This week Dahlia Lithwick looks at freedom of the press through the lens of legal scholarship. Lithwick is joined by Professor Lisa Sun of Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School and RonNell Andersen Jones, the Lee E. Teitelbaum Chair & Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah Law School. Their article “Enemy Construction and the Press” was published in the Arizona State Law Journal last year.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
Today's Rapid Response Friday tackles (ugh) the ongoing Judiciary confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh in light of Dr. Ford's allegations, before segueing into an interesting question from super-listener Teresa Gomez. If you want to know everything about Rachel Mitchell (and so much more!) -- well, you've come to the right place! We begin with some good news about QED in Manchester, UK and your ability to hang out with Thomas! After that, it's time to figure out what's going on with Kavanaugh. We examine (1) the political landscape; (2) the status of Blumenthal v. Nat'l Archives, Case No. 18-02143-RDM seeking FOIA information from the National Archives and the CIA; (3) the unprecedented appointment of career sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to handle the questioning of Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh; (4) the strange circumstances surrounding Michael Avenatti's claim to represent additional women allegedly harrassed by Kavanaugh; and (5) what Dianne Feinstein wants. Phew! After that, we somehow have time to answer a fascinating question about pro se litigants giving testimony in court! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #95 regarding Congressional delegation of rule-making authority. Will Thomas get back on track with just one extra wrong answer to give in the next six questions? Yu'll have to listen and find out! And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances Thomas will be at QED in Manchester, UK on Oct. 13 and 14. Show Notes & Links
Today's episode is that rare Rapid Response Tuesday, necessitated by the persistent rumors that Donald Trump is about to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Is it true? How bad are things if it is? And who is this mysterious G. Zachary Terwilliger? You'll have to listen to know for sure! We begin by examining the New York Times reporting that predicated the efforts to force out Rosenstein. Listen and you'll learn why is Andrew confident that these reports are false -- and get a rare "Randall Was Right" segment to boot! After that, we look to the statutory line of succession if Rosenstein is indeed fired, and we wind up at Noel Francisco and... Sideshow Zach? How did THAT happen? Bonus: Is Francisco a Trump hack? All signs point to... Then, we look to the statutory protections for Mueller even if Rosenstein is fired. Will the entire Russia investigation be fed into a Fargo/Deadpool 2-style woodchipper? And, if all that wasn't enough, we also have a mini-deep dive into the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3345 et seq. Does it matter if Rosenstein was fired or if he resigned? Finally, we end -- at long last! -- with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #94 regarding the Forest Service's new rules. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Lots! Thomas will be at QED in Manchester, UK on Oct. 13 and 14. Andrew will be debating originalist (and Kavanaugh clerk!) Justin Reed Wilson in Louisville, Kentucky on September 27 at Impellizzeri's Pizza; to attend, just RSVP on this Facebook link. Show Notes & Links
Join Dahlia Lithwick for a conversation on the Supreme Court with Angela Onwuachi-Willig, dean and professor of law at Boston University; Cristina Rodríguez, a professor of law at Yale University; Stephen Vladeck, professor of law at the University of Texas, and Adam White, director of the Center for the Study of Administration at George Mason University. Get your tickets here.
Today's Rapid Response Friday tackles (1) Paul Manafort's plea deal and (2) the surprise resumption of the Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh in light of Dr. Ford's allegations, which are discussed in depth on Episode 158 of Serious Inquiries Only. What should you look for during Monday's hearings? Listen and find out! We begin with an acknowledgment of the story sent to us by several hundred thousand listeners regarding crazy person Cody Wilson. After that, it's time for an important Andrew Was Wrong: Paul Manafort did not plea over the weekend; he pled guilty pretty much the second we stopped recording! We break down everything there is to know about his deal, including the strong incentives Manafort has not only to cooperate but to roll over and expose his belly to Mueller's team in hopes of being thrown a bone or two. Oh, and we time-travel back to the 19th century to answer a super-interesting listener question on asset forfeiture! Then, it's time to discuss Kavanaugh again, in light of the troubling accusations made by Dr. Ford and other issues, including the Democratic Senators's FOIA lawsuit compelling the production of Kavanaugh's documents that are being withheld while the Republicans try and cram through his nomination. It's not a pretty segment, but we think you'll walk away equipped to understand Monday's hearings. After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #94 regarding Congressional delegation of rule-making authority. Will Thomas get back on track with just one extra wrong answer to give in the next six questions? Yu'll have to listen and find out! And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances Andrew will be debating originalist (and Kavanaugh clerk!) Justin Reed Wilson in Louisville, Kentucky on September 27; click here for the Facebook RSVP link if you'd like to attend! Show Notes & Links
In an intimate conversation, three educators who survived school shootings talk to Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick about the trauma of going back to the classroom.
Today's episode takes two deep dives: first, into California SB10, which eliminates the "cash bail" system of pretrial detention in California, and second, into the Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Washington v. Glucksberg. What does it all mean? You'll have to listen to know for sure! We begin, however, with an update on Wells Fargo's $1 billion remediation plan first discussed in Episode 169. After that, we tackle California SB10, which is now law -- even though it won't go into effect until October of 2019. Is this a good or a bad thing? Would it change your mind to learn that the ACLU flip-flopped on this bill? Listen and find out! From there, we move into an in-depth analysis of Glucksburg and what it means for the future of the Supreme Court. Then, we give you a little retroactive speculation regarding the possiblity that Paul Manafort might plead guilty. Yes, it's a living record of the fact that we record on Thursdays -- but we think you'll like the analysis anyway. Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #93 regarding double jeopardy. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew will be debating originalist (and Kavanaugh clerk!) Justin Reed Wilson in Louisville, Kentucky on September 27 at Impellizzeri's Pizza; to attend, just RSVP on this Facebook link. Show Notes & Links
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor Melissa Murray of NYU Law School, who gave blistering testimony at the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings last week. They talk Roe v Wade, when precedent counts and when it doesn’t, and what the likely confirmation of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Courts means for reproductive rights writ large. Plus, Dahlia Lithwick shares highlights from an on-stage conversation between her and Justice Elena Kagan this past week, where they covered division in the court and in the country, how Chief Justice Roberts steers the court through choppy waters, and civility.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
Today's Rapid Response Friday is all about the conclusion of the Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings for Brett Kavanaugh. What did we learn? What's still outstanding? Are liberals really guilty of trying to bribe Susan Collins? And, most importantly: what can we do about any of this?? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with an important Andrew Was Wrong. After that, we delve into all the week's issues surrounding the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, including: (1) the status of Kavanaugh's nomination; (2) whether liberal crowdfunding efforts really count as efforts to "bribe" Republican Sen. Susan Collins; (3) an in-depth look at Kavanaugh's written answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee; (4) a shockingly misleading question from Opening Arguments's good friend, Sen. Ted Cruz; and finally (5) a preview of next Tuesday's discussion of a weird case called Glucksburg. Phew! After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #93 regarding double jeopardy. Did Thomas learn enough from the Ashley Judd Law'd Awful Movie of the same name?? We'll find out! And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances Andrew will be debating originalist (and Kavanaugh clerk!) Justin Reed Wilson in Louisville, Kentucky on September 27 at Impellizzeri's Pizza. Be there and be square! Show Notes & Links
On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, a case considering the forced subsidizing of unions by public employees, even if they choose not to join the union or strongly disagree with many positions the union takes in collective bargaining. Under Illinois law, public employees are permitted to unionize; and if a majority of employees in a particular bargaining union vote to unionize, then that union is designated as the exclusive representative of all the employees in collective bargaining, even those members who choose not to join the union. Non-members are required to pay an “agency fee,” which is a percentage of the full union dues and covers union expenses “germane” to the union’s collective bargaining activities, but cannot cover any political or ideological projects sponsored by the union. Mark Janus works at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. The employees in his unit are represented by American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (“the union”). Janus did not join the union because he opposes many of its positions, including those taken in collective bargaining, but was required to pay 78.06% of full union dues as an “agency fee”--a fee resulting in a payment of $44.58 per month, and about $535 per year. Janus and two other state employees joined a lawsuit brought by the Governor of Illinois against the union in federal district court, seeking a declaration that the statutory imposition of agency fees was unconstitutional. The District Court dismissed the Governor for lack of standing, but proceeded to reject the claims of Janus and the other employees on the merits, finding their challenge foreclosed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, but the Supreme Court granted certiorari to reconsider whether public-sector agency-fee arrangements are constitutional. By a vote of 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Seventh Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court overruled Abood and held that state extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment; thus states and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. Justice Alito’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Gorsuch. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Kagan also filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. To discuss the case, we have Raymond LaJeunesse, Vice President & Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
