Posts

Posted on

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
Posted on

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
Posted on

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”
Posted on

OA363: Good News About Ex-Felons in Florida

Today’s episode brings you some good news from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to Florida’s effort to restore the vote to felons who have completed their sentences — and the Republicans’ ongoing efforts to stop it. We also revisit the emoluments clause litigations pending in two jurisdictions as well as tackle a novel question from one of our listeners. You won’t want to miss it!

We begin with a brief Andrew Was Wrong / Andrew Was Right segment regarding emoluments. Friend of the show Seth Barrett Tillman writes in to correct us on two procedural issues and also to venture an opinion that any future emoluments cases would have to be brought by both houses of Congress. Find out why Andrew disagrees and stands by his original recommendation in Episode 361 that Nancy Pelosi authorize a new vote by the full House of Representatives to re-file the case originally brought in Blumenthal v. Trump.

Then it’s time for our main segment on the breaking decision out of the 11th Circuit striking down the Florida legislature’s effort to gut Amendment 4 (which was meant to restore voting rights to ex-felons). Find out why the court ruled the way it did, what happens next, and why there may be cause for optimism in the Sunshine State!

After that, it’s time for a fascinating, clever, but (sadly) wrong suggestion from a listener regarding a writ of mandamus and the current logjam in Congress.

We end, as always, with #T3BE, and Thomas’s seven-question winning streak on the line regarding a contract and an unfortunate foreman who suffers an accident prior to starting his duties. Will Thomas prevail? Listen and find out! And don’t forget to play along 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. In the opening segment, Andrew breaks down the Supreme Court case of Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill (2019).
  2. You’ll want to read the 11th Circuit’s opinion for yourself. We last discussed the Florida legislature’s efforts to gut Amendment 4 back in Episode 266.

-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
Posted on

Transcript of OA362: The Pardon Power (Or: Blagojevich, Milken, and Trump, Oh My!)

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 362.  I’m Thomas Smith, that over there is Andrew Torrez.  How are you doing, my friend?

Andrew:         I am fantastic, Thomas, how are you?  How was your trip?

Thomas:         Oh my gosh!

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         I am in a full body cast like in the movies, and always one leg is suspended at an angle, you know?  In a sling.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA362: The Pardon Power (Or: Blagojevich, Milken, and Trump, Oh My!)”
Posted on

OA362: The Pardon Power (Or: Blagojevich, Milken, and Trump, Oh My!)

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into the history and contemporary use of the Presidential pardon power in light of President Trump’s decision to pardon and/or commute the sentences of 11 various and sundry monsters. We figure out exactly what the power was supposed to mean and what it means today.

We start off with some pre-show teasers.

After that, our “A” segment looks at the basics of the Nevada caucus, including the results you can expect the day after this show drops! What weird changes are taking place in Nevada? Listen and find out!

As a teaser, we talk about today’s sentencing by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of Trump loyalist and Nixon afficionado Roger Stone. What does it mean, and does it portend a pardon for Stone? Listen and find out!

Then, it’s time for our deep dive into Presidential pardons and commutations. We begin with the language in the Constitution (Art. 2, Sec. 2, Cl. 1) and Federalist 74.

From there, we move on to the 19th and 20th century uses of pardons, looking at the literature and the relatively recent (and controversial — deservedly so) pardons by Bill Clinton on the very last day of his presidency. We end the segment, of course, by discussing the assorted and sundry monsters pardoned by Trump, including some names you literally won’t believe.

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. Check out Federalist 74 on pardons.
  2. In terms of contemporary pardon literature, we recommend Margaret Colgate Love’s “The Twilight of the Pardon Power” (2010) and Gregory C. Sisk‘s 2002 article “Suspending the Pardon Power During the Twilight of a Presidential Term.“

-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
Posted on

Transcript of OA361: DC Sides with Trump in Emoluments Case?

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 361.  I’m Thomas Smith, that’s Andrew Torrez, that means we’re just starting our next rotation in our 720.  How’s it going, Andrew?

Andrew:         [Laughs]  I like to feel like I’m on a skateboard in midair-

Thomas:         Yeah.

Andrew:         And yeah, except [Sighs]

Thomas:         The podcast is just one long trick.

Andrew:         I’m ollying it, man!

Thomas:         Yeah.  Beto would be proud.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA361: DC Sides with Trump in Emoluments Case?”
Posted on

Transcript of OA360: The Tuesday Afternoon Massacre

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 360.  Oh!  Nice number.  Good old 360. 

Andrew:         Yeah, the Babylonian year, right?

Thomas:         Sure. Yeah.

Andrew:         [Laughs]

Thomas:         I was just gonna say it’s like when I was a kid and you’d just try to jump and spin around in a full circle and be like “360!”  But yeah, you’re-

Andrew:         Oh, yeah!

Thomas:         Your reference too, exactly!

Continue reading “Transcript of OA360: The Tuesday Afternoon Massacre”
Posted on

OA361: DC Sides with Trump in Emoluments Case?

Make sure to subscribe to the YouTube Channel!
Today’s episode features a quick Andrew was… something segment about the ERA. Then we talk about the recent ruling in an emoluments case against Trump. Was it devastating or was it expected? Listen and find out! Then we tackle some great listener questions at the end.

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

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/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



Download Link
Posted on

OA360: The Tuesday Afternoon Massacre

Today’s episode covers the “Tuesday Afternoon Massacre,” in which Donald Trump’s tweets prompted his sycophantic Attorney General, William Barr, to overrule career prosecutors and file a “Supplemental and Amended Sentencing Memorandum” reversing the government’s position from literally the day before in order to urge leniency on convicted criminal Roger Stone.

We begin, however, with a less-than-exhaustive (but exhausting) recitation of the various ways Trump has abused his power — and yes, committed crimes — in the mere eight days since he was acquitted during impeachment. From firing Lt. Col. Vindman to placing Barr in charge of all future “political investigations,” Trump is consolidating his now-seemingly limitless power to run the U.S. government as his private fiefdom, with no consequences whatsoever.

Then it’s time for our main segment, where we explain just how corrupt the “Supplemental and Amended Sentencing Memorandum” really is. Along the way, we explain Pre-Sentencing Reports (PSRs), the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and much, much more!

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new #T3BE that starts off as a question about hearsay before the curveball takes us down the question of witness impeachment. How will Thomas do? There’s only one way to find out! And remember that you can play along — just share out this episode on social media using the hashtag #T3BE and we’ll pick a winner!

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. You can check out the Barr memorandum on “political investigations” by clicking here, and Lindsey Graham’s confession here.
  2. Firing Lt. Col. Vindman is very clearly a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e).
  3. We referenced Manafort’s nonsense “solitary confinement” claim that was refuted by the DOJ itself a year and a half ago in this filing.
  4. You can click here to read the DOJ’s initial sentencing memo, and click here to read the “Supplemental and Amended” memorandum filed the next day.

-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