my private podcast channel
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Kate Shaw, a professor of law at Cardozo Law School and the co-director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. They talk about presidential speech, impeachment, and why figuring out what happens next involves taking a close look at what happened in 1868.
Podcast production by Sara Burningham.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today's episode is a timely impeachment-themed deep dive into the testimony of George Washington University law professor -- and legitimate legal scholar -- Jonathan Turley before the House Judiciary Committee. How should you evaluate his arguments? We walk you through them, of course!
We begin, however, with a new segment: the Wingnut Lightning Round(TM), in which we evaluate -- or rather, make fun of -- two preposterous new lawsuits filed this week by two complete idiots.
After that, it's time for an #AndrewWasWrong about Ronald Burris, the interim Senator nominated by Rod Blagojevich to fill Barack Obama's unexpired Senate seat. Find out the twists and turns to this rather fascinating story as a side bonus to Andrew's well-deserved comeuppance.
Then, it's time for the main segment: the news that the House is going to draft articles of impeachment against President Trump despite the testimony of Jonathan Turley. How do the lone Republican-called witness's arguments stack up? (Hint: they're not good.) Surely the Republicans wouldn't have called someone who's on the record saying the exact opposite of what he's presently saying 20 years ago, right? (Guess.)
After all that, it's time for a fiendishly hard #T3BE about a trial, a videotape, and a jogging plaintiff. You won't want to miss it -- and you'll want to play along!
Appearances
Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. 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 takes a deep dive into the nondelegation doctrine in light of a recent Kavanuagh comment on a case... in which the Supreme Court didn't even grant certiorari. Is Andrew panicking? (No.) Listen and find out why not!
We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Wrong on taxation that calls back to OA 336. How exactly is stock income taxed? Listen and find out!
Then, it's time for the main segment, which is a deep dive into the "administrative state" and specificially the "nondelegation doctrine" at issue in U.S. v. Gundy. Why did this last week signal the beginning of the end for Andrew & Thomas? Listen and find out!
After all that, it's time for a listener question/comment on LIHEAP that helps contextualize how this program works in low-income communities. You won't wan't to miss it!
Then, of course, it's time for #T3BE -- the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #155 about a tenant who takes possession of an apartment only to find the previous tenant still inside. How can.. the landlord win? Listen and find out!
Appearances
Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. 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!
Leah and Kate discuss a case that isn’t even a real case involving a real law, as well as the very real and very important Affordable Care Act case on the Court’s December calendar. They also recap some Federalist Society Gala happenings and developments in the cases involving subpoenas for the President’s financial records.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
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
A special bonus live episode from the National Constitution Center. Dahlia Lithwick in conversation with Jeffrey Rosen about his new book Conversations With RBG: Ruth Bader Ginsberg on Life, Love, Liberty, and Law.
Podcast production by Sara Burningham, with thanks to the National Constitution Center.
Slate’s Amicus on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/amicuspodcast/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Share this episode with your (open-minded) Republican friends, family, and co-workers! We're happy to bring you this Thanksgiving Special a day early in which we break down the latest "trial balloon" defense of Trump's conduct: that Trump was actually encouraging a legitimate investigation into a top-secret conspiracy in Ukraine to hack the DNC servers in 2016 and throw the election to Hillary Clinton. If you don't know what "CrowdStrike" and "Chalupa" mean, you won't want to miss this one!
We begin on that key issue, breaking down the sole legal issue at stake in impeachment -- bribery -- and exactly what Congress needs to show in order to impeach and remove the President from office. From there, we turn to the next likely defense from Trumpland and explain exactly why it is bananas-in-pajamas-level bonkers.
After that lengthy breakdown, it's time to check in on the status of various lawsuits seeking to compel witnesses to appear before various House committees. What's going on, and is there any cause for optimism? Listen and find out!
Then, as always, it's time for #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a curious fact-pattern involving a landlord, a new tenant, an old tenant who won't move out, and a surprising legal result. Can he figure out why? Can you?
Appearances
Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. 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!
In this special bonus episode, Melissa and Kate are joined by co-editor Reva Siegel to discuss their book "Reproductive Rights & Justice Stories," in a conversation moderated by Rebecca Traister and hosted by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
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
Today's episode takes a deep dive into Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax. Is it constitutional? How will the arguments shape up? Listen and find out!
We begin, however, with an interesting proposal for a "Congressional Review Act" for the Supreme Court by law professor -- and professional Supreme-Court-fixer -- Ganesh Sitaraman. Will this proposal meet with more approval than Sitaraman's previous "lottery" idea?
Then we do a deep dive into the history of taxes in this country, looking at two very old cases -- one from 1895 (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429), and one from way back in 1796 (Hylton v. U.S.). We also cover the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, as well as check in on the most recent Supreme Court tax ruling from Chief Justice John Roberts, the NFIB v. Sebelius 2012 Obamacare decision.
What do we learn from all that? Well, you'll just have to give it a listen!
After all that, it's time for the answer to what some are calling the easiest #T3BE question ever about falling off a ladder. Are they right? Was Thomas? There's only one way to know for sure!
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!
Dahlia Lithwick wants to know what’s next in the impeachment process, so she asks Professor Michael Gerhardt, an expert on constitutional law and the relationship between congress and the president. Then, former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano takes us through the details of the DACA arguments at the SCOTUS. Napolitano rolled out DACA under President Obama and is now suing the federal government for rescinding it on behalf of thousands of students at the University of California, where she is now president.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today's episode breaks down the significance of a packed week in Republican witness testimony before the House Intelligence Committee about the potential impeachment of Donald Trump. We continue to place everything in the context of proving that Donald Trump committed impeachable bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2), including evaluating the (increasingly desperate) defenses being raised by House Republicans.
We begin, however, with a slight Andrew Was Wrong and some really interesting listener feedback about the 2019 Ukraine election.
Then, it's time to take a look at the week in impeachment, with a particular focus on Amb. Gordon Sondland, a Trump donor who was hand-picked to help run the "shadow foreign policy" in Ukraine, and exactly why he's such a devastating witness. We also tease apart the legality of the OMB hold and the crafting of the narrative to show the elements of bribery.
Then, it's time for a brief update on the Trump v. Mazars litigation and the significance of the administrative hold put in place by the Supreme Court. Does that mean John Roberts is 100% in the tank for Trump? (No.)
After all that, it's time for a NEW ERA in #T3BE as we move to a new set of questions! This one asks about a potential lawsuit for a guy who falls off his ladder. Did Thomas get it right? Listen and find out -- and play along with us on social media!
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!