Two Bronze Doors

Oral argument at the Crypto.com courthouse.

By and
31

Sarah and David reach peak AO and fulfill their promise of delivering something stratospherically nerdy. Judge Charles Eskridge for the Southern District of Texas has written a 56-page history of the Supreme Court building… and specifically its 17-foot, 13-ton bronze doors. Judge Eskridge tells the story depicted on the door’s eight panels and what it says about our history of ordered liberty.

This episode is sponsored by FIRE. FIRE’s mission is to safeguard and uphold the right of all Americans to freedom of speech. Be a part of the front line of a growing movement by joining the FIRE Update.

Show Notes:

–“We’ll Be Back” performed by Judge Eskridge and Judge Elrod

–Judge Eskridge’s publications

–Where Judge Eskridge’s Bronze Doors Paper will be published

By and
Comments (31)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Leeslap

    Sarah and David - regarding your discussion the other day of the expected delays in Trump’s document handling trial due to the need for his lawyers to get the necessary security clearances to review the documents in question, can you explain why they need to do so? If the issue is whether or not the documents are classified, why do the lawyers need to know what is in the documents? Are they going to argue the merits or propriety of the classification? What is the relevance of the content of the documents if the issue is whether or not the documents are classified, not whether or not they should be?

    Collapse
  2. Chipwatkins

    You should invite Judge Neomi Rao (D.C. Circuit) to join you for a podcast. Here's an excellent defense of the morality of textualism.

    https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4996&context=caselrev

    Collapse
  3. Danielipoeana

    Sarah, thank you for recommending to rewatch AMISTAD! I forgot about it until you mentioned it.

    Also, loved this episode!

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Best part is when Sarah admits maybe there might be a good reason for Article V in the Constitution. Whenever we think we’re so much cleverer than the Founders we should consider the fact that they probably spent a lot more time thinking about these exact issues than we have and they were careful in what they did. “They didn’t just write something and go out for drinks afterward.” Right. They took things more seriously than most of us would.

    On the question of Madison saying that all the laws would be done after one Congress… and people say the Founders weren’t libertarians! In an ideal world, the government actually would do literally nothing about most areas of human life, and therefore very few laws would ever need to be passed.

    Collapse
    1. Chipwatkins

      Yeah, they wrote something, debated it, amended it, adopted it, and THEN went out for drinks, during which drinking they did not disclose any of that!

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ben Connelly

        Any of what? We have records of wha was said and by whom at the Constitutional convention

        Collapse
        1. Chipwatkins

          I wrote, "during which drinking, they didn't disclose any of that." I had in mind their daily routine. They didn't disclose any of the proceedings of the convention until after it was finished (September 17, 1787). Summary story at https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/the-constitutional-convention/#:~:text=The%20Constitutional%20Convention%20took%20place,delegates%20had%20much%20bigger%20plans.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Ben Connelly

            Ah, yes. That makes sense.

            Collapse
  5. Stevenhwilson

    Thanks for the quality SDTX content! (and discussion of the Bronze Doors, too, of course; I'm looking forward).

    In disclosure, my dissertation director was Judge Rosenthal's father, and even before her appointment, he had me writing a history of that particular district. He thought there was a lot of rich material on the lower courts, which could be just as spicy as anything going at SCOTUS. He was right, as he was always telling us.

    Regards, A Loyal AO Listener

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      Wow!!!! Thanks for sharing this. How neat!

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Larry

    Cat Lawyer is hard to beat, but Animal Crossing Court was pretty good too.
    https://condenaststore.com/featured/animal-crossing-court-paul-noth.html

    Collapse
  7. Mark Eickhoff

    Good show, quite enjoyable and informative. Your later discussion of the Trump National Security case and the need for his attorneys to obtain security clearances in order to review the documents that were seized caused me to wonder why that should be. The actual classified information and its level of classification can't really be challenged or second-guessed by Trump's attorneys or the Judge, can it? Why can't the headers and footers and the internal paragraph classification markings be used with the rest of the document blacked out, so no actual classified information has to be shared? Is it a chain-of-custody thing? "Yes, this is the classified document I took," that sort of thing. Thanks!

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Calvin.Siler

    I think this episode is a great companion to Jonah's review of Patrick Deneen's new book. Classical Liberalism is not a de novo creation of the Enlightenment. It is the culmination of thousands of years of political philosophy and legal practice stemming from Abrahamic, Greco-Roman, and Anglo-Saxon traditions of law. The Torah, Justinian Code, and the Magna Carta are all older than the supposed "bad guys" of modern liberalism - John Locke and so on.

    I think you all should do a episode on Medieval Law since David just read Powers and Thrones (I got it on Audible after David recommended it). Seems like it would be a great Summer AO topic.

    I think it would be particularly interesting to address the topic of "The Divine Right of Kings", which I think is a misunderstood concept by many. The idea that a King should be an absolute Despot is actually a newer idea. The idea that Kings, under God, have obligations, latter codified in charters and constitutions, towards the free-born of their kingdoms is actually the older and more traditional view of monarchy in European history (Think of Tarquin and Brutus in Roman legend, or Herodotus' contrast of Greek and Persian polities).

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Faraday

    Someone relay to David that it’s “Magna Carta” not “The Magna Carta” please.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      Can’t we all just be pleased he didn’t pronounce it Mayna Carta ;)

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Faraday

        You have a good point 😉

        It could’ve been far, far worse.

        Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    KP

    Judge got pipes!

    Collapse
Load More