Tag: Bridgegate

Posted on

OA384: Bridgegate Apparently Was Fine

Today’s episode updates you on all the recent goings-on at the Supreme Court, including the advent of new, social-distancing-approved oral arguments, the Court’s calendar, and today’s 9-0 reversal in Kelly v. U.S., the Bridgegate case. Oh, and while we’re at it, we also take on two lengthy Andrew Was (Sort of) Wrong segments! Phew!

We begin with a discussion of the new procedures for SCOTUS oral arguments, and give an apology to Clarence Thomas, who’s now engaged and asking questions after decades of silence on the bench. After that, it’s time to take a look at the SCOTUS calendar where we check out some suspicious timing regarding the non-release of the Title VII cases as well as 10 pending gun control cert petitions.

Then, it’s time for a deep dive into Kelly v. U.S., which we last covered in Episode 232. Andrew thought the 3rd Circuit’s analysis of “property” was plausible in that episode… and just got reversed 9-0 by a unanimous Supreme Court. Whoops!

As long as Andrew Was Wrong, how about we check back in on Andrew Yang’s lawsuit against the DNC, in which Yang (despite “not having a great case,” according to Andrew in Episode 382) nevertheless managed to secure an injunction from the Southern District of New York. Find out where this case is headed, what’s next, and why Andrew is STILL right, sort of….

Finally, Andrew Was… not wrong, exactly, but Flabbergasted that the American Bar Association reversed itself, finding Justin Walker “Well Qualified” for serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Andrew, on the other hand, continues to rate Walker “Not Qualified,” as per Episode 289.

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new #T3BE involving a nuisance plant next to a mini-golf park. Will Thomas’s winning streak continue?

Patreon Bonuses

If you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest on Episode 204 of The Daily Beans, talking justiciability. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Click here to read the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kelly v. U.S., and here to listen to our coverage of the Third Circuit’s opinion in Episode 232.
  2. Check out the district court’s injunction in favor of Andrew Yang reinstating the New York Democratic primary.
  3. You can check out the ABA’s “Not Qualified” ranking of Walker in 2019 and match it against their new “Well Qualified” letter here. For more on why you should #OpposeJustinWalker, check out Episode 289.

-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

OA299: Executive v. Judiciary (Worcester v. Georgia)

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into an 1832 decision, Worcester v. Georgia, to try and answer the question of what happens when the executive and judicial branches come into conflict. Yes, there’s a lesson to be drawn to today’s Supreme Court-vs.-Donald Trump showdown over the citizenship question on the census.

We begin, however, with a pair of updates to previous shows, including “Joey Salads” and his nonsense “complaint” against AOC, and a listener email and update from our friend Seth Barrett Tillman regarding the status of the emoluments clauses litigation in both Maryland and DC. In fact, a late-breaking decision in the DC case led to a Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic!

Then, it’s time for the main event: breaking down the case that led to the famous aphorism, “Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” As is usually the case with these deep dives, there isn’t an easy answer as to what the outcome will be when the executive and judiciary stare each other down, but we can always learn from history.

In the “C” segment, we check out an update from friend of the show Randall Eliason, who taunts us with an Andrew Was Wrong about the future of Bridgegate (from Episode 232). Learn what issue is in fact going before the Supreme Court and why Prof. Eliason thinks the Bridgegate conspirators are going to get off scot-free.

After all that, it’s time for #T3BE #135, in which Thomas once again manages to analyze a question absolutely perfectly… only to pick the wrong answer yet again. You won’t want to miss the full discussion.

Appearances

Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Registry Matters podcast discussing the Supreme Court, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote from the live show in Philadelphia talking.. well, pretty much everything!

Show Notes & Links

  1. We last discussed the Emoluments Clauses litigation in Episode 297. and for more, check out our Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic!
  2. Here’s the full text of the 1832 Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia.
  3. We last discussed Bridgegate in Episode 232, and you can click here to read Prof. Eliason’s latest blog on the topic.

-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

OA232: Trump’s Plan to Weaponize the Census (& Bridgegate!)

Today’s deep-dive Tuesday takes us back to a time in which politically-motivated revenge was actually seen as a scandal; namely, Chris Christie’s Bridgegate.  There’s a new ruling out of the Third Circuit that affects two Christie staffers, and… well, you’ll just have to listen and find out!

Then, it’s time to take a long look at ongoing litigation surrounding the Trump Administration’s efforts to deter Democrats from registering for the Census, thus reducing their voting power.  What does a trial in district court have to do with the Supreme Court’s recent grant of certiorari?

After that, we answer a terrific Patron listener question regarding the European loser-pays-legal fees model versus the American pay-your-own-way model.  Yes, the American model seems counter-intuitive at best (and downright regressive at worst), but is shifting to a loser-pays model the answer?  Andrew talks about his experiences and the guys go through a bunch of options.

And finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #103 on the Takings Clause!  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 recently a guest on the David Pakman show talking court-packing and more.  Give it a listen!  And, as always, 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 3rd Circuit’s opinion in Bridgegate by clicking here.
  2. Click here to read the Court’s order in the Census litigation, which shows that Thomas-Alito-Gorsuch would have granted a stay.

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