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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT