire trajectory of history? What would he have said about the Constitution’s protections for women? Did his relationship with his daughter, Kate, influence his views? And would Salmon, Kate, and Myra Bradwell be household names today instead of being forgotten? Tune in to find out.


Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends! 


Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal  

Guests: @wbstahr @RandyEBarnett John Oller [http://www.johnollernyc.com/author]

Email us at Dissed@pacificlegal.org




See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Nov 11, 2020
Bringing Down Obamacare
41:19

The Supreme Court will hear its 7th challenge involving Obamacare this term. We sat down to talk about the first Obamacare case, NFIB v. Sebelius, with Randy Barnett, Todd Gaziano, and Josh Blackman and to look for clues about whether the joint dissent actually began as the majority opinion. And will this newest challenge be the one that brings down the whole law? Tune in to find out!


Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends! 

 

Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal 


Guests @RandyEBarnett @ToddGaziano @JoshMBlackman

 

Email us at Dissed@pacificlegal.org



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Oct 28, 2020
Scalia, Blackmun, and Religion
40:29

The ladies unpack a ruling from 30 years ago involving religious liberty, a shocking majority opinion, a surprising dissent, and peyote. The decision has been called a travesty, a tragedy, and a sweeping disaster. Will the justices overrule that case—Employment Division v. Smith—this term? And more importantly, will that help or hinder Americans’ freedoms? Tune in to find out.

 

Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends! 

 

Tweet at us @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal 

 

Email us at Dissed@pacificlegal.org

 

Creative Commons Attribution: 

 

Beethoven’s Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp Minor, Op. 27, Third Movement

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beethoven_Moonlight_3rd_movement.ogg



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Oct 14, 2020
Pilot: I respectfully dissent
33:00

Dissents have it all: brilliant writing, surprising reasoning, shade, puns, and sometimes historic impact. Although they are necessarily written by the "losing" side, they’re still important: they can provide a roadmap for future challenges or persuade other judges. Sometimes they're just cathartic. 

 

In our pilot episode, hosts Anastasia Boden and Elizabeth Slattery interview fellow lawyers, judges, and SCOTUS nerds about the importance of dissents.


Tweet at us! @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @Pacificlegal


Email Dissed@pacificlegal.org



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Sep 29, 2020