Author: lawpod

In this week’s episode, we conclude our discussion of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), and how the “undue burden” test the Supreme Court developed in that case continues to govern laws protecting (and restricting) abortion today.

However, we begin with the moment you’ve all been waiting for:  the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam!, Question #2.   Right now, Thomas is 1-for-1 in bar exam questions — did he get it right again?  Is he on his way to an honorary law degree, or will he become the first associate in the history of the Firm to fail the bar exam?

After that, we look at the abortion-related question of the lawsuit ostensibly brought by Sofia Vergara’s frozen embryos.  Is this a meritorious lawsuit or a publicity stunt orchestrated by a goofball anti-abortion columnist?

The long-awaited “Are You A Cop?” returns with a comment by Hall of Fame patron Sakashite Fukasumi, who has a snarky comment about lineups.  But what exactly are police lineups used for, anyway? Don’t you need one to convict?  “Are You A Cop?” dispels that myth once and for all….

And all of this goodness comes to a close with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam! Question #3.  Remember that you too can play along on Twitter!

Show Notes & Links

1. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
2. Here’s the story of the Sofia Vergara lawsuit, which includes a copy of the complaint ostensibly filed on behalf of her frozen embryos.
3. An example of how the Casey “undue burden” test is still in operation today is the recent Supreme Court decision striking down Texas statutes imposing strict requirements on abortion providers in the state.

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

In this week’s episode, we return to the subject of abortion and pick up with a cliffhanger from way back in episode #11, where Thomas was asked how he would have handled what became the Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).  We talk about that landmark decision, how it changed the law fom Roe v. Wade, and what its implications are on today’s efforts to protect (and curtail) abortion rights.

However, we begin with the moment you’ve all been waiting for:  the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam!, Question #1.  Did Thomas get it right?  Is he on his way to an honorary law degree, or will he become the first associate in the history of the Firm to fail the bar exam?

After that, we tackle a listener question from Paul, one of our patrons, who asks about retroactivity and the potential for Trump’s appointee(s) to the Supreme Court to overturn Casey and Roe and make abortion illegal.

Then, “Breakin’ Down the Law!” returns with a discussion of exactly what it means to bring a class action lawsuit.

And all of this goodness comes to a close with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam! Question #2.  Remember that you too can play along on Twitter!

Show Notes & Links

1. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
2. An example of how the Casey “undue burden” test is still in operation today is the recent Supreme Court decision striking down Texas statutes imposing strict requirements on abortion providers in the state.

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

This week’s super-sized episode is literally jam-packed with five all-new segments for our listeners; six if you haven’t heard both parts of the Second Amendment Masterclass already.  And make sure you stay tuned all the way to the end for our exciting new segment!

First, you get an all-new introduction with new quotes, many of which were suggested by you, our listeners!

Second, we have some fun news about patron rewards and upcoming goodies.

Third, our opening segment sees the return of “Breakin’ Down the Law,” with a discussion of stare decisis and what really makes for an activist judge.  The right’s favorite charge whenever a court decision doesn’t go their way is that the judge was a “left-wing activist” — what exactly does that mean, and what is judicial activism?  Stay tuned.

Fourth, our main segment concludes the masterclass on the Second Amendment begun in OA21; even if you’ve heard it before, we think it’s worth another listen to try and figure out exactly what the Second Amendment means and where the future lies for this thorny political and constitutional issue.

Fifth, we follow that with a weekly listener question, this one from Brian Osborne who asks for some clarity about what exactly recounts are and how they proceed.

And sixth — and we’re really excited about this one! — we introduce an all new segment, “Thomas Takes The Bar,” in which our intrepid co-host answers real-life bar exam questions and you, the listener, get to play along!

Show Notes & Links

1. District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).
2. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
3. Here’s a Slate article about the Green Party’s refusal to post the $1 million appeal bond in Pennsylvania.

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

In this week’s episode, we discuss the recent efforts by Jill Stein and the Green Party to raise funds for Presidential recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.  Should you rush out and open your wallets to help raise funds for the Green Party?

“Breakin’ Down the Law” returns with a discussion on court structure.  If you’re a little bit lost at all of Andrew’s talk of the “Second Circuit of This” and the “Federal District Court of That,” our segment should help clear all that up for you!

Finally, our listener question looks at a standard courtroom trope in TV and movies:  is “circumstantial” evidence really just bad evidence?  What does it mean, anyway?  Listen to this episode, and you too can be pedantic the next time you’re watching Law & Order reruns.

And speaking of movies, remember that patrons will get special access to our 3-hour movie review of The Firm — the movie Andrew considers to be the worst legal movie of all time!  So if you’d like to hear Andrew have an aneurysm trying to explain what attorney-client privilege is, or you want some of our other cool rewards, or you just want to support the show, please consider becoming a patron at the link below.  Thank you!

Show Notes & Links

1. This is a handy map of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal so you can find your circuit.
2. Here is a link to the current Jill Stein disclaimer regarding recounts, which may or may not be the same as the one we read on the air.
3. Here is a screenshot of the original disclaimer, which has since been edited.
4. This is a link to MCL 168.862, which provides that a petitioner must be “aggrieved” by election official(s) to have standing to bring a recount.
5. Holland v. U.S., 348 U.S. 121 (1954) is the Supreme Court decision that analyzes circumstantial evidence, holding that it is intrisinically no different than testimonial evidence.

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

In part two of this two-part episode, we continue to address every unique listener question posted to the Opening Arguments Facebook page relating to the impending Trump presidency.

So if you’re wondering whether Trump will be impeached, if Obama can recess appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, about the future of the ACA, or what Trump’s Supreme Court might look like — well, this is (the continuation of) the show for you.

Remember that patrons got early access to this show and will continue to get all sorts of fun bonus benefits!  Please consider supporting the show.

Show Notes & Links

1. Trump’s terrifying list of his 21 potential Supreme Court nominees is 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

In part one of this two-part episode, we tackle every unique listener question posted to the Opening Arguments Facebook page relating to the impending Trump presidency.

So if you’re wondering whether Trump will be impeached, if Obama can recess appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, about the future of the ACA, or what Trump’s Supreme Court might look like — well, this is the show for you.

Part two airs at the regular time next week but patrons will gain access to it early!

Show Notes & Links

1. Trump’s terrifying list of his 21 potential Supreme Court nominees is 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

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!!

https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs

In this week’s episode, we tackle the legal and philosophical issues underlying libertarianism.  We take on such issues as :  what is “property,” why is it a right, and is it cognizable as a side-constraint against government action?   At the end of the day, Andrew and Thomas render a definitive opinion on libertarianism as a political philosophy.

In our opening segment, we answer an anonymous listener question:  what exactly is this ‘jurisprudence’ word that Andrew keeps throwing around?

And in our closing segment, “Breakin’ Down the Law” returns as we delve a little deeper into something we discussed in OA19 — what exactly is a pardon, anyway?

Show Notes & Links

1. You can buy Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia on Amazon…
2. …but to be honest, his best work is the sadly out-of-print Socratic Puzzles (which contains the retraction referenced on the show).

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

 

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!!

https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs

By listener request, we are bringing you this special “deep dive” episode into the history and jurisprudence underlying the Second Amendment.  This episode was originally broadcast on Atheistically Speaking earlier in 2016.

Just in time for the election, we tackle a thorny political issue:  exactly what does the Second Amendment mean and why?  What kind of gun control laws are permissible that remain consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?  In this special episode, you’ll not only learn the answer to those questions, but also you’ll discovery exactly how many Second Amendment cases the Supreme Court tackled from our nation’s inception until the year 2008.  You’ll also get to hear Andrew’s definition of what really constitutes “judicial activism.”  We think you’ll enjoy it (even if you’ve heard it before).

As always, we’d love your feedback on this episode.  And stay tuned for Part 2, where we look at the potential future for the Supreme Court on this hot-button issue.

Show Notes & Links

1. District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).
2. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

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

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!!

https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs

In this special episode, we look at breaking news:  the jury verdict in United States v. Ammon Bundy et al., a federal case brought in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon as a result of the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon in January of this year.

What happened??  Was there jury nullification?  Bias?  Racism?  We say this a lot, but we really mean it:  our answer may surprise you!

In our opening segment, we tackle the equally breaking news regarding the latest developments in the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, while giving the phrase “Weiner probe” all the decorum it deserves.

Finally, in our closing segment, “Closed Arguments” returns with a look at some liberal outrage over the state of Kansas’s citation of the much-reviled Dred Scott v. Sanford decision.  Do we pile on, or do we take the left to task for making much ado about nothing?  You’ll have to listen to find out!

Show Notes & Links

1. The grand jury indictment against Bundy et al.
2. The Wikipedia entry for the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.  (Please edit!)
3. Lane Crowder’s article alleging jury nullification.
4. 18 U.S.C. 372, the statute under which Count I was brought.
5. United States v. Gerhard, 615 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2010).

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

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs

In this week’s episode, we look at some of the interesting details surrounding the intentional release of classified materials by Edward Snowden.  In particular, we looked at the legacy of Snowden’s leaks,  how they played out in the Second Circuit’s decision in ACLU v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2015), and how they changed U.S. law.  In true Opening Arguments fashion, we don’t tell you what to think about Snowden… but we do tell you his impact on our government and the legal ramifications of what Snowden did.

We also tackle two fun listener questions.  One wants to know exactly how Andrew would go about defending the podcasts that made the phrase “puzzle in a thunderstorm” a household word while still maintaining decorum in court.   (If you’re one of those listeners who just loves hearing Andrew say massively inappropriate words and phrases, you’ll love this episode.)

Our second question takes a serious look at the crucial phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  What exactly does that mean?  We tackle burdens of proof and the most important four words in criminal law.

Show Notes & Links

1. ACLU v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2015).
2. June 6, 2013 Guardian article showing FISA Court order of Verizon.
3. The Guardian “Explainer” on Snowden.
4. The criminal indictment of Edward Snowden.
5. Count I:  18 U.S.C. 641
6. Count II:  18 U.S.C. 793(d) (the Espionage Act)
7. Count III: 18 U.S.C. 798
8. Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994).

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