My New "Divided Argument" Podcast
An unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast with Dan Epps
Last week I posted about a new podcast series I've started running. Now there is another.
Professor Dan Epps and I have just launched a new podcast on the Supreme Court, called Divided Argument. We describe it as "an unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast." We won't make any promises to keep to a weekly schedule or cover every round of Supreme Court arguments or decisions, but we'll drop new episodes when we feel like we have something to say, and I suspect we'll have plenty to say over the next few weeks. And hopefully you'll find that we don't adhere to any particular party line.
I realize that not everybody likes to spend time listening to podcasts, which I understand. (Actually, I don't completely, but maybe they spend less time running errands or doing housework than I do.) But it gives me a different format for talking through lots of things about the Supreme Court.
Our first two episodes are a two-part discussion of the Supreme Court's "shadow docket," something I wrote about eight years ago in an article that was in turn drawn from many reflections from blogging here, and which has been in the news a lot lately:
Our third episode discusses yesterday's Supreme Court decisions, especially the important habeas opinions in Edwards v. Vannoy, as well as the Fourth Amendment decision in Caniglia v. Strom:
I hope you enjoy, and feel free to leave feedback in the comments or send it along to email@example.com.