Tag Archives: Gorsuch

OA184: Families at the Border

Today’s Rapid Response Friday helps separate fact from fiction when it comes to the heartwrenching issue of families being separated at the border.  Is the Trump administration to blame?  Did the recent Executive Order fix the problem?  Listen and find out.

First, though, we bring back (almost) everyone’s favorite segment:  Andrew Was Wrong!  Specifically, Andrew was wrong when he predicted back in Episode 83 that Maajid Nawaz didn’t have much of a defamation case against the Southern Poverty Law center, and in Episode 84 that he didn’t have much leverage, either.  Well, both of those predictions looked foolish now that the SPLC has agreed to pay Nawaz $3,375,000 and issue an unconditional apology.

In the main segment, we break down Trump’s EO regarding separating families at the border and requesting a modification to the Flores v. Reno settlement.  It’s bad.  And if it weren’t bad enough, we also discuss the administration’s change in asylum policy.

After that, we discuss the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Pereira v. Sessions.  Surely that can’t be bad news, too?  (Don’t call us Shirley.)

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #81 involving the constitutionality of a state legislature retaliating against two professors for pushing campus speech codes.  Have we piqued your interest yet?  Listen and find out!  And if you’d like to play along , just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was recently a guest on the David Pakman Show, with a two-part appearance discussing whether President Trump can be indicted and if so, whether he can pardon himself.  You can watch the video on YouTube.

Show Notes & Links

  1. We first discussed Maajid Nawaz’s legal threats in Episode 83 and Episode 84.  You can read the final Settlement Agreement for yourself as well as check out the SPLC’s apology to Nawaz.
  2. Click here to read the Snopes article conclusively debunking the political claim that this policy was put into place “by Democrats.”
  3. You can read Trump’s recent Executive Order and also check out the original 1997 Flores v. Reno settlement.
  4. The operative laws discussed during the main segment were:  8 U.S.C. § 1158 (asylum); 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (“improper entry by alien”); and, of course, 18 U.S.C. § 46 (“transportation of water hyacinths”).  You can also read the Attorney General’s Interim Decision #3929 on refugees for yourself.
  5. As promised, this is the full list of Class B federal misdemeanors.
  6. We also discussed this Washington Post article on refugees being turned away at the border.
  7. This is the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Pereira v. Sessions.
  8. Finally, a secret Yodel for you folks who read the show notes:  here’s the link to the news that Michael Cohen’s fired his old lawyers (McDermott, Will & Emery) and hired a new one (Guy Petrillo).  What does this mean?  Only time will tell.

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

OA183: Dissenting on the Supreme Court

**Today’s episode is brought to you by Framebridge! To custom frame your favorite things, go to framebridge.com promo code: OA**

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into two recent 8-1 decisions by the Supreme Court:  Collins v. Virginia and Sveen v. Melin.  What makes a decision nearly unanimous, and what causes that lone Justice to dissent?  Listen and find out!

Our first 8-1 case involves two unique aspects of the 4th Amendment:  the “curtilage” exception and the “automobile” exception.  Which one takes precedence, why, and which Supreme Court justice vehemently disagreed?  Find out if you agree with Thomas — and whether the law is “a ass.”  (Seriously!)

Our second 8-1 case is Sveen v. Melin, which involves whether the state of Missouri can legislate certain presumptions regarding “governing instruments.”  It’s the Contracts Clause!  Seem arcane?  It won’t after you listen to our breakdown!

After that, we answer a fun listener question about how a law firm makes someone a partner in light of our assessment of the Eagan Avenatti law firm in Episode 181.

Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #80 regarding negligence per se and an impromptu ice rink.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was recently a guest on the David Pakman Show, with a two-part appearance discussing whether President Trump can be indicted and if so, whether he can pardon himself.  You can watch the video on YouTube.

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 read the Supreme Court’s opinion in Collins v. Virginia, and here to check out Sveen v. Melin.
  2. The other decision Andrew referred to was the landmark case of Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).

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

OA177: Neil Gorsuch’s Epic Decision & the NFL (feat. Chris Kristofco)

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into the recent Supreme Court decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, a Gorsuch opinion that is exactly what we told you to expect back when he was nominated to the Court.  Oh, and we also tackle the latest policy issued by the NFL with our four-time guest, Chris Kristofco.

And that’s where we begin:  with a detailed breakdown of the legal implications of the NFL’s just-announced policy prohibiting on-field peaceful protests during the national anthem.  You won’t want to miss it!

During the main segment, we break down the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision upholding the use of mandatory arbitration clauses that waive the right to class action lawsuits in take-it-or-leave-it contracts of adhesion.  But — because this is a Gorsuch opinion — you won’t be surprised to learn that it’s so very much worse than you thought.

After that, we move into a listener comment on plea bargaining that foreshadows an upcoming episode….

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #77 about the constitutional requirements (if any) to a 12-person jury and/or a unanimous one.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was just a guest on the Dumb All Over Podcast, episode 70.  Go check it out!

Show Notes & Links

  1. If you liked Chris and want to hear more, you can check out his excellent sportsball podcast, Titletown Sound Off, or you can check out his  previous appearances on the show:  Episode 6 (on the NFL), Episode 32 (on Phil Ivey’s gambling), and Episode 68 (on Aaron Hernandez).
  2. Also, our guest Chris Kluwe predicted something like this back in Episode 115.
  3. Click here to read the Supreme Court’s opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.  If you want to check out the data cited in Ginsburg’s dissent; that’s here.

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

OA167: Neil Gorsuch, Secret Liberal?

Today’s episode tackles the recent (and shocking) Supreme Court decision in which Neil Gorsuch voted with the Court’s liberal justices to produce a very unusual 5-4 alignment.  Is this a sign that Gorsuch isn’t the right-wing hack we all thought he was?  Listen and find out!  (Hint:  No.)

After that, we break down the 6th Circuit’s recent opinion in EEOC v. R.G & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., the first decision of its kind recognizing that discrimination on the basis of an individual who is transgender or transitioning violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

After that, we answer a listener question about selecting a contingent fee attorney and discuss some of the actual pitfalls as well as misconceptions about those lawyers who take “no money down!”

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #72 about real property and the transfer of a deed.  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. We first warned you about Neil Gorusch way back in Episode 40, and we’re definitely not backing down now.  If you want to check out his concurrence, you can click here to read the Supreme Court’s decision in Sessions v. Dimaya.  And, as we discussed on the show, the should-have-been-straightforward holding of this case stems directly from the Court’s prior opinion in Johnson v. United States.
  2. You can read the 6th Circuit’s recent opinion in EEOC v. R.G & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., and for more coverage of Title VII, check out our discussion of Hively v. Ivy Tech from Episode 60, as well as our most recent update in Episode 152.

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

OA157: Are Originalist Judges Qualified? (w/guest David Michael)

Way back in Episode 49, Andrew argued that lawyers who claim to follow in the footsteps of Antonin Scalia-style originalism should be disqualified from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court, and that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee need to be challenging Scalia’s acolytes (like Neil Gorsuch) on their underlying philosophy and not just their compassion (or lack thereof).

In this episode, friend of the show David Michael challenges some of the points made by Andrew in the original episode , as well as raises new ones.  Along with Thomas, we have a great three-way discussion about U.S. history, the Federalist papers, key cases, the underlying work of Robert Bork, and more.  Does Andrew change his mind?   Does Thomas?  Listen and find out!

After the lengthy interview, we end with the answer to an all-new TTTBE #67 about a gang party where the boss just wanted to “send a message.”  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

None!  Have us on your show!

Show Notes & Links

  1. You can listen to our (ahem) original episode on originalism, Episode 49.
  2. Please also check out David Michael’s new podcast, The Quorum!
  3. Here’s a link to the full text of the Federalist Papers.
  4. United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).
  5. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) is the infamous decision in which Scalia declared that the Eighth Amendment only bars punishments that are both “cruel” and “unusual in the Constitutional sense.”

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