Category: Podcast

Should you take legal advice from a viral video on YouTube?

Today’s episode is all about judges, lawyers, attorney-client privilege, and the police.  We begin with the news that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself in the case of Jennings v. Rodriguez; why?

After that, the guys break down a video called “Don’t Talk To The Police” and discuss some hallmarks of legal videos online.

After that, Andrew tackles Donald Trump Jr.’s assertion that whenever a lawyer enters the room, attorney-client privilege shields everything.  Is that really true?  (No.)

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam question #53 about witness impeachment.  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 just a guest on Episode 75 of The Science Enthusiast podcast; give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

1. This is the recusal letter sent on behalf of Justice Kagan; and here is the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges.
2. You can watch the “Don’t Talk To The Police” video.
3. Here’s the data on Regent University’s fake law school.
4. The first out-of-context quote comes from Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949).
5. The second out-of-context quote comes from Justice Breyer’s dissent in Rubin v. U.S., a 1998 cert petition regarding the extent of executive privilege.

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

Today’s episode concludes the discussion begun in Episode 125 about antitrust law in light of the proposed AT&T/Time Warner merger.

First, though, we begin with some news items, including an update on Patreon practices and the status of Leandra English’s lawsuit to become Acting Director of the CFPB.

In the main segment, Andrew breaks down the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against AT&T and Time Warner with an eye towards answering the question “is this just an effort to punish CNN?”

After the main segment, fan favorite “Closed Arguments!” returns with an evaluation of Alan Dershowitz and John Dowd’s claims that the President cannot obstruct justice.

Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #53 about witness impeachment.  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 recently a guest on The Science Enthusiast podcast; you can watch the video of that here.

Show Notes & Links

1. Here’s the update on the Leandra English lawsuit.
2. Before tackling this week’s episode you might want to re-listen to Episode 125 and read the Department of Justice’s lawsuit.
3. The principal case that applies to Trump’s claims of immunity is U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).
4. And as always, we recommend friend-of-the-show Randall Eliason’s Washington Post article on the practical implications of the immunity argument.

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

For $30 off your first week of HelloFresh, visit hellofresh.com and enter lawpod30!

Today’s special episode tackles the breaking news that Gen. Michael Flynn has pled guilty in connection with the Mueller investigation.  To break down the significance of this deal, we welcome back Prof. Randall Eliason.

After that, Andrew answers a bunch of listener questions regarding the tax bill that just passed the Senate.

Recent Appearances

Andrew just did two episodes of the David Pakman show:  first, he was on talking about #NetNeutrality; and then, he came back for a segment on the Mueller investigation.  You can see both — including Andrew’s spiffy new webcam — by clicking the YouTube links above!

Show Notes & Links

1. This is a copy of the Flynn plea deal; he’s pled guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
2. Prof. Eliason’s “Sidebars” blog is here, and you can read his latest Washington Post article about Flynn by clicking here.
3. We referenced statements by Seth Abramson (scroll forward to linked reply #6); Alan Dershowitz, and a pretty awful article by Andrew McCarthy in the National Review.

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

Today’s episode breaks down the recent kerfuffle over the simultaneous claims of Leandra English and Mick Mulvaney to be Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

First, we begin with an “Andrew Was Wrong (?)” segment that gives voice to an anti-Net Neutrality argument, a clarification on the Obama administration’s antitrust policies, and a factual clarification on the Anheuser-Busch/InBev merger.

After the main segment, Andrew and Thomas answer a fun question about speeding and evidence AND tease the upcoming Law’d Awful Movies #13.

Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #52 about the constitutionality of a cigarette tax and accompanying program.  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. For Jaqen and others, we recommend OA22:  “Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad.”
2. Here is the lawsuit filed by Leandra English; and this is the memorandum supporting her motion for TRO.
3. On the other side, you can read the memorandum issued by Asst. Attorney General Steven A. Engel and the companion memo authored by CFPB Counsel Mary McLeod.
4. The statutes we cited during the show are two sections of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3345 and 5 U.S.C. § 3347, as well as a portion of Dodd-Frank, 12 U.S.C. § 5491.

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

Today’s episode takes two deep dives into complicated legal issues in the news.

First, we tackle the FCC’s recent “Order Restoring Internet Freedom,” which is being characterized as ending Net Neutrality.  Is that true?  The answer… probably won’t surprise you, actually.

Then, Andrew and Thomas discuss general principles of antitrust law with an eye towards the recent news that the Trump Department of Justice has sued to block the AT&T/Time Warner merger.

Finally, we close with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #51 involving class action lawsuits in Tenntucky.  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 is going to be on the Wednesday broadcast of the David Pakman show; give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

1. We first discussed Net Neutrality in Episode 64 and Episode 65.
2. The text of the Open Internet Order of 2015 is here.
3. You can also read the Heritage Foundation’s plea to have internet regulations fall under FTC rather than FCC jurisdiction.
4. The interim vote to reverse the Open Internet Order of 2015 is here.
5. This is the full Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order (“Restoring Internet Freedom”).
6. This is FTC Commissioner Clyburn’s Minority Report and guide to the order.
7. We first discussed antitrust laws in connection with the USFL lawsuit in Episode 57 and Episode 58.
8. Here is the DOJ’s lawsuit attempting to block the AT&T/Time Warner merger.
9. The main citations we relied upon in the show were 15 U.S.C. § 1 (The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890); 15 U.S.C. § 18 (The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914), and 15 U.S.C. § 45 (the FTC Act of 1914).

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

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

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

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

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

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