Season 3, Episode 22 (Show 126): Duct Tape on a Warhol – Special Guest James Boyle
May 24, 2023
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Andy Warhol case, Professor James Boyle joins us to discuss copyright, fair use, transformative works, and all manner of fascinating aspects found in this corner of the law.
The Court treated us to an assortment of nude pictures this week. The occasion was a copyright case featuring the works of Andy Warhol and the photography of Lynn Goldsmith, and the persona of the late artist Prince. To enlighten us on the intricacies and melodies of copyright law and history, we bring the premier scholar in the field to our podcast – Professor James Boyle of Duke. The result is a far-ranging discussion ranging from Plato to Creative Commons, the latter an achievement due in no small part to Professor Boyle’s efforts. As for the case, it might be more important than the Court wants it to be, and we will tell you why.
Show Notes:
Season 3, Episode 21 (Show 125): Judging for Yourself – Special Guest Kathleen Clark
May 17, 2023
The disclosures about failure to disclose, among other things, are piling up. As promised, the leading expert on the subject, Professor Kathleen Clark, joins us for a wide-ranging discussion of judicial ethics.
Justice Thomas remains in the news, as items old and new – from his ward’s private school tuition to his wife’s employment – appear on almost a daily basis. Friends of the Justice are quoted implying an effort to hide some of these transactions from public view. An infamous Supreme Court case, Shelby County, creeps back in. To help untie this web of questions, we are privileged to have Professor Kathleen Clark, a widely-recognized expert with an overwhelming resumé and Professor Amar’s seal of approval. The discussion is predictably energized.
Show Notes:
Season 3, Episode 20 (Show 124): Coronation Considerations
May 10, 2023
There’s a new King, and Akhil finds Constitutional meaning in that. A Supreme Court justice releases his private papers, and there’s significance there. The NY Times weighs in on a law school – anything there? We inquire.
King Charles III has sat in St. Edwards’ Chair, been anointed with oil, and enjoyed all manner of pomp. Akhil finds important echoes of the elevation of another III – George – back at the time of the American founding. In a busy week, we also note the release of Justice John Paul Stevens’ private papers, with implications for important cases including – surprise! – Moore v. Harper. Finally, the New York Times has a lengthy, lead article about a controversial law school, and we offer our take on that.
Show Notes:
Season 3, Episode 19 (Show 123): More or Less Moore
May 3, 2023
Moore v. Harper is again up in the air as the North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled. What might this mean, and how do we think about approaching the issues this raises?
The North Carolina courts are having fun with Moore v. Harper, reversing their prior rulings as their new (Republican) judges took the bench. We’ve previously considered what the Supreme Court might do with the NC Court reconsidering things – what about now that this decision has come down? Would this be “judicial restraint,” and what exactly is that frequently heard meme all about, anyway? We also take note of important dates on the academic calendar and that leads to all sorts of insights on college admissions, the meritocracy, and somehow that takes us back to the Supreme Court again.
Show Notes:
Season 3, Episode 18 (Show 122): Standing Rules
April 26, 2023
The Mifepristone case reached the Supreme Court – sort of. It will be back, and many say that the issue of standing will prove decisive. So, what about standing? Surprise – Akhil has a theory.
The Supreme Court issued a stay in the Mifepristone case, so everyone goes back to their corner – for now, anyway. They’ll be back. And when they are, the issue of standing may well be front and center. We grab this opportunity to give you a primer on standing, starting with the Constitution, tracking the Court’s recent strange path on this issue – and then we hear the Amar approach. Our listeners should be in a position to see the Mifepristone case clearly, as well as have a firm basis to keep from falling down on standing.
Show Notes:
Season 3, Episode 17 (Show 121): Judges and Adverse Events
April 19, 2023
In the last week, a Texas judge said no, America; the Fifth Circuit said maybe yes, maybe no; the Supreme Court said yes, but we’ll get back to you. What’s going on with judges? We look at some of this, and some of that.
The Judiciary continues to occupy the headlines, from the judge in Trump’s trial to judges and justices at the district and circuit level who somehow impact the lives of the whole nation. And Justice Thomas keeps knocking at the ethics door. We take it a step at a time, trying to be thorough. Everyone, it seems, wants to be more than they seem. So this time we look in some depth at judges being doctors, plaintiffs choosing judges, and regional judges offering national injunctions, while touching on some of these other areas as well.