OA276: Did Kansas Really Show Us The Way Forward on Abortion Rights?

Today’s episode features an in-depth analysis of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, a recent decision out of the Kansas Supreme Court holding that — whatever the U.S. Supreme Court does — the Kansas state constitution protects a woman’s right to choose. Join us to understand how this decision is important not only for Kansans but for all of us as we deal with the challenges created by the increasingly Trump-ified federal bench.

We begin, however, with a brief update as to the status of the Jeffrey Epstein plea deal that’s been questioned by a recent ruling in Florida. We first covered this story in Episode 259.

After that, it’s time for fan-favorite “Are You A Cop?” combined with a listener question about whether (and how much) “corporations are people, my friend.”

Then, it’s time for the main breakdown of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, with brief stopovers in Alabama (to discuss Bill 314), a prediction on the future of Roe v. Wade before this Supreme Court, and a full breakdown of the Kansas opinion and why it matters.

After all that, it’s time for yet another listener question, this time about the dissent in Hodes, what it means, and why the court spent so much time talking about the police power of the state, John Locke, and natural law. Confused? You won’t be, after listening to this segment.

And as if that wasn’t enough, after all that, it’s time for the answer to TTTBE #124 about Decomposing Snail Soda(TM) (“It’s Maddeningly Addictive”). Find out if Thomas got this question right!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest on Episode 194 of God Awful Movies, reviewing the Law’d Awful Movie “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer.” 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. Check out the news about Matt Gaetz’s investigation in the Tampa Bay Times.
  2. If you love old-timey law review articles, this University of Pennsylvania Law Review one about Congress’s inherent sanctions power from 1925 is pretty fun! Or, if you’d rather something from this millennium, check out the 2007 Chafetz article we discuss on the show.
  3. The crime Bill Barr has committed is a violation of 2 U.S.C. ยง 192.
  4. We discuss how this exact same scenario has already played out before in Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F.Supp.2d 53 (2008).
  5. AAG Boyd cited this 1982 Reagan memo, but conveniently forgot to cite this 1984 OLC opinion that definitively shows he’s full of it.
  6. Finally, we first discussed the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian interference written by Sen. Burr back in Episode 190.

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