1.6M
Downloads
251
Episodes
Professor Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University and one of the nation's leading authorities on the Constitution, offers weekly in-depth discussions on the most urgent and fascinating constitutional issues of our day. He is joined by co-host Andy Lipka and guests drawn from other top experts including Bob Woodward, Nina Totenberg, Neal Katyal, Lawrence Lessig, Michael Gerhardt, and many more.
Episodes
Tuesday Aug 05, 2025
Tuesday Aug 05, 2025
We continue our discussion of the deep issues raised in the case of US v. Skrmetti. Last time we observed the Court wrestling with questions of whether the Tennessee law banning gender dysphoria treatments in minors was a form of sex discrimination. Later in the argument the Court addressed the question of whether transgender individuals, or some related group, constituted a so-called “suspect classification” and therefore laws purporting to affect that group would be subject to close examination (“Scrutiny”) by the Court. In this episode we listen, and react to, those arguments as the Court itself did. Professor Vik Amar returns to join Akhil in this task, and rightly so, since the “brothers in law” have written several recent posts on the deep questions raised by this and other recent cases. This has resulted in a new unifying theory which they begin to articulate in this episode. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.
3 months ago
I was intrigued by your reference to Louis Lusky and the famous Footnote 4. I was in my first year at Columbia Law School when he joined the faculty, and I took Contracts from him. He presented as a “country lawyer,” very different from the other professors, and he wasn’t a polished classroom teacher. Later I learned that he argued Thompson v City of Louisville, holding that a conviction based on NO EVIDENCE violated due process. Do you have a view on that case?
3 months ago
Hmm, there must be a filter that deletes some words. In my text above, kids grow out of the phase or grow up guy (u=a). And the ‘change’ I mention twice is their six (i =e). So, don’t deceive kids that the can change their six and, Akhil said that people can change their six.
3 months ago
Hi folks, thanks for an interesting discussion. Two observations: 1. If schizophrenia really is not immutable, as Andy said, it is a good parallel to trans identity, as many people desist before medicalisation or, tragically, afterwards. The latter group appears to be substantial in size and are left permanently scarred mentally and physically. A girl who takes testosterone doesn’t lose the the deeper voice , body hair or receding hairline if she stops taking it. 2. Akhil mentioned stereotypes but gets it the wrong way round. These who promote the transing of kids claim (and will brook no objection) that a boy who is not stereotypically male, for example one who likes girls clothes, makeup etc, is *actually* a girl and must therefore be socially and later medically transitioned. And similarly that tomboy girls are *actually* boys. They promote this despite it being known that most such kids grow out of this phase or grow up . The sensible and kind thing to do would be just to let them break the stereotype and not to deceive them that they can actually change . 3. I think Akhil said that people can change , not just gender. Maybe this was accidental and he didn’t intend to make such a bold claim. Andy’s medical background and Akhil’s common sense must tell you that this isn’t really so. However much a girl or boy is modified surgically and chemically she or he is never going to change the gametes her or his body is meant to produce (though they’ll very possibly become sterile).