Posts

Posted on

OA276: Did Kansas Really Show Us The Way Forward on Abortion Rights?

Today’s episode features an in-depth analysis of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, a recent decision out of the Kansas Supreme Court holding that — whatever the U.S. Supreme Court does — the Kansas state constitution protects a woman’s right to choose. Join us to understand how this decision is important not only for Kansans but for all of us as we deal with the challenges created by the increasingly Trump-ified federal bench.

We begin, however, with a brief update as to the status of the Jeffrey Epstein plea deal that’s been questioned by a recent ruling in Florida. We first covered this story in Episode 259.

After that, it’s time for fan-favorite “Are You A Cop?” combined with a listener question about whether (and how much) “corporations are people, my friend.”

Then, it’s time for the main breakdown of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, with brief stopovers in Alabama (to discuss Bill 314), a prediction on the future of Roe v. Wade before this Supreme Court, and a full breakdown of the Kansas opinion and why it matters.

After all that, it’s time for yet another listener question, this time about the dissent in Hodes, what it means, and why the court spent so much time talking about the police power of the state, John Locke, and natural law. Confused? You won’t be, after listening to this segment.

And as if that wasn’t enough, after all that, it’s time for the answer to TTTBE #124 about Decomposing Snail Soda(TM) (“It’s Maddeningly Addictive”). Find out if Thomas got this question right!

-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

OA275: Yes, Bill Barr Perjured Himself

Today’s episode covers everything you need to know about Bill Barr’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee (and his refusal to testify before the House). Has he perjured himself? (Yes.) Is there a reasonable defense of Barr? (No.) What’s next? Listen and find out!

Also, don’t forget to show up for our monthly LIVE Q&A on our YouTube channel this Sunday, May 5th at 6 pm Eastern / 3 pm Pacific!

We begin today’s show, however, with a few Andrew Was Wrongs and one Andrew Was Right. Wrong? Andrew used “fulcrum” when he should have used “center of gravity,” and it led to this amazing listener graphic explaining the difference. Also, Andrew relied upon a mislabeled graph in a complaint in Episode 273; technically, that’s someone else who was wrong first, but hey.

But Andrew was definitely RIGHT about the RNC platform, and now we have even more evidence to confirm it — this time in the form of the testimony of J.D. Gordon to Mueller’s team of investigators. And we break that down for you (because of course we do!).

Then, it’s time to delve into everything we know about Bill Barr’s perjure-tastic trip before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Find out why Andrew thinks Barr isn’t going to last, and why he definitely committed perjury. Oh, and figure out what Rule 6(e) is — and why Barr is lying about that, too.

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #124… this time about Decomposing Snail Cola. Decomposing Snail Cola: It’s the Only One With Decomposing Snails!

-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

OA274: Arguing Before the Supreme Court (with Monica Miller)

Today’s episode features an in-depth interview with Monica Miller, counsel for the American Humanist Association and (we think!) the second-youngest person ever to argue before the Supreme Court! Just last month, Monica argued the AHA’s position in Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association before the Supreme Court, and we get to learn all sort of amazing behind-the-scenes information about the case.

We spend the full hour with Monica Miller and learn how the AHA came to take this case, the roller-coaster-highs-and-lows of prevailing in the Fourth Circuit only to see it get taken up by a very conservative SCOTUS, and you get Monica’s prediction as to how she thinks the Court might rule… as well as which members of the Court’s conservative bloc were receptive to her arguments. Along the way, you’ll also learn exactly how Monica got ready for her big day!

After that, it’s time for the answer to T(&M)TTBE #123, the dreaded real property question involving the subsequent sale of property, the doctrine of merger, and… well, let’s just say this was a hard one! Did anyone get it right? You’ll just have to listen and find out.

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. We first discussed the Bladensburg cross case in Episode 256.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

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 email us at openarguments@gmail.com




Download Link
Posted on

OA273: Sears, Steve Mnuchin & “The Producers”

Today’s episode features a deep dive into a just-filed lawsuit by Sears against its CEO, Eddie Lampert, and certain directors, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The lawsuit alleges that Eddie & Steve managed to wreck not one but two long-standing American institutions. How? Why? And what does any of this have to do with one of the best comedies of all time, The Producers? Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with a very brief Andrew Was Wrong malapropism in which he confused a journalist with a philosopher. (There’s a comedy setup in there somewhere.)

Then, it’s time for the main segment, which breaks down the background on Mnuchin, especially how he teamed up with billionaire Eddie Lampert, and then how the two of them managed to turn less than a billion dollars into full ownership of both Kmart and Sears, each of which had eight-figure valuations at the time. And, as if that wasn’t enough, you can find out how Lampert (allegedly) ripped off the public on Mnuchin’s watch, all while enriching himself. Drain the Swamp! You’ll also learn all about The Producers-style fraud. You can make more money with a flop than with a hit!

After all that, it’s time for the glorious return of Thomas Takes the Bar Exam — this time, featuring guest Monica Miller, who will be joining us for a full-length interview next episode.   TTTBE question #123, however, is a dreaded real property question…will anyone be able to get it right?? 

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. Click here to read the Sears lawsuit, and here to check out Mnuchin’s Wikipedia page.
  2. This page contains a good explanation of Delaware corporate law regarding duty of loyalty.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

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 email us at openarguments@gmail.com




Download Link
Posted on

OA272: Impeachment, Redactions, and Russia

Today’s episode brings you a trio of stories about the changing political landscape in the wake of the release of the [REDACTED] Mueller report; namely (1) will the President be impeached (and if so, can the Senate block the impeachment), (2) will we see a full, unredacted version of the report, and (3) just how pro-Russia is this administration, anyway?

We begin with a question asked by listener Thomas S. as to whether Mitch McConnell can… well, Mitch McConnell any impeachment hearings. And while the answer may not surprise you, we think you’ll want to know why.

Then, we move on to another listener question, this one about whether the Trump campaign actually did soften language in the GOP platform related to Russia. Was that story actually “debunked?” (No.) We debunk the debunking for your edification!

After that, it’s time for a two-fer of embedded stories that bear on the question of redactions. We look briefly at McKeever v. Barr and evaluate whether that will prevent the ultimate release of the full Mueller Report as well as check in on developments in a FOIA case.

No #TTTBE this week!

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 read the Lawfareblog article that inspired Thomas S.’s question on impeachment.
  2. This is the full text of the 2016 Republican platform.
  3. Click here to read the Byron York article in the Washington Examiner that we debunk; here to read the original Washington Post article by Josh Rogin; and here to read the Politifact transcript of the Trump interview.
  4. Finally, check out McKeever v. Barr.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

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 email us at openarguments@gmail.com




Download Link
Posted on

OA271: Dis-Barred (?) – The Mueller Report

Today, we break down the just-released [REDACTED] Mueller report. The top-line analysis? This is much worse than we anticipated in Episode 264. This report may not be the end of the road for Trump — but it almost certainly is the end of the road for Attorney General William Barr.

That’s it! We spend nearly 90 minutes delving through the minutiae and correcting the egregious misquotations in Barr’s now-laughable “summary” of the report.

Show Notes & Links

1. You can click here to read the full Mueller report, and here for the searchable PDF.

2. We first covered Barr’s summary in Episode 264, and you can read his laughably dishonest letter again right here. Oh, and we followed up with Prof. Randall Eliason in Episode 265.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

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 email us at openarguments@gmail.com




Download Link

Posted on

OA270: Happy Tax Day!

Today’s episode brings you a trio of timely stories that all revolve around taxes: the Michael Avenatti indictment (for 29 courts of tax fraud), proposed legislation that some are arguing hamstrings the IRS, and (of course) the status of Congress’s efforts to get Trump’s tax returns. We also learned about very cool free online tax filing (Free File)… albeit too late to help most of you. Sorry about that.

We begin with the lawyer who will never come on our show — Michael Avenatti, who rose to fame on the back of the genius of Stormy Daniels, and whom we first debunked as a grifter just a few months later (way back in Episode 181!) Turns out he’s been arrested for tax fraud. Who could have seen that coming? (Oh yeah, everyone.)

After that, it’s time for a deep dive into HR 1957, the Taxpayer First Act of 2019. Is it really a Democratic-sponsored sellout to Turbotax, as some folks are saying? Listen and find out!

Then, it’s time to revisit the question of Trump’s taxes. Can Trump really stonewall indefinitely on his taxes? (No.) Does the law pave the way for Democrats to get his tax returns? (Yes.)

After all that, it’s time for the answer to TTTBE #122 regarding the nonexistence of official documents.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances
None! Andrew will be at the American Atheist convention in Cincinnati, Ohio this weekend, April 19-21. And 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 2020: Click here to access Free File.
  2. You can read Avenatti’s indictment, and/or catch up on all his scumbaggery by re-listening to Episode 181.
  3. This is the text of H.R. 1957, this is the text of the Eighth Memoradum of Understanding between the IRS and Free File, and this is the text of 67 Fed. Red. 67247 which references the MOU.
  4. Here’s an example of an alarmist op-ed in the Washington Post, and this is the initial article from ProPublica.
  5. We first outlined how to get Trump’s tax returns back in Episode 226; that’s still the right plan. We covered Rep. Neal’s request in Episode 267. The applicable statute is 26 U.S.C. § 6013.
  6. You can read Consovoy’s totally crazy crazypants letter here.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

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 email us at openarguments@gmail.com




Download Link
Posted on

OA269: Julian Assange Arrested

Today’s episode breaks down the recent arrest of Julian Assange in England and what it means for Chelsea Manning (and Donald Trump!)

We begin, however, with two separate sports-related stories: the improbable success of Marcus Rademacher in the Opening Arguments March Madness pool, and the (far sadder) saga of the Trump Administration’s indefensible decision to overrule the MLB’s deal with Cuba that would have brought an end to the dangerous human trafficking of ballplayers.

After that, it’s time for our deep dive into the sealed Julian Assange indictment and his arrest in England. We also discuss at great length exactly why Chelsea Manning is apparently being held in solitary confinement in prison — even though her crime was commuted by President Obama — and whether this indictment is relevant to the Mueller investigation. Oh, and Thomas gives you something to look out for!

And if all that isn’t enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #122 involving hearsay and a search for public records. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

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. Marcus Rademacher’s winning entry is linked here.
2. If you want football-themed Opening Arguments, check out Episode 57 and Episode 58, which tell the tale of Donald Trump singlehandedly destroyed the USFL. 
3. Trump reportedly wanted to buy the Cubs in 2006.
4. We covered the MLB-Cuba deal in OA 237.
5. The Assange Indictment.
6. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (computer fraud)
7. Chelsea Manning’s 4th Circuit brief can be found here.
8. And the Government’s response written by G. Zachary Terwilliger, who we covered in OA 212.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

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 email us at openarguments@gmail.com




Download Link
Posted on

OA268: Article V Conventions (w/Lawrence Lessig)

Today’s episode revisits the topic Andrew discussed briefly in Episode 252:  Article V conventions convened for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.  Joining Andrew is Prof. Lawrence Lessig, perhaps the most vocal liberal proponent of such conventions.  Andrew, you may recall, was skeptical and concerned about the risks that such conventions could pose.

Join Thomas, Andrew, and Prof. Lessig for a special 70-minute very deep dive and see if either one changes their minds!

After that, it’s time for TTTBE #121 regarding executive orders.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances
Andrew was just a guest on Episode 464 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast as their legal expert.  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. Here are the 14 states with Democratic legislatures and governors.
  2. This is the CNN/ORC poll Andrew referenced showing consistent high support for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.  And this is the Koch Brothers-funded ALEC initiative to convene Article V conventions.
  3. Click here to read Owings v. Speed, 18 U.S. 420 (1820), the first case Andrew discussed.
  4. Andrew also discussed Dyer v. Blair, 390 F.Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1975), and both lawyers talked about Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) as the primary case for the political question doctrine.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

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 email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Download Link

Posted on

OA267: Originalism and the Eighth Amendment (Bucklew v. Precythe)

Today’s breaking news episode takes an in-depth look at Bucklew v. Precythe, a recent Supreme Court decision that lays bare the “originalist” view of the Eighth Amendment.  Is it as bad as you think it is?  (Yes.)

We begin, however, with a look at Texas v. U.S. and the recent news that the Trump administration “changed its mind” and “will no longer defend” the Affordable Care Act.  What does that mean?  Listen and find out!

Then, it’s time for our deep dive into Bucklew v. Precythe, the Supreme Court’s analysis of how the 8th Amendment applies in capital punishment cases.

After that, we go back to Yodel Mountain for some updates on the congressional investigations, including the Congressional request for Trump’s tax returns and an EPIC FOIA request.

And if all that isn’t enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #121 involving the constitutionality of Presidential executive orders.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances

Thomas was just a guest on the Cognitive Dissonance podcast; go check it out!  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. Wikipedia entry on sodium thiopental can be found here.
2. Glossip v. Gross (2015)
3. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bucklew v. Precythe (Apr. 1, 2019)
4. 8th Circuit’s opinion below in Bucklew
5. Congressional letter requesting Trump’s taxes
6. Bonus! Zuckerman amicus brief in the ACA litigation.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

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 email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Download Link