LAL Live: More on Dobbs; Harvard on the Cusp of Reparations Payments? + W. Michael Boyer (NPS June 27)

<p>Norm is joined in the first hour as he is at the start of every workweek by the co-host and producer of Law and Legitimacy and North Carolina-based attorney at Carolina Craft Legal, W. Michael Boyer. </p> <p>Last week, Norm and Mike capped off the end of a rapidly crescendoing news week by analyzing the mechanisms and likely impacts of SCOTUS's decisions in New York Pistol and Rifle Association and Dobbs (Second Amendment and Abortion cases respectively).</p> <p>With so much cultural and political fallout from the latter, the two decide to "wade" back into the waters of the Dobbs decision in today's episode, this time focusing on the relationship between abortion and the right to privacy. Why?</p> <p>Norm focuses on an opinion piece penned to the New York Times and which appeared in the Saturday edition, written by none other than Senator Elizabeth Warren. While Senator Warren makes calls for abortion to be recognized as a federal constitutional right, Norm reminds listeners of Senator Warren's parallel preoccupation and support of the emerging public health state. </p> <p>On the heels of nearly two years of top-down pressure from both state and private corporations coercing individuals to receive coronavirus innoculations, Norm queries whether our current concept of the individual right to privacy is under existential threat. </p> <p>Mike illustrates his working mental model for the politics of abortion, privacy, capital punishment, and the emerging public health state (which both Norm and Mike understand as functionally the same as an emerging federal police power). </p> <p>The two receive a glowing review from a caller thanking Norm for speaking plainly and with substantive merit to the public every day. </p> <p>The two end the hour by unpacking Lanier v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, a case originating in Massachusetts in March 2019, dealing with Tamara Lanier's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Specifically, Ms. Lanier claims—and the Supreme Judicial Court apparently agrees