Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Tiffany Wright joins the show to recap last week’s oral arguments and to preview the second week of the December sitting... hijinks ensue.

Strict Scrutiny depends on support from listeners. Become a Glow subscriber today for just $7/month, and get access to special live shows and virtual happy hours.

Resources:

• "Texas Abortion Law Complicates Care for Risky Pregnancies," by Roni Caryn Rabin. New York Times, November 26, 2021.
• "The Judge Who Told the Truth About the Mississippi Abortion Ban," by Reynolds Holding. The Atlantic, November 30, 2021.
• Amicus brief by the Howard University School of Law Human and Civil Rights Clinic

Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 

• 6/12 – NYC
• 10/4 – Chicago

Learn more: http://crooked.com/events

Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Julie Rikelman, senior director of litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights, who argued for reproductive rights and liberty on behalf of Jackson Women’s Health in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health at the Supreme Court this week. Together, they unpack the arguments and discuss the women missing from the narratives in the courtroom that day. 

Then, Dahlia’s joined by Professor Katherine Franke, director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia University and the founder and faculty director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia Law School. Professor Franke helps us examine how the Supreme Court’s conservative majority’s views on religious liberty undergirded Wednesday’s arguments, are set to influence the court’s jurisprudence, and will likely alter your constitutional rights. 

In our Slate Plus segment, Slate’s own Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia for a frank discussion of the liberal justices’ performances in this week’s monumental abortion case, the gaslighting that maybe got us here, and then they look ahead to a big religious-liberty case coming up next week.

Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Warning: this episode contains yelling. But like, why wouldn't it. We break down oral arguments in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health aka the Handmaid's Tale-ification of the US. The conservative buffoons on the court made jaw droppingly stupid arguments, while some brilliant advocates did an amazing job fighting this losing battle. We've got clips and highlights and a whole lot of rage.

Kate, Melissa, and Leah recap oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Mississippi case that banned abortion after 15 weeks.

Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 

• 6/12 – NYC
• 10/4 – Chicago

Learn more: http://crooked.com/events

Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Fifty years of controversial jurisprudence have followed Roe v. Wade, and now the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case that many see as this story’s reckoning: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  In our last episode Professor Amar identified “precedent” as the legal coordinates where the abortion road may fork.  He now lays out the conflicting theories of precedent which the informed citizen needs to command when following this case. i Listeners to this episode will be armed with the tools to decipher today’s oral argument and tomorrow’s decision/opinion; indeed, in the briefs attached to this week’s “Show Notes,” both sides make arguments that will sound familiar to listeners to this podcast.  One can only hope that the Justices are as informed as Amarica’s Constitution’s audience.

Alex Jones has been in the news lately for losing default judgment after default judgment, and might plan on taking the 5th in front of Congress. So, can he do that? The reasoning proves textualism is terrible and wrong. Then, we've got some updates and clarifications on the Arbery verdict, including capital punishment, appeals by the prosecution, and the misconduct by the first two prosecutors. Finally, a probation officer wrote in to expand on the weird "no porn" rule.

Links: 18 US Code § 3731 - Appeal by United States, 2020 Maryland Statutes Section 12-302, Jackie Johnson Indictment, McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34

It’s sad girl autumn at the Supreme Court -- Melissa, Kate, and Leah preview the upcoming cases, including the frontal challenge to Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and discuss the Court’s lack of action on the S.B. 8 cases.

Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 

• 6/12 – NYC
• 10/4 – Chicago

Learn more: http://crooked.com/events

Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Wait the system... can work? It did in this instance at least, and it was a very important one. Three pieces of racist trash were found guilty of the horrifying murder of Ahmaud Arbery. Andrew explains the verdict. However, the system also... very much doesn't work. Andrew breaks down the disturbing case of a judge giving a 4 time rapist NO jail time after praying on it. Then finally, we break down an interesting new argument in the Trump records case. Links: Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Eagle, Georgia Code § 16-5-1, Christopher Belter: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know, House Brief, Court's 11/23 order, National Coal. to Save Our Mall v. Norton, 44 U.S. Code § 2204, Trump's reply brief

Abortion, and Roe v. Wade, is in the news again as the Supreme Court prepares to review challenges to the Mississippi law which, if upheld, would amount to an overrule of Roe.  Professor Amar tells us that the argument, in addition to discussions of abortion itself, will center on the role of precedent.  To prepare us for an examination of the particulars of this case, he conducts a master class on precedent.  Akhil has written extensively and authoritatively on this over the years; our audience will thus be among the most informed and comprehending spectators when oral argument takes place in December.  We will follow this next week, as we did in the recent gun case, by applying the principles just covered to the actual case.

Lots of updates on the 1/6 commission! The Bannon indictment, a debunking on the idea that Holder and Bannon are in any way comparable, the Q Anon Shaman sentencing, and the Bar Complaint against John Eastman reveals stunning new details on the insurrection attempt! Links: Bannon Indicted for Contempt of Congress, 2 U.S. Code § 192 - Refusal of witness to testify, Terrible Binnall brief, 'QAnon Shaman' Jacob Chansley sentenced to 41 months, Eastman bar complaint