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 Listen into their roundtable conversations where they give their unrehearsed and “unpublished” opinions on matters beyond the federal courts of appeals.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All content for Unpublished Opinions is the property of Institute for Justice and is served directly from their servers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 Listen into their roundtable conversations where they give their unrehearsed and “unpublished” opinions on matters beyond the federal courts of appeals.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 time for our panel to wig out. For some. Others are not exactly excited about judges (or advocates) wearing wigs. Before that, though, your chatty gaggle of IJ attorneys—namely, Patrick Jaicomo (not Jacobin), Josh Windham, and Anthony Sanders—weigh the benefits of social media in promoting public interest law. This includes Josh disclosing the amazing fact that he was banned from a service for impersonating himself. Later on the panel parses specialized courts and interest group capture of them. Plus reading and watching recommendations and how actors mature.
Cato report on prosecutors becoming judges
Bad Monkey
I’m Afraid You’ve Got Dragons
Jane Austen set
Jeeves & Wooster (YouTube)
Wizards of Baking
Unpublished Opinions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 Listen into their roundtable conversations where they give their unrehearsed and “unpublished” opinions on matters beyond the federal courts of appeals.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.
