Federalist Society Practice Groups Podcasts
By The Federalist Society
To listen to an audio podcast, mouse over the title and click Play. Open iTunes to download and subscribe to podcasts.
Podcast Description
This series of podcasts features experts who analyze the latest developments in the legal and policy world. The podcasts are in the form of monologues, podcast debates or panel discussions and vary in length. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues.
| Name | Description | Released | Price | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Benefit-Cost Analysis in Rulemaking: Ready for Prime Time? 5-21-12 | Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) has been embraced by every President since Richard Nixon as a general purpose tool for evaluating the merits of administrative decisions, even while it has been assigned a subordinate role -- or no role at all -- in the statutory frameworks for making those decisions. One consequence is that we have a voluminous record of BCA performance in the executive branch, but only a handful of cases in which it has played an important role in judicial review of rules. Now, amid widespread claims that federal regulation is contributing to America’s continuing economic troubles, BCA is getting more attention. As practiced, does it give an accurate picture of the economic consequences of regulatory actions? Should we rely on it or require it, more than we do, to guide administrative discretion? On this previously recorded conference call, our two experts discuss the state of the art and current BCA controversies in energy and environmental regulation, and in financial regulation. Featuring Dr. Sharon Brown-Hruska of National Economic Research Associates, Inc. and Mr. Brian Mannix of Buckland Mill Associates. | 5/21/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
2 |
The EEOC -- Disparate Impact and the Use of Criminal Arrest and Convictions Records 5-16-12 | No federal law directly addresses employment discrimination against people with criminal backgrounds. Yet, since 1987, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has maintained that, with some exceptions, an employer's policy or practice of excluding individuals from employment on the basis of criminal arrest and conviction records is unlawful under Title VII as disparate impact discrimination. The EEOC maintains that because statistics show that African-American and Hispanic males are arrested and convicted at rates disproportionate to their numbers in the population, background checks work to their special disadvantage to limit their employment. This year the EEOC issued its first guidance in over 20 years, making use of background checks more onerous. It was approved shortly after the EEOC announced a record $3.13M settlement with Pepsi Beverages over the racially disparate impact of its criminal background checks policy. On this previously recorded conference call, our experts discuss the EEOC's new guidance and its recent enforcement actions. Featuring Mr. Maurice Emsellem of the National Employment Law Project and Ms. Dominique Ludvigson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. | 5/16/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
3 |
Applying Citizens United 5-10-12 | As the election season accelerates, our panel of experts discussed the impact of Citizens United, the much talked about campaign finance case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. What has the decision meant for overall campaign fundraising? Who is giving, in what amounts, and to whom? Are there clear winners and losers? Listen to the analysis of our experts on these and other questions. Featuring Mr. Joseph M. Birkenstock of Caplin & Drysdale and Prof. Bradley A. Smith of Capital University Law School. | 5/11/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
4 |
Judicial Elections and Speech Restrictions 5-9-12 | Since the Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, judicial candidates have had the freedom to discuss their views on "disputed legal or political issues." Many questions remain after the decision, however, about states' ability to restrict the speech of judicial candidates and their supporters. For example, should judges and judicial candidates have the right to announce their party affiliation and appear at party functions? To endorse other candidates? To raise campaign funds personally? And where is the line between an acceptable statement that announces one's views and unacceptable statement that implicitly promises a result in a case the judge might decide in the future? When do a judge's campaign statements -- even if constitutionally protected -- trigger the judge's obligation to recuse? What is the effect of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., decided by the Supreme Court in 2009, in which the Court held that independent expenditures by a judicial candidate's supporters can sometimes require the judge to recuse in a case involving those supporters? Featuring Mr. James Bopp, Jr., of Bopp, Coleson, and Bostrom and the James Madison Center for Free Speech and Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., of Widener University School of Law. | 5/9/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
5 |
Corporate Taxation Reform 5-8-12 | Many observers argue that the corporate income tax is in need of fundamental reform. Is its worldwide scope damaging the ability of the U.S. to compete in foreign markets and retain the headquarters of large, successful multinational firms? Is the corporate tax rate is too high, anti-growth, or too complex? Or are businesses merely paying their fair share, or perhaps not enough? Proponents of reform assert that it could aid investment in the United States, the compensation of U.S. workers, and the overall pace of economic growth in tough economic times. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers discuss these and other issues and answer questions from the callers. Featuring Mr. Seth Hanlon of the Center for American Progress and Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum. | 5/8/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
6 |
The Fisher Case: Mismatch & the Future of Affirmative Action 5-4-12 | Fisher v. University of Texas comes before the Court just as an unprecedented number of scholars have published work directly or indirectly calling into question some of the basic assumptions of affirmative action policies. Is the Supreme Court poised to make more fundamental changes to affirmative action in higher education than it did in either Bakke (1978) or Grutter and Gratz (2003)? Does Fisher have the markings of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case? Professor Richard Sander of UCLA provides an overview of this research and discusses its implications for Fisher on this previously recorded conference call. | 5/4/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
7 |
James Madison by Richard Brookhiser 5-1-12 | Richard Brookhiser's book examines the life of America's fourth President, James Madison, including his role in advising Thomas Jefferson, his relationships with various Founding Fathers, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. Featuring Mr. Richard Brookhiser, Author of James Madison and Columnist for American History and National Review Magazines, and Mr. James A. Haynes of the Federalist Society's Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Executive Committee and Baltimore Lawyers Chapter. | 5/1/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
8 |
Stand Your Ground 4-26-12 | The recent shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida has sparked a national debate over "Stand Your Ground" laws, which give citizens broader leeway to use lethal force when they reasonably believe that someone intends to inflict serious bodily harm or commit homicide. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers will attempt to cut through the heated and often misinformed rhetoric about these laws to address such questions as whether they are necessary, whether they deter crime, and proposed reforms. After providing their opening remarks, the speakers answer questions from the callers. Featuring Dr. John R. Lott Jr., Author of More Guns, Less Crime and Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth ans Prof. Gregory O'Meara of Marquette University Law School. | 4/26/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
9 |
Grand Jury Reform 4-25-12 | The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that in federal criminal cases, "no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." Critics argue that the grand jury system today has strayed from it's original role as the voice of the community protecting individuals from wrongful indictments and prosecutions. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers discuss the goals of the grand jury system, whether or not those goals are being met, and various proposed reforms on both the state and federal level. After providing their opening remarks, the speakers answer questions from the callers. Featuring Mr. Gerald Lefcourt of Gerald B. Lefcourt, PC; Mr. McGregor Scott of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; and Mr. Thomas Sullivan of Jenner & Block LLP. | 4/25/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
10 |
Examination of the Legal Rationale for Targeting U.S. Citizens 4-24-12 | Last year, using a drone missile strike, the U.S. killed Anwar al-Awlaki. Questions were raised about the legal and constititional authority to target a U.S. citizen abroad. In recent remarks delivered by Attorney General Eric Holder, the administration offered its most detailed legal defense to date. Our experts recently discussed this legal rationale, and the future of targeting U.S. citizens. Featuring Prof. Michael W. Lewis of Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law and Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck of American University Washington College of Law. | 4/24/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
11 |
The National Popular Vote Plan 4-20-12 | When Alexander Hamilton spoke of the Electoral College, he said: "[If] the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent." Today, some are more doubtful, to say the least. The New York Times editorial board calls the system a "quadrennial ritual born in the economics and politics of slavery and the quill-pen era." Some Americans want to move to a direct national election so badly that they have created an effort to do exactly that, but without a constitutional amendment. The National Popular Vote effort asks state legislatures to award their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. If states holding a majority of electors comply, then the presidential election will operate as a national direct election. This panel will discuss presidential election from several perspectives: Is the Electoral College an antiquated institution or is it an essential element of America’s republican democracy? If the Electoral College needs to be replaced with a direct election system, is NPV an appropriate route to change? Or does its interstate compact constitute an end-run around the constitutional amendment process? Featuring Prof. George C. Edwards III of Texas A&M University; Mr. Trent England of The Freedom Foundation; Dr. John R. Koza, author of Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote; and Ms. Tara Ross, author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College. | 4/20/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
12 |
The Supreme Court and Access to Effective Counsel 4-13-12 | The Supreme Court recently clarified the rights of defendants in criminal cases to effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations in two closely related decisions, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye. In two other decisions earlier this Term, Maples v. Thomas and Martinez v. Ryan, the Supreme Court ruled on federal court review of state criminal convictions when counsel has been ineffective or abandoned a client in the post-conviction appeals process. All four cases will significantly affect criminal defendants' access to counsel at the front end of the criminal process, during plea bargaining, as well as the back end, during state collateral appeals. After discussing the Court's decisions in these cases, the speakers will take questions from the callers. Featuring Mr. George Kendall of Squire Sanders and Mr. Dean Mazzone of the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office. | 4/13/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
13 |
The Keystone Pipeline 4-3-12 | The Keystone Pipeline is designed to transport petroleum products from Northeast Alberta, Canada, to as far away as the Gulf Coast of Texas. Proponents argue that the pipeline is essential to lower the cost of petroleum products and increase America’s energy independence. Opponents assert that the process used to "mine" the sand oils in Canada is not environmentally friendly, and that the pipeline itself presents environmental hazards that have not been completely taken into account. As Canada’s oil production and exports increased, President Obama postponed a decision that would have permitted construction of the pipeline extension. Our experts will discuss the merits of the pipeline from differing perspectives. Featuring Mr. Daniel Simmons of the Institute for Energy Research and Prof. Mark Squillace of the University of Colorado Law School. | 4/3/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
14 |
Redistricting Litigation Update 4-2-12 | The decennial census has again produced the decennial redistricting litigation -- not least in Texas, whose attempts to draw districts for the 2012 elections have engulfed two three-judge district courts, the Department of Justice, and the Supreme Court. The Texas litigation has been complicated by what some see as the conflicting demands of Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. In Perry v. Perez, the Supreme Court vacated the interim maps a lower court drew and gave that court instructions on how navigate the legal tangle. That may have expedited the resolution of Texas's election conundrum but by no means resolved the broader issues involved. Join us for a Federalist Society Teleforum on Perry v. Perez, the Voting Rights Act, and other developments in election regulation. Featuring: Prof. Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School Los Angeles and Mr. Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute. | 4/2/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
15 |
Obamacare Daily Oral Argument Briefing - Wednesday 3-28-12 | On Wednesday, March 28, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded oral arguments in Florida v. HHS, better known as the Obamacare case. The federal courts below split on the constitutionality of the health care reform act. Wednesday's arguments focused on severability and the Medicaid coercion argument. Professor Randy Barnett reported from the Courthouse steps on exactly what transpired. Assuming, arguendo, that the Court finds some part of the Act unconstitutional, will it sever that part and preserve the balance of the statute, or will the entire statute fall? Will Wednesday's severability argument reveal anything about how the Court, or any individual justice, might rule on constitutionality? Does the design of the Act unconstitutionally coerce states by adding to the Medicaid rolls? Professor Barnett discussed these and other questions in this special Teleforum call. | 3/28/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
16 |
Obamacare Daily Oral Argument Briefing - Tuesday 3-27-12 | On Tuesday, March 27, the U.S. Supreme Court continued hearing oral arguments in Florida v. HHS, better known as the Obamacare case. The federal courts below split on the constitutionality of the health care reform act. Tuesday's arguments focused on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Professor Randy Barnett, who attended Tuesday's oral arguments, reported from the Courthouse steps on exactly what transpired. Which justices seemed most dubious about the individual mandate, and which seemed most inclined to support Congress’ assertion of power? What were the major points of contention? Did the advocates for the government propound a judicially-administrable limiting principle on Congress’ power? Professor Barnett discussed these and other questions in this special Teleforum call. | 3/27/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
17 |
Obamacare Daily Oral Argument Briefing - Monday 3-26-12 | On Monday, March 26, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Florida v. HHS, perhaps better known as the Affordable Care Act case or the Obamacare case. The federal courts below split on the constitutionality of the health care reform act. Monday's arguments focused on the Anti-Injunction Act, and whether and to what extent it might control the outcome of the case. Professor Randy Barnett attended Monday's oral arguments and reported from the Courthouse steps on exactly what transpired. What was the focus of the inquiry of the various justices? Who asked the most pointed questions? What is expected in Tuesday's oral argument focusing on the constitutionality of the individual mandate? Professor Barnett discussed these and other questions in this special Teleforum call. | 3/26/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
18 |
The Future of Arbitration and the World of Class Action Litigation 3-21-12 | AT&T v. Concepción is one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in many years. Most of the discussion to date has centered on its implications for the future of class action litigation. This panel, however, will examine its implications for the future of arbitration. In particular, our experts will examine the Court's interpretation of the preemptive force of the Federal Arbitration Act and what it means for other state attempts to regulate arbitration. Featuring Prof. Hiro Aragaki of Loyola Law School Los Angeles; Dr. Michael S. Greve of the American Enterprise Institute; Prof. Christopher R. Drahozal of The University of Kansas School of Law; Prof. Peter B. "Bo" Rutledge of the University of Georgia School of Law; and Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt University Law School as the moderator. | 3/21/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
19 |
Are the Recent Recess Appointments Constitutional? 3-5-12 | Recently, President Obama recess-appointed three new members to the National Labor Relations Board, and a new chief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the Dodd-Frank bill. In making the appointments, the President bypassed the usual approval process for the nominations in the Senate, claiming authority to make recess appointments. Commentators and academics differ in their opinions about the constitutionality of the President's appointments during the Senate's pro forma sessions. After describing just what transpired, our expert panelists offered their views and took questions from the audience. Featuring: The Honorable Charles J. Cooper of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC; Prof. Michael B. Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Peter M. Shane of The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; and Prof. William R. Yeomans of American University Washington College of Law. | 3/5/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
20 |
Sackett v. EPA: When May a Landowner Take the EPA to Court? 2-23-12 | On January 9, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sackett v. EPA. The case involves two landowners who graded a lot in a residential subdivision to build a home and were issued an administrative compliance order by the EPA stating that the graded lot was a wetland requiring them to either restore the lot to its original condition or risk civil fines for each day of non-compliance. Do the petitioners have a right to seek judicial review of an EPA compliance order prior to the EPA's official enforcement of that order in court and does the compliance order deprive the landowners of due process of law? On this previously recorded conference call, Mr. Damien Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation discusses these and other issues and answers questions from the callers. | 2/23/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
21 |
The Compact Clause and Interstate Compacts 2-21-12 | The Compact Clause of the Constitution provides that "[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power." The Supreme Court requires congressional consent only for interstate compacts that attempt to enhance "states power quoad [relative to] the federal government" opening the door to approximately 200 interstate compacts. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers discuss states’ rights, the issues that arise from interstate compacts, and their impact on federal programs. Featuring Dr. Michael Greve of the American Enterprise Institute and Mr. Nick Dranias of the Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute. | 2/21/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
22 |
The Regulatory Accountability Act 2-17-12 | On December 2, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011 (H.R. 3010) which would amend the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and create new federal rulemaking requirements. How might this legislation affect the rulemaking requirements of existing executive orders and more broadly the federal rulemaking process? On this previously recorded conference call, the experts provide their analysis of the Act and it's impact on the federal rulemaking process after which they provide answers to questions from callers. Featuring The Honorable C. Boyden Gray of Boyden Gray & Associates and Prof. Ronald M. Levin of Washington University School of Law. | 2/17/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
23 |
Rent Control and the Supreme Court: Harmon v. Markus 2-16-12 | In March 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued summary judgment in Harmon v. Markus, a challenge to New York's rent stabilization law by Mr. John Harmon, whose townhouse has been occupied for years by tenants paying rent equal to about 60% of market value. The Second Circuit ruled that "government regulation of the rental relationship does not constitute a physical taking" in light of the Supreme Court precedent, and that Mr. Harmon was therefore not entitled to just compensation. The Supreme Court has asked New York City and the tenants to file a response to the certiorari petition filed by Mr. Harmon. On this previously recorded conference call, Prof. Richard Epstein provides analysis of the case and rent control statutes as they relate to the Takings Clause and answers questions from the callers. | 2/16/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
24 |
The Supreme Court Rules on Congress’s Power to Grant Copyrights to Public Domain Works -- Golan v. Holder 2-13-12 | On January 18, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s power under the Patent and Copyright Clause to grant copyrights to foreign authors for their works that had been in the public domain in the United States, often for decades. Congress had granted these copyrights as part of the enabling legislation pursuant to the 1994 round of the GATT agreements, according to which the U.S. was arguably required to grant copyrights to foreign authors if the authors’ works were still in copyright in their home countries. -- Our IP experts will discuss the case and whether the Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution should allow granting copyrights to existing, public domain works, and more generally, what limitations the IP Clause and the First Amendment place on Congress when it passes IP laws. They will also discuss how the challenged law in Golanaffects incentives to create and distribute inventive and artistic works, and what type of future IP laws Congress might pass given the license granted it by the Court in this case. Featuring Prof. Adam Mossoff of George Mason University School of Law; Prof. Christopher Newman of George Mason University School of Law; Prof. David Olson of Boston College Law School; and Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society, as the moderator. | 2/13/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
25 |
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 2-10-12 | With a recently appointed director, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), created by the Dodd-Frank Act, will swing into action. Among other issues, the speakers will discuss the structure, authority and potential effectiveness of the new bureau and will take questions from callers. How might the CFPB fulfill its goals of preventing the next financial crisis and protecting consumers? Will consumers and a struggling economic recovery benefit from its actions? Featuring Hon. Wayne Abernathy of the American Bankers Association; Ms. Jo Ann Barefoot of Treliant Risk Advisors; Prof. Arthur Wilmarth of The George Washington University Law School; Prof. Todd Zywicki of George Mason University School of Law; and Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society, as the moderator. | 2/10/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
26 |
Who Should Receive Unclaimed Class Action Awards? The Tale of Cy Pres 2-8-12 | Cy Pres, a doctrine borrowed from the law of trusts, has in recent years been adopted by courts in litigation to distribute class action funds to purposes or recipients other than those presented by the original class action plaintiffs. This once rare, now increasingly common practice, has come under fire for lacking a foundation in applicable law and representing a wholly discretionary exercise of judicial power. Theodore H. Frank, of the Center for Class Action Fairness, discussed the history and practice of this little-known and less-well-understood power of class action courts. Attorney Patrick J. Perotti, of the class action law firm Dworken & Bernstein and "Ohio Lawyers Give Back," presented the case for the use of this practice in class actions. Margaret A. Little, Director of the Federalist Society's Pro Bono Center, moderated. After their remarks, the speakers took questions from the callers. | 2/8/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
27 |
Keynes vs. Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics 2-7-12 | Nicholas Wapshott's book examines the vastly divergent economic philosophies of John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich von Hayek. Messrs. Keynes and Hayek studied the normal course of the capitalist business cycle, especially after World War I, but reached radically different opinions about the role governments should play in regulating and ameliorating the effects of the business cycle. These two gentlemen, two of the most influential economic thinkers of the 20th Century, participated in on-going debates about the respective merits of their own philosophies and the demerits of the other's philosophies. Mr. Wapshott examines these debates and expounds on them in this podcast. Featuring Mr. Nicholas Wapshott, Author of Keynes vs. Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics, and Mr. James A. Haynes of the Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Executive Committee and the Baltimore Lawyers Chapter. | 2/8/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
28 |
GPS Surveillance and the Supreme Court: U.S. v. Jones - Podcast | In U.S. v. Jones, the government attached a GPS device to a vehicle of a criminal suspect to monitor the vehicle's movement. What effect will the Supreme Court’s ruling have on warrantless searches, warrant-based searches, the right to privacy, and the Fourth Amendment? How helpful is the Court’s opinion for law enforcement and defendants? On this previously recorded conference call, the experts provide their analysis of the case and answer questions from the callers. Featuring Prof. Orin S. Kerr of The George Washington University Law School; Mr. Peter Thomson of Fowler Rodriguez Valdes-Fauli; and Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups of The Federalist Society, as the moderator. | 2/6/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
29 |
Is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Constitutional? - Podcast | This podcast features a discussion and commentary by our panel of experts on the recent federal district court decision in Shelby County v. Holder, upholding the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. On this previously recorded Teleforum conference call, the experts provide analysis of the case and the impact of the decision, followed by questions from callers. Featuring Ms. Nancy Abudu of The American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project; Mr. Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies; and Mr. Roger Clegg of The Center for Equal Opportunity as the moderator. | 2/3/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
30 |
Will Americans Continue to Invent? 2-2-12 | United States patent law has traditionally authorized the grant of patent rights to the first to invent or to discover a patentable invention, subject to specified terms and conditions. But the America Invents Act replaced the "first-to-invent" system with the "first to file" system long enforced in England and in other countries by deleting or rewriting numerous references to priority of inventorship in the existing statutory sections concerning novelty and obviousness. Does this change rewrite core patent law fundamentals in this country and shift the balance among individual inventors, large corporations, and patent holding companies? What is the likely effect on innovation and development, the keys to a growing economy? Are the projected benefits worth the anticipated costs? Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, is the change Constitutional? Featuring Prof. Richard A. Epstein of New York University School of Law; Prof. F. Scott Kieff of The George Washington University Law School; Prof. David S. Olson of Boston College Law School; and Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups for The Federalist Society, as the moderator. | 2/2/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
31 |
Felon Voting 2-2-12 | Policies on felon enfranchisement vary from state to state with most states restricting felons from voting to varying degrees. Among other issues, our experts discuss the history of felon disenfranchisement laws and whether such laws violate the Voting Rights Act. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers discussed these and other issues and took questions from callers. Featuring Ms. Nancy Abudu of The American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project; Mr. Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies; and Mr. Roger Clegg of The Center for Equal Opportunity as the moderator. | 2/2/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
32 |
Speaking Freely in Business 1-27-12 | The United States Supreme Court is about to make a decision whether to grant cert on the Florida Interior Design case, Locke v. Ehrig, which implicates economic liberty and free speech. Can a state require a license for interior designers, or do designers have a paramount right to speech in a business context? Featuring Mr. Clark Neily of the Institute for Justice and Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups for the Federalist Society, as the moderator. | 1/27/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
33 |
SEC Enforcement 1-20-12 | In a recent case, the Securities & Exchange Commission's consent settlement with Citigroup was rejected by presiding Judge Rakoff of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, calling into question SEC's enforcement regime. What does this decision mean for SEC's normal preference of settling its cases without requiring defendants to admit wrong-doing? Who has ultimate responsibility for protecting investor interests and determining the appropriate regulatory enforcement regime? If the SEC is forced to bring more enforcement actions through litigation, will it ultimately bring fewer enforcement actions? On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers discussed these and other issues and took questions from callers. Featuring Prof. Stephen Bainbridge of UCLA School of Law; Prof. Jonathan Macey of Yale Law School; and Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society, as the moderator. | 1/20/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
34 |
Business Roundtable v. SEC and the Future of Proxy Access 1-18-12 | Although corporations are creatures of state law and corporate elections are governed by state law, statements soliciting proxies for publicly traded securities are governed as to form and content by the federal securities laws, most importantly by various rules promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Last year, the SEC used its authority under Dodd-Frank to promulgate Rule 14a-11 requiring public companies to include in their proxy statements director nominations proposed by certain shareholders. Soon thereafter, the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued the SEC, alleging that the Commission's adoption of Rule 14a-11 violated various provisions of federal law. The SEC voluntarily stayed the rule pending the outcome of the litigation. On July 20, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held for the plaintiffs and vacated Rule 14a-11. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers provided their analysis of the case, the impact of the decision on the SEC's rulemaking authority and the prospects for shareholder access and took questions from callers. Featuring Mr. Ted Allen of the Institutional Shareholders Services, Inc.; Prof. Stephen Bainbridge of UCLA School of Law; Prof. J. Robert Brown, Jr. of University of Denver Sturm College of Law; Hon. Eugene Scalia of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; and Prof. Robert T. Miller of Villanova University School of Law as the moderator. | 1/18/12 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
35 |
Death Penalty Debate 9-28-11 | Recently, an Ohio jury recommended a death sentence for Mr. Anthony Sowell, who lured 11 women to his property over a two year period, killed them, and secreted the bodies in his house. About three weeks before that, on an island in Norway, Anders Breivik shot and killed 76 unarmed teenagers and children. He will not face the death penalty, however, because Norwegian law limits the punishment for any offense to 21 years. To some, the death penalty seems like the only just punishment for particularly sadistic or merciless murder. To others, problems of expense, delay, uneven application and possible innocence mean the United States should follow what some believe to be the more enlightened sentencing practices of Europe. On this previously recorded conference call, two experts discussed capital punishment and took questions from callers. Featuring Ms. Cassandra Stubbs of the ACLU Capital Punishment Project; Prof. William Otis of the Georgetown Law Center; and Mr. Dean Reuter of the The Federalist Society as the moderator. | 9/28/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
36 |
Lawyer Barons: What Their Contingency Fees Really Cost America 7-14-11 | In this podcast, Professor Lester Brickman discusses his new book, which is the culmination of his twenty-plus years of research into the impact contingency fees have on our legal system and our political system. Moderated by Margaret A. Little, Director of the The Federalist Society's Pro Bono Center. | 7/14/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
37 |
The America Invents Act: First to File versus First to Invent? 6-20-11 | Since the first U. S. patent statute in 1790, United States patent law has authorized the grant of patent rights to the first to invent or to discover a patentable invention, subject to specified terms and conditions. Currently under consideration as S. 23 and H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act will substantially change the American patent system by eliminating this uniquely American approach in securing property rights in inventions to only their first and true inventors. Section 2 in the Senate (S.23) and the House (H.R. 1249) bills will replace the current "first-to-invent" system with the "first to file" system long enforced in England and in other countries by deleting or rewriting numerous references to priority of inventorship in the existing statutory sections concerning novelty (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). Does the proposed change from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system rewrite core patent law fundamentals in this country by shifting the balance among individual inventors, large corporations, and patent holding companies? What is the likely effect of this proposed change on innovation and development, the keys to a growing economy? Are the projected benefits worth the anticipated costs? Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, is the proposed change even Constitutional? These and other topics are debated and discussed among a panel of law professors moderated by an experienced practitioner. Featuring Prof. Timothy Holbrook of Emory University School of Law; Prof. F. Scott Kieff of The George Washington University Law School; Prof. Adam Mossoff of George Mason University School of Law; Prof. David S. Olson of Boston College Law School; and David L. Applegate of Williams Montgomery & John LTD as the moderator. | 6/20/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
38 |
New FDIC Deposit-Insurance Assessment Rule 5-25-11 | Recently under Dodd-Frank, the FDIC implemented a new assessment base for levying deposit-insurance premiums. Questions are now arising as to the impact and likely unintended consequences of this material change in how the FDIC charges for deposit insurance and who will ultimately bear those charges. This question may lead to a court challenge of the FDIC’s assessment formulae. What are the likely responses by banks and their creditors to the new assessment structure? Will banks reduce their reliance on secured funding? Will banks become more aggressive in gathering retail deposits, pushing up retail deposit interest rates and harming community banks in the process? Will foreign banks gain a competitive edge over FDIC-insured banks? Will Congress step into the fray? Our speakers address these and other issues. Featuring: Mr. Christopher Cole of the Independent Community Bankers of America; Mr. Bert Ely of Ely & Company, Inc.; and Mr. John Douglas of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP as the moderator. | 5/25/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
39 |
Wikileaks: Frontier Journalism or Underminer of Liberty and Security? 5-11-11 | A Federalist Society panel of free speech and national security experts discusses what, if anything, can be done about the Wikileaks matter. Who, if anyone, can or should be prosecuted, and for what? How strong is a potential free speech defense? What is the potential liability of re-publishers? As technology continues to develop, who qualifies as a "journalist" and "press?" These and other questions will be addressed by our experts. Featuring: Mr. Floyd Abrams of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP; Dr. Gabriel Schoenfeld of the Hudson Institute and The Witherspoon Institute; Mr. Eric Snyder of Kobre & Kim LLP; and Mr. Jamil N. Jaffer of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC as the moderator. | 5/11/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
40 |
Schools for Misrule: Legal Academia and an Overlawyered America 5-9-11 | How well do law schools today actually prepare law school students for the practice of law? Can the lineage of some of the most controversial law and policy matters be traced to the legal academic agenda? Does the ideological bent of the legal academy enhance or hinder graduates in the practice of law? Walter Olson of the Cato Institute discusses his latest book on this topic. James A. Haynes of the Professional Responsibility & Legal Ethics Practice Group Executive Committee and the Baltimore Federalist Society Lawyers Chapter moderates. | 5/9/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
41 |
Just a Minor Fix in Patent Reform? Qui Tam Actions and the False Marking Statute 4-8-11 | The false marking statute of the Patent Act (35 U.S.C. § 292) prohibits marking as "patented" any product that is not patented. Section 292 also gives individuals the right to bring a qui tam action and to collect statutory damages up to $500 for each falsely marked product. Although once rarely invoked, the qui tam provision is increasingly being used by plaintiffs against large manufacturers of patented and formerly patented products. The number of qui tam lawsuits has exploded in the past couple years, and there is now a debate raging among lawyers and commentators as to whether the qui tam provision still serves its original function of punishing firms who improperly seek to squelch both free trade and the public domain by false claiming a product or service as patented. Congress is considering various ways of amending or even eliminating the qui tam provision as part of the patent reform legislation that is currently being debated on the Hill. Complicating matters, in early March 2011, a federal district court in Ohio held that the qui tam provision is unconstitutional, violating the Take Care Clause in Article II, § 3. This panel discusses the current state of play and what changes, if any, should be made to the qui tam provision of the false marking statute. Featuring Mr. Trevor K. Copeland of Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione; Mr. Arthur Gollwitzer of Floyd & Buss LLP; Prof. Elizabeth I. Winston of Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America; and Prof. Adam Mossoff of George Mason University School of Law as the moderator. | 4/8/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
42 |
The President's Authority in Libya - 4-7-11 | As the country, and Congress, continues to debate the President's authority for action in Libya, the Federalist Society presents a podcast of four Constitutional law experts with contrasting views to debate the issues. Featuring Prof. Saikrishna Prakash of the University of Virginia School of Law; Mr. David B. Rivkin, Jr., of Baker & Hostetler LLP; Prof. Peter J. Spiro of Temple University Beasley School of Law; Hon. Edwin D. Williamson of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; and Hon. Ronald A. Cass of Cass & Associates, PC, as the moderator. | 4/7/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
43 |
Birthright Citizenship 2-8-11 | The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But what is the proper interpretation of this clause? What does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? To what extent can states seek to control or alter birthright citizenship? Our experts debate these and other questions in this podcast. Featuring Dr. John C. Eastman of Chapman University School of Law; The Honorable James C. Ho of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Former Solicitor General of Texas; and Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups for the The Federalist Society as the moderator. | 3/8/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
44 |
Miranda & Terror Suspects 2-4-11 | To what extent are law enforcement personnel required to read the standard Miranda warning to terror suspects? Does the reading of such a warning so compromise the government's ability to investigate acts of terror, both prospectively and retrospectively, that a public safety exception exists? Or does such a public safety exception for terror suspects effectively erode a vital protection for all criminal suspects? Panelists include Hon. Paul G. Cassell of The University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law; Prof. Amos N. Guiora of The University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law; and Mr. Richard D. Klingler of Sidley Austin LLP as the moderator. | 2/4/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
45 |
Terror Trials and Executive Power 1-28-11 | To what extent may the U.S. Congress, using its power of the purse, determine in which courts war terror detainees must be tried? Is the decision solely that of the President as a core executive power? Or does Congress have a measure of control, using its appropriations authority, to prohibit expenditure of funds for certain trials? Panelists include Mr. Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at the National Review Institute; Mr. David B. Rivkin Jr., Partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP; and Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society. | 1/28/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
|
46 |
Predator Drones and Targeted Killings 1-27-11 | In this Practice Groups Podcast, Professor Michael W. Lewis and ACLU National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner discuss the legal limits and policy considerations of unmanned aerial vehicles in the War on Terror. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of the Federalist Society's Practice Groups, moderated the discussion. | 1/27/11 | Free | View In iTunes |
| Total: 46 Episodes |
Listeners also subscribed to
- Hudson Institute
- Hudson Institute
- View In iTunes
- Liberty Week
- CEI New Media
- View In iTunes
- Oral Arguments from the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
- Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
- View In iTunes
- Mises Media: Audio Mises Daily
- webmaster@mises.org
- View In iTunes
