Supreme Court Term Wrap Up with Kannon Shanmugam

David and Sarah are joined by Kannon Shanmugam, partner at Paul Weiss, for their now ...

By and
56

David and Sarah are joined by Kannon Shanmugam, partner at Paul Weiss, for their now traditional end-of-term Supreme Court case roundup. Was this the most significant Supreme Court term of our lifetimes? Plus: it wouldn’t be a traditional episode with Kannon Shanmugam without another round of barbeque reviews.

Show Notes:

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
By and
Comments (56)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Laura

    Thanks for the BBQ recommendations! This came just in time to make it on our birthday gift brainstorm list for someone we know in DC.

    Collapse
  2. Robert Stoddard

    Get yourselves out to Lockhart (Texas) for truly OG barbecue. Folks there will argue which of the three long-time places, Smitty's Market, Blacks, or Kreuz Market) is best for which particular cut of meat, but they're all super.

    Collapse
  3. Paul and Megan Davidson

    Keystone Species! As a scientist (definitely no legal experience here) I always love allegories from the natural world. In this case though, it was not just the fact that wolves were predators, but that they were a keystone species; specifically, they affect and connect the most energy transfer in a given ecosystem, and removing them causes imbalance or potential collapse. Some other notable keystone species include sea otters, starfish and mangrove trees.

    Collapse
  4. DRHanson

    I am super-excited to hear that you are having Akhil Amar as your guest. In addition to the highly consequential cases that I know you'll discuss with him, I hope you can find 4 or 5 minutes to ask him to explain why he has written that what we call the Bill of Rights wasn't intended to be a bill of rights, wasn't drafted or thought of as such at the time the amendments were ratified, and wasn't even referred to as a bill of rights until the late 19th century. Amar was one of the first people to discover this, and may even have been the very first. (I think first place honors are down to either him or the late great historian Pauline Maier.) A strong argument can be made that the first 10 amendments eventually acquired the title “Bill of Rights” only because of Senator Roger Sherman’s insistence that amendments be listed at the end of the Constitution so that future generations could see the Constitution in its original form, instead of being inserted in various places throughout the body of the Constitution as Madison intended. This may seem like trivial historical nitpicking, but I think it has had real consequences for the way some of the amendments have been interpreted. If you start with the assumption that the amendments were intended to protect individual rights, that assumption can influence how you read some of those amendments. In his excellent book on the Bill of Rights, Amar presents some persuasive arguments that some of the amendments were originally intended to achieve other ends, such as fixing problems in federalism and representation, rather than just focusing on individual rights.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Jim Canestrari

    Some people think that beef barbecue is something to eat. That’s about all anyone from Memphis can say about that.

    Collapse
  6. DRHanson

    In the July 12 podcast, I thought David was spot-on when he observed that the historical analysis in a Supreme Court opinion was “loosey goosey.” Today’s podcast also delved into historical analysis, which of course has generated a lot of comments. In my opinion, the main problem with the historical analyses found in court cases and decisions -- including those in 2nd Amendment cases -- is that almost all of it is written by lawyers, their law clerks, and judges, not actual historians. Sure, actual historians may be quoted by either side or provide information for briefs, but the arguments and decisions are usually written by people trained in law who are trying to achieve a certain result, not people trained to conduct impartial historical research. In my opinion, history written by lawyers and judges is probably just as reliable as legal analysis and decisions would be if they were written by history professors. There is a good reason why historian Alfred H. Kelly coined the pejorative phrase “law office history,” referring to the practice of starting with the desired conclusion and then searching for any historical evidence that supports that conclusion.

    Collapse
  7. WJR

    Pork BBQ>Brisket. Also, collards are the essential BBQ side.

    Collapse
  8. Jean Paul Bradshaw

    I'm surprised and a little disapointed that Kannon didn't know the history of burnt ends. They started (or at least became famous) at Arthur Bryant's, one of the legendary original KC BBQ restaurants. They were really put on the map by Calvin Trillin, who wrote in a Playboy Magazine article in 1972 of his love for these crusty morsels. Bryant's and burnt ends have changed since then, but that's where it started. Kannon was right about one thing when he said whoever came up with them should be in the BBQ Hall of Fame - I believe Arthur Bryant was one of the original inductees into the BBQ Hall (yes there is such a thing). Also loved Sarah's description of burnt ends, though it demonstrates how they've changed since AB's original version. Anyway, loved the legal discussion and the BBQ was the perfect way to finish it.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    KP

    Texas BBQ. KC BBQ. Not one mention of Memphis BBQ. For shame...

    Collapse
  10. MARK S ZOBEL

    As a native of Kansas City, I can confirm Jack's Stack cheesy corn is the best BBQ side. But that's only because they no longer make fried chicken livers with horseradish dipping sauce. :-)

    Collapse
Load More