My New "Dissenting Opinions" Podcast

some heterodox views about Supreme Court opinions, and more

I've always been a bit of a late adopter, and so as with many other law professors during the pandemic, I've started a pilot season of a podcast, Dissenting Opinions, under the auspices of the Constitutional Law Institute at the University of Chicago. For the first season, the theme is scholars who have a heterodox view of a particular Supreme Court opinion -- either criticisms of a generally canonical opinion, or a defense of an opinion that's generally maligned.

The first two episodes are here. The first features Genevieve Lakier defending Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizen Consumers Council, a commercial speech case with few full-throated defenders. The second features co-blogger Steve Sachs criticizing Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, a staple of the civil procedure canon. Two interesting federalism episodes will be coming next, posting every other Wednesday.

(There will also be a seven-hour deep dive into originalist theory, posting sometime this summer…)

This is all an experiment, so feedback is welcome, and suggestions about future interviews are especially welcome.

Comments

[BMS]

I love the idea. Would be interested in a bankruptcy case. A few suggestions...
Boyd was wrong.
Katz was right *and* can be reconciled with other sovereign immunity doctrine.
Czyzewski v. Jevic was wrong.
Till was right.
Moyses was wrong.

[Paul McKaskle]

The discussion of Erie v Tompkins would be of interest to me (since I, too, think Erie was wrongly decided) but I'm very hard of hearing and presenting it in the form of a podcast makes it impossible for me to take advantage of what Steve Sachs has to say.

[Will Baude]

I'm hoping we'll get transcripts up at some point; in the meantime, I recommend reading Steve's work on Finding Law (https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3788/) and on Pennoyer (https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3712/).

[Paul McKaskle]

Trying to submit, somehow it requires another comment.

[Alexander Campbell]

I just wanted to see please keep this up. I really enjoyed these two episodes and hope you continue making podcasts on legal topics in the future.

[DaivdBehar]

Former Judge Kosynski supporting Kelo.

[DaivdBehar]

I would add that Kelo is the path to ending the shortage of organ transplants.

[mse326]

The decision of Brown v Board is often considered a battle ground on which originalism lives or falls. Leaving aside that I don't agree that a method of interpretation's validity is based on its results, many originalists have said that the result, at least, is consistent with originialism if not the methodology actually used. I tend to agree with that, but I'd love to hear from an originialist who disgrees and says Brown was decided incorrectly and how that has impacted EPC jurisprudence in general.

[Dilan Esper]

Village of Euclid v. Ambler is a nice one to do, BTW.

[David Nieporent]

Well, now I know how to pronounce "Baude."

[Dilan Esper]

Me too! I thought it was like "baud", like a modem.

[Dilan Esper]

An actually originalist decision on gun rights might have invalidated some more gun laws, but would also have upheld a lot of stuff gun advocates would hate. The government could literally make you serve in the militia, register your guns, carry only those guns your militia commander prescribes for you, etc.

The fundamental reason Heller is not originalist is because what the framers actually wrote does not in any way fit in with modern debates over gun control.