ILNews

ND professor speaks on NPR about Supreme Court

IL Staff
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Among Chief Justice John Roberts' first full term highlights were a number of decisions on race and public schools, free speech, and abortion. Richard W. Garnett, the John Cardinal O'Hara, CSC associate professor of law at Notre Dame University participated in a discussion with two other leading U.S. Supreme Court watchers in front of a live audience at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

The July 10 event analyzed highlights of the latest term of the Supreme Court and addressed the question, "How has the new conservative majority affected the court?" The 51-minute program aired on National Public Radio's "Justice Talking" and is available on the Web at http://www.justicetalking.org/viewprogram.asp?progID=612. A follow-up question and answer session is also available for download from the Web site.

Other speakers were Supreme Court reporter for ABC News Jan Crawford Greenburg, and Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago.

Garnett's areas of research interest and expertise include school choice, church/state relations, free speech and expressive association, federalism and criminal law, and the death penalty. He previously clerked for Chief Judge Richard S. Arnold of the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Greenburg is the author of "Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court," published this year. Previously she was the Chicago Tribune's national legal affairs reporter, where she won the paper's top reporting award for her coverage of the 2000 presidential election.

Stone is the Harry Kalven Jr. Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. He is the author of "War and Liberty: An American Dilemma and Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime," which received eight national book awards. He is a member of the American Constitution Society Board of Directors.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT