OA266: Auer Deference & Florida Felons

Today’s classic, deep-dive Tuesday takes an in-depth look at two critical issues in the news:  first, the recent effort by the Republican governor and state legislature in Florida to undo the broadly popular Constitutional Amendment passed during the 2018 midterms to restore voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences, and second, the Supreme Court’s next assault on the “administrative state,” this time, by likely ending the doctrine of Auer deference.

We begin with an update about pending oral arguments before the Supreme Court, as well as a notice that this episode was bumped from last Tuesday to make way for our emergency Barr Summary episode.

Then, it’s time for a deep-dive into Florida, the process of citizen-driven ballot initiatives, and exactly what the state legislature intends to do to undermine the will of the public.

After that, it’s time for yet another deep dive, this time into Kisor v. Schulkin, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court, in which the petitioners have asked the Court to flat-out overrule yet another well-established conservative doctrine simply on the grounds that the Federalist Society doesn’t like it.

Then, as always, it’s time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #120 regarding a light touch on the bus.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances
Andrew was recently a guest on Episode 19 of the Glass Box podcast discussing this same subject (but with respect to Utah).  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.  In the pre-show, we discuss gerrymandering, which we last talked about in depth in Episode 251.
  2. We mentioned the Washington Post story about the DC City council overturning the $15/hr minimum wage initiative.
  3. This is the text of PCB CRJ 19-03, the Florida bill under consideration.  And here, by the way, is the link to Andrew Gillum’s voter registration initiative, Bring It Home Florida.
  4. We’ve never talked about Auer deference before, but we have discussed Chevron deference at great length, most recently in Episode 136.
  5. You can click here to read Auer v. Robbins, that 9-0 liberal decision authored by noted socialist Antonin Scalia.
  6. Finally, click here to read the underlying CAFC-Opinion in Kisor v. Schulkin.

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

OA251: Gerrymandering in Maryland Heads Back to SCOTUS

Today’s episode returns to one of the most critical political issues of our time:  gerrymandering of congressional districts, and in particular, the state of MD-6, which pits the Democrats as villains and Republican voters as the plaintiffs alleging disenfranchisement.  Will that role reversal be enough to win approval from SCOTUS?  Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with an update on the June Medical Services v. Gee lawsuit we first discussed in Episode 249.

After that, it’s time for the deep dive into gerrymandering, which takes a look at the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland’s 3-judge panel decision invalidating Maryland’s 6th district; the motion to stay before the Supreme Court filed by the Plaintiffs; the opposition by the State of Maryland; and an amicus brief filed on behalf of the incumbent, Democrat David Trone.

Then, we quickly clear up the status of Stormy Daniels’ lawsuits.  Did the recent dismissal with prejudice have anything to do with Donald Trump?  (No.)

We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #113 that’s coincidentally about the constitutionality of abortion restrictions.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

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. Episode OA: 249 “Overturning Roe v. Wade Starts Today” for reference to our past discussion on the abortion cases. 
2. Supreme Court’s docket in June Medical Services v. Gee
3. If you’re curious, this is what MD-6 looks like today, and this is what it looked like before the 2011 redistricting.
4. We last discussed gerrymandering in Episode OA: 185
5. We also did a deep dive into the Wisconsin case in Episode OA: 80
6. Here is the Maryland district court’s ruling court’s ruling
7. You can read the Plaintiffs’ brief
8. The state’s opposition, filed by Brian Frosh
9. And the Trone amicus brief filed by Andrew’s friends at Zuckerman

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

OA196: Voting and Sore Losers

Today’s episode tells you everything you need to know about voting, including in particular West Virginia’s “Sore Loser” law and whether it applies to big fat racist criminal loser Don Blankenship… and, in turn, what that means for Joe Manchin’s chances of holding on to his Senate seat in the 2018 midterms.  Phew!

We begin, however, with… *sigh*… Andrew Was Wrong.  This time, an astute listener clarifies where Andrew elided over two different sections of the Voting Rights Act when discussing the Supreme Court’s opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (2013).

Oh, and we have more on McDonald’s, too!  After that, it’s time to dig into West Virginia’s “sore loser” law.  What does this mean for the upcoming Senate elections?  Listen and find out!

Then, the guys tackle a very good listener question from listener Greg regarding freedom of the press, freedom of speech, limited public fora, and more.

Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #86 regarding the sale of an automobile and a slippery salesman.  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

  1. Don’t forget to tune in to our live Q&A this Tuesday, 7/31, at 7 pm Eastern / 4 Pacific.  And, of course, participate in the questions thread!
  2. We most recently discussed the Voting Rights Act and Shelby County v. Holder back in Episode 188.
  3. If you want to know more about big fat racist criminal loser Don Blankenship, heck, you could start with his Wikipedia page.  He’s not shy about being a big fat racist criminal.  (He does not yet grasp that he’s a loser, though.)
  4. We cited two provisions of the West Virginia Code:  W. Va. Code §§ 3-5-7(d)(6) and 3-5-23.
  5. And just in case you’ve forgotten how conservative Patrick Morrisey is, here’s the quote he gave to CBS news.

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



Direct Download

OA188: Three Cases About Voting Rights

Today’s episode takes a look at three recent decisions from this Supreme Court and how each one will affect voting in the midterm elections:  Husted v. Randolph Institute, Abbott v. Perez, and (surprisingly) Janus v. AFSCME.

First, though, we begin by addressing a conspiracy theory that’s making the rounds suggesting some nefarious relationship between Anthony Kennedy’s son, Justin, and Donald Trump.  Does this story hold water?  Listen and find out!

Then, we break down each of the three cases:  Husted, involving Ohio’s efforts to purge voters from its rolls; Abbott, involving Texas’s efforts to racially gerrymander Congressional districts; and Janus, which will result in drastically weaker public sector unions.  What does this mean for the midterms?  (Hint: it’s not good.)

Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #82 regarding the search and seizure of heroin from plain sight.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

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 missed last year’s Fourth of July Spectacular, that was Episode 83.
  2. You can read the Liptak & Haberman New York Times article about Trump and Kennedy by clicking here.
  3. The Ohio case is Husted v. Randolph Institute, and the Texas cdase is Abbott v. Perez.
  4. Before you read Janus v. AFSCMEyou may want to check out our extensive coverage of the case back in Episode 150.
  5. The statute the 5-4 majority blatantly ignores in Abbott is 28 U.S.C. § 1253.
  6. Finally, this is the research Andrew mentioned regarding the correlation between right-to-work states and lower voter turnout and lower Democratic share of the vote.

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