Stanford Legal

After a hiatus, Stanford Legal returns to your podcast feed. In our first episode relaunching November 9th, join hosts Pam Karlan and Rich Ford as they sit down with criminal law expert David Sklansky to unpack the numerous indictments against Donald Trump. But that's not all: our upcoming episodes will explore a range of pressing legal topics from AI to the Supreme Court’s latest decisions.

Make sure you're following Stanford Legal, so you don't miss an episode!

Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website

Connect:

• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Law Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Join us this Thursday for the return of Stanford Legal, with a new episode featuring criminal law expert David Sklansky, who will break down some of the most serious charges against former president--and 2024 presidential hopeful-- Donald Trump. Sklansky, a former prosecutor and co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, lends his expertise to help us understand the complexities of these unprecedented legal proceedings. Be sure to subscribe for a front-row seat to this enlightening legal discourse.

Make sure you're following Stanford Legal, so you don't miss an episode!

Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website

Connect:

• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Law Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Is the president above the law? Is the Electoral College democratic? In this episode, historian Jonathan Gienapp critiques the mainstream use of originalism, arguing that it often neglects crucial historical context, overlooking the complexities of original public understanding. The conversation dives into recent court cases, highlighting tensions between historical interpretation and contemporary judicial practices. This is clearly illustrated in Gienapp’s discussion of the Electoral College—a uniquely American invention. He explains the historical roots of the Electoral College, the Framers' intentions, and the criticisms it faces today. He also sheds light on how the Electoral College emerged as a compromise among less desirable options and the historical context surrounding its establishment, including issues of accountability and regional interests. The conversation also touches on ongoing debates about potential reforms, public sentiment toward a national popular vote, and the challenges of amending the Constitution in today's contentious political landscape. Join us for an enlightening discussion that bridges history with contemporary constitutional debates.

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Law Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Links:

• Jonathan Gienapp >>> Stanford Law School Page

(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction and the Flaws of Originalism
Hosts Pam Karlan and Rich Ford discuss the key issues with modern originalism, focusing on how originalists often overlook the historical context necessary to truly capture the Constitution’s original meaning with historian Jonathan Gienapp. Gienapp critiques the flexibility of originalist interpretations, especially when applied to complex constitutional concepts like freedom of speech and executive power.

(00:04:33) Chapter 2: Public Meaning vs. Original Intent
Rich Ford explores the tension between public meaning and original intent in originalist theory. Gienapp explains how, despite attempts to distinguish them, the two often overlap in practice. The discussion highlights the inconsistency in how originalists pick and choose historical evidence to support their interpretations.

(00:07:47) Chapter 3: Judicial Interpretation in Practice: Rahimi and Trump Cases
Pam Karlan brings up recent court cases, including United States v. Rahimi and Trump v. United States, where originalist judges either struggled with historical evidence or avoided it altogether. Gienapp notes the irony of originalists relying on minimal historical analysis when it contradicts their desired outcomes.

(00:12:04) Chapter 4: The Framers' Vision of the Presidency

Jonathan Gienapp discusses the historical foundations of the American presidency, emphasizing the founding generation's rejection of monarchy and the importance of presidential accountability. He highlights the debate at the Constitutional Convention regarding the balance between a strong executive and ensuring that executive power remains accountable to the people.

(00:17:06) Chapter 5: Originalism and Constitutional Interpretation

Jonathan Gienapp delves into the complexities of originalism as a judicial philosophy. He explains the tension between the rhetoric of originalism and its inconsistent application in Supreme Court decisions. He argues for either a more serious commitment to originalism or a recognition of constitutional pluralism, where history is used alongside other interpretative methods.

(00:21:39) Chapter 6: The Origins and Challenges of the Electoral College

Exploration of the creation of the Electoral College, discussing how it emerged not as a perfect solution but as a compromise to address competing concerns about legislative selection, popular votes, and regional interests. Gienapp examines past and present efforts to reform the Electoral College and explains why it persists despite criticism.

When does life begin? In this episode of Stanford Legal, co-hosts Rich Ford and Pam Karlan dig into the recent decision by the Alabama Supreme Court that has sent shockwaves through the fertility treatment community. The ruling, which considers frozen embryos as children under state law, has wide-ranging implications for in vitro fertilization (IVF) practices. Bioethics and law expert Hank Greely joins the discussion, providing insights into the background of the case, its legal implications, and the potential ramifications for IVF clinics and patients in Alabama—and throughout the country. The conversation highlights the intersection of law, medicine, and ethics, revealing the complex challenges surrounding embryo rights and reproductive freedoms.

Connect:

• Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website
• Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page
• Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X
• Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page
• Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X
• Stanford Law Magazine >>> Twitter/X

Links:

• Hank Greely >>> Stanford Law School Page | Twitter/X

(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction & The Alabama Supreme Court Ruling

• Hank Greely, discussing the recent Alabama Supreme Court decision regarding frozen embryos. He provides background on the Alabama Supreme Court decision and the implications for fertility treatment in the state along with explaining the legal basis of the ruling and the claims brought forth by the plaintiffs.

(00:03:43) Chapter 2: Wrongful Death Act & Implications of the Decision

• Discussion on the Alabama Wrongful Death Act and its application to unborn children, including frozen embryos. Exploration of the broader implications of the decision, including ethical and legal concerns.

(00:08:21) Chapter 3: Understanding Frozen Embryos

• Hank Greely explains the process of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and the concept of frozen embryos, including the harvesting of eggs and the reasons for freezing embryos.

(00:14:05) Chapter 4: Legal and Ethical Concerns

• Analysis of the legal and ethical implications of the Alabama decision for IVF clinics and patients. Greely, Karlan, and Ford then discuss the political and legislative responses to the Alabama decision, including potential future actions

(00:26:49) Chapter 5: Gender and Control Over Reproduction

• Show Notes: Discussion on the gender dynamics and control over reproduction highlighted by the Alabama Supreme Court ruling.

(00:33:29) Chapter 6: Political Ramifications and Predictions

• Hank Greely offers his perspective on potential legislative responses and the broader implications for reproductive rights. From congressional bills to grassroots activism, we explore the evolving landscape of reproductive justice. They also explore the political ramifications and the future outlook for fertility treatment.