This week Zack Smith is back, and he joins GianCarlo to discuss this week’s oral arguments, which cover some touchy technology issues and whether the president can discount illegal aliens when it comes to determining the relevant population for each state’s allotment of seats in the House of Representatives. GianCarlo also discusses the Court’s midnight Thanksgiving order granting houses of worship a win against discriminatory COVID-19 restrictions. He also interviews Judge Raymond Kethledge who tells us about his career and shares his passion for writing. Last up, Zack is in the hot seat for technology-themed trivia!

 

You can find Judge Kethledge’s book here.

 

Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @scotus101 and send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.

 

Don’t forget to leave a 5-star rating!

 

Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug.

 


See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Subscribe to SCOTUS101 in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

There is 1 comment.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. HankRhody Freelance Philosopher Contributor
    HankRhody Freelance Philosopher
    @HankRhody

    The doctrine of standing remains pernicious when applied to questions of fundamental liberty. Taxation without representation wasn’t the only complaint the revolution was fought over.

    Speaking of which, nuts to the restrictions placed on churches. “Congress shall make no law” means “Congress shall make no law”, and I’m not too thrilled about state legislatures much less governors horning into that territory.

    The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act has it’s problems, but as far as I understand it it’s fundamentally sound. Accessing information without permission ought to be a property crime. If Congress wants to penalize accessing information you have permission to look at for illicit purposes a crime they should make it a separate law (and be VERY careful when describing “illicit purposes”. Entirely too many secrets are kept harmfully in this land.) 

    Oddly enough I’d be willing to prosecute the informant for violating the CFAA, since social engineering a chump to do it for you ought to qualify as accessing information without permission.

    • #1