Log in

goodpods headphones icon

To access all our features

Open the Goodpods app
Close icon
Dissed - BONUS: Which Case Should SCOTUS Overturn?

BONUS: Which Case Should SCOTUS Overturn?

06/02/22 • 15 min

Dissed

In this bonus episode, four guests joined us to make the case for why the Supreme Court should overrule Chevron v. NRDC, Kelo v. City of New London, Wickard v. Filburn, or the Slaughterhouse Cases. Hear the arguments and then YOU decide. Cast your vote in the Twitter poll posted by @CaseyMattox_.


Thanks to our guests Daniel Dew, Ilya Somin, Josh Blackman, and Clark Neily. Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod


Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

plus icon
bookmark

In this bonus episode, four guests joined us to make the case for why the Supreme Court should overrule Chevron v. NRDC, Kelo v. City of New London, Wickard v. Filburn, or the Slaughterhouse Cases. Hear the arguments and then YOU decide. Cast your vote in the Twitter poll posted by @CaseyMattox_.


Thanks to our guests Daniel Dew, Ilya Somin, Josh Blackman, and Clark Neily. Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod


Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Previous Episode

undefined - License to Mildly Burn

License to Mildly Burn

This is the story of Bond. Carole Anne Bond. She discovered her husband and her best friend were having an affair. And her friend was pregnant. What Bond did next led to a federal conviction for using chemical weapons and two trips to the Supreme Court. While all the justices agreed Bond’s conviction could not stand, the majority declined to reach the underlying constitutional issue—leaving it to die another day. But three justices disagreed, arguing tomorrow never dies.

Thanks to our guests Amy Howe and Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz.


Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod


Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Next Episode

undefined - Thurgood Marshall and the Machinery of Death

Thurgood Marshall and the Machinery of Death

In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment was being “so wantonly and so freakishly imposed” that it was “cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual.” But just four years later, the Court reversed course---ruling that with new procedures in place, states could continue executions without running afoul of the Eighth Amendment. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote an impassioned dissent arguing that the death penalty is cruel and unusual under any circumstances. After hearing his experiences as a defense attorney in the South, it’s easy to understand why.


Thanks to our guests John Stinneford and Mark Tushnet.


Follow us on Twitter @anastasia_esq @ehslattery @pacificlegal #DissedPod


Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Episode Comments

Generate a badge

Get a badge for your website that links back to this episode

Select type & size
Open dropdown icon
share badge image

<a href="https://goodpods.com/podcasts/dissed-270603/bonus-which-case-should-scotus-overturn-32461945"> <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/goodpods-images-bucket/badges/generic-badge-1.svg" alt="listen to bonus: which case should scotus overturn? on goodpods" style="width: 225px" /> </a>

Copy