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: 17
Reviews: 0

Description

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
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