OA368: Your Guide to the Coronavirus, Part 2

Today’s episode continues our discussion from Episode 366 on the political, criminal, and civil legal issues surrounding coronavirus and COVID-19 in the United States, including whether the CDC has the authority to waive the fees associated with testing for the virus (they do!) and how this is going to affect civil society (badly). You won’t want to miss it — and you’ll be stuck inside your house anyway, so you’ll have all the time in the world to listen!

We begin, however, with some nuance regarding An Andrew Was Right, the line of Presidential succession, the 12th and 22nd Amendments, and whether Barack Obama can be Joe Biden’s Vice-President. Learn that… apparently there’s an argument that he could?

After that, it’s time for the main segment, which covers COVID-19 and the coronavirus, specifically (a) Rep. Katie Porter’s amazing cross-examination of the CDC Director and the legal authority; (b) lawsuits against con artists like Jim Bakker and Alex Jones; (c) Congress’s response; (d) more on private lawsuits and the specific example of SXSW; and (e) a really interesting question about jury duty and the future of jury trials.

After all that, it’s time for a dreaded REAL PROPERTY #T3BE. Can you get it right? Just share out this episode on social media, include the hashtag #T3BE, your guess, and your reasons therefor and we will shower the winner with… well, you know.

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest speaker at Houston OASIS, and we’ll be working to bring you the audio of his speech from that event. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. In the “A” segment on Presidential succession, we referenced this law review article from Peabody & Gant.
  2. Check out the video of Katie Porter’s blistering cross-examination of the CDC Director as well as the text of 42 CFR § 71.30.
  3. And, of course, you’ll want to listen to our original coverage back in Episode 366.

-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

-Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials!

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!



Download Link

Transcript of OA367: Interview with the “All the Music” Creators!

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 367.  I’m Thomas Smith, that’s P. Andrew Tortoise, how ya doin?

Andrew:         [Laughs] [Turtle Impression] Welll I’mmmm doin finnne Thommmas.

Thomas:         [Laughs]  

Andrew:         How are you?

Thomas:         Well, you know.

Andrew:         I do.

Thomas:         Doin’ okay.  [Laughs]  

Andrew:         I do.  But I’m excited about today’s episode!

Continue reading “Transcript of OA367: Interview with the “All the Music” Creators!”

OA367: Interview with the “All the Music” Creators!

Today’s episode is a continuation of Part 1, in which we discuss Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin’s “All the Music” project and the history and future of music copyright. We’ve got a special treat for you in that Damien and Noah are both on the show to answer our (tough!) questions. You won’t want to miss this fun discussion!

We begin, however, with a listener question/comment about attending law school and balancing costs, risks, and budgets that many of our listeners will undoubtedly find timely.

Then it’s time to bring on Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin for a fascinating deep dive into the mechanics, the law, and the public policy behind their “All the Music” project. Where should our sympathies lie? What changes to copyright law would better benefit music creators? How do Riehl and Rubin see the fundamental issues in music copyright? You won’t want to miss this!

After the interview, it’s time for the answer to #T3BE 169 involving a tainted witness identification and the permissibility of eliciting testimony in court. Can Thomas start a new winning streak?? Listen and find out!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest speaker at Houston OASIS, and we’ll be working to bring you the audio of his speech from that event. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Our basics on music and copyright were covered in Episode 236 and then with a follow-up in Episode 288. Of course, we also covered Riehl and Rubin’s project in Episode 365 (“Every Melody Ever, Part 1”).
  2. For (some of) the details on Riehl and Rubin’s project, check out Riehl’s fascinating TEDx talk.

-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

-Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials!

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!



Download Link

Transcript of OA366: Your Guide to the Coronavirus!

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 366.  I’m Thomas Smith, and, uh, we can’t have nice things Andrew.  How’re you doing?

Andrew:         [Sighs] Ahhh, yeah.  It’s not a great day for me, although I am wearing a full gas mask so that will prevent me from-

Continue reading “Transcript of OA366: Your Guide to the Coronavirus!”

Transcript of OA365: Every Melody Ever, Part 1

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 365!  Wow, that means you can start episode 1 on January 1st of the year and get to now. 

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         I dunno why you’d wanna do that, but you could and it would be a full year.  Anyway, how’re you doing, Andrew? 

Andrew:         Well, I’m looking up after that now that you can get Opening Arguments every day for an entire year.

Thomas:         Yeah.

Andrew:         That’s, um, I feel good!

Thomas:         We can even do – we can pause at like a quarter through this episode and it would be 365 and a fourth.  Perfect!

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Continue reading “Transcript of OA365: Every Melody Ever, Part 1”

OA366: Your Guide to the Coronavirus!

Today’s episode breaks down force majeure clauses in contracts and takes a look at what might happen in the next few weeks as the world prepares to deal with COVID-19 coronavirus. Along the way we also tackle the news of the week, including the baffling decision out of the DC Circuit not to require Don McGahn to testify. You won’t want to miss this episode!

We begin, however, with some recurring Vice Presidential/line of succession questions and take a mini-deep-dive into the absolutely bonkers elections of 1796 and 1800 that produced the 12th Amendment, and what it says about vice-presidential qualifications.

After that, it’s time for our main segment on coronavirus, which includes a deep dive into various cases where contracts have been broken due to “acts of god.” Is a global pandemic an “act of god?” Listen, find out, and you’ll soon be able to whip out four-part tests if your hotel tries to cancel your room due to coronavirus scares.

Then, it’s time to pick apart the D.C. Circuit’s 2-1 baffling opinion that the House Oversight Committee lacks standing to go to a court to enforce its subpoena over Don McGahn. This is technically an “Andrew Was Wrong,” because Andrew did not imagine that any judges with functioning brain cells could have authored an opinion this bad. Find out what’s next!

After all that, it’s time for a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam involving a tainted witness identification. And remember that you too can play along by sharing out this episode on social media and using the hashtag #T3BE.

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. For all your Vice Presidential qualification questions, check out the 12th Amendment!
  2. Here’s the D.C. Circuit’s decision in McGahn, and we also referenced Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) and, of course, Opening Arguments’s good friend Richard Nixon in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 696-97 (1974).
  3. Finally, you can read Josh Chafetz’s law review article, “Executive Branch Contempt of Congress.”

-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

-Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials!

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!



Download Link

Transcript of OA364: Will the Supreme Court Shield Trump’s Taxes? (No.)

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 364, and I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew.  How’re you doing, Andrew?

Andrew:         [Laughs] I am fantastic, Thomas!  How are you?

Thomas:         I am just-  we got so much good stuff to talk about.  There are lawsuits and lawsuits and more lawsuits and they pretty much just involve Trump, but lots of questions, lots of stuff I’m seeing posted on social media, people are unclear about what a lot of this means and that’s my favorite because Andrew’s here to break it down for us and tell us how this all actually works.  So I’m excited, you excited?

Continue reading “Transcript of OA364: Will the Supreme Court Shield Trump’s Taxes? (No.)”

OA365: Every Melody Ever, Part 1

Today’s episode brings you our first look at the efforts by Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin to copyright “every melody ever” as part of a way of reconceptualizing copyright law as it applies to music. SPOILER: We’re going to have Riehl and Rubin on the show to discuss their work in more depth. We also discuss Chevron deference and a recent dissent by Clarence Thomas that’s No Laughing Matter.

We begin with a deep dive into the Riehl and Rubin “Every Melody Ever” effort, which builds upon the music copyright episodes we’ve previously discussed in Episode 236 (“Stairway to the Supreme Court”) and Episode 288 (“More on Led Zeppelin”). What exactly are Riehl and Rubin doing, and will it put an end to copyright lawsuits against musicians? Listen and find out!

After that, we check out a case (Baldwin v. U.S.) in which the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari — and the dissent filed by Clarence Thomas. That prompted a headline that got some chuckles last week — “Clarence Thomas cites Thomas in overruling Thomas” — and we learn that (of course) this turns out to be no laughing matter, but part of a concerted effort to roll back not only a 2005 Clarence Thomas opinion, National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Svcs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005), but Chevron deference itself. Find out why even the howler monkey contingent wanted to take a pass on this case — but not Clarence Thomas!

After all that, it’s time for the answer to perhaps the easiest #T3BE ever — or is it? (It is.) And remember, you can always play along with #T3BE by sharing out the show 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 basics on music and copyright were covered in Episode 236 and then with a follow-up in Episode 288.
  2. For (some of) the details on Riehl and Rubin’s project, you can read the write-up in Vice.
  3. Finally, you can check out Thomas’s cert dissent in Baldwin v. U.S. 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

-Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials!

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!



Download Link

OA364: Will The Supreme Court Shield Trump’s Taxes? (No.)

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into the just-filed briefs in the Trump v. Mazars litigation pending before the Supreme Court regarding the legitimacy of the House’s subpoenas for Trump’s tax returns. Is the law on the House’s side? (Yes, yes it is.) Are we confident that the Supreme Court will rule the right way in a case this bad? (Maybe?) In any event, you’ll want to listen!

Announcements

  1. Don’t forget our YouTube Live Q&A this Sunday, March 1, at 1:30 pm Eastern / 10:30 am Pacific!
  2. You still have two days to register for Voter Protection Law School Boot Camp!

We begin with an Andrew Was Wrong(-ish) from our good friend Randall Eliason on the actual frequency of below-guidelines sentences in light of Roger Stone’s downward variance.

Then it’s time for a deep dive into Mazars v. Trump, where we look at the briefs filed by the parties and evaluate the arguments made by the Trump administration that the subpoenas issued by the House are invalid. How bad are these arguments? They’re bad.

Then, it’s time to tackle the recent defamation lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign against the New York Times regarding a March 2019 op-ed by Max Frankel, in which Mr. Frankel argued that the campaign didn’t need to coordinate with Russia to benefit from foreign assistance. Does this pave the way for really good discovery? (No.)

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new #T3BE involving a law prohibiting providing assistance to undocumented aliens. Can Thomas start a new winning streak? Listen and find out. And, of course, you can always play along on social media by using the hashtag #T3BE!

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. Remember to check out our YouTube Channel !
  2. If you’re thinking about Democratic Voter Protection Law School Bootcamp, check out the flyer and then apply online.
  3. n the opening segment, Andrew references the U.S. Sentencing Commission (2018) report on sentences.
  4. in Mazars v. Trump, check out the President’s Jay Sekulow-penned brief as well as the just-filed response by the House of Representatives. You can also read the Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (2019) decision.
  5. Finally, check out the Trump Campaign v. New York Times defamation lawsuit.

-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 OA363: Good News About Ex-Felons in Florida

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments!  This is episode 363, I’m Thomas Smith, that over there is Andrew Torrez.  How’re you doin’ Andrew?

Andrew:         I am fantastic Thomas, how are you?  How’d you enjoy those Nevada results… if they came in?

Continue reading “Transcript of OA363: Good News About Ex-Felons in Florida”