The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Podcasts

Last Week's Podcasts

A "deep dive" into originalist legal theory, and analysis of five recent Supreme Court cases

|The Volokh Conspiracy |


In the past week I've posted five new podcast episodes.

Two are episodes of Divided Argument, with Dan Epps, which will be recording frequently between now and the end of the term (and very infrequently after that).

  • Triple Bank Shot discusses Friday's decisions in California v. Texas (ACA), Fulton v. Philadelphia (free exercise), and Nestle v. Doe (Alien Tort Statute).
  • Early Wittgenstein discusses yesterday's decisions in US v. Arthrex (patent judges, severability), and NCAA v. Alston (antitrust). Alas, we didn't get a chance to talk about my favorite Wittgenstein poem, a villanelle by Peter Meinke.

The other three episodes are the beginning of a seven-part series called Deep Dive. Over the course of the series, my colleague Adam Chilton and I walk through the arguments for originalism, especially the arguments for positivist originalism that I think are the most persuasive.

A note on the format: I am an originalist and Adam is not, but the style of the series is not a debate. Instead we attempt to rationally explain our disagreements to one another, in the hopes that we both can learn something useful from it. It seems to me that these kinds of exchanges are in strangely short supply, but my hope is to show that they are possible and fruitful.

Anyway, here they are:

Four more episodes will post later this summer.