Supreme Court dissents have it all: brilliant writing, surprising reasoning, shade, puns, and sometimes historic impact. Although they are necessarily written by the "losing" side, they’re still important: they can provide a roadmap for future challenges or persuade other justices. Sometimes they're just cathartic.
In Dissed, attorneys Anastasia Boden and Elizabeth Slattery dig deep into important dissents, both past and present, and reveal the stories behind them.
Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal
Email us at Dissed@pacificlegal.org (mailto:Dissed@pacificlegal.org)
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy (https://acast.com/privacy) for more information.
Anastasia Boden explores the Declaration of Independence's ideals and their legal evolution in this interview episode of "In Dissent."
19 Jul 2023
Lady Justice Isn’t Blind
Lady Justice is often depicted wearing a blindfold, signifying that judges are neutral arbiters of the law. Unfortunately, thanks for a judicial doctrine known as Chevron deference, the Supreme Court has required judges to peek from behind that metaphorical blindfold and put a thumb on the scale for the most powerful litigant in our nation: the federal government. In a case called Brand X, the Court took Chevron deference to its logical conclusion, allowing agencies to overrule judicial decisions. One dissenter wrote that this was not only bizarre, but it was probably unconstitutional. That view has been picking up steam in the past decade. Next term, the Court will hear a case asking it to overturn Chevron deference.
Thanks for our guests Aditya Bamzai and Jeff Wall.
Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy (https://acast.com/privacy) for more information.
5 Apr 2023
A Ripsnorting Dissent
The government’s deprivation of life, liberty, or property is legitimate only if preceded by certain procedural protections—better known as due process of law. This includes reasonable notice of the rules so citizens can know and follow them. But a 1947 Supreme Court decision gave the burgeoning administrative state the ability to create new rules with retroactive application, through a process known as adjudication. A dissent by Justice Robert Jackson—who was no enemy of the administrative state—lambasted the Court for failing to scrutinize this action.
Thanks to our guests John Barrett and Joe Postell.
Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy (https://acast.com/privacy) for more information.
Reach and audience
Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.
Apple Podcasts (US)
4.9 / 5
151 ratings
Contact Dissed
Guest appearances
Books guests
Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.
Host of Dissed?
Claim your podcast to manage its listing and keep your show details accurate.
Pod Engine is an independent podcast discovery and analytics service and is not affiliated with or endorsed by this podcast. Artwork and show content belong to their owners. Full legal notice.
Explore this show Podcast research with Pod Engine
