Sunday Funday: Colbert, Affirmative Action and the Ballad of Cliven Bundy

Sunday Funday: Colbert, Affirmative Action and the Ballad of Cliven Bundy

This edition of Sunday Funday is the first two segments of the most recent episode of the Colbert Report.  Colbert discusses race in two contexts.  First, he discusses the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling.  Second, Colbert singing “The Ballad of Cliven Bundy,” the  Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy who stood up to the federal government . . .  by refusing to pay grazing fees and subsequently gave his thoughts on “the Negro” who, he ponders” might be “better off as slaves, picking cotton.”

This post was originally published on the SLACE Archive.  For more public policy related video/audio, be sure to check out the SLACE Archive for daily podcast recommendations.

Sunday Funday: Colbert, Affirmative Action and the Ballad of Cliven Bundy

Sunday Funday: Colbert, Affirmative Action and the Ballad of Cliven Bundy

This edition of Sunday Funday is the first two segments of the most recent episode of the Colbert Report.  Colbert discusses race in two contexts.  First, he discusses the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling.  Second, Colbert singing “The Ballad of Cliven Bundy,” the  Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy who stood up to the federal government . . .  by refusing to pay grazing fees and subsequently gave his thoughts on “the Negro” who, he ponders” might be “better off as slaves, picking cotton.” 

Sunday Funday: Colbert, Affirmative Action and the Ballad of Cliven Bundy

Sunday Funday: Colbert, Affirmative Action and the Ballad of Cliven Bundy

This edition of Sunday Funday is the first two segments of the most recent episode of the Colbert Report.  Colbert discusses race in two contexts.  First, he discusses the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling.  Second, Colbert singing “The Ballad of Cliven Bundy,” the  Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy who stood up to the federal government . . .  by refusing to pay grazing fees and subsequently gave his thoughts on “the Negro” who, he ponders” might be “better off as slaves, picking cotton.” 

“Wild Justice”: A History of the Death Penalty in America

“Wild Justice”: A History of the Death Penalty in America

Last month, NPR’s Fresh Air featured an interview with Evan Mandery, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a former capital defense attorney, about his new book–A Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America. The interview reflected the book’s title, explaining the strange and fascinating history of the death penalty in the United States. From backroom Supreme Court deals to Mandery’s argument that the death penalty is random and lacks deterrent value, this interview is worth a listen for anyone interested in the death penalty or criminal law.

Here is the introduction to the interview:

In the mid-1970s, Arkansas’ electric chair was being used by the prison barber to cut hair, and the execution chamber in New Hampshire was being used to store vegetables. That’s because in 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court shocked the nation by striking down Georgia’s death penalty law, effectively ending executions in the United States. But the decision provoked a strong backlash among those who favored the death penalty, and within four years the high court reversed course and issued a set of rulings that would permit the resumption of executions.

Evan Mandery, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a former capital defense attorney, has written a new account of the tumultuous legal and political battles over the death penalty. Mandery is sympathetic to those who tried to outlaw capital punishment, but his account focuses on attorneys for both sides in the battle, as well as the views and deliberations of the justices who decided the cases. His book is called A Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America.

A Wild Justice
A Wild Justice

The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America

by Evan J. Mandery

Tushnet and Eskridge on Same-Sex Marriage Cases

Tushnet and Eskridge on Same-Sex Marriage Cases

On the most recent episode of Lawyer2Lawyer,

hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams will talk with Constitutional Law Professors Mark Tushnet and William Eskridge about what the history of both the gay rights and the civil rights movements have to say for the future of gay rights in America.

• Harvard Law Professor Mark Tushnet specializes in constitutional law and theory, with a focus in examining the practice of judicial review in the U.S. and worldwide. He has served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. Currently, his focus is in constitutional history and the development of civil liberties. He is known for his critical and controversial analysis of Supreme Court rulings, including Brown v. The Board of Education and Roe v. Wade.

• William Eskridge, Yale Law Professor, focuses in statutory interpretation. He represented a same-sex-married couple from 1990-1995 who sued for recognition of their marriage and has published many books covering the political framework of gay rights. The historical component of his book GayLaw was the basis of an amicus brief he drafted for the Cato Institute and for much of the Court’s (and dissenting opinion’s) analysis in Lawrence vs. Texas, the decision which made same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state.