Is This a Lollapalooza?

He may not know Lollapalooza, but he does know Arrakis.

By and

In an all-star hearing, the Supreme Court considers a melange of legal and philosophical arguments concerning the “independent state legislature” doctrine. But first, David and Sarah revisit 303 Creative and debate the Tough (with a capital T) line between law and morality.
Also: Should Judge Cannon be impeached?

Out of context: “For the record, Sarah, there are Mean Girls in Dune.”

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By and
Comments (115)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Sarah Lea Riley

    Didn’t think it was possible for Sarah to be more entertaining, but she had to go and quote Scrubs. And sing! It’s truly delightful to listen to this podcast. Such fun to hear you talk about how you learned of the Federalist Society (many episodes ago, which absolutely cracked me up) and also hear of your genuine love for animals from time to time. So glad you two host this podcast for people like me to learn a little bit about the legal system. I’m filled with hope knowing folks like you are out there in the world.

    P.S.- Many thanks to the gentleman who developed AO bingo. I get quite a kick out of that, too!

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Marc Frischhertz

    Article I Section 1:
    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives

    Article I Section 4
    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof

    Please explain how section 1 permits federal judicial review, but Section 4 somehow limits State Supreme Court review?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    BWG

    Ah, this pod is chopped up left and right!!!! What is the DEAL?

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    BWG

    Sarah was abridged at 36:47. What did we miss??? Enquiring minds want to know!

    Collapse
  5. Keith

    David, this pod gives me the opportunity to ask you a question that's been formulating for some time.

    Regarding the social media cases and you as a "consistent defender of the first amendment" (I'm just quoting you, not trying to use scare quotes here), you've always defended your position of both 1) defending speech rights by students against campus speech codes, and 2) defending speech rights of website hosts to choose which speech they want to host, as a simple and consistent defense of free speech. But it seems to me that there are more than two actors in these two situations. In the campus situation, there are both the college itself and the students, and in the social media situation, there are both the website hosts and the contributors. Why, on the one hand, do you defend the users of the service (college), while on the other hand, you defend the owners of the service (website)? Why is the college unable to police the speech on its forum (campus) while the social media company is able to police the speech on its forum (website)? If the users of the website can just go to another forum to express their views, why can't the students at the college just host their activities off-campus?

    Don't get me wrong--I tend to agree with you on the outcomes in both cases, but it just seems to me to be more complicated than a simple defense of first amendment free speech rights.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Samuel Butler

    For anyone intending to listen to the Moore v. Harper oral argument, I always enjoy the SCOTUS-Toons animations of oral arguments. Neal Kayayal's argument begins at 1:05:20. https://youtu.be/4uk5dmWAJBw

    Collapse
  7. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  8. Avatar photo
    Nacho Libre

    David and Sarah,

    On 303: I’m curious about your respective positions regarding compelling state interests to compel speech. Do you think there’s instances where a state can satisfy strict scrutiny for private actors? If so, when? For example, was Nathanson v. MCAD, 2003 WL 22480688 (2003) correctly decided? I ask because I do think that people would feel better about your position on this case if they knew that your 303 Outcome applies in part only because the wedding invitations aren’t a very compelling interest.

    Thanks!

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Slp

    I appreciated your comments about the frenzy that develops around fringe ideas that don't have much chance of moving forward. I'm a regular reader of The Dispatch and even so I was very relieved to hear the The Advisory Opinions take on the arguments about the Independent State Legislature case.

    What do you think about Common Good Constitutionalism? Politico had a pretty scary story today.

    Collapse
  10. Merch

    Hi David and Sarah,

    Long time listener, subscriber, and legal layman. What do you think of the #TwitterFiles so far? From a legal perspective, is it a nothingburger or something worth paying attention to?Could the outgoing board of directors face any legal trouble if it turns out they lied about how Twitter was operated while it was being publicly traded?

    Love your work, you guys are great.

    Collapse
Load More