30 episodes

Supreme Court dissents have it all: brilliant writing, surprising reasoning, shade, puns, and sometimes historic impact. Although they are necessarily written by the "losing" side, they’re still important: they can provide a roadmap for future challenges or persuade other justices. Sometimes they're just cathartic. 
 
In Dissed, attorneys Anastasia Boden and Elizabeth Slattery dig deep into important dissents, both past and present, and reveal the stories behind them. 
Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal 
 
Email us at Dissed@pacificlegal.org



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dissed Pacific Legal Foundation

    • Government
    • 4.9 • 130 Ratings

Supreme Court dissents have it all: brilliant writing, surprising reasoning, shade, puns, and sometimes historic impact. Although they are necessarily written by the "losing" side, they’re still important: they can provide a roadmap for future challenges or persuade other justices. Sometimes they're just cathartic. 
 
In Dissed, attorneys Anastasia Boden and Elizabeth Slattery dig deep into important dissents, both past and present, and reveal the stories behind them. 
Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal 
 
Email us at Dissed@pacificlegal.org



See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

    Six Trials, Seventy-Two Jurors, and One Supreme Court Dissent

    Six Trials, Seventy-Two Jurors, and One Supreme Court Dissent

    In 1996, someone murdered four people in a furniture store in a small town in Mississippi. A year later, Curtis Flowers was convicted of the crime, but the verdict was overturned based on prosecutorial misconduct. The state tried Mr. Flowers again, resulting in another appeal, and yet another reversal. In all, the state would try Flowers six times, with the last conviction making its way to the Supreme Court. While the majority ruled that the state had systematically excluded jurors based on the race, Justice Thomas wrote in dissent that prosecutors should be able to exclude whomever they want, for whatever reason they choose.
    Thanks to our guests Sheri Lynn Johnson and Stephen Bright. And thanks to Benjamin Sachrison for research assistance.
    Follow us on Twitter @anastasia_esq @ehslattery @pacificlegal #DissedPod

    See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

    • 37 min
    BONUS: A Dog's Breakfast

    BONUS: A Dog's Breakfast

    In this bonus episode, the ladies discuss the most highly anticipated case of the Supreme Court’s term: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Center, overruling Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion. The ladies dig into other rulings involving the Second Amendment, a praying football coach, and school choice in Maine. Plus, stay tuned for a double dose of “Name that dissent!”
    Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!
    Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal
    Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org

    See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

    • 38 min
    Will the Real Tone Dougie Please Stand Down

    Will the Real Tone Dougie Please Stand Down

    This is the story of Tone Dougie, an aspiring rapper who posted rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife and blowing up an FBI agent. Tone Dougie says he didn't intend to threaten anyone and was simply inspired by Eminem. But the federal government saw things differently and prosecuted him for making “true threats.” His case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where only one justice dissented. Were Tone Dougie’s posts protected speech or criminal threats? Tune in to find out!
    Thanks to our guests Adam Liptak and John Elwood. Special thanks to our longtime editor John Carter for his rap portrayal of Tone Dougie.
    Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod

    See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

    • 31 min
    BONUS: And Bingo Was His Name-o

    BONUS: And Bingo Was His Name-o

    In this bonus episode, the ladies discuss an exciting cert grant and the Supreme Court’s recent opinions and dissents related to the Double Jeopardy Clause, bingo, and Indian tribes. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!”
    Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!
    Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal
    Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org

    See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

    • 24 min
    Thurgood Marshall and the Machinery of Death

    Thurgood Marshall and the Machinery of Death

    In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment was being “so wantonly and so freakishly imposed” that it was “cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual.” But just four years later, the Court reversed course---ruling that with new procedures in place, states could continue executions without running afoul of the Eighth Amendment. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote an impassioned dissent arguing that the death penalty is cruel and unusual under any circumstances. After hearing his experiences as a defense attorney in the South, it’s easy to understand why.
    Thanks to our guests John Stinneford and Mark Tushnet.
    Follow us on Twitter @anastasia_esq @ehslattery @pacificlegal #DissedPod

    See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

    • 38 min
    BONUS: Which Case Should SCOTUS Overturn?

    BONUS: Which Case Should SCOTUS Overturn?

    In this bonus episode, four guests joined us to make the case for why the Supreme Court should overrule Chevron v. NRDC, Kelo v. City of New London, Wickard v. Filburn, or the Slaughterhouse Cases. Hear the arguments and then YOU decide. Cast your vote in the Twitter poll posted by @CaseyMattox_.
    Thanks to our guests Daniel Dew, Ilya Somin, Josh Blackman, and Clark Neily. Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod

    See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

    • 15 min

Customer Reviews

4.9 out of 5
130 Ratings

130 Ratings

libertarian Man ,

Enlightening

Really enjoy the episodes and the hosts. Educational and entertaining.

ChicJD ,

Outstanding

The episodes are wonderfully written to concisely explain complex issues. The hosts have insightful, smart remarks. The pace is perfect to keep things interesting. The audio clips of the Justices are great; and I love the efficient use of audio clips of guests/commentators. I’m so glad I found this podcast. It’s so well done.

Keep up the excellent work!

LutherCorp ,

SCOTUS Contrarian View

If your a follower of the nation’s highest court, this is a great addition to your podcast lineup. Hearing the argument against some of the most famous decisions, many of which have now become common belief, gives you a window into the viewpoint of some of the most important people in the nation.

Top Podcasts In Government

Sharon McMahon
The Lawfare Institute
Crooked Media
WORLD Radio
CBS News Radio
Roman Mars

You Might Also Like

Will Baude, Dan Epps
Akhil Reed Amar
The Reason Rundown With Peter Suderman
The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
Cato Institute
The Reason Roundtable