Last week I posted about a new podcast series I've started running. Now there is another.<\/p>\n
Professor Dan Epps and I have just launched a new podcast on the Supreme Court, called Divided Argument. We describe it as \"an unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast.\" We won't make any promises to keep to a weekly schedule or cover every round of Supreme Court arguments or decisions, but we'll drop new episodes when we feel like we have something to say, and I suspect we'll have plenty to say over the next few weeks. And hopefully you'll find that we don't adhere to any particular party line.<\/p>\n
I realize that not everybody likes to spend time listening to podcasts, which I understand. (Actually, I don't completely, but maybe they spend less time running errands or doing housework than I do.) But it gives me a different format for talking through lots of things about the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
Our first two episodes are a two-part discussion of the Supreme Court's \"shadow docket,\" something I wrote about eight years ago in an article that was in turn drawn from many reflections from blogging here, and which has been in the news a lot lately:<\/p>\n
Episode 1, Normal Procedural Regularity<\/p>\n
Episode 2, Woke To The Trend<\/p>\n
Our third episode discusses yesterday's Supreme Court decisions, especially the important habeas opinions in Edwards v. Vannoy, as well as the Fourth Amendment decision in Caniglia v. Strom:<\/p>\n
Episode 3, Grandma's House of Vice<\/p>\n
I hope you enjoy, and feel free to leave feedback in the comments or send it along to pod@dividedargument.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Read more: Last week I posted about a new podcast series I've started running. Now there is another. Professor Dan Epps and I have just launched a new podcast on the Supreme Court, called Divided Argument Continue reading
\nMy New Divided Argument Podcast Reason.com - Reason<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"