Log in

goodpods headphones icon

To access all our features

Open the Goodpods app
Close icon
headphones
FedSoc Events

FedSoc Events

The Federalist Society

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. This podcast feed contains audio files of Federalist Society panel discussions, debates, addresses, and other events related to law and public policy. Additional audio and video can be found at https://fedsoc.org/commentary.
Share icon

All episodes

Best episodes

Top 10 FedSoc Events Episodes

Goodpods has curated a list of the 10 best FedSoc Events episodes, ranked by the number of listens and likes each episode have garnered from our listeners. If you are listening to FedSoc Events for the first time, there's no better place to start than with one of these standout episodes. If you are a fan of the show, vote for your favorite FedSoc Events episode by adding your comments to the episode page.

FedSoc Events - Lunch and Discussion with Hon. Kenneth Starr
play

02/25/19 • 58 min

bookmark
plus icon
share episode
FedSoc Events - Universities and the First Amendment 3-4-2017
play

03/15/17 • 102 min

Universities have long been thought of, and cherished, as places for the free exchange of ideas. This idea has, however, come under pressure. Student groups have now routinely exercised pressure to keep people who they disagree with off campus. And safe spaces and trigger warnings—which limit speech that some have deemed offensive—have become regular features at universities across the nation. -- Many see the climate of shouting-down or protesting the expression of others' viewpoints as the symbolic beginning of an era limiting the freedom of speech on college campuses. While surveys seem to show a majority of students disagree with universities curtailing speech, even when it is offensive, vocal minorities with opposing views have been the ones capturing news headlines and the attention of the public at large. -- With the accessibility to speech provided by the internet and viral sharing of information, expression and speech spread with more ease than ever, but this same technology creates opportunities for back-lash on social media and gives a larger stage to those who would threaten the free market of ideas at our nation's universities. -- The First Amendment protects principles which have always required vigilance to maintain, and today's world makes no exception. This panel will explore how these developments have affected intellectual discourse on campus and if they are conducive to a meaningful learning experience at our universities. -- This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Robert Post, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law, Yale Law School; Prof. Phillip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; Prof. Suzanne Goldberg, Executive Vice President for University Life, Columbia University; Herbert and Doris Wechsler Clinical Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; and Prof. Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law; Director, Constitutional Law Center; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution. Moderator: Hon. Thomas Hardiman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
bookmark
plus icon
share episode
FedSoc Events - ABA Model Rule 8.4 3-4-2017
play

03/15/17 • 75 min

In August 2016, the American Bar Association (ABA) added new anti-discrimination guidelines for lawyers to its Model Rules of Professional Conduct through section 8.4. This section now binds lawyers to adhere to particular speech codes in the many states that have adopted it. -- The provision labels engagement “in conduct that [a] lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law." The ABA has defined discrimination and harassment to include “harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others. Harassment includes sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature." The conduct guidelines extend to “the practice of law," including, “representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and other while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law." -- Some have described this section as infringing on the rights on lawyers to speak their mind, while others have argued it is necessary to prevent discrimination within the profession. This debate will discuss the implications of Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 and its impact on workplace discrimination and lawyers' rights. -- This debate was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law and Mr. Robert N. Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. Moderator: Hon. Lavenski Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit.
bookmark
plus icon
share episode
FedSoc Events - The Thirteenth Amendment 150 Years Later - 1-5-2017
play

01/23/17 • 106 min

December 2015 marked 150 years since the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment—an occasion of singular moral, political, and legal importance in American history. This panel reflects on that past with an eye toward the future. While the Amendment plainly outlaws slavery itself, does it go beyond that, or authorize Congress to go beyond that, and if so, how? -- This panel was held on January 5, 2017 during the 19th Annual Faculty Conference in San Francisco, CA. -- Panel: The Thirteenth Amendment 150 Years Later -- Prof. Jennifer Mason McAward, Notre Dame Law School; Prof. Alexander Tsesis, Loyola University of Chicago School of Law; and Prof. David Upham, University of Dallas. Moderator: Prof. Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center.
bookmark
plus icon
share episode
FedSoc Events - Texas and Regulation 9-17-2016
play

09/20/16 • 95 min

The tension between economic liberty and the state’s power to regulate economic activity has long served as a source for landmark cases and controversies. Post-New Deal jurisprudence opened the floodgates to economic regulation. In Texas, entrepreneurs who have developed cutting-edge innovations have found themselves tangled in regulatory red tape. But one’s right to engage in economic activity free from unreasonable government interference has always been understood as being in lockstep with Texas’s independent spirit. However, critics maintain that consumer protection and maintaining a level playing field are also important goals in crafting their regulatory policies. This tension has given rise to cases and legislative battles in the Lone Star State that have garnered national attention. Will Texas continue to lead the way for entrepreneurs and innovators, and how will the regulatory state affect this trajectory? What is the proper balance between innovation and regulation? -- This panel took place on September 17, 2016, during the Second Annual Texas Chapters Conference in Austin, Texas. The theme for the conference was "The Separation of Powers in the Administrative State". -- Featuring: Mr. Arif Panju, Institute for Justice; Mr. Tim Sandefur, Goldwater Institute and author, The Right to Earn a Living; Mr. Prerak Shah, Office of Texas Attorney General; and Mr. Russell Withers, General Counsel, Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute. Moderator: Hon. Don Willett, Texas Supreme Court. Introduction: Ms. Diane Kozub, Former Assistant United States Attorney at United States Attorney's Office.
bookmark
plus icon
share episode
Mark Behrens, co-chair of the Washington, DC-based Public Policy Group of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., will discuss Nevada’s poor ranking in a recent U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform survey of the fairness of state legal climates. He will also discuss the comments on Nevada courts included in the American Tort Reform Foundation’s annual Judicial Hellholes report, along with a recent point of light from the Nevada Supreme Court. Mr. Behrens will discuss Nevada’s efforts for judicial reform together with strategies Nevada lawyers may use to promote a fair and restrained judiciary. -- Assemblyman Erv Nelson is a partner at the Las Vegas firm of Cram Valdez Brigman & Nelson and Vice-Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Nevada State Assembly. In his role as a legislator, he was deeply involved in efforts to enact Judicial Reform legislation in Nevada. Mr. Nelson will discuss Nevada’s efforts to affect Judicial Reform, including legislation that may be proposed in the future. -- The Las Vegas Lawyers Chapter hosted this event on January 28, 2016. --
Speakers: Mr. Mark Behrens, Co-chair, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP and Hon. Erven T. Nelson, Nevada Assemblyman. Introduction: Mr. Matthew Saltzman, Shareholder, Kolesar & Leatham.
bookmark
plus icon
share episode
Over the years, and especially recently, it appears as though members of Congress primarily need to avoid offending constituents if they wish to stay in office. There are few rewards for genuine political leadership or the hard-nosed political deals that are oftentimes crucial to good governance. “Passing the buck" to the Executive branch, usually in the form of the Administrative State or even to the Judiciary seems less effective but more prudent. Are the incentives for members of Congress deleterious to its overall function? Is it possible to effectively change them? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Saturday, November 14, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Howard L. Berman, Former U.S. Representative, California’s 28th Congressional District, Senior Advisor, Covington & Burling LLP; Prof. James W. Ceaser, Professor of Politics, University of Virginia; Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law; Prof. Frances E. Lee, Professor, University of Maryland; Prof. Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law; and Mr. Matthew L. Wiener, Executive Director, Administrative Conference of the United States. Moderator: Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.
bookmark
plus icon
share episode
Supporters of mandated disclosure of the source of speech (or of money used to pay for speech) claim it can provide important information to the public and the legal system. But opponents say it violates privacy rights and can also deter the sources from speaking or contributing. -- This debate also applies to reporters' confidential sources. In both situations, disclosure (of who contributed or spent, or who a confidential source was) may provide useful information to voters, prosecutors, civil litigants, judges, or jurors. In both situations, requiring disclosure of the source may deter people from contributing to controversial campaigns or organizations, or from talking to journalists. Politically, people tend to react differently to these reactions – confidentiality of contributors tends to be more supported by conservatives, while confidentiality of journalists' sources tends to be more supported by liberals. But structurally, are these issues similar? This panel will consider both these questions together. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Andrew M. Grossman, Associate, BakerHostetler; Mr. Stephen Klein, Pillar of Law Institute; Mr. Paul S. Ryan, Senior Counsel, Campaign Legal Center; and Hon. Hans von Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation. Moderator: Hon. Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Michigan. Introduction: Mr. Manuel Klausner, Co-Founder, Trustee, and Legal Advisor, Reason Foundation and General Counsel, Individual Rights Foundation.
bookmark
plus icon
share episode

Show more best episodes

Toggle view more icon

FAQ

How many episodes does FedSoc Events have?

FedSoc Events currently has 950 episodes available.

What topics does FedSoc Events cover?

The podcast is about News, Podcasts and Politics.

What is the most popular episode on FedSoc Events?

The episode title 'Session III: Election Law and Redistricting in Florida' is the most popular.

What is the average episode length on FedSoc Events?

The average episode length on FedSoc Events is 76 minutes.

When was the first episode of FedSoc Events?

The first episode of FedSoc Events was released on Jan 1, 1986.

Show more FAQ

Toggle view more icon

Comments