.png)
Summarily - A Podcast for Busy Lawyers
You're a busy lawyer. Whether trying to hit your billables, being stuck on endless conference calls, or waiting in a crowded courtroom for your case to be called, you don’t have time to stay informed about legal developments important to your practice. Summarily is the podcast for you. Summarily offer caselaw updates, CLEs (Florida), practice tips, and insightful legal commentary.
Pop in your ear buds and tune in. Summarily has you covered.
Listen. Enjoy. Subscribe. Share.
If you have questions, suggestions, or comments please e-mail summarilypod@gmail.com.
DISCLAIMER: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided in this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Summarily - A Podcast for Busy Lawyers
(Thanos, J., dissenting)
Constitutional adjudication is not a "Cosmic Battle" of good versus evil between Ironman and Thanos. "Judges are not superheroes," and constitutional cases should be decided dispassionately, with an appreciation that judges or justices who disagree usually do so in good faith and for valid legal reasons. But "some judges [and justices] have confused their role with that of the Avengers." When they disagree with their colleagues, they sometimes claim that the "other side" is acting in bad faith or in ways that are illegitimate. Such ad hominem attacks, while rhetorically appealing and perhaps true in some cases, do not bolster the legal analysis. They do, however, undermine the legitimacy of the courts, and judges and justices should not engage in such wars.
This is the thesis of Professor H. Jefferson Powell's article - Judges as Superheroes: The Danger of Confusing Constitutional Decisions with Cosmic Battles. He joins me to discuss how some judges and justices use rhetoric as a weapon against colleagues who disagree with them, and how doing so is harmful to institutional legitimacy.
Professor Powell teaches Constitutional and First Amendment law at the Duke University School of Law. His latest book is The Practice Of Constitutional Law. He holds a bachelor’s degree from St. David’s University College (now Trinity St. David) of the University of Wales; a master’s degree and PhD from Duke University; and a Master’s of Divinity and JD from Yale University. Prior to entering academia almost 4 decades ago, Professor Powell clerked for Judge Sam J. Ervin III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Opinions and writings discussed:
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., USSC (2022).
McDougall v. Cnty. of Ventura, 9th Cir. (2022).
SisterSong v. Gov. of Georgia, 11th Cir. (2022).
Manning v. Caldwell, 4th Cir. (2019).
Robert's LinkedIn article about Chief Judge William Pryor's opinion in SisterSong.
In Praise of Doubt: How to Have Convictions Without Becoming a Fanatic
