Super Bowl of Law

As the first elections of 2016 approach, Professors Epstein and Yoo are talking politics in the faculty lounge. Is a President Trump or President Hillary the more menacing idea? Is Ted Cruz eligible to be president (the answer’s not as clear as you might think)? Is Hillary more likely to end up in a courthouse than the White House? And is the Supreme Court about to strike a blow against public sector unions? All those topics plus the most important question of all: is Peyton Manning or Cam Newton going to take home the Lombardi Trophy? On that front, Justices Epstein and Yoo issue a split decision.

“Omaha!” EJHill!

Support our sponsors!

Casper-Red-Antler-eyes-mark-011-960x589Get premium mattresses for a fraction of the price delivered to your door! Casper is revolutionizing the mattress industry by cutting the cost of dealing with resellers and showrooms and passing that savings directly to the consumer. Get $50 off your first purchase! Go to Casper.com/LawTalk and use the coupon code LawTalk at checkout.

Screen Shot 2015-02-20 at 8.56.20 AMThis podcast is brought to you by Harry’s Shave. For the finest shave at the best price, go to Harrys.com and use the coupon code LAWTALK at checkout

 

 

SaneBox_ricochet
Tired of your inbox? See why SaneBox is our choice for dealing with email overload and unsubscribing from annoying newsletters. All new users get an automatic 14-day free trial (no credit card required), and our friends at SaneBox are offering the GLoP community an exclusive $25 credit toward any subscription. You can learn more at sanebox.com/ricochet

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 19 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Knute Rockne Inactive

    I am glad you all are back. I was starting to get the shakes and was trolling YouTube looking for these guys talking and debating. Would be nice if I could get a link to the talk by Prof. Epstein.

    I did have one question, it might have several parts.

    Is there any legal ground for an individual to sue a union, if that person believes the union has not lived up to their responsibilities? What things are unions supposed to do for their members, as a general rule?

    I know these maybe hard to answer here. If any of you might know of a video or reading material on the subject matter I would appreciate it. I am from Illinois, didn’t know if Prof. Epstein might be able to direct me to some material.

    Thanks for the podcast. All the best.

    • #1
    • January 29, 2016, at 6:54 PM PST
    • Like
  2. Dustoff Inactive

    Thanks Gents. Nice to have you back.

    • #2
    • January 29, 2016, at 11:50 PM PST
    • Like
  3. Hoyacon Member

    So ….who did the graphics?

    Richard Epstein=David Lee, #49, punter Baltimore Colts

    Troy Senik= Jerry Smith, # 87, tight end Washington Redskins

    John Yoo= Dave Osborn, #41, running back Minnesota Vikings

    • #3
    • January 30, 2016, at 7:21 AM PST
    • Like
  4. Wolverine Inactive

    I love the football cards. The year depicted is the first year I collected them (I think it was 1970) and I still have them, including the David Osborne card!

    • #4
    • January 30, 2016, at 9:17 AM PST
    • Like
  5. Inwar Resolution Inactive

    I appreciated John and Richard’s points about Trump vs Hillary. I think Majestyk described my fears of Trump perfectly: making Trump the Commander in Chief is like giving a chimp a gun.

    • #5
    • January 30, 2016, at 10:27 AM PST
    • Like
  6. Blayne Lantrie Inactive
    Blayne Lantrie Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Hoyacon:So …. who did the graphics?

    Richard Epstein=David Lee, #49, punter Baltimore Colts

    Troy Senik= Jerry Smith, # 87, tight end Washington Redskins

    John Yoo= Dave Osborn, #41, running back Minnesota Vikings

    If you go back enough episodes in Law Talk podcasts you will find the same picture used in a podcast regarding the possible unionization of NCAA football players at, I believe, Northwestern.

    Richard Epstein = shop steward

    Troy Senik = organizer-in-chief

    John Yoo = local president

    Positions noted on each card inside the football.

    • #6
    • January 30, 2016, at 11:07 AM PST
    • Like
  7. Jim Beck Member

    So we prefer Clinton over Trump? After our enemies have lived in her server, and know what national interests she will walk away from, know enough to make it hard for her to make hard choices lest certain information be revealed, she will be better on national defense than Trump? Our nimble witted Clinton who unscripted said, “We came, we saw, he died, cackle, cackle”, she will be better with the nuclear button. Boy LBJ was right, it is a good thing Goldwater never was president, we’d all be pushing up daisies, and Trump is way worse than Goldwater; run, run, hide, even contemplating that. And Clinton who when small talk and common comfort would be enough, chooses to lie to the families of the victims, so that like saying she flew in under fire, she will be seen to be strong, she will be better on national defense? I imagine Trump would like to be known as a strong deal maker, I would prefer that to Clinton who like Obama views the United States as the problem, and not a force for good.

    • #7
    • January 30, 2016, at 11:21 AM PST
    • Like
  8. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Blayne – Guilty of recycling. I was working in the truck during taping. Real work must always take precedence. (I know, priorities!)

    • #8
    • January 30, 2016, at 2:16 PM PST
    • Like
  9. BuckeyeSam Inactive

    I realize that the race doesn’t match, but I’m a little surprised that when taking cards from this era that Prof. Epstein wasn’t granted the card of #40 from the Chicago Bears, Gale Sayers.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2nQoNUESAs8/UsCwKZQwubI/AAAAAAAAHjQ/uPUgla28bXk/s1600/1971+Gale+Sayers.jpg

    Although it sounds as if Prof. Epstein splits his time among NYC, Chicago, and Palo Alto, I’d think that in identifying players from that era, nobody was as electrifying as Sayers. Going back to a Law Talk around the 2014 NCAA Tournament, I seem to recall Prof. Epstein lobbying to be Julius Erving, leaping over a flat-footed and helpless John Yoo. How about some highlights?

    • #9
    • January 30, 2016, at 8:02 PM PST
    • Like
  10. Blayne Lantrie Inactive
    Blayne Lantrie Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    EJHill:Blayne – Guilty of recycling. I was working in the truck during taping. Real work must always take precedence. (I know, priorities!)

    I only realized due to the positions on the cards are for unions & not football.

    • #10
    • January 31, 2016, at 7:26 AM PST
    • Like
  11. EHerring Coolidge

    Hey, Blue Yeti, what was the music at the end?

    • #11
    • January 31, 2016, at 6:14 PM PST
    • Like
  12. The Question Inactive

    Jim Beck:So we prefer Clinton over Trump? After our enemies have lived in her server, and know what national interests she will walk away from, know enough to make it hard for her to make hard choices lest certain information be revealed, she will be better on national defense than Trump? Boy LBJ was right, it is a good thing Goldwater never was president, we’d all be pushing up daisies, and Trump is way worse than Goldwater; run, run, hide, even contemplating that. And Clinton who when small talk and common comfort would be enough, chooses to lie to the families of the victims, so that like saying she flew in under fire, she will be seen to be strong, she will be better on national defense? I imagine Trump would like to be known as a strong deal maker, I would prefer that to Clinton who like Obama views the United States as the problem, and not a force for good.

    That’s what I was wondering too. I’m about as anti-Trump as a Republican can be. If it’s Jeb or Kasich versus Trump, I’d probably take Jeb or Kasich. But if it was Trump versus Clinton or Sanders, I’d probably vote for Trump. There’s nothing that I currently know about Trump that would make him worse than Clinton or Sanders. I don’t think he’s mentally unbalanced.

    • #12
    • February 1, 2016, at 9:42 AM PST
    • Like
  13. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti

    EHerring:Hey, Blue Yeti, what was the music at the end?

    It’s Classic Battle from NFL Films.

    • #13
    • February 1, 2016, at 12:49 PM PST
    • Like
  14. Tim H. Member

    I was glad to see the topics listed on the new podcast. And as I drove to work, where I teach at a midwestern state university with a unionized faculty…which I refuse to join…I enjoyed listening to their prognostications on the Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association case. Under Kasich, Ohio passed a Wisconsin-style prohibition on public employee unions withholding dues from paychecks (it might have even prevented “agency shops,” but I don’t remember). But the law was immediately attacked by the still-powerful public-sector unions in the state, who backed a successful referendum effort to repeal it. It was an awful, nasty, dishonest campaign, but it worked.

    So my only real hope for years to come lies in the Friedrichs case. In the meantime, I have to object in writing every year to get back the money they’ve taken from me for “political” purposes. Here’s my letter to them this year:

    As I always do, I hereby object to the payment of the Orwellian-named “fair share” fees to your blood-sucking organization. I will never join this leech on society, and I eagerly look forward to the possibility that the United States Supreme Court is about to strike down your ability to extort even a single penny from me.

    • #14
    • February 1, 2016, at 12:59 PM PST
    • Like
  15. EHerring Coolidge

    Thanks, Blue Yeti. It had the big movie epic soundtrack flavor. I must add it to my download collection.

    • #15
    • February 1, 2016, at 2:49 PM PST
    • Like
  16. JimGoneWild Coolidge

    No Huck and Buck photo?

    • #16
    • February 1, 2016, at 3:56 PM PST
    • Like
  17. Jim Beck Member

    Evening The Question,

    I am with you, on the Republican side, I would prefer anyone over Trump. However, if matched with any Democrat, I would vote for Trump, especially over Clinton. To imagine that her experience within the institutions of government would suggest the she would be better than Trump for the country is something so foolish that “only an academic” could believe. Just contemplating the knowledge the Russians and Chinese have concerning Clinton’s transactions and tendencies, we should see her possible election as a great peril. They already know what she will defend and what she will cede, and if she is likely to be intimidated, and they already have information on her that might create a governmental crisis.

    • #17
    • February 1, 2016, at 4:11 PM PST
    • Like
  18. Catchance Inactive

    Could you explain to me the Naturalization Law of 1790? In part it states:

    “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”

    To me, this means that Cruz would be considered a Natural Born Citizen.

    However, some people say that the use of the plural “citizens” means that it has to be both parents. But the sentence right after the above says that the child would not be considered [a natural born citizen] if the father had not resided in the United States, which I take to mean that as long as the mother is a U.S. citizen the father does not have to be a citizen, only reside in the U.S.

    I would appreciate any comments. Thank you.

    • #18
    • March 25, 2016, at 2:29 PM PDT
    • Like
  19. EHerring Coolidge

    I think it is a collective rather than a two parent reference. It also says the plural “children.” I doubt if one must be a twin to get citizenship. Knowing the founders and their times, I hardly think it was a specific rather than a general use of the plural. In those times, I don’t imagine they considered the possibility of a single, unwed mother seeking employment or diplomatic duty overseas so they would not have considered two parents vs single to be a differentiation.

    • #19
    • March 26, 2016, at 8:12 AM PDT
    • Like