Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Submit Your Questions for Epstein and Yoo
It’s August in the Law Talk faculty lounge and you know what that means: with the Supreme Court out of session, we have to turn to you, the listeners, to save us from doing an entire show on Cecil the lion.
Early next week, I’ll be convening Professors Epstein and Yoo for the next episode of the podcast — and we want you to be part of the program. If you have a question for the professors or a topic you’d like to hear them address, let us know in the comments below. We’ll take up some of the best ones on air. (The worst ones will be publicly shamed). Fire away!
Published in Law, Podcasts
Riparian water rights and why they matter -I think it was specifically to environmental regulation. It’s been two years, and wikipedia’s description is entirely too superficial for me to understand why the court got them wrong and why they mattered.
I’m not kidding, this is not a meme. Richard mentioned it once or twice, and then it was dropped, and I’ve been wondering ever since.
When is that book of Epstein’s thoughts in haiku form coming out? Failing that, what are the next subjects of landmark decisions on the horizon?
What is their take on the TRO’s covering the PP videos specifically with regard to prior restraint, the confidentiality agreement with the NAF, and the 1A applicability to citizen journalists such as the CMP?
How does Yoo feel about the recent price increases on McDonald’s former “dollar” menu? Has he, like me, substituted to the cheaper hot-and-spicy McChicken, now that the price of the McDouble has gone up?
This could be a good segue into a discussion by Epstein of the price elasticity of demand and how Leftist calls for regulation of chicken farming could drive the price of my McChickens up to McDouble levels.
What does Yoo have against Chappie, anyway? Wasn’t the beheading of that robot in Philadelphia a case of criminal property damage?
In terms only of Supreme Court appointments each candidate would presumably make, what is the Epstein and Yoo Fantasy Republican Ticket at this early point in the process?
Is jury nullification a legitimate component of our justice system?
What do they think of the Corker bill on the Iran agreement as a matter of Constitutional law (apologies if this was covered in a previous podcast)?
Given John’s support of executive authority to execute this deal outside of the treaty process, does the congressional vote give the Congress some authority it should not have over the agreement?
If not, would a two-thirds vote be anything more than symbolic disapproval, or would they have to specifically pass legislation separate from the disapproval vote to prevent the lifting of sanctions?
Finally were the sanctions previously imposed by statute, or were they imposed by administrative rules under broader anti-terror legislation granting authority to relevant executive agencies? And how would that affect Congressional response in the face of snap-back provisions?
The number of people represented per Congress member is now astronomical in some cases.
Any thoughts on modifying or repealing the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929? Is it too much to presume a positive effect on liberty stemming from more specifically tailored representation (fewer persons per Representative)?
What about a reapportionment for the Senate also? Not by population but perhaps doubling (or more) the number of Senators per state.
When you were little, what did you want to be when you grew up?
If you could replace our jury system with anything other than random citizens who cannot dodge jury duty, what would you substitute it with? Appointed judges? Professional jurors? A robot?
Asset Forfeiture would be a great topic. It seems to me that asset forfeiture violates due process, whether it’s a drug lord’s millions, or a drunk driver’s automobile. A person should have to be convicted of a crime before a penalty is imposed, and the penalty should be imposed in court, not by the police or prosecution.
What are your thoughts on this subject?
I second this request. The logic of law granting water rights is of interest.
What can/should be done in cases where the judge has an undisclosed interest in the outcome of a case he is ruling on, one that plausibly could have influenced his judgment? For instance, I recall that the judge who overturned the outcome of California’s Proposition 8 later availed himself of the right to gay marriage that his decision created.
And what of cases where such conflict is unavoidable? (I assume all 9 justices in the Kelo case were property owners, and thus potentially exposed to personally adverse consequences of the ruling.)
For the masochists amongst us, do they foresee any hope any day of a SCOTUS that might roll back some of the decisions that have led us down the inexorable path to the federal government having its hand in pretty much everything? I’m thinking mostly of Commerce Clause cases, but there are certainly others.
Don’t you think Ted Cruz would be a swell replacement for the Notorious RBG on the Court? And who, besides each other, would you propose that a future Repub President look at as potential Justices.
You’re giving me DC flashbacks. Please resubmit without acronyms.
Check out the last episode for this topic.
What would be your candidate for topic #1 at a newly called Constitutional Convention?
We actually did this before. See here.
What would a Constitutional amendment addressing crony capitalism and corporate welfare look like?
What about an amendment outlawing all bailouts, guaranteed loans, and subsidies to for-profit corporations?
What is their take on the Temporary Restraining Orders covering the Planned Parenthood videos specifically with regard to prior restraint, the confidentiality agreement with the National Abortion Federation, and the 1st Amendment applicability to citizen journalists such as the Center for Medical Progress?
This is a serious question: Is a “foolish consistency the hobgoblin of little minds?”
What can be done to reign in administrative law? I’m thinking primarily of the EPA , but more generally as well.
Have they covered Evenwel v Abbot ?
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/07/does-one-person-one-vote-really-mean-what-it-says/
No kidding. The regulatory state is the biggest threat to democracy in this day and age.
Free Trade Agreements are Congressional Executive Agreements, not treaties. Is there any Constitutional reason that they should be negotiated by the Executive, rather than by Congressmen. In other words, if Congress wanted, say, an FTA with Ukraine or India, is there anything other than the Logan Act to stop a couple of Congressmen going over to Ukraine or India, negotiating a deal, passing a bill encapsulating that deal and setting forth the terms of the relevant executive order in that deal? It seems to me like something that we could do before Obama left office, rather than waiting.
It’s a hardy perennial, but status of Guantanamo prisoners, and likely future for those remaining? Will Obama use his presidential pardon for them? What about other possibilities? IRS infractions, maybe?
My understanding is that “sovereign immunity” is not absolute, and that egregious misconduct can be punished. Is that so and, if so, could the prosecutor in the recent John Doe case in Wisconsin be himself prosecuted?
I’m curious whether RAE (is that TLA acceptable?) has ever looked at Talmudic law.