The legal podcast that helps you make sense of the news.
Listen to the episode and read the show notes
Topics of Discussion:
Today’s episode breaks down a 7-2 decision by the Supreme Court to stay the decision of the District Court enjoining the Trump Administration’s new asylum rules from going into effect. What happened and why? Listen and find out! It’s bad news — but to balance that out, we spend a lot of time high atop Yodel Mountain, where we discuss the ongoing march towards impeachment and the latest in the Michael Flynn saga.
We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Wrong(TM) segment about two casual (but wrong) comments Andrew made in previous shows. As it turns out, Devin Nunes isn’t the beneficiary of gerrymandering — we knew that, honest! — he’s… wait, why do people vote for Devin Nunes again? We’re not sure.
Then it’s time for the main segment, which breaks down the tragic significance of the court’s recent order on asylum. It’s only a single paragraph long, but… it speaks volumes. Find out what’s going to happen next with expedited removal proceedings and undocumented immigrants. It’s a tough segment, but you need to know.
Next, it’s time for our weekly visit to Yodel Mountain! Find out why the most conservative Democrat in Congress thinks impeachment is “inevitable!” And while we’re there… what’s the deal with Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and his crackpot lawyer? We’ll tell you!
After all that, it’s time for #T3BE. Can Thomas snap a career-worst six-question losing streak? If so, he’ll have to do it on a dreaded real property question involving the sale of land. Keep your fingers crossed!
Also, COME TO OUR LA LIVE SHOW!!!! Here is the link!!
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
-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!
Today’s episode focuses on a number of actual good developments in the news! From the second half of the Mueller testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, to a court’s issuance of an injunction blocking Trump’s illegal efforts to change the rules on asylum, it’s a (rare) week of good news! Oh — and there’s a brand new intro for your enjoyment as well!
We begin with an update on Mueller’s second round of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, and answer some questions about whether Rep. Nadler can launch “an impeachment inquiry” without Nancy Pelosi’s approval.
Then, it’s time for some good news out of the courts, including a sweeping injunction handed down in Arkansas with respect to three laws that restrict and/or prohibit abortion, including Act 493, which purported to ban all abortions after 18 weeks. This is exactly what we predicted would happen at the district court level — and you can learn why this particular (159-page!) decision is particularly useful going forward.
But the good news doesn’t stop there! We also break down the Northern District of California’s injunction with respect to the joint DOJ/DHS rule regarding asylum that was rammed through without the appropriate notice-and-comment period last week.
Then, it’s time for a fun segment regarding disciplinary proceedings against everyone’s favorite crazy person, Larry Klayman!
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
-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!
Today’s Rapid Response Friday breaks down all of the legal wrangling regarding the Trump Administration’s secret settlement with a self-described “crypto-anarchist” who uploaded material that allows anyone with access to a 3-D printer to make their own plastic, undetectable, untraceable firearm.
We begin, however, with a listener who’s considering coming over to the “dark side” and wants an honest answer about getting electoral help from overseas. What if the Irish want to help elect Liz Warren in 2020? Listen and find out!
The main segment breaks down the “Defense Distributed” settlement and subsequent litigation — and along the way you’ll learn about Cold War arms sales, the Export Control Act, F-15s, Richard Nixon, and… well, let’s just say there’s a lot on the table!
Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #87 regarding a state supreme court ruling over whether witnesses must face their accusers. 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
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
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
And email us at openarguments@gmail.com
Today’s episode takes a deep dive into two developments concerning the right to an abortion in the U.S., followed by our continuing discussion on plea bargaining with listener comments from prosecutors, public defenders, the U.S. judiciary, and even international listeners. You won’t want to miss it!
We begin with an in-depth examination of the so-called “gag rule” just proposed by Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services. Is it really a gag rule? (Yes.)
After that, we look into the Supreme Court’s recent decision not to grant certiorari in Planned Parenthood v. Jegley, allowing an 8th Circuit decision to stand that, in turn, denied a preliminary injunction blocking a restrictive Arkansas abortion law, HB1394. Is this a bad sign? (Yes.)
After that, we return to the subject of plea bargaining that’s been a hot topic in our inbox for weeks, capped off by the Iowa Supreme Court’s discussion of the issue in Schmidt v. Iowa.
Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #78 regarding whether the jury can read a treatise on mill grinding. 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
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