Tag: judicial nominees

Posted on

OA388: Reinstating the Rule of Law

Today’s episode checks in on all the latest goings-on in the Trump administration that probably don’t violate the law but do undermine the norms of 200+ years of government, from firing Inspectors General that are potentially interested in government accountability to the DOJ’s refusal to turn over the unredacted Mueller Report to the House Judiciary Committee to the collusion between Bob Barr and Michael Flynn. You won’t want to miss it.

We begin with some pre-show news about Cory Wilson, the latest completely insane, hyper-partisan (and 49-year-old) Trump nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals.

From there, we take a deep dive into the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5a U.S.C. § 3, and the legal protections for IGs (or lack thereof).

After that, it’s time to check in on the latest order by the Supreme Court staying the production of the unredacted Mueller Report to the House Judiciary Committee. We explain exactly what that means and when, if ever, you should start panicking.

Then, it’s time for an update on the Flynn case where we’re filing The Opening Arguments Amicus Brief! Also, we check in on a truly terrible Sidney Powell filing seeking mandamus from the D.C. Circuit.

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new #T3BE about a man, his yacht, and insurance fraud — in which Thomas tries to figure out if the issue is privilege, hearsay, or something else entirely.

Patreon Bonuses

Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! And if you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest on the latest episode of the Daily Beans podcast! And 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. Cory Wilson was rated a tepid “Qualified” by the ABA his first-go-round; that got upgraded to “mostly Well-Qualified” when he was renominated.
  2. Check out the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5a U.S.C. § 3.
  3. This is the Supreme Court order staying the production of the unredacted Mueller Report. Here’s the petition for mandamus, and the opposition by the House of Representatives.
  4. We last covered the Flynn case in Episode 386. Click here to read the 4th Circuit’s mandamus opinion in In re Flynn. And click here to check out the late-breaking order from the 4th Circuit requiring additional briefing from Judge Sullivan.

-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

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

Transcript of OA340: OA and Serial, or, Why the Supreme Court Denied Cert in Syed v. Maryland

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 340.  I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew.  How ya doing, Andrew?

Andrew:         I’m fantastic, Thomas, how are you?

Thomas:         I am mainly just in absolute cliffhanger mode, I just can’t even deal with the fact that I have no idea how I did on the bar question.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA340: OA and Serial, or, Why the Supreme Court Denied Cert in Syed v. Maryland”
Posted on

OA340: OA and Serial, or, Why the Supreme Court Denied Cert in Syed v. Maryland

Perhaps against our better judgment, we once again return to the Adnan Syed case narrated so beautifully in season 1 of Serial. If you haven’t heard our take on the case itself, you might want to go back and listen to Episode 107. Today, we’re not discussing the underlying merits but rather what the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled and why the Supreme Court declined to review that decision. Love us or hate us, if you love Serial, you won’t want to miss this episode!

We begin, however, with a look at how President Trump has reshaped the federal courts by the numbers. Is it as bleak as some sources say? Or is there merit to the counter-argument that Trump isn’t doing anything much differently than his predecessors — it’s just that we’re in the middle of his Presidency, so of course his effect is outsized. We delve beneath the op-eds to tell you what the cold hard facts are.

Then, it’s time to describe exactly what’s happened to Adnan Syed in the courts since Serial, culminating with a 4-3 decision in the Maryland Court of Appeals that was left undisturbed by the Supreme Court when they denied certiorari last week. What does it all mean? We break it down for you.

After that, it’s time for a bonus mini-“Breakin’ Down the Law” segment integrated with Thomas’s fiendishly hard #T3BE question. If you’ve ever wondered about motions for new trials and Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, well, this is the show for you!

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 broke down the Adnan Syed case (and Serial‘s portrayal of it) in Episode 107.
  2. You can check out the Brookings article we referenced (“Trump Has Reshaped the Judiciary But Not As Much As You Might Think”).
  3. For the Maryland Court of Appeals opinion (State v. Syed), click here. Then you can read Syed’s cert petition, the State’s response, and Syed’s reply. Ultimately, the Supreme Court just denied the petition without comment.\
  4. Finally, the underlying case we discussed regarding ineffective assistance of counsel is Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

-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

OA289: #OpposeJustinWalker

Today’s episode — #OpposeJustinWalker — tells you everything you need to know about Donald Trump’s latest nominee for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench (and Andrew’s former debate opponent) Justin Walker. You already know he’s a lifelong member of the Federalist Society. Why is it specifically worth opposing him? Listen and find out!

First, though, the guys break down the Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling in U.S. v. Gamble, affirming the “dual sovereignty” doctrine and finally putting the last nail in the coffin of a crazy lefty conspiracy theory we debunked way back in Episode 215. And, as a bonus (?), we find out why Clarence Thomas’s concurrence is “the most horrifying thing in print in the past 50 years.” Seriously!

After that breakdown, it’s time to analyze the background and writings of Justin Walker. We learn that he has virtually no litigation experience and that he’s a right-wing ideologue; you probably expected that. But you’ll also learn that his two major contributions to academic jurisprudence are (1) arguing that transparency in government is a bad, possibly unconstitutional thing; and (2) arguing that the FBI Director has a moral obligation to be the President’s lackey. We are not making any of this up.

Then, it’s time for Thomas Takes The Bar Exam and a question on the propriety of a introducing a particular fact into evidence as the predicate for a cross-examination question. Is it hearsay? Is it impeachment? Is it just hunky-dory? Listen and find out!

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 discussed the American Legion v. AHA Bladensburg cross case in OA Episodes 256 (with Sarah Henry of the AHA) and Episode 274 with Monica Miller. Monica IS coming back on the show!
2. Click here to read Gamble v. U.S. which we first discussed in OA 215.
3. Andrew debated Justin Walker in Episode 224.
4. This is his announcement.
5. You can read Walker’s CV here.
6. Of Justin Walker’s law review articles, click here to read “Chilled Chambers” and here to read “FBI Independence as a Threat to Civil Liberties: An Analogy to Civilian Control of the Military”.
7. By the way, this is the link to the FBI investigating Deutsche Bank in connection with Jared Kushner.
8. Finally, this is Walker’s National Review article.

-Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

-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