Fast on the heels of her last appearance, Carissa Hessick joins us to talk about corpus linguistics, which means... well, we debate this, but, generally, the use of computer-based methods to draw inferences from large databases of texts. What is this enterprise? How can and should it be used to answer legal questions? What does it mean to mean something? These questions, thunder, sense, nonsense, and a continued delving into Joe's pscyhe all feature in this episode. Carissa Hessick’s...

At long last, we discuss originalism with one of its foremost proponents, Lawrence Solum. In this conversation, we focus on Larry's recent effort to identify what constitutes originalism as a category of interpretive theories and what distinguishes it from other theories, including living constitutionalism. This episode's links: Larry Solum's faculty profile and writing Legal Theory Blog (see also Larry's very helpful Legal Theory Lexicon) Lawrence Solum, Originalism versus Living...

After discussion of failing memory, mispronunciation of names, and legal scholarship, we turn to a very serious topic with our guest, Eric Kades. The looming threat of dynastic wealth in the United States has been much discussed since, and even before, the publication of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century. We discuss Piketty's now-famous inequality, r > g, how certain legal rules handled the building of perpetual dynasties, the attack on those rules during the...

Just Joe and Christian talking about, inter alia, a paper about judicial writing and practice by the late Judge Wald. Live to tape and shipped without editing. Buyer beware! Patricia Wald, The Rhetoric of Results and the Results of Rhetoric: Judicial Writings

Kim Krawiec rejoins us to discuss "repugnant" transactions. One common target of this adjective is trade in human body parts. While on the one hand making more matching kidneys available saves lives and prevents large amounts of suffering, on the other hand revulsion and concerns about coercion and distributive fairness arise when kidneys are bought and paid for. In recent years, a number of innovative market designs have allowed strangers to exchange kidneys without engaging in impersonal,...

If you were charged with a crime, would you rather it be one written down by a legislature and codified in the tomes of a state's laws or one marked out by the decisions of judges over time? You're hardly alone if you chose the first option, and it is in fact the conventional wisdom that we have rightfully abandoned and prohibited "common law crimes." Not so fast, says our guest, Carissa Hessick. Our system of criminal law is still host to a good deal of common law, in the interstices of...

Jocelyn Simonson returns to the show to wake us up to the many public interests on both sides (and no sides and all sides) in criminal cases. We discuss whether prosecutors are synonymous with "the People" and how a broader conception of "the People's" interests in criminal adjudication might suggest more robust public participation in the criminal process. Jocelyn Simonson’s faculty profile and writing Jocelyn Simonson, The Place of "the People" in Criminal Procedure Oral Argument 95: Own...

Exactly five years after our first show, we record a conversation on the ephemeral or perduring nature of podcasts and blogs, dockless scooters and local regulation, and viewer mail.

Brexit, China, international trade, security, distribution, resentment, madness, and coffee with Tim Meyer. Tim Meyer's faculty profile and writing Oral Argument 105: Bismarck’s Raw Material (guest Tim Meyer) Oral Argument 2: Bust a Deal, Face the Wheel (guest Tim Meyer) Timothy Meyer and Ganesh Sitaraman, Trade and the Separation of Powers Nicolas Lamp, How Should We Think about the Winners and Losers from Globalization? Three Narratives and Their Implications for the Redesign of...

Here's your Thanksgiving Holiday episode, perfect for travel and your other holiday needs. If you listen only for law-related content, you'll probably want to skip to 01:17:16, where we somewhat casually discuss the controversy over whether the supposed Acting Attorney General was properly appointed. But we discuss many mailbag-related topics: the California fires and climate change (00:25), politeness and over-decorousness (8:53), how we imagine the mailbag and the miracles of...

Episode 183: West Coast Model (guest Chris Elmendorf) Why is housing so expensive in major West Coast and northeastern cities? Not just more than you might want to pay, but, often, prohibitively expensive with little sign of new supply in areas people want to live. Chris Elmendorf joins us to explain this problem and the limited effectiveness of two types of solutions, the Northeastern and West Coast models. Drawing on the intergovernmental approach of the Voting Rights Act, Chris argues...

The publication of legal scholarship is, compared with that in other academic disciplines, is, well, weird. Almost all legal journals are edited by students, and authors submit to many journals at once. We talk with Scott Dodson about his paper with law student and journal editor Jacob Hirsch. They elaborate a model code of conduct that could easily be implemented and would prevent some of the system's worst pathologies and bad behavior. We also have a little "post-roll." This show’s...

We talk with our colleague Sandy Mayson about the use of algorithms in criminal law decisionmaking - and especially their troubling and difficult to disentangle incorporation of race. From bail to sentencing to policing effort to hiring and admitting to college, we subject different social groups to different risks of erroneous treatment, predicting, for example, that an individual is likely to commit another crime when in fact he or she will not reoffend. What should we do? Reject the use of...

Just Joe and Christian on: listener feedback (01:09), the Supreme Court confirmation crisis and constitutional structure (round one) (08:00), more feedback (17:16), reading glasses (36:10), Apple and Daring Fireball and caring (41:43), peak iPhone (52:34), and the current state of the Kavanaugh nomination, partisanship, and Supreme Court nominations generally (01:01:31).

Joe becomes the guest guest and Mike Madison the guest host, as we talk about Joe's new research into the web of law and what citations tell us about what law means. As one might expect for a show which is ostensibly about legal theory but actually, as all good argunauts know, an extended meditation on Being Joe, this is a very special episode of Oral Argument. This show’s links: Joe Miller's faculty profile and writing Mike Madison’s website, writing, and blog Joseph Miller, Law's...

This week, it's the latest edition of "Things Haven't Always Been Like This". Farah Peterson teaches us about the judges of the early 1800s and their now-strange-seeming institutional world in which judging and legislating were less distinct and more collaborative. This show’s links: Farah Peterson’s faculty profile Farah Peterson, Interpretation as Statecraft: Chancellor Kent and the Collaborative Era of American Statutory Interpretation Dark Sky (blog post) Siddhartha Mukherjee, The...

It's our annual Supreme Court term roundup, with special guest Ian Samuel. We discuss, natch, one case, Carpenter v. United States, which concerns the need for a warrant to get records from cell phone companies concerning the location of your phone. But there's much more, including: hard drive upgrades, the sum total of human writing, audio vs. text for messaging, emojis, AI and grunts, Supreme Court-packing / balancing / restructuring (16:37), what rules of procedure an enlarged Court should...

A full hour of pre-roll before our extended conversation (in the next episode) with Ian Samuel. Opening topics: Words, Joe's new paper, phones and their spam and locations. We argue about how to have an argument. Then we stumble into a psychological typology of judginess and prescriptivism. The heartland of the episode concerns the self, law, death, being and non-being, Joe's youthful fear of blindness, the external and internal point of view, the reality of firehouses, and law as a social...

We're joined by Paul Gowder to discuss the rule of law, private power, and technology. We start, after important discussion of fishing bycatch and speech patterns of the western United States, with Paul's more general thoughts on the rule of law, oligopolies, and equality. Conversation then focuses on the connection between substantive politics and rule of law and principles and then on the role of technology in facilitating collective action, including through Paul's Dr. StrangeContract and...

Just Joe and Christian on a double-album of an episode. Lots of nonsense and a smattering of sense, including: notaries public, international sport and boycotts and drugs, bears and snakes, the Deep South and weather, these days and conversation, a tiny, incomplete dip into the mailbag, the pronunciation of Argunauts, what we should do with our lives, law and neutrality, law as a substitute for war, 2 + 2 = 5 and right and wrong, hard and easy problems, freedom reasoning and the New Lochner,...

The Constitution requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Phrases like "faithful execution" are hardly unique to the constitutional setting. Rather, they have long been signals of both public and private relationships of trust and confidence, relationships that give rise to "fiduciary duties" in law. Ethan Leib and Jed Shugerman argue that the President has fiduciary duties and that these constrain his or her power to pardon and otherwise to act. This...

If we were starting from scratch, as our guest Aziz Huq puts it, how should our constitution deal with criminality by high government officials? We talk about the constitutional designer's perspective, the criminalization of politics, and the politicization of the rule of law. This show’s links: Aziz Huq’s faculty profile and academic writing Aziz Huq, Legal or Political Checks on Apex Criminality: An Essay on Constitutional Design Thomas Ginsburg, Zachary Elkins, and James Melton, The...

Steve Vladeck rejoins us on ... lots of things. Christian returns from a conference abroad, french fries, standing, Iceland, patents and trial by battle, Trump, pronunciation in the Supreme Court and in various American cities, thunder. And then, (at 26:41 if you want to skip to the more serious part) a Dalmazzi update and general speculation about the authorship of pending cases and what's going on in the building. Will the big cases this term - travel ban, redistricting - fizzle like...

We talk with Charles Barzun about what it means to be a legal pragmatist. But first we start with the ending and then talk John Hodgman, the F words (Framers and Founders), the old 2x debate, and finally (at 13:31) about legal pragmatism and its many senses. We connect the topic to interpretation, ethics, the age of our legal asteroid, families, infidelity, rupture, continuity, Justice Souter, quietism agonistes, and more. This show’s links: Charles Barzun’s faculty profile and...

Back with a casual conversation about exams, faculties and their politics, and other random things. This show’s links: None.