Oral Argument

In honor of our base 10 number system, we revert to type and have recorded a long, self-indulgent episode. We reflect on our show, respond to feedback, and wonder about law and legal academia. Also Joe’s travels and nonsense. Feedback includes the other side of the expedite problem, a morality quiz for Joe, the proper playback speed for this show, political processes in arrest and indictment, professionalism norms and racism, SSRN’s purchase by Elsevier, more on the Bluebook and its connection with the problems of legal knowledge creation, and what our jobs are and whether we should keep doing this show.

Joe is at the airport for a special pre-roll segment. Then we say hello to Lisa Heinzerling, administrative law expert (5:23). After a substantive and goofy discussion of legislation and regulation courses (6:29), we discuss the development of what Lisa calls “the power canons” resulting from recent decisions of the Supreme Court (10:39). If you’re Congress, how do you write a statute meant to solve problems that might evolve in type or degree? Do you have the power to do so, or are you limited to speaking to the here and now? Does the Supreme Court have the power to limit legislative and regulatory power in this way?

Like living things, legal theories are born, grow, change, and die. We are joined by Jeremy Kessler and David Pozen to discuss this life cycle and how it applies to some popular theories today, like originalism. We start by discussing what prescriptive legal theories are and how there was a move to transcend politics through process-based theories (3:23). Then: the theory of theories (9:31), the example of Brown v. Board, originalism, and brute political facts (20:17), a sociological story (25:10), the role of law schools and teaching in theory evolution (31:22), a discussion of trees, structure, and the role of higher order principles in law (37:50), theory change in private law (47:14), normative vs. descriptive theories of theories (54:05), and the internal and external approaches to originalism (1:04:27).

When interpretations and rules depend on what’s true about the world (so, all the time), judges have to reach conclusions about those truths. But courts are not exactly like administrative agencies or legislatures, and they depend on adversarial parties to contest the truth. The Supreme Court, in particular, has come to rely on an elite bar to organize and present facts and studies. Having been through our usual vetting process of successfully appearing on the Colbert Report, Alli Larsen is ready for the big time and joins us to discuss how courts deal with the problem of factiness (which is the ivory tower version of truthiness). Alli’s appearance on the Colbert Report (01:02). The pronunciation of “amicus” (05:24). The main topic (10:36).

A show about, among other things, the morality of the law journal system. We start with Joe’s ailments and our scheduling issues. (You’re welcome; we know this is why people tune in.) Then a little about online review sessions, Slack, online classes, and video conferencing (2:32). Radiohead, Trump, and Ted Cruz (9:02). Next we open the mail and Twitter bags: Carl Malamud, the re-christened Indigo Book, and the possibility of a transcript of one of our episodes, all followed by Chris Walker’s posts on Prawfsblawg about student law journal podcasts (13:19). Next, listener Justin on laptops in classrooms and unconstitutional and re-constitutional statutes (17:38), Bunny on Oral ArgCon cosplay (25:27). And then this week’s main topic: The weird world of law review publishing and the moral aspects of our participation in it (28:23), including Joe’s description of the process, Christian’s calling Expresso “Espresso” (35:03), the transition to electronic submission and the rise of “expedites” (47:00). “Just tell me what your thesis is.” “Why don’t *you* tell me what it is?” and morality (52:54). Joe’s world (1:08:19). Christian’s world (1:13:53).

Do you have a right to film the police? Should people film the police? A lot of attention has been given to the use by police officers of body cameras (and dash cameras), but what about citizens’ filming arrests on the street? With Jocelyn Simonson, we explore the ways that the use of cameras both facilitates and is expression.

This is something different, a recording of a conversation we had for Christian’s Modern American Legal Theory class, which is being run online this semester. It’s a discussion of, among other things, the place of the public/private distinction in law and legal theory, critical legal studies, two-by-two boxes, and the vices and virtues of “universalization.” We had fun with it. So here’s a bonus episode.

We respond to accumulated listener feedback in one unedited take.

We’re joined by tax scholar Daniel Hemel to discuss a puzzling problem. Why don’t presidents use their regulatory powers to affect tax law like they do to affect the law in many other areas? But before that, we talk about Christian’s birthday disappointment (0:01:15) and law reviews and the Bluebook (0:06:47). Then we talk Joe’s Oral Argument cruise proposal and segue to today’s topic (0:21:32), a president’s power to tax (0:27:19), an example of “carried interest” (the tax issue that flared up in the 2012 presidential campaign) (0:37:12), Daniel’s game-theoretic model and discussion of hawks, peacocks, debt ceilings, and presidential hand-offs (1:04:36).

In a world where a single power controlled the language of justice itself, one man (well, several people and a bunch of students, but anyway) rose up to … produce a free guide to the standardized practices of legal citation. Copyright scholar Chris Sprigman joins us to talk about two of his projects: Baby Blue, the open guide to legal citation, and the Restatement of Copyright. Our conversation: about Baby Blue (0:01:33), what in the Bluebook might be copyrightable (0:10:07), trademark and the two manuals’ names and colors (0:23:44), simplification of citation (0:39:43), and the Restatement of Copyright (0:56:52).

Our main topic is fair use, the engine of so much cultural reuse and advancement. We’re joined by one of the doctrine’s most interesting scholars, Mike Madison. But the conversation spans: Joe’s telecomm cursing issues (0:00:36), FBiPhones and the Apple-FBI imbroglio (0:09:26), and fair use (0:28:27), including discussion of Mike’s Big Idea of social practices

This week we tackle the simple and uncontroversial topic of education funding with Josh Weishart. We plumb the depths of equity, equality, luck, adequacy, and sufficiency. Legislatures vs. courts, duties and immunities. Luckily Josh saves us from our usual inadequacy.

We record live at the University of Georgia School of Law at the invitation of the Georgia Law Review. The main topic is law journals, but we also give an update on Christian’s crumbling infrastructure, talk about gravitational waves, and introduce a new and complete system of citation.

Joined in the studio by IP scholar Mark McKenna, yielding a two to one ratio of IP to non-IP people at headquarters, we discuss: the dilapidated state of headquarters (0:00), computers in the classroom and the first installment of Joe’s Quandary (6:11), topics we do not yet but one day will discuss and the topic for our upcoming live show (15:25), the speech implications of the revocation of trademark registration as with the Washington football team (20:12), and Knitting with Joe and one other bit of feedback (1:20:15).

Joe shook off the plague and won a major prize all in one week. In celebration, we debate and discuss the lottery, choosing numbers, and the endowment “effect.” Into the mailbag we go and discuss our Speluncean episodes, an executioner’s privilege, robotic burritos and sandwiches, engineering happiness and social welfare functions, school funding, freedom, bro country, speed trap brief return, Canadian real estate as political barometer, the rougiest judge, knitting, and the Re-Framing.