OA124: Happy Thanksgiving!

Today’s episode is the Happiest Episode Ever (TM)!

First, the guys discuss “the real meaning of Thanksgiving,” cribbing from a blog post Andrew wrote for his old firm back in 2013.

In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down a pending case before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia regarding Donald Trump’s tweets and the Freedom of Information Act, as well as an update on the status of Trump’s “Sanctuary Cities” executive order first discussed on OA 65.

Then, Thomas answers a delightful listener question about what he likes.  The answer WILL surprise you!

Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #51 about justiciability and standing.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was a return guest on the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

  1. Check out “The Real Meaning of Thanksgiving” here.
  2. The Freedom of Information Act can be found at 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.
  3. We discussed the influential Garland opinion of ACLU v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
  4. We first discuss the “Sanctuary Cities” EO in Episode 65, and you can read the permanent injunction here.
  5. Finally, you can submit your show quotes here.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download

OA123: Cards Against Humanity (And Thomas), “Magic Words” & so much more!

In this fun, pre-Thanksgiving episode, we delve into a number of interesting topics.  We begin with the popular (if much maligned by Thomas) card game “Cards Against Humanity” and their pitch to “save America.”  Are you surprised that it turns into a deep dive about eminent domain?  (You shouldn’t be.)

After that, Andrew answers a listener question about whether, in fact, there are “magic words” in the law.  How does this relate to the infamous lawyer dog?  Listen and find out!

Next, the guys discuss Trump’s secret war on the judiciary, beginning with a judge less qualified than Thomas and most OA listeners.  It’s depressing!  It’s true!  It’s… depressing.

The episode closes with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #50 involving hot rods, cruisin’, and assault with a deadly car hood.  Don’t forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was a return guest on Episode 7 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

  1. Check out Cards Against Humanity Saves America!  Oh, and afterwards, give Episode 52 of Comedy Shoeshine a listen and hear how Thomas really feels about adult Apples-to-Apples!
  2. You can read this Washington Post story about the infamous “lawyer dog” by clicking here.
  3. And, of course, you can always read Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download

OA122: Moore is Less

Today’s episode is, unfortunately, all about Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore.

First, the guys discuss the unintentionally hilarious litigation hold letter filed by Moore’s attorney.  After that, Andrew and Thomas break down Alabama’s election laws and discuss a variety of proposals being circulated for replacing Moore on the ballot.  Next, the guys end with a discussion of whether the Senate can expel Moore from its ranks in the event that he wins.

Finally, we end with an all-new “West Side Story”-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #50.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

None!  Have us on your show!

Show Notes & Links

  1. Here is the AL.com story containing the litigation hold letter they received from Moore’s attorney.
  2. The relevant law is Alabama Code 17-6-21.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

OA121: A Theory of Justice and the Social Contract (w/guest Aaron Rabi of Embrace the Void)

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into social contract theory, and in particular, one of the most influential works of modern philosophy, John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice, with guest philosopher Aaron Rabi, host of the terrific podcast Embrace The Void.

After the discussion, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #49.  Don’t forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

None!  Have us on your show!

Show Notes & Links

  1. Check out Embrace The Void by clicking here.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download

OA120: OA Shills For Monsanto! (w/guest Natalie Newell of “Science Moms”)

Today’s episode features Natalie Newell of the documentary “Science Moms” discussing GMO labeling and science awareness.

First, we begin with an “Andrew Was Wrong” segment that updates some previous stories, including good news from the Jane Doe v. Wright decision discussed in Episode 117 and some clarification regarding the Manafort indictment from Episode 118.

After that, Natalie Newell joins us for a lengthy discussion on GMOs in light of legislation passed in 2016 requiring uniform national labeling.

Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #49.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was a guest on Episode 6 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

  1. Here is the press release regarding Jane Doe’s abortion.
  2. The GMO labeling law we discuss is the “National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard Act of 2016,” 7 U.S.C. § 1639 et seq.
  3. And you can (and should!) check out “Science Moms” by clicking here and listen to Natalie’s podcast, The Science Enthusiast.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

OA119: Trump’s Trans Ban (& More)

Today’s episode takes a look at the recent decision in Doe v. Trump in which a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the majority of President Trump’s ban on trans servicemembers in the armed forces.

First, though, we begin with a discussion of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and the requirement that prosecutors turn over exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants.

In the “C” segment, we discuss two articles surrounding Trump’s legal strategy in light of last week’s indictments.

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #48 about co-conspirators, confessions, and hearsay.  Don’t forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was a guest on Episode 6 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

  1. The two cases discussed in the “A” segment were Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and U.S. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).
  2. You can read the full text of Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s decision in Doe v. Trump by clicking here.
  3. The two articles discussed in the “C” segment were this article from the Daily Beast and this article from The Hill.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download

OA118: Indictment Monday & the View From Yodel Mountain

Today’s rapid-response episode tackles — of course — the indictment of former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his protege, Rick Gates, as well as the guilty plea entered by Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos.  What does it all mean?  Listen to a special full-length episode and find out!

After our full discussion, we end with a timely new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #48 about co-conspirator confessions.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was a guest on Episode 6 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

  1. You can (and should) read the Papadopoulos statement of offense.
  2. Papadopoulos has pled guilty to providing a false statement to a government official, 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
  3. After that, you can read the Manafort and Gates indictment by clicking here.
  4. Manafort and Gates are collectively charged with 12 crimes, including conspiracy to commit an offense against or to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371; conspiracy to launder money,18 U.S.C. § 1956; seven counts of record-keeping violations under 31 U.S.C. § 5314; two separate violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 612 et seq.; and, of course, providing false statements to a government official, 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download

OA117: Restricting Abortion Rights (& a Deep Dive into Res Judicata)

Today’s episode takes a look at a tragic case currently unfolding of a pregnant young woman being detained for being in this country illegally and the Trump administration’s efforts to deny her the right to an abortion.

We begin with a quick procedural update on the 9th Circuit’s ruling on EO-2 before taking a deep dive into the nuts and bolts behind Zarda v. Altitude Express, which we first discussed back in Episode 91.  Thanks to some great questions from our listeners, Andrew and Thomas get into the civil procedure weeds with concepts like “claim-splitting” and res judiciata.

In the main segment, the guys break down Jane Doe v. Wright, and discuss whether the government can prohibit an minor alien in this country outside of legal status from seeking an abortion.

Next, Andrew and Thomas discuss a prominent tweet within the skeptical community and whether it is fair to characterize the statement itself as “sexual harassment.”

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about landlord responsibility and immunity.  Don’t forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

None!  Have us on your show!

Show Notes & Links

  1. The recent news regarding the 9th Circuit was reported by Bloomberg News and other outlets.
  2. We first discussed Zarda v. Altitude Express in Episode 91.
  3. New York’s Human Rights Law can be found in the New York Consolidated Laws, Art. 15, § 290 et seq.
  4. We took you through the current status of abortion in our detailed two-part discussion of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Episode 27 and Episode 28.
  5. You can read Jane Doe’s complaint, as well as the en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Jane Doe v. Wright.
  6. The regulations implementing sexual harrassment under Title VII can be found at 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download

OA116: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump & The Russians – Election Law (w/guest Beth Kingsley)

Today’s rapid-response episode tackles the recent news that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and/or the DNC paid for the “Russian dossier” on Donald Trump.  What does that mean in terms of U.S. election law?  Listen and find out!

We begin with a quick news update on various lawsuits against poker pro Phil Ivey, a story we covered way back in Episode 32 with guest Chris Kristofco.

Next, we take a quick look at New York’s use of the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) and what this might mean for Thomas’s Second-Chance Law Firm!

In our main segment, we talk to election law expert Beth Kingsley on the “Trump Dossier” and the role played by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC.  Is it time to “Lock Her Up?”

After that, we examine the recent Senate vote against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule regarding class action lawsuits.  What does it mean, and did Andrew contradict himself with his earlier support for arbitration?  Listen and find out!

Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about landlord immunity.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

None!  Have us on your show!

Show Notes & Links

  1. You can listen to the fascinating tale of Phil Ivey’s edge-sorting scheme by checking out Episode 32, and if you would like to hear more from Chris Kristofco, check out his podcast, “Titletown Sound Off.”
  2. This is the Yahoo News article about Ivey.
  3. Here are the New York bar exam results, courtesy of Above the Law.
  4. We first discussed Donald Trump, Jr.’s meeting with the Russians back in Episode 86, and then again in Episode 93 when we answered Sage’s question.
  5. The relevant election law statute is 52 U.S.C. § 30121.
  6. Here is the CFPB rule that was just voted down by the Senate.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download

OA115: Colin Kaepernick’s Grievance Against the NFL (Featuring Chris Kluwe)

Today’s episode features former NFL punter, social justice advocate, and game designer Chris Kluwe, who sued his former NFL team for wrongful termination after he alleged that they cut him for standing up for marriage equality.

Kluwe brings his unique behind-the-scenes knowledge to help us understand Colin Kaepernick’s recently-filed grievance against the NFL, and gives us some bold predictions as to what’s going to happen next.  Even if you’re not a football fan, we think you’ll love this conversation.

After that, Andrew and Thomas break down a recent story circulating about former FBI Director James Comey and (of course) Hillary Clinton’s “damned emails,” which we first discussed way back in Episode 13.  (If you haven’t listened to that episode, you probably should; it’s really good!)

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #46 as to whether pre-nuptial agreements must be in writing.  Don’t forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

None!  Have us on your show!

Show Notes & Links

  1. You too can read Colin Kaepernick’s arbitration demand; we archived a copy of it here.
  2. We first discussed Hillary Clinton’s “damned emails” and the Comey investigation back in Episode 13.
  3. Here is a link to the (almost entirely redacted) email chain regarding Comey’s statement.
  4. Finally, you should absolutely check out Kluwe’s new card game, Twilight of the Gods, by clicking here.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Direct Download

The legal podcast that helps you make sense of the news.