Justice is often depicted as a blind woman who holds an evenly balanced scale as it is meant to reflect that justice is supposed to be dispensed impartially and to all members of society. Of course, within American hegemony is a popular myth that judiciaries are impartial arbiters of constitution and constitutionality. Today, attorney Christopher Dilworth joins us in a two-part episode to debunk this myth while explaining the history of the US judiciary.

Show Notes

2:10: What do Lawyers do? Nuance-Cuck

3:20 - Law is not a vehicle to change the world.

4:04 - Supreme Court, a bullwark against change

5:30 - Streamlining straight to the Supreme Court

6:54 - Hammer v. Dagenhart

10:56 - IG Farben and Zyklon B with Neal Kayal

13:34 - Atkins v Children’s Hospital: Minimum wage conflicts with Due Process

15:22 - Scalia’s anti-intellectualness

17:17 - “Originalism”

18:15 - Qualified Immunity

20:18 - Civil Asset Forfeiture

22:30 - Police have no constitutional duty to protect and serve

24:14 - Christopher Dilworth’s personal experience with the police

28:20 - Esha’s Experience with the Russian Police

29:24 - Janet’s Story with the Police

37:02 - Legalized Sadism

44:53 - Government’s involvement in bringing drugs - Gary Webb

48:04 - Three Strikes

Christopher Dilworth can be found on Twitter

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.historicly.net/subscribe