The famously rejected nominee takes on the Supreme Courts of the U.S., Canada and Israel and finds them representative of a great failing in western jurisprudence: i.e. seeking to make new law and, thus, to “legislate” instead of “adjudicate.” He had just published (in 2003) a book laying out the argument that he presents quite forcefully in this discussion.And, speaking of counter-factuals, how might our history have been different if he had been allowed onto the Supreme Court?
Some great counter-factual speculations punctuate this most informed and informative discussion. Among them: How might the Civil War have been averted? How Lee might have avoided or even won Gettysburg? What would have happened to the Confederacy if its secession had been accepted and allowed?
In the new podcast with Sam Peltzman, recorded a week ago, he speaks of Friedman as his professor and colleague. Another such colleague was Leo Melamed and here, in this program from 2007, they recall Friedman as friend, as innovative contributor to the transformation of American economics and, basically, as the “guy who got it right.”
A team of academically-based historical specialists examines “the anatomy of revolution” and inquires what was shared by–and distinctive about–the French, English, American and Russian revolutions. A guiding question is whether modern convulsions in the alteration of power are truly “revolutionary.”
It has been about sixty-five years since their discovery. Our guests are two famous specialists who have long researched the scrolls as they bear upon the composition and special strands of meaning in both the Old and the New Testaments.