Opening Arguments

-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

July 5, 2021July 4, 2021

OA505: The Supreme Court Is a Partisan Instrument of Destruction on Behalf of the Republican Party and We’re Going to Keep Telling You This Until the Media Stops Raving About How Centrist John Roberts Is

This easily breaks the record for longest show title. But seriously, we’re fed up with this bogus Supreme Court coverage. In our main segment, Andrew has the full breakdown of Brnovich and just how terrible it is for voting rights, AND how much Alito and the conservatives are legislating from the bench. They are simply overwriting laws they don’t like to accomplish right wing goals. This is pretty much an Andrew Was Right show, as the first segment is all about the Florida social media law being enjoined exactly the f how Andrew predicted. Then, to make us all feel better, we read some really great listener mail! Trust me, you won’t want to miss it. It’s delightful!

Links: FL SB 7072, injunction

-Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs

-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

July 1, 2021July 2, 2021

OA504: Cosby Released in Nonsense Ruling

Purely speaking in legal terms, the Cosby release is even WORSE than you have likely heard. It’s a complicated breakdown, but that’s what Andrew is best at! Listen in to understand just how bewildering this ruling was. After that, Andrew gives us a very quick take on the Trump Org indictments.

Links: Cosby opinion, Saylor dissent, Section 3125 – Title 18, Rule 404 – Character Evidence, Commonwealth v. Stipetich

-Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs

-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

July 1, 2021July 1, 2021

Transcript of OA502: Why Critical Race Theory is Indispensable

June 28, 2021June 28, 2021

Topics of Discussion:

Critical Race Theory Part 2
Andrew Was Wrong about Arrow’s Theorem
T3BE Question

[Show Intro]

Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 502. I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew, how’re you doing sir?

Andrew: I am fantastic, Thomas, how are you?

Thomas: I’m doing fantastic because I loved 501 so much.

Andrew: [Laughs]

Thomas: It was one of those ones that was a joy to edit. Just going through it the second time, you did such a good job there, Andrew. Guess what, everybody? I think Andrew has a little announcement about our content that we’re deciding to do these next few episodes.

Andrew: CRT is in the news right now, we wanted to do these episodes back-to-back so that if you’re out there sharing, maybe even sharing these episodes with an Uncle Frank in your life, you can kind of point that person to two episodes, back-to-back, two plus hours on Critical Race Theory and just as an introduction to that. Yes – so, Uncle Frank if you’re listening. Yes. This is a liberal show, okay? But nothing we’re going to tell you about Critical Race Theory has to do with our political opinions. Part of that is because I, the lawyer involved, am not a Critical Race Theorist. [Laughs] I have no incentive to secretly hide what it is so we can indoctrinate our children.

I can prove that to you if you go back and listen to episode 477, which was my leftwing critique of originalism. No reason to lie about that. I talk about my jurisprudential hero, Ronald Dworkin; and in particular I defend the idea that there are some objectively right answers in legal cases. They include cases like “you’ve gotta be 35 to be the President,” and they also include harder ones, like no, the 3^rd Amendment does not give you a claim against surveillance by a FISA court.”

OA503: Finally! Consequences for Rudy Giuliani

If you’ve listened to this show long enough, you know that it is seemingly impossible to be dishonest and corrupt enough for the Bar to do something about it. Well, Rudy Giuliani found a way. The NY bar has slapped him down in a way that our esteemed Andrew Torrez has never seen before. Also, we’ve got an update on how Christian Healthshare Ministries are STILL a scam. Then, we talk about Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, in which the Court badly mangles eminent domain. Having just heard our deep dive in episode 500, you’ll be able to spot how terrible this decision is as well! And, Andrew was right on Mahanoy v. BL!

-Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs

-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

June 28, 2021June 28, 2021

Transcript of OA501: Critical Legal Studies and Critical Race Theory

June 24, 2021June 25, 2021

Topics of Discussion:

Critical Race Theory Part One
T3BE Answer

[Show Intro]

Thomas: Hey everybody, before we get started with the episode, I thought you might like to hear something that my wife Lydia got for Andrew and I for episode 500. Here you go!

Stormy Daniels: Hi Thomas! Hi Andrew! Stormy Daniels, here, and I wanted to congratulate you on your 500^th episode of your podcast, Opening Arguments. I mean, 500 is pretty awesome, but we all know that episode 154 is hands down the best, and I’m not just saying that because you had the bright idea to call it “Stormy Daniels is a Legal Genius.” I mean, okay, it had a little bit to do with it. Anyway, congratulations! Go out, celebrate, don’t do anything I wouldn’t do … [Sighs] Actually, don’t do most of what I would do, either, okay? Just… um… just… congratulations.

Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 501(c)(3) – no, my brain-

Andrew: [Laughs]

Thomas: Yeah, this is episode 501. How’s it going, Andrew?

Andrew: Oh, it is extra fantastic. I just listened to all of those brand-new clips on the intro.

Thomas: Oh yes.

Andrew: Gotta love that.

Thomas: [Laughs] A good audio reminder for editor, whoever is editing this right now-

Andrew: [Laughs]

Thomas: -make sure you have also done the new clips. Thank you.

Andrew: Those are the best!

Thomas: That person deserves a raise! No. [Laughs]

Andrew: That person does deserve a raise.

Thomas: I am excited, this has been a lot of OA lately, but OA’s the best, so in addition to the bonus episode there’s the Law’d Awful Movies that hopefully is out for everybody. So much OA and I’m particularly excited for this episode, Andrew, because this was a listener Thomas S. question from a while back.

Andrew: Yeah.

Thomas: That I think we kinda lost track of for a while and then the news has blown up and made it very relevant, so I’m glad we’re getting to it.

Andrew: Yeah, absolutely. Wanna get to it?

Thomas: Uhhhh? Yes. [Laughs]

Andrew: Okay, alright!

OA502: Why Critical Race Theory is Indispensable

This is a continuation of Episode 501’s exploration of a rather arcane bit of legal jurisprudence that has somehow become the target du jour of the right wing, from Matt Gaetz to Newsmax to… well, Matt Gaetz again. That’s right, it’s an explanation of what critical race theory actually is, and whether it should be banned. (Hint: no)

In this episode, you’ll learn more about the definitely NOT Marxist postmodern critique of language and legal textbooks, including an in-depth discussion of a case you probably have never heard of — Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823). And if you have heard of the case, then a) you’re probably a lawyer or law student, and b) you should thank a critical legal studies theorist!

We’ll also get in depth with two of the founders of the CRT movement, Mari Matsuda and Kimberle Crenshaw. Learn what their unique contributions to legal scholarship were and are, and decide for yourself whether this is too dangerous for grad students to even read.

Finally, we’ll delve back into the one-man astroturf unit that is Christopher F. Rufo and learn how he’s deliberately misleading everyone about what CRT is in order to stoke a moral panic. This is an episode you don’t want to miss & might want to share even with your Uncle Frank!

Finally, we do an Andrew Was Wrong on Arrow’s Theorem as math professors rise up and storm our studio.

Links

We first discussed CRT in Episode 501; go check that out if you haven’t yet.
Andrew definitively stated that he was not a CRT theorist & believed there are right answers in the law in Episode 477 critiquing originalism.
Florida’s latest law is HB 233 on “intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity,” which kind of contradicts the whole banning CRT thing.
Check out Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic’s “Rodrigo’s Reappraisal” (2021).
You can read Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823) for yourself.
The Rufo timeline we mentioned was published in the Wall Street Journal, and you can check out the text of Trump’s executive order here. You can also read his garbage article in the NY Post… you know what? I’m not going to link that. He’s terrible.
You should definitely read Mari Matsuda’s Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story (1989) and Kimberle Crenshaw’s Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color from the 1991 Stanford Law Review.
Finally, I would also recommend reading Aya Gruber’s “Against Carceral Feminism” (2021).

Appearances

None! Have us on!

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

–Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!

-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!

June 24, 2021June 24, 2021

Transcript of OA500B: Bonus! Terrible Supreme Court Rulings; Manchin’s New Conditions

June 22, 2021June 23, 2021

Topics of Discussion:

Joe Manchin’s Alternative For the People Act
Fulton v. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision
California v. Texas Supreme Court Decision

[Show Intro]

Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, don’t touch that dial, everyone!

Andrew: [Laughs]

Thomas: It’s a bonus episode!

Andrew: Woo!

Thomas: That’s another thing, it’s like when you, you know, maybe your first gift you got for your wife for Mother’s Day wasn’t quite enough. Oh, but there’s another thing. Hold on, it’s coming, delivery… Going furiously on your phone trying to order something. It’s like that, but for our fine listeners.

Andrew: Are you saying that our long-anticipated episode 500 on eminent domain-

Thomas: [Laughs]

Andrew: -was like a crappy gift? Okay, good to know.

Thomas: It wasn’t, it’s just you feel like maybe we should’ve done more, that’s all. I’m so grateful to our listeners for getting us through 500 episodes that I’m like was it enough? Should we have bought them a diamond or something? Is 500 the diamond anniversary? Should we have decked them out? So, we’re doing a bonus episode-

Andrew: [Laughs]

Thomas: -and there’s so much good stuff. I made all that up, the truth is just a bunch of news that happened.

Andrew: Yeah. [Laughs]

Thomas: [Laughs] And we’re recording again. Either way, wow, SCOTUS decisions galore and we’ve got some Manchin updates as well. How’re you doing, though, Andrew?

Andrew: I am fantastic. I am very, very excited to do the bonus episode because I just don’t think we could go a full week without giving folks an explanation, I know we’ve already been – I don’t wanna say calming people down – riling them up on social media, but if you’re not a participant on social media, and there are lots of good reasons not to do that, you probably are sitting there thinking boy, I’m reading a lot about Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, I’m reading a lot about the Supreme Court 7-2 saving Obamacare. What’s going on with that?

Thomas: Yeah, yeah.

Andrew: We’re here to explain what’s going on with that. Spoiler alert, these are not good decisions regardless of what you’ve heard.

Thomas: Yeah. It’s – you know, they’ve kind of ruined the suspense there by being just so awful that you’re like whatever it is, it’s bad. [Laughs] This is not gonna be a good one, whatever it is. But the 7-2 thing was intriguing, we’ve got some interesting alignments going on.

Andrew: Yup.

Transcript of OA500: Eminent Domain!