cruel and unusual punishment – Opening Arguments

Today’s breaking news episode takes an in-depth look at Bucklew v. Precythe, a recent Supreme Court decision that lays bare the “originalist” view of the Eighth Amendment. Is it as bad as you think it is? (Yes.)

We begin, however, with a look at Texas v. U.S. and the recent news that the Trump administration “changed its mind” and “will no longer defend” the Affordable Care Act. What does that mean? Listen and find out!

Then, it’s time for our deep dive into Bucklew v. Precythe, the Supreme Court’s analysis of how the 8th Amendment applies in capital punishment cases.

After that, we go back to Yodel Mountain for some updates on the congressional investigations, including the Congressional request for Trump’s tax returns and an EPIC FOIA request.

And if all that isn’t enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #121 involving the constitutionality of Presidential executive orders. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances

Thomas was just a guest on the Cognitive Dissonance podcast; go check it out! 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. Wikipedia entry on sodium thiopental can be found here.
2. Glossip v. Gross (2015)
3. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bucklew v. Precythe (Apr. 1, 2019)
4. 8th Circuit’s opinion below in Bucklew
5. Congressional letter requesting Trump’s taxes
6. Bonus! Zuckerman amicus brief in the ACA litigation.

Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

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

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into two important Supreme Court opinions decided last week: McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client’s guilt over that client’s objections in a capital murder trial, and Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S. Code § 3701 et seq. In both cases, we hope to show that these cases have two legitimate sides.

We begin, of course, with sportsball. What is PASPA, why did the Court strike it down, does it make sense, and most importantly: when can you bet against the San Jose Sharks?

In the main segment, we break down the difficult questions surrounding the representation of capital murder defendants.

After that, we head back overseas with a really insightful listener comment that takes us deeper into the law of treaties.

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #76 about present recollection refreshed. 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

The first case we break down is Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, 28 U.S. Code § 3701 et seq.
After that, we turn to McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client’s guilt over that client’s objections in a capital murder trial, distinguishing the Court’s earlier decision in Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004).
We discussed treaty obligations in Episode 173.

Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

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

Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Direct Download

Tag: cruel and unusual punishment

OA267: Originalism and the Eighth Amendment (Bucklew v. Precythe)

OA175: Defending a Client In the Shadow of the Death Penalty (& So Much More!)