Next, Vanita Gupta of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and former head of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department in the Obama administration discusses America’s overpolicing problem and what’s needed for real change.
In the Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern on the midnight decision in a case brought by churches who objected to state lockdown orders, and why the GOP strategy to block voting by mail has a big swing state problem.
Today's extra-long show -- two hours if you're a patron! -- tackles all the issues surrounding the state of our Union in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder, including questions about which charges should be filed against Derek Chauvin, whether Trump can invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, and much, much more! Oh, and as a bonus, we also have a "lightning round" Yodel Mountain segment (with deep dives for patrons).
We begin with an in-depth discussion of an argument made by arguably the country's greatest legal mind, Laurence Tribe, that the murder-3 charge against George Floyd was sure to be dismissed. Find out why Andrew thinks Tribe is wrong, even in light of the Minnesota DA's decision to add a murder-2 charge to Chauvin's charges. After that, Andrew will explain one thing he was wrong about... due to a "quirk" in Minnesota's laws regarding felony murder and the merger doctrine.
Then, we discuss Trump's invocation of the Insurrection Act of 1807 to justify potentially sending armed forces into American cities. You'll learn exactly how not justified this is... and whether it matters.
After that, it's time to (briefly!) check in with Black Lives Matter and evaluate their lawsuit against Eric Garcetti for an injunction to block the Los Angeles curfew. Will it succeed? (No.)
We're not remotely done, though! After all that, it's time to head on up for a lightning round atop Yodel Mountain., were we check in on (1) Rod Rosenstein's Senate testimony, (2) Judge Sullivan's DC Circuit brief in the Flynn case, and (3) a weird story making the rounds regarding a 2016 lawsuit filed (and dropped) against Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.
After all that, it’s time for an all-new #T3BE involving character testimony. It's a tough question; can Thomas get it right? Listen and find out!
And remember -- if you're a patron, you get a ton of bonus content in this episode, including deep dives on each and every one of these stories!
None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
On the Insurrection Act of 1807, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251-255, we cited two specific provisions: § 252 and § 253. And we discussed Greg Gianforte back in Episode 72. During the bonus, we also discussed two executive orders from the George H. W. Bush presidency: EO 12690 and EO 12804, and two corresponding Proclamations: 6023 and 6427.
On May 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the consolidated cases of Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, which involve a dispute over:(1) Whether the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury had statutory authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate; (2) whether the agencies’ decision to forgo notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the interim final rules rendered the final rules – which were issued after notice and comment – invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules. To discuss the case, we have Erin Hawley, Senior Fellow at the Kinder Institute for Constitutional Democracy at the University of Missouri and former professor of law at the University of Missouri School of Law. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Today's episode takes a deep dive into H.R. 965, which (quite sensibly) permits proxy voting in the House of Representatives in light of the COVID-19 crisis, and the lawsuit filed by various Republican lawmakers to try and stop it. Good news! The lawsuit has no chance of success thanks to... litigation prompted by Donald Trump.
We begin, however, with an update on the DOJ probe into insider trading allegations against four Senators that allegedly -- either on their own behalf or via another party -- sold off stock prior to the public pronouncements about COVID-19 that tanked the stock market. Who got off? Who's left under the microscope? Is there anything nefarious here? We break it all down for you!
After that it's time to delve into the recent legislation and accompanying (nonsense) lawsuit by Republicans challenging the House's simple resolution, H.R. 965 (and the implementing legislation, H.R. 967). Find out how the whole thing is going to be precluded thanks to the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling in Blumenthal v. Trump, which was of course hailed as a victory for the President at the time.
Then, it's time to check back in with #T3BE involving potential negligence for a factory that failed to install sprinklers. Can Thomas pull this one out? Listen and find out!
None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Today's emergency episode breaks down everything you need to know about the death of George Floyd and the charges filed against Officer Derek Chauvin in Minnesota.
This SCOTUScast addresses the January 22 Supreme Court argument in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The question, in this case, is whether it violates the Free Exercise Clause for a state supreme court to invalidate a school choice program, merely because that program includes religious options, pursuant to that state’s Blaine Amendment. The Institute for Justice represents the Plaintiffs in the case.
To discuss the case, we have Erica Smith, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice.
Today's episode breaks down the latest temper tantrum and accompanying executive order by our game show host president attacking social media platforms for having the temerity to engage in fact-checking. You're going to be hearing a lot about "Section 230" -- so we're here to tell you exactly what that means, what Trump is trying to do, and why it matters.
Then it's time for our deep dive into CompuServe, Prodigy, section 230 of the Telecommunications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 -- which ended internet porn forever -- and what all of that has to do with Trump's latest tantrum over being fact-checked on Twitter. You won't want to miss it!
After that, it's time for an update on the amicus brief we're filing in the Flynn case. We tell you what Flynn's best case is, and walk through how it does and does not inform Judge Sullivan's discretion under Rule 48(a).
And then, of course, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam involving a fire at one warehouse spreading to another. If you want to play along, just share out this episode on social media using the hashtag #T3BE and we might pick you as next week's winner!
On April 20, 2020, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-2, held that owners of polluted land within designated Superfund sites are “potentially responsible parties” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Dozens of Montana landowners sued Atlantic Richfield for trespass and nuisance over its dumping of tons of heavy metals, arsenic, and lead on their properties—pollution which led EPA to designate a 300 square mile area as a Superfund site. In addition to compensation, the landowners sought remediation damages to pay for a cleanup beyond that previously ordered by EPA. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that the landowners’ case cannot proceed until they first obtain EPA approval for their cleanup plan. That narrow holding sidestepped the thornier issue, whether CERCLA preempts the landowners’ state common law claims. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas dissented, arguing that the majority’s interpretation is inconsistent with the statute’s text, undermines federalism and property rights, and tees up difficult constitutional questions. To discuss the case, we have Jonathan Wood, Senior Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Today's episode brings back AG of the Mueller She Wrote and Daily Beans podcasts to help delve in to all the craziness that is #Obamagate. And, as a bonus, we also discuss the five Inspectors General fired by Trump and what they were investigating. You won't want to miss this special episode!
As it turns out, #Obamagate is nonsense. Who knew?
After the hour-long interview, it's time to revisit #T3BE, in which Thomas decided the issue was hearsay, not spousal privilege. Did he get the answer correct? Listen and find out!
Andrew was just a guest host on Episode 123 of the Skepticrat, discussing some of these same issues. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
