In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss Congressman-elect Conor Lamb’s victory in Tuesday’s PA-18 special election and whether the Republicans will be able to recount the results.
After that, Andrew walks through the history of prior restraint under the First Amendment in light of a recent Nevada decision denying the request of the family of one of the Las Vegas massacre victims to suppress his autopsy report… and what that might mean for friend of the show Stormy Daniels.
That segues into another Q&A segment where we tackle Yet More Of Your Stormy Questions; this time relating to (1) choice of law and (2) whether Stormy can simply buy back the settlement for $130,000.
Finally, we end with 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
- Thomas discussed the political implications of the Lamb election on Episode 128 of Serious Inquiries Only.
- We discussed con artist Jill Stein’s “recounts” way back in Episode 25 of this show, and the Pennsylvania order denying standing is here. You can also read up on Pennsylvania’s Election law, Title 25, Chapter 14.; we specifically discussed §§ 3154(g) (mandatory recounts); 3261-63 (voluntary recounts); and 3459 (bonding requirement).
- The key case for prior restraint is New York Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971); you can also read the Nevada Supreme Court opinion.
- Please also check out David Michael’s new podcast, The Quorum!
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