What do Institute for Justice attorneys think about the law? Listen into their roundtable conversations where they give their unrehearsed and “unpublished” opinions on matters beyond the federal courts of appeals. From the latest Supreme Court cases to legal history to trial tactics, IJ attorneys have much to share and (politely, but spiritedly) disagree with each other about.
All content for Unpublished Opinions is the property of Institute for Justice and is served directly from their servers
with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.
What do Institute for Justice attorneys think about the law? Listen into their roundtable conversations where they give their unrehearsed and “unpublished” opinions on matters beyond the federal courts of appeals. From the latest Supreme Court cases to legal history to trial tactics, IJ attorneys have much to share and (politely, but spiritedly) disagree with each other about.
It’s another edition of the podcast where we talk about things other than the federal courts of appeals. Patrick Jaicomo and Sam Gedge clamber in to pick apart the recent trend of calling Attorney Generals and Solicitor Generals “generals.” It’s a pretty new phenomenon, it turns out. But is it wrong? We sort through the pros and cons. There’s also discussion of judicial robes and ex-officials clinging to their titles. Then we move to history. Sure, everyone loves history, and the Supreme Court is into it these days. But do we have too much of it floating around the constitutional law world? Maybe constitutions (and other laws) are supposed to change history, not lock it in place?
Mark Twain’s Does the Race of Man Love a Lord?
Michael Herz: Washington, Patton, Schwartzkopf and . . . Ashcroft?
Unpublished Opinions
What do Institute for Justice attorneys think about the law? Listen into their roundtable conversations where they give their unrehearsed and “unpublished” opinions on matters beyond the federal courts of appeals. From the latest Supreme Court cases to legal history to trial tactics, IJ attorneys have much to share and (politely, but spiritedly) disagree with each other about.
