We discuss the morality of concurring and dissenting. And the usual nonsense.
Joe and Christian talk about the pandemic and, then, some nonsense.
We discuss the march on the Capitol and... all this.
In this holiday spectacular, we talk about small claims. In particular, would a court for small copyright claims be a good or bad thing? You can probably guess what we each say. In exploring this, we consider the nature of dogs, hunters, and children.
Joe lowers the boom, and we start talking. In the 213th episode of this very serious podcast, we discuss: scams, flight simulators, flight, K2, Joe's blue cheese odyssey, olives, the nature of expertise, nihilism, and the adversary system. And other things as well.
We discuss the Supreme Court's (I know, I know) decision in Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo.
Is this thing on? What did we miss?
Just Joe and Christian on the pandemic, new articles, and spring break.
We are joined by our student, Justin Van Orsdol, who has co-authored a paper with Christian about a new approach to the gun violence crisis.
Special Guest: Justin Van Orsdol.
We discuss a proposal by Sen. Hawley to abolish, more or less, the Federal Trade Commission, the agency that administers consumer protection and antitrust laws, and place its responsibilities in the Justice Department. Antitrust, the unitary executive, independent agencies, Joe's Competition Commission, and more.
Sometimes in law, as in other areas of life, we think we know something, but the more we think about, the more we realize we don't know it at all. Legal scholars have focused on puzzles like this before, like why blackmail should be illegal. Deborah Hellman joins us to discuss her attempt to answer a question you might not have known you had: What is wrong with bribery, and what is bribery anyway? The difficulties here shed some light on recent events.
Special Guest: Deborah Hellman.
Joe and Christian discuss Christian's latest paper, on the way we define and separate markets, including European football, campaign finance, surrogate motherhood, and water bottles in disaster zones.
Christian calls Joe out of the blue to celebrate our sixth anniversary and to talk about heroes.
We discuss new calls to integrate church and state. The conversation ranges over liberalism, religion, religious zeal, and, obviously, some nonsense.
On immaturity, defensiveness, art, the intellect, models, and the self. And mailbag on scholarship and practice, Title VII, and Star Trek. It's Joe's birthday.
We discuss dictionaries, up and down on maps, and excellence in seminar conversation.
Just Joe and Christian, lumbering into season 2, talking about tipping and fraud in the gig economy, bar exam fiascos, legal scholarship, and fireworks.
We kick off Season 2 with assorted nonsense before diving into our second SCOTUS round-up, which consists entirely of the Supreme Court's decision on the census citizenship question.
We discuss items from the mailbag and go ahead and conduct our annual, absurd Supreme Court round-up (fifty minutes in).
How would you feel if you found out you were unwittingly the subject of an experiment testing two alternatives? You got A, and another group got B. Many people object to this. But what if neither A nor B was at all objectionable and in fact each is served up at many other places unilaterally and without reason for preferring one to the other? Why should we object to being randomly given A or B for the purpose of testing, when we would not object to having either uniformly and arbitrarily imposed? We are joined again by Michelle Meyer to discuss this problem, made famous recently by Facebook and other A/B testing entrepreneurs.
Special Guest: Michelle Meyer.