TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Business

    FedSoc Events

    The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. This podcast feed contains audio files of Federalist Society panel discussions, debates, addresses, and other events related to law and public policy. Additional audio and video can be found at https://fedsoc.org/commentary.

    Advertise

    Copyright: © Copyright The Federalist Society

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    Panel 1: Does the Right to Bear Arms Include a Right to Carry Handguns in Public? Jan 31, 2019
    Show notes

    On January 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Civil Rights and Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Groups cosponsored a conference on "The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment." The first panel discussed the question of whether the right to bear arms encompasses a right to carry handguns in public.
    Featuring:
    Stephen P. Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute; and author of The Founders’ Second Amendment
    Jonathan E. Taylor, Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC; and author of amicus briefs on behalf of Everytown for Gun Safety
    Moderator: Hon. Gregory Katsas, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
    Introduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society


    Lunch and Keynote Address by Renée Lerner Jan 31, 2019
    Show notes

    Panel 2: Are Semiautomatic Rifles, aka “Assault Weapons,” Protected by the Second Amendment? Jan 31, 2019
    Show notes

    Panel: Scholarly Rigor and Intellectual Orthodoxy Jan 30, 2019
    Show notes

    This panel will focus on questions of academic rigor and intellectual orthodoxy in modern American law schools. What is the role of academic rigor in legal scholarship and education? To what extent can it coexist with an intellectual orthodoxy? Is there an intellectual orthodoxy in American law schools? When does an orthodoxy reflect accumulated wisdom, and when does it reflect unexamined assumptions? Does it matter if the orthodoxy has a political valence?
    Featuring:
    William Baude, University of Chicago Law School
    Erwin Chemerinsky, Berkeley Law School
    Joshua Kleinfeld, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
    Moderator: Thomas Lee, Fordham University School of Law


    Panel: The Revived Debate About Antitrust Jan 30, 2019
    Show notes

    There have been renewed challenges to the Chicago School framework for antitrust law. Some have argued that it fails to address growing inequality among people and concentration among industries. In cases like Ohio v. American Express, the Supreme Court appears more divided on the application of its principles. This panel will discuss these important developments.
    Featuring:
    Einer Elhauge, Harvard Law School
    Harry First, New York University School of Law
    Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Nebraska College of Law
    Moderator: Thomas Arthur, Emory University School of Law


    Panel: Social Media and Freedom of Speech Jan 30, 2019
    Show notes

    Over the past year, there have been a number of discussions about social media and freedom of speech. Some critics blame social media companies for inadequately monitoring their content and promoting “fake news” at the instigation of foreign governments. Others criticize these companies’ new algorithms or content mediation policies, revised in some instances to respond to the first set of criticisms, as aimed at or disadvantaging certain sets of views. Meanwhile one leading tech company fired an employee for expressing views on the reasons for the company’s lack of gender diversity on the company’s listserv that were then published widely and condemned on social media on the ground that the views were offensive and could be seen as creating a hostile work environment.What kinds of responsibility do/should social media companies have for what is published on their sites? To what extent should this be determined by the companies themselves? By the market? By a body of outside experts? By government regulation?
    Featuring:
    Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Nebraska College of Law (moderator and panelist)
    Richard Epstein, NYU School of Law, University of Chicago Law School
    J.S. Nelson, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
    Hannibal Travis, Florida International University Law School
    Aaron Wright, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law


    Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations Jan 30, 2019
    Show notes

    On January 3, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations. The presentations were a part of the 21st Annual Faculty Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana.
    Featuring:
    Vince Buccola, University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School: “The Logic and Limits of Municipal Bankruptcy”
    Paul Crane, University of Richmond School of Law: “Incorporating Collateral Consequences into Criminal Procedure”
    Jennifer Mascott, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School: “The Ratifiers’ Theory of Officer Accountability”
    Lance Sorenson, Utah Office of the Attorney General: “The Hybrid Nature of the Property Clause: Implications for Judicial Review of National Monument Reductions”
    Lael Weinberger, University of Chicago JD/PhD Candidate: “Frankfurter, Abstention Doctrine, and the Development of Modern Federalism: A History and Three Futures”
    Ilan Wurman, Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law: “The Origins of Substantive Due Process”
    Commenter: Richard Epstein, NYU School of Law, University of Chicago Law School
    Moderator: Larry Alexander, University of San Diego School of Law


    Luncheon Debate: Resolved: The Supreme Court Should Overrule Qualified Immunity Jan 30, 2019
    Show notes

    On January 3, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted a luncheon debate on qualified immunity. The debate was a part of the 21st Annual Faculty Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana.
    Featuring:
    William Baude, University of Chicago Law School
    Christopher Walker, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
    Moderator: Tara Leigh Grove, William & Mary Law School


    Panel: Who's Afraid of Substantive Due Process?: Original Meaning and the Due Process of Law Jan 30, 2019
    Show notes

    Conventional wisdom holds that the original meaning of the "due process of law," as used in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, is procedural - forbidding deprivations of life, liberty or property without appropriate procedural safeguards and unless they are pursuant to a duly enacted law governing the conduct giving rise to the deprivation. Recent originalist scholarship, however, calls this view into question, arguing that a thicker and indeed "substantive" understanding of due process is justified by a careful reading of the constitutional text and history. This panel will explore and critique these new arguments.
    Welcome:
    Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, The Federalist Society
    Incoming AALS President Vicki C. Jackson, Harvard Law School
    Featuring:
    Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center
    John Harrison, University of Virginia School of Law
    Nathan Chapman, University of Georgia School of Law
    Ryan Williams, Boston College Law School
    Moderator: Christina Mulligan, Brooklyn Law School


    Rulemaking by Adjudication: Who Am I to Judge? Jan 08, 2019
    Show notes

    When Congress delegates to a federal agency the responsibility for implementing, administering, and enforcing a law, it also authorizes the agency to make and promulgate rules about how it will do that. These rules will often be issued first as a notice of proposed rulemaking, giving the public the opportunity to comment before the regulation becomes final and goes into effect. Many agencies, however, also avail themselves of another, less well-known rule-making tool: adjudication. Rather than promulgate a regulation, these agencies often announce and apply new policies - even ones that will have broad applicability – in the form of decisions resolving disputes with the agency. These decisions are then applied as precedent by the agency. Some agencies including the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Elections Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and other federal agencies, essentially announce and implement all policies this way. That agencies use adjudication to announce and implement policy is not new, but critics contend that it eliminates fair notice of the rule and avoids public participation in its development.
    Policy implemented through notice-and-comment rulemaking is generally applied prospectively only, and has the benefit of the agency having solicited and, ideally, responded to public comments. Policy implemented through adjudication, however, has not had the benefit of public input. Further, the application is generally retroactive. To avoid retroactive application of a rule, regulated parties can be inclined to simply comply with an agency's demands, thus depriving the public of a fair test of the agency’s position. Finally, agency adjudication – performed by an agency’s administrative law judge, and appealable to agency leadership who may wish to use the case to make new policy - can be seen to be biased.
    How weighty are these concerns? What is the proper role of agency adjudication? What deference, if any, should courts give policies agencies announce through adjudication? What safeguards could be designed and implemented to prevent the misuse of agency adjudication?
    Prof. Jack Beermann, Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
    Mrs. Allyson N. Ho, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
    Mr. Stephen A. Vaden, Principal Deputy General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture
    Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Associate Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
    Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit


    Previous 1 59 60 61 62 63 94 Next

    Related Podcasts

    How I Built This with Guy Raz

    1

    How I Built This with Guy Raz Business
    Planet Money

    2

    Planet Money Business
    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters

    3

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters Business
    BiggerPockets Real Estate Podcast

    4

    BiggerPockets Real Estate Podcast Business
    The Smart Passive Income Online Business and Blogging Podcast

    5

    The Smart Passive Income Online Business and Blogging Podcast Business
    Bad With Money With Gabe Dunn

    6

    Bad With Money With Gabe Dunn Business
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights