After Words
After Words
Jan 16, 2021
Adam Jentleson, "Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy"
Play • 1 hr 1 min

Adam Jentleson, who was deputy chief of staff for former Democratic Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), argues that the modernization of the Senate is damaging American democracy. He’s interviewed by Wall Street Journal congressional reporter Kristina Peterson.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit

Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast
Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast
Legal Talk Network
Imminent Lawless Action
In 1919, The US Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States established the rule that if words create a "clear and present danger" to incite criminal activity or violence, the government has the right to prevent and punish that speech. For nearly fifty years, through wars and the Red Scare, that rule was applied largely without question. Then, in the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, a white supremacist in Ohio, convicted for an inflammatory speech at a Klan rally, challenged his conviction saying it violated his First Amendment rights...and the Court agreed. A new test was born which has lasted for now more than 50 years. But, having been formulated in an era of much more limited media, does it still hold up today? In this episode of Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast from, host Ken White explores how the First Amendment has handled inflammatory speech, from Schenck to the current Brandenburg standard and all the way up to today. With the help of Professors David Cunningham and Richard Wilson, Ken digs into what makes the “imminent lawless action” test of Brandenburg such an important turning point in First Amendment law but also investigates whether the proliferation of online communication necessitates a renewed look at the standards set out in a “simpler” time. Professor David Cunningham is professor and Chair of Sociology at Washington University in St. Louis. Professor Richard Wilson is the Gladstein Distinguished Chair of Human Rights and Professor of Law and Anthropology at UConn School of Law.
34 min
The Gaggle: An Arizona politics podcast
The Gaggle: An Arizona politics podcast
The Arizona Republic and
How Republicans are leveraging the debate over school reopenings to expand school vouchers
Two years ago, Arizona voters rejected a GOP law to expand the state’s school voucher-style program. Despite that rejection, and against the backdrop of at-home learning in the era of the pandemic, Arizona’s Republicans are once again trying to dramatically expand the program.  This year, the Arizona Senate voted not just to expand the voucher system. In fact, SB 1452 is even larger than the expansion that was repealed by voters. Under the proposed legislation, two thirds of Arizona’s 1.1 million public-school students would qualify for the program, which lets parents spend public money on private and religious schooling.  The bill comes as many parents are frustrated following months of at-home education or hybrid learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Republicans are leveraging that frustration to advocate for private schools, many of which have re-opened for in-person learning to some degree. In this week’s episode of The Gaggle: An Arizona politics podcast, host Yvonne Wingett Sanchez and Ronald J. Hansen talk to education reporter Lily Altavena and data reporter Rob O’Dell about the politics of school re-opening and school vouchers. The team discusses where in-person education stands in Arizona, what Republicans are proposing and how that would shape education for students and parents alike.
30 min
The Federalist Society
Undue Delay or Due Process? Does the Due Process Clause Require a Prompt Post-Seizure Hearing When the Government Seizes an Individual’s Pro
The Institute for Justice (IJ) has filed a petition for certiorari in Serrano v. CPB, asking the Court: “When the government seizes a vehicle for civil forfeiture, does due process require a prompt post-seizure hearing to test the legality of the seizure and continued detention of the vehicle pending the final forfeiture trial?” As Gerardo Serrano was driving his Ford F-250 truck across the U.S.-Mexico border, CBP agents searched the vehicle and found five .380 caliber bullets and one .380 caliber magazine in the center console. Gerardo explained that he had a valid concealed carry permit in his home state of Kentucky; he had simply forgotten the bullets and magazine were in the truck. CBP seized Gerardo’s truck for civil forfeiture on the ground that he had attempted to export “munitions of war.” Gerardo asked CBP for a hearing before a judge, but CBP held his truck for over two years without a hearing. Our expert panelists disagree on many of the principal issues of the case: Was Mr. Serrano entitled to a hearing promptly after his vehicle was seized? Is the current forfeiture hearing process and timeline consistent with due process and originalism? Will the Court take this case and what should they decide? On the call to discuss these fascinating questions and more is IJ attorney, Rob Johnson, Mr. Serrano’s lead attorney, and two of the leading experts on civil-asset forfeiture in the country today, Stef Cassella and David Smith. Featuring: -- Stef Cassella, CEO, Asset Forfeiture Law, LLC -- Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice -- David Smith, David B. Smith, PLLC -- Moderator: Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Institute for Justice
1 hr 2 min
We the People
We the People
National Constitution Center
Arizona Election Rules at SCOTUS
On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. The case centers on two of Arizona’s election rules: 1. Arizona does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct and 2. its ballot-collection law permits only certain persons (family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers, and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot. The DNC challenged the rules, arguing that both discriminate against racial minorities in Arizona. On appeal, the Supreme Court will consider whether both policies violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965—which prohibits nationally any election laws or policies that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color”—and whether the second violates the 15th Amendment—which states that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Chris Kieser of Pacific Legal Foundation, who wrote a brief in support of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, and Sean Morales-Doyle of the Brennan Center, who wrote a brief in support of the DNC, explore the case and its potential implications in conversation with Jeffrey Rosen. Resources and transcript available at Questions or comments about the show? Email us at
55 min
Short Circuit
Short Circuit
Institute for Justice
Short Circuit 163 | The Law of Johnny 5 Is Alive
For once living up to the 1980s-movie-sense of our name, we’re talking about robots. How should the law treat robots? What do we analogize to, the law of traditional machines? Animals? Something else? How should that law be “made,” by courts or by legislatures? And how does the Constitution interact with artificial intelligence? When a robot writes a novel is it “speech?” In a special Short Circuit, we look into all of these questions with our guest Ed Walters, founder and CEO of Fastcase, and an adjunct professor who teaches robot and artificial intelligence law at Georgetown Law School. Transcript: Copyrighting all the melodies to avoid accidental-infringement, I, Robot, Ed Walters: Anthony Sanders: iTunes: Spotify: Stitcher: Google: Newsletter: Want to email us?
52 min
Clear search
Close search
Google apps
Main menu