Transcript of OA341: Articles of Impeachment (& Espinoza)

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 341, I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew.  How’re you doing, Andrew?

Andrew:         I am spectacular, Thomas!  How are you?

Thomas:         Ah, doing great.  I can’t wait for today’s episode, I wanna learn more about impeachment, and I also love that you’ve slotted our Wild Card segment that [Laughing] we haven’t been able to get to for, I dunno, a month.

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         You’ve slotted that into the A Segment to make sure we get to this good listeners question.  But before all that, a quick 35-minutes on my Fantasy Football birth.

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Continue reading “Transcript of OA341: Articles of Impeachment (& Espinoza)”

OA341: Articles of Impeachment (& Espionza)

Today’s episode breaks down the Articles of Impeachment currently being debated in the House Judiciary Committee. Find out Andrew’s disappointment, the hidden clause that lets the Senate consider Mueller evidence (if they want), and what these articles can’t let the Senate evaluate in determining whether to impeach Trump. You won’t want to miss it! Oh, and also, you’ll get a mini-deep-dive on the Espinoza decision and so much more!

We begin with an important listener question about whether Donald Trump could plead the 5th Amendment during the impeachment process. The answer might surprise you — and you’ll enjoy the deep dive into the Constitutional protections against self-incrimination.

Then, during the main segment, we tackle the two articles of impeachment in depth, evaluating what crime(s) the articles consider, how they respond to the Republican arguments, and much, much more.

After that, we’re excited to bring you a segment in which law students can win up to $10,000 in an essay-writing contest that also gives you a chance to make a real difference in a case pending before the Supreme Court, Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue.

Then, of course, it’s time for another #T3BE, this time about a homeowner who paints over some water damage. Is there a viable reason for the buyer to rescind the contract, or is it “buyer beware”? Listen and play along on social media!

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. Our opening segment discusses the 1957 Supreme Court case of Watkins v. U.S. and also references this 1956 law review article.
  2. Our omnibus impeachment explainer is Episode 319 (you can also read the transcript for that episode).
  3. This is the text of Rep. Nadler’s proposed two articles of impeachment.
  4. Finally, if you’re a law student, please do check out the FFRF essay contest! Resources: (a) Art. X, Sec. 6 of the Montana Constitution; (b) Montana Code Ann. § 15-30-3101 et seq.; and (c) the FFRF amicus brief in Espinoza.
  5. Also, don’t forget that we broke down Trinity Lutheran before the Supreme Court ruled way back in Episodes 14, 17, and 18, and then dissected the travesty of an opinion in Episodes 82 and 85. Phew!

-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!



Download Link

Transcript of OA340: OA and Serial, or, Why the Supreme Court Denied Cert in Syed v. Maryland

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 340.  I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew.  How ya doing, Andrew?

Andrew:         I’m fantastic, Thomas, how are you?

Thomas:         I am mainly just in absolute cliffhanger mode, I just can’t even deal with the fact that I have no idea how I did on the bar question.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA340: OA and Serial, or, Why the Supreme Court Denied Cert in Syed v. Maryland”

OA340: OA and Serial, or, Why the Supreme Court Denied Cert in Syed v. Maryland

Perhaps against our better judgment, we once again return to the Adnan Syed case narrated so beautifully in season 1 of Serial. If you haven’t heard our take on the case itself, you might want to go back and listen to Episode 107. Today, we’re not discussing the underlying merits but rather what the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled and why the Supreme Court declined to review that decision. Love us or hate us, if you love Serial, you won’t want to miss this episode!

We begin, however, with a look at how President Trump has reshaped the federal courts by the numbers. Is it as bleak as some sources say? Or is there merit to the counter-argument that Trump isn’t doing anything much differently than his predecessors — it’s just that we’re in the middle of his Presidency, so of course his effect is outsized. We delve beneath the op-eds to tell you what the cold hard facts are.

Then, it’s time to describe exactly what’s happened to Adnan Syed in the courts since Serial, culminating with a 4-3 decision in the Maryland Court of Appeals that was left undisturbed by the Supreme Court when they denied certiorari last week. What does it all mean? We break it down for you.

After that, it’s time for a bonus mini-“Breakin’ Down the Law” segment integrated with Thomas’s fiendishly hard #T3BE question. If you’ve ever wondered about motions for new trials and Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, well, this is the show for you!

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 first broke down the Adnan Syed case (and Serial‘s portrayal of it) in Episode 107.
  2. You can check out the Brookings article we referenced (“Trump Has Reshaped the Judiciary But Not As Much As You Might Think”).
  3. For the Maryland Court of Appeals opinion (State v. Syed), click here. Then you can read Syed’s cert petition, the State’s response, and Syed’s reply. Ultimately, the Supreme Court just denied the petition without comment.\
  4. Finally, the underlying case we discussed regarding ineffective assistance of counsel is Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

-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!



Download Link

Transcript of OA339: Who is Jonathan Turley, Anyway?

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 339.  I am Thomas Smith, that’s Andrew Torrez.  How’re you doing Andrew?

Andrew:         I am fantastic Thomas, how are you?

Thomas:         I’m great!  You know, we have so much to talk about today, so many good segments that I’m not even going to mention the fact that I have my 27th consecutive cold in a row.

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         Not even gonna bring it up!

Continue reading “Transcript of OA339: Who is Jonathan Turley, Anyway?”

OA339: Who is Jonathan Turley, Anyway?

Today’s episode is a timely impeachment-themed deep dive into the testimony of George Washington University law professor — and legitimate legal scholar — Jonathan Turley before the House Judiciary Committee. How should you evaluate his arguments? We walk you through them, of course!

We begin, however, with a new segment: the Wingnut Lightning Round(TM), in which we evaluate — or rather, make fun of — two preposterous new lawsuits filed this week by two complete idiots.

After that, it’s time for an #AndrewWasWrong about Ronald Burris, the interim Senator nominated by Rod Blagojevich to fill Barack Obama’s unexpired Senate seat. Find out the twists and turns to this rather fascinating story as a side bonus to Andrew’s well-deserved comeuppance.

Then, it’s time for the main segment: the news that the House is going to draft articles of impeachment against President Trump despite the testimony of Jonathan Turley. How do the lone Republican-called witness’s arguments stack up? (Hint: they’re not good.) Surely the Republicans wouldn’t have called someone who’s on the record saying the exact opposite of what he’s presently saying 20 years ago, right? (Guess.)

After all that, it’s time for a fiendishly hard #T3BE about a trial, a videotape, and a jogging plaintiff. You won’t want to miss it — and you’ll want to play along!

Appearances

Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. 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. Oh man, you just have to read batshit-crazy Rep. Devin Nunes’s eleventy million trillion dollar lawsuit against CNN.
  2. For more of the Roland Burris story, check out Wikipedia.
  3. Click here to read Turley’s testimony for yourself.

-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!



Download Link

Transcript of OA338: Nondelegation and the “Administrative State”

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 338, I’m Thomas Smith, that over there is P. Andrew Torrez, esquire.  How ya doing?

Andrew:         I am fantastic Thomas, how are you?

Thomas:         I am probably still stuffed with non potato skin mashed potatoes.

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         Just pure, directly into my arteries.  That’s another reason you don’t want the skins in there, ‘cuz it’s just going in your bloodstream, it’s just so much potatoes, just part of my circulatory system.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA338: Nondelegation and the “Administrative State””

OA338: Nondelegation and the “Administrative State”

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into the nondelegation doctrine in light of a recent Kavanuagh comment on a case… in which the Supreme Court didn’t even grant certiorari. Is Andrew panicking? (No.) Listen and find out why not!

We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Wrong on taxation that calls back to OA 336. How exactly is stock income taxed? Listen and find out!

Then, it’s time for the main segment, which is a deep dive into the “administrative state” and specificially the “nondelegation doctrine” at issue in U.S. v. Gundy. Why did this last week signal the beginning of the end for Andrew & Thomas? Listen and find out!

After all that, it’s time for a listener question/comment on LIHEAP that helps contextualize how this program works in low-income communities. You won’t wan’t to miss it!

Then, of course, it’s time for #T3BE — the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #155 about a tenant who takes possession of an apartment only to find the previous tenant still inside. How can.. the landlord win? Listen and find out!

Appearances

Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. 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. For an update on Chevron deference, check out our Episodes 40 and 136.
  2. In terms of Auer deference, check out our explainers in Episode 266 and 293.
  3. To get up to speed on the nondelegation doctrine, read Gundy v. U.S., 139 S.Ct. 2116 (2019).

-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!



Download Link

Transcript of OA336: Warren’s Wealth Tax & CRA for SCOTUS?

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 336.  I’m Thomas Smith, that over there is Andrew Torrez, how’re you doing Andrew?

Andrew:         I am doing fantastic Thomas!  How are you?

Thomas:         I am doing even better because we have got the deepest of deep dives, I can’t wait for this episode because there’s some really cool law stuff happening and I’m just excited, and it’s not necessarily revolving around Trump which is fun.  It’s a nice change of pace, I think.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA336: Warren’s Wealth Tax & CRA for SCOTUS?”

Transcript of OA337: How to Talk to Your (Republican) Family About Impeachment

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 337.  Gobble, gobble, gobble!  I’m Thomas-

Andrew:         [Laughs]

Thomas:         -that’s Andrew.  How’re ya doing?

Andrew:         Gobble gobble to you, Thomas!  Happy Thanksgiving, we’re gonna get this episode out a little bit early for listeners so that if you have a long commute on Thursday out to visit your family you’ll have something to keep you company and maybe we’ll have some guidelines for how to have a productive conversation with your Republican family over Thanksgiving.  I think that’s kind of our goal for this episode, right?

Thomas:         Yeah, I think we’re gonna touch on the controversial stuff, like for example, mashed potatoes: skins in or out?  I think there’s no more contentious – I mean, there’s impeachment all that crap, but-

Andrew:         Yeah, but obviously that’s a skins out.

Thomas:         Oh thank god!

Andrew:         You’ve gotta use a-

Thomas:         Oh thank god, okay, finally!  We don’t have to have a big public fight, Andrew and I agree on the correct opinion.  Look, I’m not throwing mashed potatoes with skins out of bed, [Laughs]

Andrew:         No, that’s right! 

Thomas:         I mean I’ll eat them, but…

Continue reading “Transcript of OA337: How to Talk to Your (Republican) Family About Impeachment”