A swathe of draconian abortion laws have been passed by states around the country in the past few weeks, but Alabama outdid them all. Legislators there are clearly hoping Justice Kavanagh will nullify Roe v Wade with a stroke of a pen, but there are quite a few other factors at play here and this week Dahlia Lithwick is joined by just the right women to explore those factors. Professor of Law Melissa Murray of NYU discusses the history and significance of Roe, and CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic, who also authored the new book “The Chief, the Life and Turbulent times of Chief Justice John Roberts”, joins Dahlia to dissect Roberts’ record and reservations when it comes to reproductive rights.
Today's episode breaks down Judge Mehta's recent order in the Trump v. Mazars litigation, which is parallel to the Deutsche Bank lawsuit we discussed on last week's show. Why is this ruling significant, how does it accelerate the House's efforts to uncover crucial financial documents, and what does this mean for the future of the Trump Presidency? Listen and find out!
We begin, however, with a look at some late-breaking news from Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have requested information from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin related to his tenure at Sears (that we discussed in Episode 273) and whether that conduct continued during his time working for the Trump administration.
Then, it's time for the main segment, in which we discuss Judge Mehta's order, what it means for the future of the Trump investigations (and for future presidential administrations!), as well as deal with skeptical questions about the potential timeframe. Learn how the Congressional Democrats maneuvered to get this case fast-tracked so as to avoid endless delays -- and listen to Andrew's possibly-surprising prediction about what he thinks the Supreme Court won't do to protect Trump!
After all that, it's time for a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #127... and yes, it's another dreaded real property question. Worse, it's a hard one -- in which the question gives you the answer but asks for the best reason why. Find out what happens when someone conveys property and dies while the gift recipient is overseas serving in the military. And if you'd like to play along with #TTTBE, just share out this episode on social media for a chance to be next week's winner!
4. This is the New York Times story about the Deutsche Bank whistleblower; and for an in-depth discussion of SARs reports, check out Carla McCadden in Episode 174.
5. This is the report that some lenders have already provided documents to the House, and we discussed the Wells Fargo penalties in Episode 146 and 169.
Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the recent abortion bans passed in Georgia and Alabama, breaking down exactly what these laws say (and don't say!) to help you sort through the panic from the actual news. It's not always a pleasant trip, but it's a journey worth taking to figure out exactly what's at stake.
We begin, however, with a listener question about abortion -- and specifically, about whether the federal government can preemptively prevent the states from doing the kinds of things we talked about back in Episode 276. Find out why Andrew thinks the conservative Supreme Court isn't likely to uphold the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting states from recognizing abortion rights.
After that, it's time for a deep dive in to the very confusing Georgia statute , HB 481. Exactly what does this bill do (and not do), and how scared should you be? Listen and find out.
And if that's not enough, we also walk you through the more straightforward (but still terrifying) Alabama statute, HB 314. Is it true that the bill fails to exempt rape victims? (Yes.) Is there anything to mitigate how awful this bill is? (Sort of.)
After all that, it's time to find out the answer to TTTBE #126 about a man who shoots a would-be assailant three times, including once after the assailant is lying on the ground and whimpering. What kind of crime could this be? Listen and find out!
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
We first discussed the rise of state-level constitutional protections to the right to choose back in Episode 276.
Today's episode breaks down everything you need to know about the pending Trump v. Deutsche Bank lawsuit over the pending Congressional subpoenas for Donald Trump's (and Don Jr.'s, and Eric's, and Ivanka's, and the Trump Organization's) financial records. Why is Trump suing Deutsche Bank, and what's going to happen? Find out why Andrew is still optimistic!
We begin, however, with the breaking news that Trump has pardoned Conrad Black. Who is he? Should this be a scandal? (Yes.) Will it be? (No.) And is Conrad Black a gigantic racist? (Guess.)
Then, it's time for the main segment about Trump v. Deutsche Bank. We talk about the unique legal standard in the Second Circuit that gives the Trump legal team a legitimate thread by which to argue for their injunction preventing Deutsche Bank from disclosing Trump's financial records to the House Committee.
Then, it's time to answer a listener question from Rob Bate about conspiracy, obstruction, and the Mueller Report.
After all that, it's time for a brand-new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #126 involving whether shooting a would-be assailant who has broken off her attack is homicide, and if so, what kind.
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
Here’s a link to Conrad Black’s disgusting “Who Was Really At Fault In Charlottesville?” essay.
We cited Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30 (2010) for the proposition that the 2nd Circuit recognizes an alternative test.
And, of course, credit for the fabulous “Deutsche Wanna Loan?” goes to our friends at Mueller, She Wrote
Today's episode features a long-form interview with one of our favorite recurring guests, Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He's on to discuss his just-released book, The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American.
Because Andrew, Andrew, and Thomas could easily talk for a full hour (and then some)... why, that's exactly what they do. We hold Andrew Seidel's feet to the fire on the threat that Christian Nationalism poses to the U.S. judicial system, including an in-depth discussion of the future of the Establishment Clause. And if you haven't heard of "Project Blitz," you will after this interview. You don't want to miss it!
After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas (& Andrew) Take the Bar Exam Question #125 on the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence. Can the prosecutor introduce evidence of the "Ol' Switcheroo" on cross-examination? Listen and find out!
On February 26, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, a case considering whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which imposes a 14-day deadline for appealing from a grant or denial of class-action certification, is subject to equitable tolling. Troy Lambert filed a class action lawsuit against Nutraceutical Corp., a drug manufacturer, alleging violations of U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements and various California consumer protection statutes. The district court initially certified the class action, but following reassignment of the case to a new judge and discovery raising concerns about Lambert’s classwide damages model, Nutraceutical moved to decertify the class and the district court granted the motion on February 20, 2015. Under Rule 23(f), Lambert had fourteen days from the date the motion was granted to seek permission in the Court of Appeals to appeal the order. Lambert indicated on March 2 that he intended to file a motion for reconsideration, but did not do so until March 12, 2015, which fell within a deadline set by the district court but beyond 14-day window specified in Rule 23(f). The district court denied Lambert’s motion, and only then did he seek permission in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appeal the class decertification. Nutraceutical objected that Lambert’s petition was untimely under Rule 23(f). The Court disagreed, reasoning that Rule 23(f) was non-jurisdictional and the deadline could therefore be equitably tolled given Lambert’s general diligence in following the district court’s instructions. Reaching the merits, the Ninth Circuit then reversed the decertification order on the grounds that the district court had abused its discretion. Nutraceutical successfully petitioned for certiorari. In an opinion written by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case, holding the Rule 23(f) is not subject to equitable tolling. To the discuss the case, we have Michael Morley, Assistant Professor of Law at Florida State University College of Law.
Judges are at the center of every conversation on Amicus, but never as guests on the show. Until today. Dahlia Lithwick has a wide-ranging and illuminating conversation with Robert Lasnik, Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Judge Lasnik answers questions about how cases are selected, where the judiciary has fallen short in response to #metoo, whether justices should hit back against criticism or maintain a lofty silence, and why Bob Dylan looms large in his courtroom (more details in this 2011 LA Times article).
Today's episode breaks down everything you need to know about what's going to happen with the House Judiciary Committee's vote to recommend holding Bill Barr in contempt of Congress. Is this all going to go nowhere in a Trump-dominated executive and a right-wing judiciary? Find out why Andrew's optimistic, and why he calls the underlying dynamic the coming Republican Civil War! All that and we revisit the Republican Andrew called the "key to the apex of Yodel Mountain" over a year ago!
We begin, however, with a big MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner: you did it! Opening Arguments listeners opened up bar complaints with the Florida Bar about Congressman and nasty little troll Matt Gaetz, and now he faces a state bar disciplinary proceeding.
He's not the only one, either; we got breaking news today that Paulie Manafort has indeed been disbarred by the District of Columbia!
During the main segment, we break down (1) the contempt recommendation by the House Judiciary committee and exactly what is going to happen next; (2) what the House's "inherent sanctions" powers are, and whether they can really sic the Sergeant-at-Arms on Bill Barr (hint: yes!); (3) assertions of executive privilege; and (4) the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Donald Trump Jr. Is Richard Burr (R-NC) the next In Rod We Trust? Listen and find out... and brace yourself for the coming Republican Civil War!
After all that, it's time for a Thomas Takes the Bar Exam featuring special guest Andrew Seidel. Together, the two sit in for an evidence question about the admissibility of prior bad acts. Brush up on your "Ol' Switcheroo" law and play along with us for #TTTBE!
Today's episode features an in-depth analysis of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, a recent decision out of the Kansas Supreme Court holding that -- whatever the U.S. Supreme Court does -- the Kansas state constitution protects a woman's right to choose. Join us to understand how this decision is important not only for Kansans but for all of us as we deal with the challenges created by the increasingly Trump-ified federal bench.
We begin, however, with a brief update as to the status of the Jeffrey Epstein plea deal that's been questioned by a recent ruling in Florida. We first covered this story in Episode 259.
After that, it's time for fan-favorite "Are You A Cop?" combined with a listener question about whether (and how much) "corporations are people, my friend."
Then, it's time for the main breakdown of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, with brief stopovers in Alabama (to discuss Bill 314), a prediction on the future of Roe v. Wade before this Supreme Court, and a full breakdown of the Kansas opinion and why it matters.
After all that, it's time for yet another listener question, this time about the dissent in Hodes, what it means, and why the court spent so much time talking about the police power of the state, John Locke, and natural law. Confused? You won't be, after listening to this segment.
And as if that wasn't enough, after all that, it's time for the answer to TTTBE #124 about Decomposing Snail Soda(TM) ("It's Maddeningly Addictive"). Find out if Thomas got this question right!
Today's episode covers everything you need to know about Bill Barr's testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee (and his refusal to testify before the House). Has he perjured himself? (Yes.) Is there a reasonable defense of Barr? (No.) What's next? Listen and find out!
Also, don't forget to show up for our monthly LIVE Q&A on our YouTube channel this Sunday, May 5th at 6 pm Eastern / 3 pm Pacific!
We begin today's show, however, with a few Andrew Was Wrongs and one Andrew Was Right. Wrong? Andrew used "fulcrum" when he should have used "center of gravity," and it led to this amazing listener graphic explaining the difference. Also, Andrew relied upon a mislabeled graph in a complaint in Episode 273; technically, that's someone else who was wrong first, but hey.
But Andrew was definitely RIGHT about the RNC platform, and now we have even more evidence to confirm it -- this time in the form of the testimony of J.D. Gordon to Mueller's team of investigators. And we break that down for you (because of course we do!).
Then, it's time to delve into everything we know about Bill Barr's perjure-tastic trip before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Find out why Andrew thinks Barr isn't going to last, and why he definitely committed perjury. Oh, and figure out what Rule 6(e) is -- and why Barr is lying about that, too.
After all that, it's time for a brand-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #124... this time about Decomposing Snail Cola. Decomposing Snail Cola: It's the Only One With Decomposing Snails!
