Tag: law talk

Q & A with Epstein and Yoo

 

Civil Conversation

It’s an August tradition in the faculty lounge of the Law Talk podcast: every year at this time I turn over the questioning of Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo to you the listeners (a practice we originally instituted so I could spend the month undisturbed in The Maldives).

Member Post

 

It seems to be my lot to point out flaws in Professor Epstein’s reasoning. In the 100th podcast of Law Talk, he repeated his contention that the Roman law of partnership should be viewed as the model for the relationship of the States to the Federal government. Under Roman law, and English and U.S. common […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Submit Your Questions for Epstein and Yoo

 

Richard-Epstein-John-YooIt’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!

The “Blurred Lines” Trial as Redistribution of Wealth

 
thick-myrus-695x999

The “Ick” Factor

Since I do Los Angeles radio show on entertainment law, I’ve been asked by a few news outlets to voice my opinion on the copyright infringement case pitting the Marvin Gaye Estate against Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke. But who cares about my opinion when we have Richard Epstein and John Yoo? I was thrilled when I heard Troy Senik introduce the topic on the most recent episode of Ricochet’s Law Talk podcast, but who got it right? Richard seems to be close to the age of the jurors in the case. This is the generation of “all this music sounds the same.” (Full disclosure: I’m close to joining that generation myself). John expressed the view that jurors shouldn’t even be allowed to decide these cases.