درباره این اپیزود
Justice is often depicted as a blind woman who holds an evenly balanced scale as it is meant to reflect that justice is supposed to be dispensed impartially and to all members of society. Of course, within American hegemony is a popular myth that judiciaries are impartial arbiters of constitution and constitutionality. Today, attorney Christopher Dilworth joins us in a two-part episode to debunk this myth while explaining the history of the US judiciary.
Show Notes
2:10: What do Lawyers do? Nuance-Cuck
3:20 - Law is not a vehicle to change the world.
4:04 - Supreme Court, a bullwark against change
5:30 - Streamlining straight to the Supreme Court
6:54 - Hammer v. Dagenhart
10:56 - IG Farben and Zyklon B with Neal Kayal
13:34 - Atkins v Children’s Hospital: Minimum wage conflicts with Due Process
15:22 - Scalia’s anti-intellectualness
17:17 - “Originalism”
18:15 - Qualified Immunity
20:18 - Civil Asset Forfeiture
22:30 - Police have no constitutional duty to protect and serve
24:14 - Christopher Dilworth’s personal experience with the police
28:20 - Esha’s Experience with the Russian Police
29:24 - Janet’s Story with the Police
37:02 - Legalized Sadism
44:53 - Government’s involvement in bringing drugs - Gary Webb
48:04 - Three Strikes
Christopher Dilworth can be found on Twitter
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.historicly.net/subscribe
