David Stras, appeals judge for the 8th Circuit, shares his insights on Supreme Court dynamics with Sarah Isgur and David French. They delve into the decline in cases reviewed by the Court and the implications of recent rulings, including a denial of Trump’s request. Stras discusses the role of bias response teams in universities and reflects on the impact of his grandparents' Holocaust experiences on his views of free speech. The conversation highlights the evolving landscape of judicial decision-making and the importance of clarity in legal opinions.
The evolution of the Supreme Court's case selection reflects a decline in the number of cases heard and highlights the significance of the cert pool theory.
Judge Stras emphasizes how his grandparents' experiences as Holocaust survivors profoundly influence his judicial philosophy, particularly regarding free speech and individual rights.
The discussion about bias response teams raises important questions about the balance between addressing offensive speech and protecting constitutional rights on college campuses.
Deep dives
Rothko Art and Campus Lifes
The discussion begins with an exploration of Mark Rothko's art and its profound impact on reflection and meditation. The hosts reflect on their experiences at the University of Chicago, with Sarah reminiscing about her time on campus and her unique pronunciation missteps regarding local restaurant names. This light-hearted exchange highlights the cultural nuances that come with attending a prestigious institution, setting the stage for deeper conversations about various legal topics. Additionally, the art serves as a metaphor for contemplation, mirroring the intellectual endeavors pursued in a legal educational environment.
Recent Supreme Court Opinions
The conversation shifts towards recent significant Supreme Court opinions, particularly focusing on water pollution regulations and cases surrounding the death penalty. The hosts express excitement about Judge Barbara Lagoa’s concurrence, displaying their growing interest in her judicial philosophy. They also touch upon a notable case involving prevailing parties and the complexities surrounding legal definitions of a prevailing party in injunctions. This sets the groundwork for discussing upcoming oral arguments that deal with issues of gun violence and employment discrimination, showcasing the diversity of cases currently on the docket.
The Cert Grant Process
Attention moves to the Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari on a double jeopardy case involving convictions for murder and a firearm violation. The discussion emphasizes the Blockburger test, which determines if offenses are sufficiently distinct to allow separate punishments. Judge Sarah and David delve into the nuances of this test, including the interpretation of lesser included offenses within the legal framework. This highlights a critical aspect of judicial decision-making, where the subtleties of law can lead to significant implications for sentencing and individual rights.
Bias Response Teams and Legal Challenges
The podcast further explores the concept of bias response teams created by universities to address potentially offensive speech. The hosts discuss the implications of punitive measures versus educational approaches to handling biased incidents, questioning whether mandatory educational sessions equate to punishment. The debate centers around whether students who feel chilled by the prospect of such teams even have standing to sue. This leads to a broader conversation about the judiciary's role in navigating the complexities of constitutionally protected free speech on college campuses.
Judicial Experiences and Influences
Judge David Strauss shares his personal experiences, reflecting on the profound impact his grandparents, Holocaust survivors, had on his perspective as a judge. He discusses how their stories of suffering and resilience shaped his views on the First Amendment and the importance of free speech. This candid reflection allows listeners to appreciate the human elements behind judicial decision-making and the values that inform judges' interpretations of the law. The conversation reveals the deep connections between personal history, cultural legacy, and professional responsibilities within the legal arena.
David Stras, appeals judge for the 8th Circuit, joins Sarah Isgur and David French at the University of Chicago Law School to discuss complexities of case selection in the Supreme Court, the quality and clarity of judicial opinions, and disagreements with Justice Clarence Thomas.
Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings, click here.
