Tag Archives: abortion

OA251.5 Abortion Special – More on June Medical Services v. Gee

This rapid-response bonus episode tackles the Supreme Court’s late-breaking stay of the 5th Circuit’s opinion in June Medical Services v. Gee, with a particular emphasis on dissecting Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent.  What does it all mean?  Listen and find out!

We have also continued the episode with a deep dive into res judicata and the truly ominous implications of Kavanaugh’s dissent at our Patreon page for supporters of the show at any level.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Check out Episodes OA: 249 “Overturning Roe v. Wade Starts Today” and OA 251 for reference to our past discussion on this cases.
  2. Click here to read the Court’s granting of the stay (which includes Kavanaugh’s dissent), and here for the Supreme Court’s docket in June Medical Services v. Gee.
  3. This is the reply brief filed by the petitioners.
  4. Here is the prior 2016 Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

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

OA249: Overturning Roe v. Wade Starts Today

Today’s episode sounds the alarm as to whether our activist right-wing Supreme Court is ready to effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and essentially permit the entire state of Louisiana to all but ban the right to an abortion in that state.  We’re NOT an alarmist podcast, but this is something you need to be watching.  We also follow up on the Trump Shutdown, answer a listener question regarding our discussion of the Hilton lawsuit from last episode, and (of course) take our weekly visit to Yodel Mountain, this time on the back of one Roger Stone.  Are these all just “process crimes?”  And what the hell does that mean, anyway?  Strap in and find out!

We begin, however, with a brief look at the end of the Trump Shutdown and what’s likely to come next.

After that, we tackle some questions and misperceptions regarding our story of the lawsuit against Hilton hotels from Episode 248.

Then, it’s time for the main segment, which takes a look at a pending Supreme Court motion and discusses what this means for the future of Roe v. Wade and the right to a legal abortion in this country.  Yes, it really is that significant.

Then, it’s time for a trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss “process crimes” rapid-fire round of questions about Trump’s shutdown.  Why is Congress still getting paid?  Who can sue, and why haven’t they?  Find out the answers to these questions and more!

We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #112 about murder most foul!  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. Ann Coulter was responsible for the shutdown and Trump’s approval ratings take a hit. (Thomas Was Right)
2. A series of bipartisan proposals show support for ending shutdowns.
3. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
4. Several years ago, Andrew wrote on reasonable religious accommodations at Disney when he was still working for The Man.
5. We discussed Planned Parenthood v. Casey in OA: Episode 27 and OA Episode: 28.
6. Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt 136 S.Ct. 2292 (2016)
7. June Medical Services v. Gee, 905 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2018)
8. MOTION TO STAY filed by June.
9. Dershowitz – what the defenders are saying and why it’s Wrong . Followed by Seth Abramson’s Smackdown thread.
10. Stone Indictment
11. More on Randy Credico from his wiki entry and twitter.
12. Roger Stone will work the media
13. Concord Management & Consulting media discovery.
14. The joint motion in Roger Stone’s case and the “voluminous and complex” evidence against him.

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

OA240: Libertarianism is Still Bad & You Should Still Feel Bad

Today’s special, hangover-free New Years’ episode follows up on some of the things we discussed during our Episode 238 interview with Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast, including the never-controversial subject of libertarianism.  Strap in; it’s been an interesting year!

We begin with a listener question from Ricardo, who asks some follow-up questions to our original hot take on libertarianism waaaaaay back in Episode 22.  Is there a robust theory of property rights that serves as a side-constraint on government action?  You’ll have to listen and find out!  (Hint:  no.)

After that, Andrew further explains the “Are You A Cop?”-style segment from Episode 238 regarding whether Brett Kavanaugh “voted with the liberals” in an abortion case.  (Hint:  no.)  You’ll figure out all you need to know about the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Gee v. Planned Parenthood and Andersen v. Planned Parenthood… as well as getting a deep dive into Clarence Thomas’s dissent and an explainer on the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a!

After all that, it’s time for the answer to Thomas (and Matt) Take The Bar Exam #107 regarding defamation.  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. Check out Matt & Mattingly’s Ice Cream Social podcast!
  2. We first discussed libertarianism back in Episode 22.
  3. You can click here to read Clarence Thomas’s blistering (and inaccurate) dissent from the Court’s denial of cert in the Planned Parenthood cases; click here to check out 42 USC § 1396a(a)(23), the statute at issue; and click here to read the Washington Examiner article discussed on the show.

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

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Download Link

OA190: Good News, Everyone! (On Abortion Rights & More)

Today’s episode — at long last — brings us some good news from two rather unlikely sources:  first, from the state of Iowa (regarding abortion rights), and second, from the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee.  You won’t believe your ears!

We begin, however, with a segment that’s good news for everyone except Andrew:  yes, it’s the ever-popular Andrew Was Wrong.  This time, Andrew owns up to a serious mistake regarding the fingerprinting regulations at the border, and an almost-as-serious mistake regarding the bustling metropolis of Olathe, Kansas.

In the main segment, Andrew breaks down Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds, a recent state supreme court opinion invalidating a 3-day waiting period (with other onerous restrictions on abortion) that provides optimism and a way forward for progressives as we prepare for decades of a right-wing federal judiciary.  Find out how states can protect reproductive freedom and abortion rights separate from the U.S. Supreme Court.

After that, it’s time for a return trip to Yodel Mountain, where we check in on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s endorsement of the joint agency report from January 2017 concluding that the Russian government deliberately interfered in the US elections with a strong preference for Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton.

Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #83 regarding the tort of assault and an unloaded firearm.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was just a guest co-host on Episode 75 of the Skepticrat podcast; go check it out! 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. Click here to read the Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds opinion.
  2. For future activism, click this link to determine whether your state has elected or appointed state supreme court judges.
  3. The Intelligence Community Assessment is here; you can also read the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report validating that assessment 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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

OA189: Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Today’s Rapid Response Friday gives you a sneak preview of what to expect from the person we predict will become Donald Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

We discuss:

  • Why it’s likely to be Kavanaugh and not any of the other rumored contenders, especially flavor-of-the-minute Amy Coney Barrett
  • Kavanaugh’s view of the First Amendment’s establishment clause and the future of Lemon v. Kurtzman
  • Kavanaugh’s views on abortion
  • How Kavanaugh differs (and how he doesn’t!) from Neil Gorsuch when it comes to Chevron deference
  • The weird conservative hit squad out to get Kavanaugh
  • And much, much more!

After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #83 involving assault with an unloaded gun.  If you’d like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

Thomas was just a guest on Episode 421 of the Cognitive Dissonance Podcast.  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. If you want a head start on Tuesday’s show, check out the just-released Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report.
  2. This is the Notre Dame speech/law review article in which Kavanaugh lays out his judicial philosophy and essentially auditions for the Supreme Court.
  3. We discussed the following cases:  Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), Priests for Life v. Department of Health & Human Services, 808 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (en banc), Garza v. Hargan, 874 F.3d 735 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (en banc), United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC (D.C. Cir., 2017) (en banc), PHH v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 881 F.3d 75 (2018) (en banc), Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir 2011), and Heller v. D.C., 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011)!
  4. Right-wing weirdo roundups:  Here’s the National Review endorsement of Kavanaugh; this is the truly bizarre Jacobs piece in The Federalist; and here is the Federalist Society’s own rebuttal.
  5. Finally, a preemptive Andrew Was Wrong:  Here’s Raymond Kethledge’s University of Michigan address on how bad Chevron deference is.

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

OA187: Lowering the Lukumi Bar?

Today’s Bonus Episode asks if there’s a way to make sense of the Supreme Court’s Lukumi jurisprudence in light of this week’s rulings in Trump v. Hawaii (the Travel Ban), Masterpiece Cakeshop, and the somewhat surprising decision to remand the Arlene’s Flowers case back to the state of Washington.

We begin, however, by checking in with the Southern District of New York’s Order approving the Taint Team’s review of documents seized from Michael Cohen’s offices by the Department of Justice.  How many documents did the Team recommend the Court withhold as privileged?  The answer may surprise you!

After that, we revisit the thesis advanced by Andrew Seidel in Episode 180 that the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop might result in a more vigorous application of its 1993 decision in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).

Next, we break down the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in NIFLA v. Becerra, in which the Court struck down a California law regulating so-called “crisis pregnancy centers.”

After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #82 involving the legality of a search for heroin.  If you’d like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent 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 the Southern District of New York’s Order regarding Cohen’s meager haul of privileged documents.
  2. Andrew Seidel set forth his “Lukumi bar” thesis in Episode 180; you can read Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) for yourself and then compare it with both Trump v. Hawaii and Masterpiece Cakeshop.
  3. We discussed Planned Parenthood v. Casey at length in a two-part series:  Episode 27 and Episode 28; you might want to compare the statute approved in that case with the one struck down by the Court in NIFLA v. Becerra.

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

OA181: Michael Avenatti is Never Going To Come On Our Show (#NotAllLawyers)

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into allegations of attorney misconduct.  We begin with following investigative reporting concerning the involuntary bankruptcy of the Eagan Avenatti firm, and discover some potentially disturbing facts about the lawyer who’s currently outfoxing the bad guys at every turn, Michael Avenatti.

After that, we discuss the Supreme Court’s recent unanimous per curiam decision in Azar v. Garza, the tragic case of the young woman denied her constitutional right to an abortion and subjected to harassment and “crisis pregnancy center” anti-abortion counseling until the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal stepped in.  So… why did the Supreme Court just vacate that opinion?  It (potentially) has to do with attorney misconduct.  Oh, and this story also tells you everything you needed to know about price ceilings on underwear in the 1940s.  (Really!)

Then, we examine the biggest example of attorney misconduct at the moment — Donald Trump’s ever-fluctuating team of lawyers defending the indefensible.  Specifically, we take a look at the recently-leaked Dowd memorandum and its central claim that the President cannot obstruct justice with otherwise-legal behavior.  (That’s false.)

Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #79 regarding the conveyance of property to a church with conditions attached.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

If you can’t get enough of our analysis of the Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion, you can get even more on Episode 142 of Serious Inquiries Only (with more Andrew Seidel) and Episode 277 of The Scathing Atheist (with way more profanity).

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. This is the investigative piece on the Eagan Avenatti bankruptcy published by the Los Angeles Times.
  2. We last discussed Garza v. Hargan on Episode 165.  You can read the Supreme Court’s opinion (now captioned Azar v. Garza) here.  And if you want to read United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 304 U.S. 36 (1950), you can do that too!
  3. Finally, if you can stomach it, here’s a link to the Dowd memo.

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

OA179: Abortion and Plea Bargaining

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into two developments concerning the right to an abortion in the U.S., followed by our continuing discussion on plea bargaining with listener comments from prosecutors, public defenders, the U.S. judiciary, and even international listeners.  You won’t want to miss it!

We begin with an in-depth examination of the so-called “gag rule” just proposed by Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services.  Is it really a gag rule?  (Yes.)

After that, we look into the Supreme Court’s recent decision not to grant certiorari in Planned Parenthood v. Jegley, allowing an 8th Circuit decision to stand that, in turn, denied a preliminary injunction blocking a restrictive Arkansas abortion law, HB1394.  Is this a bad sign?  (Yes.)

After that, we return to the subject of plea bargaining that’s been a hot topic in our inbox for weeks, capped off by the Iowa Supreme Court’s discussion of the issue in  Schmidt v. Iowa.

Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #78 regarding whether the jury can read a treatise on mill grinding.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent 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 context on the Trump HHS gag rule, you can read Title X, 42 USC § 300 et seq.
  2. Planned Parenthood v. Jegley, 864 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2017), denied a preliminary injunction, allowing HB1394 to take effect.  You can read the cert petition here.
  3. If you’re feeling good about Schmidt v. Iowa and need to be reminded that “actual innocence” is not a ground for federal habeas corpus relief, check out Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993).

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download