Tag: Clarence Thomas

Posted on

OA749: Clarence Thomas Grifts. Kari Lake Sinks. Stewart Rhodes Comes To The End

Liz and Andrew update you on a bunch of stories, including today’s breaking news regarding the sentencing of Stewart Rhodes and the Texas Legislature committee referring out articles of impeachment for AG Ken Paxton.

Notes
OA 693
https://openargs.com/oa693-mike-pence-cant-testify-against-trump-cause-hes-a-senator-now/

OA 698
https://openargs.com/oa698-will-clarence-thomas-break-the-internet-probably-not/

OA 723
https://openargs.com/oa723-right-wing-judges-take-the-money-and-run-away-with-your-civil-rights/

OA 746
https://openargs.com/oa746-derp-off-dersh-off-2-sidney-powell-vs-kari-lake/

Investigators detail years of alleged misconduct by Texas AG Ken Paxton in stunning House committee hearing
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05/24/ken-paxton-abuse-power-house-investigation-texas/

Kari Lake ruling
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CV2022-095403-926-05222023-PDF.pdf

Kari Lake War Room tweet 5/23 tweet
https://twitter.com/KariLakeWarRoom/status/1661095473695035392?s=20

May 8 Senate Judiciary Letter to Harlan Crow
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/May%208,%202023%20letter%20to%20Harlan%20Crow16.pdf

 May 22 letter from Gibson Dunn to Durbin re Harlan Crow
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23822175/crow-letter.pdf

5 U.S.C. § 13103
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13103

-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

Posted on

OA 737: Bad Judges, Bad Judges, Whatcha Gonna Do?

Today, Liz and Andrew discuss the latest ethical lapse from Clarence Thomas, as well as the horrible activism of the next Republican ppreme Court nominee, Stu Duncan.

In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew break down the latest sanctions issued against Donald Trump in New York.

-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

Posted on

OA723: Right-Wing Judges Take the Money and Run… Away With Your Civil Rights

Liz and Andrew tackle three stories: an update on the dueling mifepristone rulings in Texas and Washington, Clarence Thomas’s latest corrupt activities, and (for patrons) an update on Steve Bannon’s sugar daddy.

Notes
OA 594: Impeach Clarence Thomas
https://openargs.com/oa594-impeach-clarence-thomas/

 OA 714 on Kwok
https://openargs.com/oa714-gonna-be-hard-for-steve-bannons-sugar-daddy-to-write-those-checks-from-prison/

Kwok superseding indictment
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.595325/gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.19.0_1.pdf

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 5a U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5a/compiledact-95-521/title-I

Washington v. FDA Motion for Clarification
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.waed.102225/gov.uscourts.waed.102225.81.0_3.pdf

Washington v. FDA Motion to Expedite
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.waed.102225/gov.uscourts.waed.102225.82.0.pdf

FDA 5th Circuit Motion to Stay
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145.20.0_4.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Intervenors 5th Circuit Motion to Stay
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145.22.1_1.pdf

Robert EOY report on the Supreme Court 2021
https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2021year-endreport.pdf

NPR on 2022 state supreme court races
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/05/1134514218/money-is-pouring-into-state-judicial-campaigns-this-year

 ProPublica Thomas story
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

Wall Street Journal on federal judges violating the ethics laws
https://www.wsj.com/articles/131-federal-judges-broke-the-law-by-hearing-cases-where-they-had-a-financial-interest-11632834421

-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

Posted on

OA698: Will Clarence Thomas Break the Internet? (Probably Not.)

Liz and Andrew break down a much-requested case, Gonzalez v. Google, that the Supreme Court just heard on oral argument. Will it break the Internet? Listen and find out!

Notes
Legal Eagle video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzNo5lZCq5M&ab_channel=LegalEagle

 OA 390
https://openargs.com/oa390-trumps-war-on-twitter-a-deep-dive-on-section-230/

OA 451
https://openargs.com/oa451-section-230-and-tulsis-transphobia/

47 U.S.C. § 230
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software, 5902 U.S. ____ (2020)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1284_869d.pdf

Google Opp. Brief
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/252127/20230112144706745_Gonzalez%20v.%20Google%20Brief%20for%20Respondent%20-%20FINAL.pdf

Petitioners’ Brief
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/20221130182721608_GonzalezPetMerits.pdf

Respondents’ Brief
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/252127/20230112144706745_Gonzalez%20v.%20Google%20Brief%20for%20Respondent%20-%20FINAL.pdf

Petitioners’ Reply
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/254251/20230207191257813_GonzalezRepyMeritsPrinted.pdf

Government Brief
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/249441/20221207203557042_21-1333tsacUnitedStates.pdf

-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


Posted on

Transcript of OA365: Every Melody Ever, Part 1

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 365!  Wow, that means you can start episode 1 on January 1st of the year and get to now. 

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         I dunno why you’d wanna do that, but you could and it would be a full year.  Anyway, how’re you doing, Andrew? 

Andrew:         Well, I’m looking up after that now that you can get Opening Arguments every day for an entire year.

Thomas:         Yeah.

Andrew:         That’s, um, I feel good!

Thomas:         We can even do – we can pause at like a quarter through this episode and it would be 365 and a fourth.  Perfect!

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Continue reading “Transcript of OA365: Every Melody Ever, Part 1”
Posted on

OA365: Every Melody Ever, Part 1

Today’s episode brings you our first look at the efforts by Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin to copyright “every melody ever” as part of a way of reconceptualizing copyright law as it applies to music. SPOILER: We’re going to have Riehl and Rubin on the show to discuss their work in more depth. We also discuss Chevron deference and a recent dissent by Clarence Thomas that’s No Laughing Matter.

We begin with a deep dive into the Riehl and Rubin “Every Melody Ever” effort, which builds upon the music copyright episodes we’ve previously discussed in Episode 236 (“Stairway to the Supreme Court”) and Episode 288 (“More on Led Zeppelin”). What exactly are Riehl and Rubin doing, and will it put an end to copyright lawsuits against musicians? Listen and find out!

After that, we check out a case (Baldwin v. U.S.) in which the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari — and the dissent filed by Clarence Thomas. That prompted a headline that got some chuckles last week — “Clarence Thomas cites Thomas in overruling Thomas” — and we learn that (of course) this turns out to be no laughing matter, but part of a concerted effort to roll back not only a 2005 Clarence Thomas opinion, National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Svcs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005), but Chevron deference itself. Find out why even the howler monkey contingent wanted to take a pass on this case — but not Clarence Thomas!

After all that, it’s time for the answer to perhaps the easiest #T3BE ever — or is it? (It is.) And remember, you can always play along with #T3BE by sharing out the show on social media!

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. Our basics on music and copyright were covered in Episode 236 and then with a follow-up in Episode 288.
  2. For (some of) the details on Riehl and Rubin’s project, you can read the write-up in Vice.
  3. Finally, you can check out Thomas’s cert dissent in Baldwin v. U.S. here.

-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

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
Posted on

OA262: Is Gideon v. Wainwright in Trouble??

Today’s episode is inspired by the 56th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, one of the most famous and celebrated landmark Supreme Court cases that guarantees indigent defendants the right to a court-appointed lawyer.  Is it under attack from our right-wing Supreme Court?  (You bet it is.)

We begin with a quick update on the recent district court opinion in California v. Ross and what that means for the 2020 Census.

Then, it’s time for an Andrew Was Right segment a update on the New York appellate court’s ruling in the Summer Zervos lawsuit.  As it turns out, Donald Trump does have to respond to Summer Zervos’s lawsuit — just like Bill Clinton had to respond to Paula Jones’s.

Then it’s time for a terrifying deep dive into Clarence Thomas’s dissent in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Garza v. Idaho.  What’s the case about, and why is Thomas using it as a vehicle to try and overturn one of the most basic and fundamental rights criminal defendants enjoy today?  Listen and (sadly) find out.

After all that, it’s time for a fun listener question about footballer Wayne Rooney and public obscenity laws.

Then, it’s time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #118.  Did Thomas get a dreaded real property question correct??  Listen and find out!  And, 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. Click here to read the recent district court opinion in California v. Ross.
  2. Check out the New York appellate court’s ruling in the Summer Zervos lawsuit.
  3. If you have the stomach for it, read Clarence Thomas’s dissent in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Garza v. Idaho.
  4. In the question-and-answer section, we discussed this statute, Rooney’s arrest record, and Cohen v. California.

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

OA256: The Bladensburg Cross

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into the Bladensburg Cross case currently pending before the Supreme Court with special guest Sarah Henry of the American Humanist Association.  You’ll learn that Andrew is going to speak at the AHA rally on Wednesday, February 27 right before oral arguments!

We bookend the interview with an Andrew Was Right segment about the recent Supreme Court ruling in Timbs v. Indiana first discussed back in Episode 234.

And on the back end, we briefly discuss Clarence Thomas’s bizarre and dangerous concurrence in McKee v. Cosby.  Did Justice Thomas really call for the reversal of New York Times v. Sullivan?  (Hint:  yes, yes he did.)

After all that, it’s time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #115 about whether you can use facts contained in settlement negotiations.  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 87 of the So Here’s My Story 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 check out the American Humanist Association.
  2. We first analyzed Timbs v. Indiana back in Episode 234.
  3. Click here to read Thomas’s concurrence in McKee v. Cosby., and here to brush up on the classic New York Times v. Sullivan.

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

OA244: Clarence Thomas vs. Thurgood Marshall

Today’s episode features a little more about Corey Robin, including the argument addressed on the show that criticisms of Clarence Thomas’s competence are a racist echo of similar claims made against Thurgood Marshall.  Find out why Andrew made the mistake he did in Episode 242, and also why Andrew still stands behind his answer to that question.

We begin with Robin, winding our way from his blog posts to the jurisprudence of two of Andrew’s heroes, Laurence Tribe and Ronald Dworkin!  Ultimately, you’ll learn why Andrew continues to defend the proposition that attacks on Thomas’s competence are not inherently racist.

After that, it’s time for some behind-the-scenes news about Attorney General nominee William Barr just in time for his confirmation hearings.  What company does he keep when it comes to interpreting the Founding Fathers?  Listen and find out!  (Hint:  this isn’t good.)

Finally, it’s time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #108 regarding real property.  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. We first discussed Robin in Episode 242 as part of a listener question.  You can click here to read his Tweet criticizing us for engaging in “tribalism” and playing identity politics.
  2. We discuss two Robin blog posts in depth:  (a) “Everything is in the Hands of Heaven Except the Fear of Heaven”, and (b) “The Scandal of Democracy”
  3. It was, in fact, Elena Kagan who said “we’re all textualists now” in 2015.
  4. Click here to check out Tribe’s 2008 book, The Invisible Constitution, which openly contests originalism (and directly engages Scalia in particular).
  5. You should also check out the Ronald Dworkin speech that was turned into an article in the Fordham Law Review.
  6. This is the 2001 Keith Whittington law review article that credits Robin with an assist.  This is Whittington’s page at the Federalist Society.
  7. We engage with this tweet from Robin listing four supposed examples of intellectual laziness leveled against Thurgood Marshall.
  8. Some Thurgood Marshall links:  (a) his confirmation as reported by the New York Times; and (b) this lovely retrospective on Thomas’s career penned by Juan Williams for the Washington Post.
  9. Finally, you can read some more stuff on Clarence Thomas:  (a) the 2014 rates of agreement among Supreme Court justices; and (b) this anecdote reported by attorney Matt Howell.
  10. If you have HeinOnline, you can read the Mark Tushnet law review article in the Georgetown Law Review we discuss on the show.  (Otherwise, you’re stuck reading the first page only.)

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