Transcript of OA330: The Impeachment Inquiry Explainer (& Pre-Embryos in Connecticut

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 330.

Andrew:         Woo!

Thomas:         Cool round and even number, multiple of ten.  How’s it going Andrew?

Andrew:         It is going fantastic Thomas, how are you?

Thomas:         Doin’ well, not as well as the man who is on the vacation that seemingly never ends, but-

Andrew:         [Laughs]  It ends!  Last day, last day man.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA330: The Impeachment Inquiry Explainer (& Pre-Embryos in Connecticut”

OA330: The Impeachment Inquiry Explainer (& Pre-Embryos in Connecticut)

Today’s episode is everything you need to walk your open-minded Uncle Clarence — you know, the one who watches Fox News, but not religiously, and isn’t quite sure what all this impeachment nonsense is about — through the key buzzwords of the week. And, as a bonus, we discuss an important decision regarding in vitro fertilization in Connecticut.

We begin, however, with the Explainer. How is this process different from (and more fair than) the Clinton impeachment? What is an impeachment “inquiry?” And why — oh god, why?!? — is everyone so focused on quid pro quo? You’ll find out the answers to all these questions and much, much more.

After that, it’s time to examine Bilbao v. Goodwin, which delves into the tricky question of what happens to a couple’s frozen pre-embryos after they break up? This case has been making the rounds in both pro-life and pro-choice circles — we’ll tell you exactly what it stands for and what comes next.

Then, of course, it’s time for an all-new #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a breach-of-contract question. Can he keep his winning streak going?

Upcoming 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 the full breakdown of the House Impeachment Inquiry resolution, H.R. 660, check out our discussion in Episode 328.
  2. And you can click here to read Bilbao v. Godwin.

-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

OA301: The Good News Show!

Today’s episode focuses on a number of actual good developments in the news! From the second half of the Mueller testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, to a court’s issuance of an injunction blocking Trump’s illegal efforts to change the rules on asylum, it’s a (rare) week of good news! Oh — and there’s a brand new intro for your enjoyment as well!

We begin with an update on Mueller’s second round of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, and answer some questions about whether Rep. Nadler can launch “an impeachment inquiry” without Nancy Pelosi’s approval.

Then, it’s time for some good news out of the courts, including a sweeping injunction handed down in Arkansas with respect to three laws that restrict and/or prohibit abortion, including Act 493, which purported to ban all abortions after 18 weeks. This is exactly what we predicted would happen at the district court level — and you can learn why this particular (159-page!) decision is particularly useful going forward.

But the good news doesn’t stop there! We also break down the Northern District of California’s injunction with respect to the joint DOJ/DHS rule regarding asylum that was rammed through without the appropriate notice-and-comment period last week.

Then, it’s time for a fun segment regarding disciplinary proceedings against everyone’s favorite crazy person, Larry Klayman!

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. Don’t forget that there are just 10 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they’re gone!
  2. Click here for Nadler’s 2017 impeachment inquiry.
  3. This is the must-read Dana Leigh Marks article in the Washington Post that we discuss on this show.
  4. Finally, click here to read the DC panel’s recommendations against crazy person Larry Klayman.

-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

OA283: Mueller Speaks! (& Clarence Thomas Pens a Nonsensical Concurrence)

Today’s episode breaks down the statement made this week by Robert Mueller in connection with his report and investigation. Is it a good sign? Is it a bad sign? Is it both? Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with a bit of housekeeping, including a recommendation that you check out Episode 194 of Serious Inquiries Only (featuring Eli Bosnick!) for the official OA answer to all things milkshaking. We also preview a bit of next week’s show, which involves revisiting Eddie Lampert, Steve Mnuchin, and the alleged looting of Sears. Is it worse than you think? (It’s always worse than you think.)

Next, we check in on four Supreme Court orders that relate to gerrymandering. Is that worse than you think? (It’s always worse than you think.)

After all that, we’re not even halfway done! Our main segment breaks down the Supreme Court’s brief, two-page per curiam order in Box v. Planned Parenthood… and the sprawling, nonsensical 20-page concurrence written by Clarence Thomas that literally repeats David Barton-level falsehoods. You’ll be angry, but you won’t want to miss it.

Then, it’s time to Yodel! We carefully break down Robert Mueller’s statement regarding his investigation and what it means for the future. In so doing, we also analyze Mueller’s claims regarding the now-infamous 2000 OLC memo as to whether a sitting president can be indicted.

After all that, it’s time for an all-new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #128 involving a crazy criminal effort to steal money from a fast-food drive-through by pretending to have a sniper… look, you’ll just have to listen and play along, okay?!?

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 the correct take on milkshaking, check out Serious Inquiries Only Episode 194 with Eli Bosnick.
  2. We first covered the alleged looting of Sears by Eddie Lampert and Steve Mnuchin in Episode 273 and that was picked up by our friends Elizabeth Warren and AOC.
  3. These are the four orders the Supreme Court granted in gerrymandering cases:
    A. HOUSEHOLDER, LARRY, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL.
    B. CHABOT, STEVE, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL
    C. MICHIGAN SENATE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL.
    D. CHATFIELD, LEE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL.
  4. Click here to read the Supreme Court’s Opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood
  5. Click here for the peer-reviewed research showing that Sanger was not a eugenicist; and here for the article showing she wasn’t a racist.
  6. This is a transcript of Robert Mueller’s testimony and this is the 2000 OLC Memo.

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

OA282: OREO (& The Real HUD Scandal)

Lost in the (justifiable) concern over Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson’s apparent lack of understanding of REOs, OREO, and just about anything pertinent to his job is a recently-proposed HUD rule that would deliberately reverse an Obama-era regulation requiring nondiscrimination in the provision of services to the homeless based on gender identity. Is it as bad as you think? (Yes.)

First, however, we begin with an Andrew Was Wrong and a bit more discussion on abortion, including the difference between Plan B and the oral abortifacient RU-486, and the difference between a zygote and a blastocyst.

After that, it’s time for our deep dive into Secretary Carson’s laughable testimony… and the real issue hiding beneath the surface, which involves crafting a religious exception to the Equality Rule of 2016.

Then, it’s time to debut Optimist Prime(TM) vs. Negatron(TM) on impeachment. Find out why Andrew thinks the tide is turning and Thomas… doesn’t. Where do you wind up? Listen and find out!

Then, it’s time for the answer to an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #127 — a dreaded real property question about a man who tries to convey his property to an overseas nephew before dying.  Can Thomas get it right??  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 rise of state-level constitutional protections to the right to choose back in Episode 276. and analyzed Georgia HB 481 and Alabama HB 314 in Episode 280.
  2. You can read HUD proposed rule FR-6152 (currently RIN 2506-AC53) for yourself.




Download Link

OA280: Abortion Rights Under Assault

Today’s episode takes an in-depth look at the recent abortion bans passed in Georgia and Alabama, breaking down exactly what these laws say (and don’t say!) to help you sort through the panic from the actual news. It’s not always a pleasant trip, but it’s a journey worth taking to figure out exactly what’s at stake.

We begin, however, with a listener question about abortion — and specifically, about whether the federal government can preemptively prevent the states from doing the kinds of things we talked about back in Episode 276. Find out why Andrew thinks the conservative Supreme Court isn’t likely to uphold the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting states from recognizing abortion rights.

After that, it’s time for a deep dive in to the very confusing Georgia statute , HB 481. Exactly what does this bill do (and not do), and how scared should you be? Listen and find out.

And if that’s not enough, we also walk you through the more straightforward (but still terrifying) Alabama statute, HB 314. Is it true that the bill fails to exempt rape victims? (Yes.) Is there anything to mitigate how awful this bill is? (Sort of.)

After all that, it’s time to find out the answer to TTTBE #126 about a man who shoots a would-be assailant three times, including once after the assailant is lying on the ground and whimpering. What kind of crime could this be? 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 rise of state-level constitutional protections to the right to choose back in Episode 276.
  2. You can check out Georgia HB 481 and Alabama HB 314 to read these bills for yourself.



Download Link

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!

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.

-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

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