ND professor speaks on NPR about Supreme Court

IL Staff
January 1, 2007
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 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.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.