The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Recent Episodes of Divided Argument
Divided Argument, my podcast about the Supreme Court with Dan Epps, has been in high season this month, as the Court has released the majority of its important opinions. Here are the episodes from this month so far:
SMUGLER: We discuss the Bivens decision in Egbert v. Boule and the problem of constitutional remedies. But first we catch up on the Court's pace of opinions, the Dobbs leak investigation, the attempted attack on Justice Kavanaugh, and Puerto Rico (United States v. Vaello-Madero).
COBRA: We focus on two Indian law decisions -- Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas and Denezpi v. United States -- as well as the arbitration case of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, and the DIG in Arizona v. San Francisco. Dan offers some health insurance advice.
Character Sketches: In our longest episode yet, we break down two massively consequential cases -- Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. I make the extremely controversial claim that Justice Kavanaugh doesn't particularly care what most people think about him, and that isn't why he writes those concurrences.
We also have transcripts for 2/3 of the episodes already (and the third will come soon) for those who apparently don't listen to things while they drive, walk, work out, or do housework.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
" I make the extremely controversial claim that Justice Kavanaugh doesn't particularly care what most people think about him, "
How does a clinger reach that conclusion?
Does Jesus whisper it directly into your ear? Or does the Federalist Society have a special newsletter for the particularly privileged?
Thank you.
This is a great podcast, my thanks and appreciation to you and Prof. Epps.
I like to listen while playing Stellaris.
I like this podcast so much I often have to stop what I'm doing and focus on the discussion. Although that may be because I'm a little dense as well.
By contrast, Breyer is in the minority in the other case today where gubmint power has been extended - because the gubmint in this instance was a state, and the good ol' major'ty wadn't going to let no Yankee technicality stop the great state of Oklahoma from prosecuting some Mescan who committed a crime on Indian land.
(I stipulate that the convict is a vile POS.)
Your last podcast on Dobbs and Bruen was fantastic! They've all been good, but that was the best one yet. Even with Prof. Epps podcasting from his car. You could hear him fading at the end.
I think Professor Baude is specifically rejecting that viewpoint. He's saying Kavanaugh isn't driven by some need for personal respect from others. He actually wants people to accept the court's opinion moreso than he wants them to accept him.
His Dobbs concurrence is probably the best support. Reading it, you get the view that Kavanaugh is really just trying to persuade the common person (the person who won't ever read his opinion), and he's being honest about his viewpoint of the case.
I also think Kavanaugh is personally pro-choice, which might be an even more controversial claim
He likely would have supported abortion had he knocked up a casual acquaintance during one of his drunken binges.