In this week’s hour-length episode, we finally conclude our three-part discussion of abortion and defending the jurisprudence behind the Supreme Court’s 1973 opinion in Roe v. Wade… only to leave you with another cliffhanger and a topic for a future show. (Bingo!)
Also, given our Patreon support, we’ll now be answering a viewer question every episode! In this episode, we go back to frequent supporter Eric Brewer, who asks “Is a lawyer obligated to tell his clients the hard truths?” Andrew, true to form, answers without really answering the question. Don’t you just hate lawyers??
Finally, in our closing segment, we crank up Judas Priest for Breakin’ (Down) the Law and answer the question “How does one amend the Constitution, anyway?” Of course, no answer is ever simple here on OA, and in so doing, Andrew takes us through the very strange history of the 27th Amendment, which took more than 200 years to become ratified by the states. Seriously!
The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, starting with the preamble, set forth the baseline of ethical rules that lawyers must follow in most jurisdictions. Read all about “zealous advocacy” if you enjoy reading model ethics rules.
Our discussion of abortion continues as we walk through the Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade and its aftermath.
In our first segment, “Closed Arguments” continues with a look at whether you should call your law professor by her first name. (No. No, you should not.) And in our closing segment, we answer a question from listener Ben Young III on courts as an agency for change and social justice.
In Episodes 7 and 8, we discussed a recent decision by a federal court in Missouri dismissing a lawsuit brought by the Satanic Temple challenging certain Missouri laws that arguably restrict abortion rights. In this episode, we take a step back and look at the right to abortion itself and the sometimes-controversial Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade.
Our opening segment answers a listener question from Russ Kanjorski about the future of the Supreme Court, and fan favorite “Closed Arguments” continues with a look at the Cato Institute’s survey and ranking of states by “freedom.” (Hint: it has nothing to do with actual freedom, apparently.)
In this episode, we wrap up the recent decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissing a lawsuit brought by the Satanic Temple challenging several laws relating to getting an abortion in Missouri. Andrew tells you what “motions to dismiss” are, and Thomas proves that he knows more about the law than both the Attorney General of Texas AND a sitting federal judge in Missouri.
Our opening segment begins with another “Closed Arguments,” where we look at the aforementioned Texas Attorney general, Ken Paxton, who has decided to write an opinion letter on the Establishment Clause without referring to the one Supreme Court case that tells you how to interpret the Establishment clause! In our closing segment, we answer another listener question, this one from law student Jason Burkhead.
In this episode, we look at a recent lawsuit filed by the notorious Satanic Temple challenging abortion restrictions in the state of Missouri. In the main segment, Andrew tells you how to read a Complaint, and Thomas offers advice to the Satanic Temple’s lawyers about which arguments are more persuasive to him.
Our opening segment begins with “Breakin’ (Down) the Law,” where we discuss a catchy legal phrase, “in perpetuity throughout the universe.” Why would anyone say that?? Andrew explains why. In our closing segment, we look at a Tennessee state representative, who tells us that everyone knows you should burn those red light camera tickets! (No. No, you should not.)
H/T for both the episode content and the “Closed Arguments” segment goes to the newly-married Eli Bosnick! Congratulations and thanks.
In this week’s episode, Andrew sits down in the interviewer’s chair and talks with Chris Kristofco, another real lawyer and the lead editor at Title Town Sound Off, a Green Bay Packers fan site.
If you’ve been following the NFL’s investigation into alleged performance enhancing drugs use by several of its star players, you’ll enjoy hearing Chris’s take on whether this will be a “line in the sand” during upcoming CBA negotiations. Andrew also pins Chris down on some bold predictions, so if Clay Matthews is suspended on August 25th, you can say you heard it here first!
We answer a listener question from Michael L. Rops, and inaugurate our new segment, “Closed Arguments” with a New York bar that really, really, really doesn’t want to be called out for discriminating on the basis of gender while it discriminates on the basis of gender.
Finally wrapping up their four-part discussion of the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, Andrew and Thomas follow the Gore campaign’s lawsuit as it goes to the Supreme Court. How legitimate is Bush v. Gore? Does it hold water? Find out in this episode.
Continuing our discussion from OA3, Andrew lays the background for the most tumultuous Presidential election in modern American history, discussing the politics, history, and the legal background that led us to Bush v. Gore.
Andrew and Thomas continue their discussion of the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, moving from resurrecting long-dead jokes about “hanging chads” to explaining how the legal challenge that could determine the Presidency began in a tiny county courthouse in Florida.
On the last episode of Atheistically Speaking with Andrew Torrez (AS259), Andrew teased us with the promise that he’d be back to discuss what really happened back in the 2000 U.S. Presidential election (and promised that it might have something to do with our current Presidential election)! Well, Andrew’s back, and in Part 1, he and I discuss the politics, and history of the giant mess that was the 2000 election.