Tag Archives: abortion

OA165: You Heard It Here First! (Abortion Rights, Gun Control, and Offensive Trademarks)

Note:  The “C” segment of this episode (and the show notes) contain hilarious explicit language in order to discuss a recent development in trademark law.  You’ve been warned!

In the preshow, we tamp down on some unwarranted liberal freakout regarding a recent White House Executive Order regarding the last few fraying strands of our social safety net.

After that, we revisit three cases we told you we’d be keeping an eye on.  First, we look at the aftermath of Jane Doe v. Wright, which we first discussed in Episodes 117 and 133.  Back then, we told you about the fate of a single young woman in state custody who was denied her right to an abortion; today, we tell you about the nationwide class action that was just certified in Garza v. Hargan.

Next, we revisit Kolbe v. Hogan, which we called a “landmark” case way back in Episode 47.  Find out how a federal district court judge in Massachusetts just applied Kolbe in upholding the Massachusetts ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

For our third revisit, we take a look at another trademark case in light of the Slants case (Matal v. Tam) that we first discussed with Simon Tam way back in Episode 33 and reported on Tam’s victory before the Supreme Court in Episode 80.  The Slants’s victory paved the way for disparaging and offensive trademarks, but what about garden-variety “immoral or scandalous” ones, like FUCT clothing or “Big Dick Nick” towels?  Listen and find out!

Finally, we end with the answer to the fiendishly hard Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #71 about whether a state can discriminate against out-of-state competitors.  Don’t forget 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. This is Alphr’s list of the “15 Best Podcasts of 2018” — and wow, we’re in some good company!
  2. You can click here to read the White House Executive Order on “Reducing Poverty in America;” we quoted from Section 5 at the end.
  3. We first discussed Jane Doe v. Wright in Episodes 117 and 133.
  4. We first told you about Kolbe v. Hogan in Episode 47; now, you can read the Massachusetts decision in Worman v. Healey.  Also, if you like briefs, you can read the petition for certiorari, the State of Maryland’s opposition, and the petitioners’ reply.
  5. We told you about the Slants’s case back in our Episode 33 interview with Simon Tam and reported on Tam’s Supreme Court win in Episode 80; today, we discuss In re Brunetti, which applies the Matal v. Tam holding to the rest of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).
  6. Finally, the link you’ve been waiting for: the Deadspin article about “Big Dick Nick.”

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

OA11: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 3

In this week’s hour-length episode, we finally conclude our three-part discussion of abortion and defending the jurisprudence behind the Supreme Court’s 1973 opinion in Roe v. Wade… only to leave you with another cliffhanger and a topic for a future show.  (Bingo!)

Also, given our Patreon support, we’ll now be answering a viewer question every episode!  In this episode, we go back to frequent supporter Eric Brewer, who asks “Is a lawyer obligated to tell his clients the hard truths?”  Andrew, true to form, answers without really answering the question.  Don’t you just hate lawyers??

Finally, in our closing segment, we crank up Judas Priest for Breakin’ (Down) the Law and answer the question “How does one amend the Constitution, anyway?”  Of course, no answer is ever simple here on OA, and in so doing, Andrew takes us through the very strange history of the 27th Amendment, which took more than 200 years to become ratified by the states.  Seriously!

Show Notes & Links

  1. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
  2. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, starting with the preamble, set forth the baseline of ethical rules that lawyers must follow in most jurisdictions.  Read all about “zealous advocacy” if you enjoy reading model ethics rules.
  3. The American Prospect has a fun article that tells the story of the passage of the 27th Amendment; give it a read.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com