Tag Archives: gun control

OA189: Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Today’s Rapid Response Friday gives you a sneak preview of what to expect from the person we predict will become Donald Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

We discuss:

  • Why it’s likely to be Kavanaugh and not any of the other rumored contenders, especially flavor-of-the-minute Amy Coney Barrett
  • Kavanaugh’s view of the First Amendment’s establishment clause and the future of Lemon v. Kurtzman
  • Kavanaugh’s views on abortion
  • How Kavanaugh differs (and how he doesn’t!) from Neil Gorsuch when it comes to Chevron deference
  • The weird conservative hit squad out to get Kavanaugh
  • And much, much more!

After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #83 involving assault with an unloaded gun.  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

Thomas was just a guest on Episode 421 of the Cognitive Dissonance Podcast.  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. If you want a head start on Tuesday’s show, check out the just-released Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report.
  2. This is the Notre Dame speech/law review article in which Kavanaugh lays out his judicial philosophy and essentially auditions for the Supreme Court.
  3. We discussed the following cases:  Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), Priests for Life v. Department of Health & Human Services, 808 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (en banc), Garza v. Hargan, 874 F.3d 735 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (en banc), United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC (D.C. Cir., 2017) (en banc), PHH v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 881 F.3d 75 (2018) (en banc), Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir 2011), and Heller v. D.C., 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011)!
  4. Right-wing weirdo roundups:  Here’s the National Review endorsement of Kavanaugh; this is the truly bizarre Jacobs piece in The Federalist; and here is the Federalist Society’s own rebuttal.
  5. Finally, a preemptive Andrew Was Wrong:  Here’s Raymond Kethledge’s University of Michigan address on how bad Chevron deference is.

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

OA169: Wells Fargo Goes To Jail?

Today’s episode discusses the recent fines levied against Wells Fargo in connection with two specific acts of egregious fraud against consumers.  Is it enough?  Is it proof that Trump (and Mick Mulvaney) intend rigorous defense of consumers at the CFPB?  Listen and find out!

First, we delve into a grab bag of items, beginning with a heartfelt apology and Andrew Was Wrong regarding trans language.  Next, we deal with a couple of wacky legal cases, before settling in on a bevy of new gun control laws passed in Maryland.  Phew!

Then, we move into a discussion of Trump v. Hawaii, which was argued before the Supreme Court last week.  What’s the latest on the Travel Ban?

After that, our “C” segment breaks down everything Wells Fargo.

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #73 about lessees, assignees, and joint and several liability.  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

As this show comes out, Andrew was the guest masochist on Episode 141 of God Awful Movies; 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. From our grab bag:  here is a link to the Kobach memo that’s PROBABLY NOT WORTH ARGUING; this is the New York Post report on the hilarious Make America Great Again bar lawsuit; and this is the link to all the gun control bills passed in Maryland.
  2. We first discussed outgoing Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen’s cease-and-desist order against Wells Fargo back in Episode 146.  The current enforcement action by the OCC can be read here.
  3. We first discussed Trump’s (then only proposed) Muslim ban way back in Episode #16, when the conventional wisdom was that it was so unthinkably awful it might lead the Republican Party to replace him at the top of the ticket.  Ah, good times.
  4. Since then, we’ve discussed the legality of the ban again (in Episode 39), the 9th Circuit’s ruling on EO-1 (in Episode 43), and, most recently, the status of OA-2 in Episode 114.  In this episode, we cite to the Government’s reply brief before the Supreme Court.

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

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

OA161: Gun Control & the Constitution

Today’s episode takes an in-depth look at gun control.  First, we answer two listener questions about originalism and the Second Amendment, including a provocative one about whether DC v. Heller deserves stare decisis respect under Andrew’s model of jurisprudence.  The answer may surprise you!

In the main segment, we examine HR 5087, the most recent gun control bill to be introduced in Congress.  What’s in it?  What kinds of laws are Democrats looking to pass in light of the Parkland massacre?

After that, we check in on the state of Pennsylvania’s efforts to combat gerrymandering.  Could there actually be good news in this episode?  Listen and find out.

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #69 about the firefighter’s rule.  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

Andrew was recently a guest on Episode 255 of the Phil Ferguson Show and Episode 96 of the Naked Mormonism Podcast.  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 episode builds on our two-part masterclass in the Second Amendment:  Episode 21 (Part 1) and Episode 2 (Part 2).
  2. The two primary cases discussed are DC v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.
  3. This is the text of HR 5087, the proposed gun control legislation, which amends 18 U.S.C. § 921 and 922.
  4. We discussed the Parkland massacre in Episode 148.  You can read Chief Justice Thomas Saylor’s statement 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

OA148: The Parkland Massacre

In this emotional episode, Thomas and Andrew begin by discussing the recent school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, Florida.

After that, the guys break down the recent settlement between Waymo (the Google-backed automotive company) and Uber regarding allegations of stolen trade secrets in the nascent self-driving car industry.

Then, Andrew updates us on the state of gerrymandering litigation in Pennsylvania and before the Supreme Court.

Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #63 about hearsay.  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

Andrew was just a guest on Episode 6 of the Wayward Willis Podcast — give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

  1. We discussed a modest proposal for gun control in Episode 110., and the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill in Episode 95.
  2. Andrew quoted from this CNN article when referencing teacher Melissa Falkowski; from this Washington Post article about Colt’s decision to suspend sales of the AR-15 in 1989, and from this blog post on “The Firearm Blog” by the AR-15’s designer, Jim Sullivan.
  3. California’s Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 can be found at California Penal Code § 30150 et seq.
  4. This is the Waymo v. Uber lawsuit, and here is the link where you can view the Powerpoint used during the REAL OPENING STATEMENTS by Waymo’s attorneys.
  5. Finally, we last discussed gerrymandering in Pennsylvania and elsewhere way back in Episode 146.  If you’re curious, this is what MD-6 looks like today, and this is what it looked like before the 2011 redistricting.

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