Added 1.8.19. Italian immigrants with anarchist leanings are arrested with no warrant; tried based on no real evidence; and convicted and executed for a 1920 Massachusetts payroll heist that resulted in two deaths. How did authorities, the press, and the public see their way clear to this seemingly stunning miscarriage of justice? Milt explores the troubling tenor of the times with attorney and historian Theodore W. Grippo, author of, “With Malice Aforethought: The Execution of Nicolo Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.”

Added 10.30.18. Milt in 2011 interviews historian Deborah Lipstadt on her then-new book, “The Trial of Adolf Eichmann.” Sitting behind bulletproof glass in court in Jerusalem, Eichmann was tried and subsequently sentenced to death for his central role serving Hitler by overseeing the transport of millions of Jews to death camps, in The Holocaust. Eichmann was a Nazi Obersturmbannfuhrer, or senior assault unit leader. After World War II he fled Germany for first Austria, then Argentina. He was captured there in 1960 by Israeli agents. Lipstadt is the author of “Denying The Holocaust,” and other books. She is a  Professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies, at Emory University.

Added 5.3.18. Milt in 2009 interviewed two journalists who found themselves in very hot water with the Canadian government, for what they had published relating to radical Islam. They were Ezra Levant, author of, “Shakedown: How Our Government Is Undermining Democracy In The Name Of Human Rights,” and Mark Steyn, author then of, “Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech, And The Twilight Of The West.”

Steve Lubet, one of the guests on this program from 2006, had just written a book titled “Lawyer’s Poker.” He and two other experienced trial attorneys tell vivid tales from the courtroom and they do tend to verify the saying that “a trial does not determine who is right but who had the best lawyer.”

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?