Stone’s Rules

There’s a full docket in the faculty lounge as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo tackle the Roger Stone case and review the Supreme Court term that was: How did John Roberts justify taking both sides of the abortion regulations case within just a few years? Why does the Court get so many religious liberty cases these days — and is Antonin Scalia to blame? Has the pursuit of President Trump’s tax records seen SCOTUS open up a pandora’s box? And did the Court just give a huge chunk of Oklahoma back to Native Americans? All that plus the profs head to the suburbs, and we answer the question “Is it time to start worrying about Justice Gorsuch?” Also, remember to submit your questions for the upcoming Law Talk Q&A in the comments or to troy@ricochet.com

Subscribe to Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik 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.

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 8 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. David Guaspari Member
    David Guaspari Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    A question about stare decisis for your next show: I’d like to hear a discussion on an argument claiming that stare decisis has the least force on matters of constitutional interpretation. It goes like this: A misguided interpretation of a statute is easily corrected; a legislature amends the text of the statute to make its meaning clear. But, since amending the constitution is so difficult, the only practical way for correcting a lousy interpretation of the constitution is for a later court to overrule it.

    • #1
    • July 14, 2020, at 5:35 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  2. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    David Guaspari (View Comment):

    A question about stare decisis for your next show: I’d like to hear a discussion on an argument claiming that stare decisis has the least force on matters of constitutional interpretation. It goes like this: A misguided interpretation of a statute is easily corrected; a legislature amends the text of the statute to make its meaning clear. But, since amending the constitution is so difficult, the only practical way for correcting a lousy interpretation of the constitution is for a later court to overrule it.

    Stare Decisis is important because you don’t want to reinvent the wheel for every case that arises.

    Bork laid out a 4 part framework for overturning precedent in his confirmation hearings 1987.

     

    • #2
    • July 14, 2020, at 7:12 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    @troysenik

    Q and A:

    To amend the constitution :

    2/3 of house must approve

    2/3 senate must approve

    3/4 of states must approve

    why is the bar higher for states?

    • #3
    • July 14, 2020, at 7:13 AM PDT
    • Like
    • This comment has been edited.
  4. Hoyacon Member

    Bravo for the pic!

    • #4
    • July 14, 2020, at 11:04 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. The Cloaked Gaijin Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Bravo for the pic!

    How do we know it isn’t real.

    • #5
    • July 14, 2020, at 10:09 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  6. Hank Rhody, Badgeless Bandito Contributor

    Will we ever see a non-lawyer on the Supreme Court again?

    • #6
    • July 16, 2020, at 3:29 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    @troysenik 

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/21/aclu-constitution-requires-illegal-aliens-be-counted-in-congressional-apportionment/

    Should illegal aliens be counted in congressional apportionment?

    I say no

     

    • #7
    • July 22, 2020, at 1:42 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    @troysenik

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/21/aclu-constitution-requires-illegal-aliens-be-counted-in-congressional-apportionment/

    Should illegal aliens be counted in congressional apportionment?

    I say no

     

    I say Hell No.

     

    • #8
    • July 22, 2020, at 4:38 AM PDT
    • 1 like