June 11, 2016

The Constitution at a Crossroads

Joan Biskupic

Begin: 0:00

David Strauss

University of Chicago Law School
Begin: 4:10

Michael McConnell

Stanford Law School
Begin: 10:22

Melissa Murray

University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Begin: 17:54

Ilya Shapiro

Cato Institute
Begin: 23:39

Steven Shapiro

Begin: 29:49

Rachel Moran

UCLA School of Law
Begin: 36:58

In 1988, the Department of Justice under the leadership of Attorney General Edwin Meese published a document entitled The Constitution in 2000 that raised a series of questions about the future of constitutional law. Its stated purpose was to “provide a glimpse of the stakes that are involved in the manner in which the ongoing debate [about how to interpret the Constitution] is resolved in the highest court of the land—the United States Supreme Court.” With Justice Scalia’s passing and the resulting vacancy on the Supreme Court, the future of constitutional law once again hangs in the balance. What are the differences between the progressive and conservative visions of how constitutional law should develop? How will the appointment of a new Justice or new Justices affect constitutional interpretation and key constitutional issues such as race, reproductive autonomy and economic inequality?

Speakers - 

Joan Biskupic, Editor in Charge, Legal A airs, Reuters 
Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution 
Rachel Moran, Dean Emerita and Michael J. Connell Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law 
Melissa Murray, Interim Dean and Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; Editor- in-Chief, Cato Supreme Court Review
Steven Shapiro, Legal Director, ACLU
David Strauss, Gerald Ratner Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School