Cato Events Podcast

The Cato Institute’s new edited volume, A History of Repeated Injuries, explores simple but profound questions: 250 years after the Declaration of Independence, how successful have we been in escaping tyranny? Are we entirely free of the “injuries and usurpations” of which the Framers complained? Or have modern analogues of old tyrannies crept into our own government, leading to losses of liberty akin to those suffered by the colonists? Four authors of different chapters in the book will discuss these questions with respect to jury rights, taxation, immigration policy, and foreign policy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has long exercised significant authority over broadcast media beyond what is typically tolerated under the First Amendment. Under various chairs and presidential administrations, the FCC has overstretched its authority. Recent actions have drawn particular attention, such as when Chairman Brendan Carr publicly pressured and threatened to punish ABC/​Disney over a comment on Jimmy Kimmel Live. That incident does not exist in isolation, with friction between the commission and broadcasters steadily rising over the past 12 months over myriad issues including the unprecedented early review of ABC’s broadcast licenses. The FCC points to the public interest standard and policies such as news distortion and the equal-time rule to justify its actions.How should such policies be considered in light of today’s media ecosystem and the broader values of free expression? Please join us for an event that will discuss how the FCC’s actions toward broadcast media are affecting free expression, what challenges these actions might face in courts, and how policymakers could prevent such abuse. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What does life on the front lines of criminal justice actually look like—and what can it teach us about the state of American law today? Please join us for a discussion with Randy Barnett on his new memoir, Felony Review: Tales of True Crime and Corruption in Chicago, a gripping behind-the-scenes account of his years as a young prosecutor in the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the recently published No Compulsion in Religion—No Exceptions: Islamic Arguments for Religious Freedom, Cato senior fellow Mustafa Akyol collaborated with a team of international Muslim scholars to articulate a noncoercive vision of Islam. Among the issues addressed in the book are blasphemy laws that restrict free speech in dozens of countries—with Pakistan often regarded as home to some of the most troubling cases.Akyol will discuss the issue with two Pakistani scholars: Husnul Amin, author of the book’s chapter on blasphemy, and Muhammad Khalid Masud, the book’s academic adviser and a distinguished scholar of Islamic law and theology. The three will also explore how a reformist reading of the Qur’an and other Islamic sources can help build a case against blasphemy laws. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Many Americans think they understand today’s Supreme Court: six conservative justices appointed by Republicans, three liberals appointed by Democrats, and predictably partisan outcomes, especially in the “big” cases. But Sarah Isgur, host of the Advisory Opinions podcast, editor of SCOTUSblog, and one of the savviest Court-watchers in the country, is here to tell you that’s wrong.In Last Branch Standing, Isgur argues that the conventional left-right framing fundamentally misconceives how the justices decide questions—not cases!—and that once you understand how they really think, the Court looks far more like a 3–3–3 institution than a 6–3 one. She also takes readers inside the building itself: the personalities, the quirks, the clerk culture, and the institutional dynamics that shape outcomes far more than partisan affiliation alone.Isgur’s account of the Court’s role in our current constitutional moment is equally illuminating. With Congress having largely abdicated its lawmaking responsibilities, presidents of both parties have rushed to fill the resulting policy vacuum through executive action—often setting themselves on a collision course with SCOTUS. And while the shadow docket creates a misleading impression of unremitting executive branch success, the full picture of how the current administration actually fares before the Court may surprise you.Join us for a conversation with Sarah Isgur about what may be the last constitutionally functioning branch of American government. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.