Opening Arguments
Opening Arguments is a law show that helps you make sense of the news! Comedian Thomas Smith and lawyer Matt Cameron help you understand not only current events, but also deeper legal concepts and areas! The schedule is M-W-F, with the main show on Monday and Friday and Vapid Response on Wednesday!
Listen on
Apple Podcasts
Spotify
iHeart
PatreonEpisodes
OA294: How To Fix The Supreme Court!
Today's episode reveals Andrew's plan for how to fix the Supreme Court! Oh, and while you're here, we'd love it if you would vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue ">> Nominations Now Open
OA293: My Deference & Auer Deference (Kisor v. Wilkie)
Today's episode revisits a narrow area of administrative law we last discussed in Episode 266, namely, Auer deference. Andrew made a bold prediction in that episode, and find out where he was wrong -- and where he was right now that the Supreme Court has ruled in Kisor v. Wilkie. We also discuss the recent unsealing of court records thanks to a CNN reporter and we witness the return of listener favorite segment "Are You A Cop?" with a fabulous question about drinking and driving. Buckle up! We begin, however, with a look at a recent request made by CNN's Katelyn Polantz regarding certain court proceedings and records relating to the Mueller Investigation. Does this mean that "BILL BARR KILLED 7 OPEN INVESTIGATIONS?" (No.) But it is significant, and you won't want to miss why. Then, it's time for a deep-dive explainer that starts with a reminder on the principles of agency deference. Don't remember the exact difference between Chevron deference and Auer deference? We've got you covered -- including, in particular, how the latter came under attack in Kisor v. Wilkie, a case involving a retired servicemember challenging the internal agency regulations governing disability pay. Should the courts defer to an agency's interpretation of its own rules, or should it be wildly activist and defer to Neil Gorsuch's interpretation of those rules? Kisor gives us a slightly different answer than you might expect, all while angling us towards the day soon to come in which the Supreme Court greatly expands the power of the judicial branch. After that, it's time for Are You A Cop? featuring some truly terrible advice for how to beat a DUI arrest. (Please do not do this.) We talk about standards of evidence while debunking the notion that you should... drink more when you're pulled over? (It's a weird question.) As if that wasn't enough, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #132 about an escaped, de-fanged, venomous snake. Who's responsible? Listen and find out! Appearances Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links This is the Raw Story article we criticize during the "A" segment, and to verify what we've said is correct, you can read (a) Polantz's request; (b) the Court's order; (c) Exhibit A (Search Warrants); (d) Exhibit B (Wiretapping); and (e) Exhibit C (Pen Register/Trap & Trace). Phew! We previewed Kisor v. Wilkie (read decision) in Episode 266. And, in breaking down Justice Roberts's holding in Kisor, we also expose shoddy journalism like this Daily Beast article. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
OA292: The End of Democracy
Today's rapid response episode breaks down the latest decisions from the Roberts court, including the ostensible "win" in Dep't of Commerce v. Ross (the citizenship question case), and the crushing loss in Rucho v. Common Cause (the gerrymandering cases). Oh, and along the way we'll also discuss the opioid crisis and the news that Robert Mueller will testify before the House Judiciary Committee. It's going to be a long and wild ride, so strap in! We begin by taking a quick trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss the significance and substance of the Congressional subpoena issued to Robert Mueller. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! Then, it's time to break down the theory and developments in State of Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma, et al., CJ-2017-816, the case that's at the forefront of the efforts to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for their role in causing the opioid crisis in this country. Find out what a "public nuisance" is, whether manufacturing and selling opioids is one, why this case is important, and much, much more! After all that, it's time for the main event: breaking down the Supreme Court's decisions in Ross and Rucho. Find out why Andrew thinks that John Roberts wrote the Ross opinion going the other way until the evidence broke regarding Thomas Hofeller, and how that means the entirety of the new game is: Shame Justice Roberts. (Oh, and also you'll learn along the way that our democracy is screwed.) After all that, it's time for an all-new, all-awesome Thomas Takes The Bar Exam about strict liability and de-fanged venomous snakes. What madness transpires? Listen and find out, and then play along with #TTTBE on social media! Appearances Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links You can read the Court's opinion in Dep't of Commerce v. Ross (the citizenship question case) as well as Rucho v. Common Cause (the gerrymandering case). Click here to read the Complaint in State of Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma, et al., CJ-2017-816. Finally, you can check out the Los Angeles Times article on Purdue Pharma we referenced on the show as well as click here for more information on the MDL litigation pending before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
OA291: Wildcard, Clownhorns! (Non-Compete Clauses & More)
Today's SUPER SPECIAL BONUS EPISODE tackles a bunch of issues that came up during the week that we didn't want to get buried on the whiteboard, including the Flores settlement, a deep dive into non-compete clauses, and a really good Andrew Was Right & Wrong segment about the Hatch Act. It's everything you love about Opening Arguments, only more so! We begin with an examination of the oral arguments before the 9th Circuit regarding ICE detainment centers and whether those comply with the conditions mandated by the Flores settlement that require "safe and sanitary" conditions for minors separated from their families at the border. After that, it's time for a deep dive into a really good listener question from Erin regarding covenants not to compete. Learn all about the "Legitimate Business Interest" (LBI) test and how to gauge whether a noncompete clause is (likely) enforceable, plus learn about the recent economic and political trends surrounding noncompetes that may surprise you. Then, it's time for a very insightful set of comments from a listener regarding the Hatch Act; it's an Andrew Was Right/Andrew Was Wrong compliment sandwich, but we all wind up better for it! No #TTTBE this episode since it's a special bonus. Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the Flores settlement and border policy back in Episode 184. For a recent report on the oral argument, check out this Courthouse News article referenced on the show. We last discussed non-compete clauses in Episode 75. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
OA290: Executive Privilege, Hope Hicks & Don McGahn
Today's episode takes a deep dive into executive privilege, evaluating the legal arguments being raised by the Trump administration asserting executive privilege over former communications director Hope Hicks and former counsel Don McGahn. Find out how good those arguments are -- spoiler: some aren't terrible! -- and what's next for the Congressional Democrats. First, though, we begin with coverage of the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n decision from last week; that's the Bladensburg Cross case that we've discussed at some length on this show. How bad is this decision? (Bad.) Then, it's time for the intersection of Rapid Response Friday and Deep Dive Tuesday in which we time travel all the way back to 1971 to evaluate the Trump Administration's claims regarding executive privilege "over the last five decades." As you've come to expect from OA, we tell you what the administration got right... and, of course, what they got wrong. If you want to know if and when Congress will ever get meaningful testimony out of Hope Hicks or Don McGahn, you need to listen to this show. Then, it's time for the answer to TTTBE #131 about the propriety of a specific question during cross-examination of a witness who testified as to the defendant's "reputation for honesty." If you love the Federal Rules of Evidence -- and really, who doesn't? -- you'll love this segment. Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the Bladensburg Cross case in Episode 256 with Sarah Henry of the AHA, and then got first-hand testimony about the oral argument in Episode 274 with Monica Miller. Click here to read the full Supreme Court opinion in American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n. If you missed our coverage of Masterpiece Cakeshop, check out Episode 180. We first broke down the importance of Hope Hicks to the Congressional investigations in Episode 259; and you can click here to read the letter and subpoena she received from Rep. Nadler. NPR confirmed that Hicks's testimony was carefully managed by White House lawyers (and was therefore worthless). Click here to read Rehnquist's 1971 memorandum on executive privilege, and click here to read how President Clinton's OLC cited that memo 25 years later. Finally, this is Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F.Supp.2d 53 (2008), the district court opinion Andrew breaks down on the show. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
OA289: #OpposeJustinWalker
Today's episode -- #OpposeJustinWalker -- tells you everything you need to know about Donald Trump's latest nominee for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench (and Andrew's former debate opponent) Justin Walker. You already know he's a lifelong member of the Federalist Society. Why is it specifically worth opposing him? Listen and find out! First, though, the guys break down the Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling in U.S. v. Gamble, affirming the "dual sovereignty" doctrine and finally putting the last nail in the coffin of a crazy lefty conspiracy theory we debunked way back in Episode 215. And, as a bonus (?), we find out why Clarence Thomas's concurrence is "the most horrifying thing in print in the past 50 years." Seriously! After that breakdown, it's time to analyze the background and writings of Justin Walker. We learn that he has virtually no litigation experience and that he's a right-wing ideologue; you probably expected that. But you'll also learn that his two major contributions to academic jurisprudence are (1) arguing that transparency in government is a bad, possibly unconstitutional thing; and (2) arguing that the FBI Director has a moral obligation to be the President's lackey. We are not making any of this up. Then, it's time for Thomas Takes The Bar Exam and a question on the propriety of a introducing a particular fact into evidence as the predicate for a cross-examination question. Is it hearsay? Is it impeachment? Is it just hunky-dory? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links 1. We discussed the American Legion v. AHA Bladensburg cross case in OA Episodes 256 (with Sarah Henry of the AHA) and Episode 274 with Monica Miller. Monica IS coming back on the show! 2. Click here to read Gamble v. U.S. which we first discussed in OA 215. 3. Andrew debated Justin Walker in Episode 224. 4. This is his announcement. 5. You can read Walker's CV here. 6. Of Justin Walker's law review articles, click here to read "Chilled Chambers" and here to read "FBI Independence as a Threat to Civil Liberties: An Analogy to Civilian Control of the Military". 7. By the way, this is the link to the FBI investigating Deutsche Bank in connection with Jared Kushner. 8. Finally, this is Walker's National Review article. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
OA288: More Led Zeppelin! (& Legal Ethics with Amy Chua)
Today's episode explains exactly what happened with the story you probably saw about how Led Zeppelin "got a new hearing" in their lawsuit with the estate of Randy California. What's going on? Listen and find out! We also break down the latest ethical wrangling over Yale law professor Amy Chua and Brett Kavanaugh. Is it as bad as everyone says? We begin with the tale of "Tiger Mom" Amy Chua, the Yale law professor who wrote a stirring defense of Brett Kavanaugh as a "mentor to women" after Kavanaugh had offered Chua's daughter a plum clerkship. Did that pot get sweetened when Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court? (Hint: yes.) We break down all of the ethics & more in this segment. Then, it's time to revisit the lawsuit brought by the estate of Randy California against Led Zeppelin alleging that Led Zep stole the iconic riff for "Stairway to Heaven" from California's band, Spirit. If you haven't listened to Episode 236, go give that a listen right now, and then come back to find out what's new. Then, it's time for another Andrew Was Wrong segment -- this time, involving the actual penalty for refusing to answer or giving false answers on the Census. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #130 about the constitutional propriety of collecting sales tax from a private individual who will then turn around and sell the objects to the state. Did Thomas get it right? There's only one way to know for sure! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Click here to read Chua's original Wall Street Journal op-ed, "Kavanaugh Is A Mentor to Women." After that broke, Elie Mystal criticized Chua in an Above the Law article, to which Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld tweeted that she "[w]on't be applying to SCOTUS." Mystal also teamed up with The Guardian to unearth more revelations regarding Chua, Kavanaugh, and how his clerks always "look like models." Of course, it was Mystal who broke the news that Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld was chosen as a Kavanaugh SCOTUS clerk. We covered Zeppelin in Episode 236. The false answers statute is 13 U.S.C. § 221. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
OA287: Down the Hatch (Act)?
Today's Rapid Response Friday covers all of the breaking developments this week, including a ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the latest news out of the House of Representatives, and the Office of Special Counsel's latest request that Donald Trump should fire Kellyanne Conway for "flagrant" serial violations of the Hatch Act. What does all that mean? Listen and find out! We begin by revisiting the state of Wisconsin, where Republicans in gerrymandered-safe seats in the state legislature stripped power away from the incoming Democratic Governor and Attorney General. A trial court issued an injunction preventing that law from going into effect, and just two days ago, the state Supreme Court finally ruled on that injunction. How did that go? (You know the drill.) Then, we move into the main segment, in which we discuss all of the developments related to the census question we last discussed in Episode 286. Learn about one respondent's petition for limited remand, the White House's assertion of executive privilege, and then what's next from the Democratic House. After all that, it's time to climb Yodel Mountain. Learn exactly who Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn hired once he fired Covington & Burlington Coat Factory, and what that (probably) means. And then, it's time to learn allllll about the Hatch Act, and why a loyal Trump supporter thinks it means it's time to fire Kellyanne Conway. Then, it's time for Thomas Takes the Bar Exam. This time, Thomas tackles a tricky question about a government agency that hires a private collector to purchase antiques. Can the state charge sales tax? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links 1. We last discussed the census in Episode 286. 2. Click here to read the NYIC petition for limited remand. 3. This is HR 430, which is the full House vote to allow the Judiciary Committee to sue to enforce the McGahn and Barr subpoenas. 4. And here is the roll call vote. 5. The Hatch Act is 5 U.S.C. § 7323. 6. The Hatch Act was upheld in United States Civil Service Comm'n et al. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, et al., 413 U.S. 548 (1973). 7. Finally, click here to read the OSC Conway letter. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
OA286: The Census and Disenfranchisement
Today's episode takes a deep dive into recent developments following the death of Republican operative Thomas Hofeller -- the architect of the REDMAP -- that may impact the census question case currently pending before the Supreme Court, Department of Commerce v. New York. First, however, we begin with an Andrew Was Wrong about the 2006 midterm elections and the Pension Protection Act. That was, in fact, a Democratic wave year -- but the PPA was passed in August, nearly five months before that new Democratic congress was seated. Oops. Then it's time to delve into the strange files of Thomas Hofeller, the architect of REDMAP -- you know, the gerrymandering strategy and software that turned Republican minorities into majorities in states like Wisconsin and tiny Republican majorities into one-sided dominance in states like North Carolina. Want to know his plan for helping "Non-Hispanic Whites?" Of course you do! We break down exactly how this development may affect Dep't of Commerce v. New York, which has already been briefed and argued before the Supreme Court, and the interesting strategy that the respondents used to make SCOTUS aware of what Hofeller was up to. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas (and the Entire Puzzle in a Thunderstorm Crew) Takes the Bar Exam #129 involving comparative negligence, joint and several liability, and intra-family liability in connection with a car accident. Did you get it right? Remember you can play along every Friday by sharing our show on social media using the hashtag #TTTBE. Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 98 of the Skepticrat breaking down everyone's second-favorite Democratic 2020 Presidential contenders; you won't want to miss it! And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We first covered the citizenship question on Episode 232 You can access the briefs filed in Department of Commerce v. New York: Here This is the letter filed by respondents and copied to the Supreme Court setting forth the new evidence relating to Hofeller. And, in the interests of balance, here's the response filed by the government. And finally, here's the ruling and scheduling order from Judge Furman in the District Court case (No. 18-2921) setting forth the time to brief and seek discovery regarding potential sanctions on the government witnesses. -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
OA285: Tulsi Gabbard & Michael Flynn
Today's instant-breaking episode takes a look at the significance of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's decision to fire his lawyers, Andrew's buddies over at Covington & Burling. Oh, and we also take a semi-deep-dive into President Trump's decision to impose tariffs on "all goods" imported from Mexico. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a slight preview of next week's show, which will break down the impending tariffs on goods imported from Mexico. How is this like (or unlike) Trump's decision to impose steel tariffs on China? You'll have to listen and find out! Then, it's time for the main segment in which we learn that Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has fired his lawyers at Covington & Burling? What does that mean? Only time will tell. For the "C" segment, we break down the upcoming DNC debate, who's qualified, and what legal remedies some of the "loser" candidates might have. After all that, it's time for #TTTBE involving torts, contributory negligence, and joint and several liability. Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We first discussed Trump's tariffs on China in episode 162 Trump's statement on Mexican tariffs is here The prior authority relied upon by Trump is the IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. § 1702 Click here to read a CNBC piece on the likelihood of a trade war. You can read Vol I. and Vol. II of the Mueller in searchable PDF. Here's the evidence C&B was fired. Here are the DNC rules and you can check out "Bernie Sanders's" failed lawsuit here. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
OA284: Drain the Swamp, Starring Gordon Hartogensis
Today's episode is a tragedy in three acts, bringing together three seemingly-unrelated stories: (1) understanding the looming crisis at the Pension Benefits ordonuarantee Corporation; (2) figuring out who Gordon Hartogensis is and why he's about to gain control over potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in assets; and finally, (3) putting together all the pieces to see how President Trump has acted to protect his crony, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, from potential criminal and civil liability in connection with his management of Sears. Strap in; it's going to be a bumpy ride! We begin in Act I, in which the guys break down the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), its creation, the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), and the developments over the last 45 years that have pushed the PBGC to the brink of collapse. Act II, then, takes over with the recently-appointed International Man of Mystery, Gordon Hartogensis, to lead the PBGC. Who is this guy, and what has he done to inspire confidence that he can right the ship? Listen and find out! Act III weaves these stories together with the ongoing civil lawsuit by Sears against Steven Mnuchin and his buddy Eddie Lampert, who are alleged to have looted Sears's assets, driving it into bankruptcy. You'll never guess who bought those assets in bankruptcy... or, perhaps you'll instantly guess who did. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #128 involving a crazy fast-food heist involving an imaginary sniper and the drive-thru lane. Did you get it right?? Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Check out ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. You can also read the text and a breakdown of the key provisions of the PPA, which passed the Senate 93-5. For a sad laugh, check out the PBGC's own scant "Who the hell is Gordon Hartogensis?" page. The first person to break this story was Politico's Ian Kullgren, who wrote this article. We first covered the Sears/Lampert/Mnuchin story back in Episode 273, and you can read the Warren/Ocasio-Cortez letter here. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
OA283: Mueller Speaks! (& Clarence Thomas Pens a Nonsensical Concurrence)
Today's episode breaks down the statement made this week by Robert Mueller in connection with his report and investigation. Is it a good sign? Is it a bad sign? Is it both? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a bit of housekeeping, including a recommendation that you check out Episode 194 of Serious Inquiries Only (featuring Eli Bosnick!) for the official OA answer to all things milkshaking. We also preview a bit of next week's show, which involves revisiting Eddie Lampert, Steve Mnuchin, and the alleged looting of Sears. Is it worse than you think? (It's always worse than you think.) Next, we check in on four Supreme Court orders that relate to gerrymandering. Is that worse than you think? (It's always worse than you think.) After all that, we're not even halfway done! Our main segment breaks down the Supreme Court's brief, two-page per curiam order in Box v. Planned Parenthood... and the sprawling, nonsensical 20-page concurrence written by Clarence Thomas that literally repeats David Barton-level falsehoods. You'll be angry, but you won't want to miss it. Then, it's time to Yodel! We carefully break down Robert Mueller's statement regarding his investigation and what it means for the future. In so doing, we also analyze Mueller's claims regarding the now-infamous 2000 OLC memo as to whether a sitting president can be indicted. After all that, it's time for an all-new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #128 involving a crazy criminal effort to steal money from a fast-food drive-through by pretending to have a sniper... look, you'll just have to listen and play along, okay?!? Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links For the correct take on milkshaking, check out Serious Inquiries Only Episode 194 with Eli Bosnick. We first covered the alleged looting of Sears by Eddie Lampert and Steve Mnuchin in Episode 273 and that was picked up by our friends Elizabeth Warren and AOC. These are the four orders the Supreme Court granted in gerrymandering cases: A. HOUSEHOLDER, LARRY, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL. B. CHABOT, STEVE, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL C. MICHIGAN SENATE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL. D. CHATFIELD, LEE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL. Click here to read the Supreme Court's Opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood Click here for the peer-reviewed research showing that Sanger was not a eugenicist; and here for the article showing she wasn't a racist. This is a transcript of Robert Mueller's testimony and this is the 2000 OLC Memo. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
OA282: OREO (& The Real HUD Scandal)
Lost in the (justifiable) concern over Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson's apparent lack of understanding of REOs, OREO, and just about anything pertinent to his job is a recently-proposed HUD rule that would deliberately reverse an Obama-era regulation requiring nondiscrimination in the provision of services to the homeless based on gender identity. Is it as bad as you think? (Yes.) First, however, we begin with an Andrew Was Wrong and a bit more discussion on abortion, including the difference between Plan B and the oral abortifacient RU-486, and the difference between a zygote and a blastocyst. After that, it's time for our deep dive into Secretary Carson's laughable testimony... and the real issue hiding beneath the surface, which involves crafting a religious exception to the Equality Rule of 2016. Then, it's time to debut Optimist Prime(TM) vs. Negatron(TM) on impeachment. Find out why Andrew thinks the tide is turning and Thomas... doesn't. Where do you wind up? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for the answer to an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #127 -- a dreaded real property question about a man who tries to convey his property to an overseas nephew before dying. Can Thomas get it right?? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the rise of state-level constitutional protections to the right to choose back in Episode 276. and analyzed Georgia HB 481 and Alabama HB 314 in Episode 280. You can read HUD proposed rule FR-6152 (currently RIN 2506-AC53) for yourself.
OA281: Follow the Money! (Analyzing Judge Mehta's Order)
Today's episode breaks down Judge Mehta's recent order in the Trump v. Mazars litigation, which is parallel to the Deutsche Bank lawsuit we discussed on last week's show. Why is this ruling significant, how does it accelerate the House's efforts to uncover crucial financial documents, and what does this mean for the future of the Trump Presidency? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a look at some late-breaking news from Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have requested information from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin related to his tenure at Sears (that we discussed in Episode 273) and whether that conduct continued during his time working for the Trump administration. Then, it's time for the main segment, in which we discuss Judge Mehta's order, what it means for the future of the Trump investigations (and for future presidential administrations!), as well as deal with skeptical questions about the potential timeframe. Learn how the Congressional Democrats maneuvered to get this case fast-tracked so as to avoid endless delays -- and listen to Andrew's possibly-surprising prediction about what he thinks the Supreme Court won't do to protect Trump! After all that, it's time for a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #127... and yes, it's another dreaded real property question. Worse, it's a hard one -- in which the question gives you the answer but asks for the best reason why. Find out what happens when someone conveys property and dies while the gift recipient is overseas serving in the military. And if you'd like to play along with #TTTBE, just share out this episode on social media for a chance to be next week's winner! Appearances Andrew was a guest on the most recent episode of Pod Therapy, discussing the "Goldwater Rule," and Thomas was a guest on Episode 196 of God Awful Movies, "Alien Intrusion: Unmasking a Deception." If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links 1. This is the link to the Warren/AOC letter to Mnuchin 2. We most recently discussed the Congressional subpoenas into Trump's finances in Episode 279. 3. Text of Judge Mehta's order in the Mazars case. 4. This is the New York Times story about the Deutsche Bank whistleblower; and for an in-depth discussion of SARs reports, check out Carla McCadden in Episode 174. 5. This is the report that some lenders have already provided documents to the House, and we discussed the Wells Fargo penalties in Episode 146 and 169. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Download Link
OA280: Abortion Rights Under Assault
Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the recent abortion bans passed in Georgia and Alabama, breaking down exactly what these laws say (and don't say!) to help you sort through the panic from the actual news. It's not always a pleasant trip, but it's a journey worth taking to figure out exactly what's at stake. We begin, however, with a listener question about abortion -- and specifically, about whether the federal government can preemptively prevent the states from doing the kinds of things we talked about back in Episode 276. Find out why Andrew thinks the conservative Supreme Court isn't likely to uphold the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting states from recognizing abortion rights. After that, it's time for a deep dive in to the very confusing Georgia statute , HB 481. Exactly what does this bill do (and not do), and how scared should you be? Listen and find out. And if that's not enough, we also walk you through the more straightforward (but still terrifying) Alabama statute, HB 314. Is it true that the bill fails to exempt rape victims? (Yes.) Is there anything to mitigate how awful this bill is? (Sort of.) After all that, it's time to find out the answer to TTTBE #126 about a man who shoots a would-be assailant three times, including once after the assailant is lying on the ground and whimpering. What kind of crime could this be? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the rise of state-level constitutional protections to the right to choose back in Episode 276. You can check out Georgia HB 481 and Alabama HB 314 to read these bills for yourself.