Posts

Posted on

SCOTUScast - Sheriff v. Gillie – Post-Decision SCOTUScast

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Sheriff v. Gillie. This case involves litigation between debtors to Ohio institutions and special counsel who sought to collect money owed to the institutions. Two questions were before the Supreme Court: (1) Do special counsel appointed by Ohio’s Attorney General qualify as “state officers” exempt from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s (FDCPA) governance? (2) Is special counsel’s use of the Attorney General’s letterhead a false or misleading representation proscribed by FDCPA §1692e? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that special counsel were independent contractors who could not claim an FDCPA exemption and remanded the case for trial on the deceptiveness issue. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit and remanded the case. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ginsburg explained that--even assuming for the sake of argument special counsel do not rank as “state officers”--their use of the Attorney General’s letterhead did not offend §1692e. Not fairly described as “false” or “misleading,” the use of the letterhead accurately conveyed that special counsel, in seeking to collect debts owed to the State, do so on behalf of, and as instructed by the Attorney General. -- To discuss the case, we have Jennifer L. Mascott, who is an Olin/Searle Fellow in Law at Georgetown University Law Center.
Posted on

New Books in Native American Studies - Andrew Woolford, “This Benevolent Experiment” (U of Nebraska Press, 2015)

I grew up in Michigan, in the United States, where I was surrounded by places named with Native American names. I drove to Saginaw to play in basketball tournaments and to Pontiac to watch an NBA team play. Now in Kansas, I live near towns called Kiowa and Cherokee. But for much of my life, despite my profession as an historian, names like these were just background noise in the everyday reality of my life, not reminders of the fact that Native Americans have lived in and with the presence of settlers for centuries.

Andrew Woolford has done much to help me recognize and understand this. Woolford is one of the preeminent scholars on the relationship between “natives” and settlers in the United States and Canada. He is also one of the most thoughtful voices in considering whether this relationship should be called genocidal.

In my discussion with him, we tried to get at the essence of his ideas by looking at three of his works. We begin with the volume of essays he co-edited with Alexander Hinton and Jeff Benvenuto, titled Colonial Genocide in Indigenous North America. The book collects the contributions of a variety of authors researching the issue. The essays generally offer focused examinations of specific issues of events. But the editors also offer valuable reflections on what we know and don’t know about the subject. It’s an outstanding resource for people interested in the question broadly. We then move on to Woolford’s own work, titled This Benevolent Experiment:Indigenous Boarding Schools, Genocide, and Redress in Canada and the United States (University of Nebraska Press, 2015).The book is a wonderful examination of the Indigenous school systems in Canada and the United States in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Woolford extracts from his research a wonderful new metaphor to illustrate the way in which genocide worked in North America, one that has much broader utility in the field. And he offers a careful, well-reasoned explanation for why he thinks genocide is indeed the most appropriate term for the cultural and physical violent that characterized the period. Both books are excellent.

Finally, while we didn’t have much time to address it specifically, Woolford edited a recent special edition of the Journal of Genocide Research focusing on the topic. It’s also a rich source of information and insight.

Put together, the three works offer perhaps the best way into the growing field of genocide studies in North America.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/native-american-studies

Posted on

SCOTUScast - Woods v. Etherton – Post-Decision SCOTUScast

On April 4, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Woods v. Etherton without oral argument. -- Timothy Etherton was convicted in Michigan state court of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. His efforts to obtain post-conviction relief in state court--which related to his lawyer’s failure to raise a Confrontation Clause objection to the admission into evidence of the anonymous tip that led to his arrest--were rejected. A federal district court also rejected Etherton’s subsequent attempt to obtain federal habeas relief, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed that judgment. Etherton’s appellate counsel had been constitutionally ineffective, the Sixth Circuit concluded, and no fairminded jurist could conclude otherwise. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit in a per curiam opinion issued without oral argument. Without reaching the Sixth Circuit’s holding that counsel had been constitutionally ineffective, the Supreme Court indicated that the Sixth Circuit had failed to apply the appropriate, deferential standard of review required under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. With that in mind the Supreme Court explained, it would not be objectively unreasonable for a fair-minded judge to conclude that counsel’s failure to raise a Confrontation Clause objection to admission of the anonymous tip was due not to incompetence, but because the facts in the tip were uncontested and in any event consistent with Etherton’s defense. -- To discuss the case, we have Ronald Eisenberg, who is Deputy District Attorney, Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office.
Posted on

The Goods from the Woods - Episode #92 – “Basketball” with Matthew Burnside

In this episode, Matthew Burnside from the absolutely great podcast "This is Rad!" is here to talk about one of his favorite subjects: BASKETBALL! An Ohio native, Matthew is really high on Lebron James right now and for good reason! We talk about the ongoing NBA finals and also about what the new 'Space Jam' reboot is going to look like. We also briefly touch on Matt's distant relative, Civil War Union General Ambrose Burnside. This is a great episode even if you don't like basketball (don't worry, neither does Rivers). Follow Matthew on Twitter @MatthewBurnside.  Song of the week this week: "Holda You (I'm A Psycho)" by White Denim.  You can follow us on Twitter: @TheGoodsPod  Rivers is @RiversLangley  Dr. Pat is @PM_Reilly  Mr. Goodnight is @SepulvedaCowboy 

Posted on

Start the Week - Hay Festival: Spooks, war and genocide

Start the Week is at Hay Literary Festival this week discussing war and intelligence. Michael Hayden is a former Air Force four-star general who became director of the US National Security Agency and then the CIA. He talks to Tom Sutcliffe about the decisions made during America's war on terror: from rendition and interrogation to widespread surveillance. Harry Parker was in his twenties when he signed up to join the British Army - he uses the paraphernalia and weaponry of war to tell the story of conflict; while the journalist Janine di Giovanni reports on ordinary people caught up in the fighting in Syria. The human rights lawyer Philippe Sands looks back at his own family's history to make sense of crimes against humanity. Producer: Katy Hickman.

Posted on

Start the Week - Hay Festival: Spooks, war and genocide

Start the Week is at Hay Literary Festival this week discussing war and intelligence. Michael Hayden is a former Air Force four-star general who became director of the US National Security Agency and then the CIA. He talks to Tom Sutcliffe about the decisions made during America's war on terror: from rendition and interrogation to widespread surveillance. Harry Parker was in his twenties when he signed up to join the British Army - he uses the paraphernalia and weaponry of war to tell the story of conflict; while the journalist Janine di Giovanni reports on ordinary people caught up in the fighting in Syria. The human rights lawyer Philippe Sands looks back at his own family's history to make sense of crimes against humanity. Producer: Katy Hickman.