3-LawSometimeCommentary – Page 234

October 29, 2019

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Bonus: Impeachment and the “Spy Stuff”

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, to talk about the role of intelligence and counterintelligence in the Mueller probe, the impeachment inquiry, and the damage deep state fever dreams could do to law enforcement and oversight.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

October 29, 2019

Opening Arguments - OA327: Pizza, Beer, and Guns!

It's an all American episode, complete with 3 dives! First we have a 9th Circuit ruling on Domino's Pizza to discuss, related to accessibility concerns with their app. Then, you know those horrible, unfunny, obnoxious Bud commercials with the knights and the king and all that? Turns out in addition to being terrible, they may also be potentially tortious! They made some very specific claims about MillerCoors beers using corn syrup in their beer they have gotten them into legal trouble. And finally, we round out this all-American ep with guns - a breakdown of the Dickey Amendment.

October 28, 2019

Strict Scrutiny - Repeat Players

Leah and Jaime recap some of the Supreme Court’s October cases, including Ramos v. Louisiana, Mathena v. Malvo, and Aurelius Investment v. Puerto Rico. Then they pretend the Supreme Court had no additional cert grants before leaving listeners with a deep thought … slash question.

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

October 26, 2019

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - The Conservative Legal Resistance

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Stuart Gerson of the conservative legal group Checks and Balances to talk about developments in the border-wall case he helped bring in El Paso, Texas; the view of impeachment from concerned conservatives; and the latest escalation in the Department of Justice’s investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation. Then Cyrus Habib, lieutenant governor of Washington state (and owner of the most impressive résumé of any guest ever on the show) shares a refreshingly optimistic take on the law and politics.

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

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

October 26, 2019

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - The Conservative Legal Resistance

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

October 25, 2019

SCOTUScast - Kahler v. Kansas & Ramos v. Louisiana Post-Argument SCOTUScast

On October 7, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kahler v. Kansas and Ramos v. Louisiana, both of which raise questions of constitutional criminal law.
In Kahler, a jury convicted James Kahler of capital murder. Among other things, he objected at trial to a Kansas statute limiting any “mental disease or defect” defense to formation of the requisite mental state for the charged offense. The statute, Kahler argued, denied him due process by depriving him of the ability to present an insanity defense. The Supreme Court of Kansas, following its precedent, noted that state law had deliberately “abandon[ed] lack of ability to know right from wrong as a defense,” and rejected Kahler’s argument. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to consider whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution permit a state to abolish the insanity defense.
In Ramos, Evangelisto Ramos was convicted of second-degree murder by the vote of 10 of 12 jurors. Challenging his conviction, Ramos argued that Louisiana’s statutory scheme permitting non-unanimous jury verdicts in non-capital felony cases violated his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Relying on its precedent, the Louisiana Supreme Court rejected Ramos’ argument. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to consider whether the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous jury verdict (in criminal cases) against the states.
To discuss the cases, we have GianCarlo Canaparo, Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

October 25, 2019

Opening Arguments - OA326: When the SCIF Hit the Fan

Today's episode tackles all your latest developments from high atop Yodel Mountain, including the national security-threatening stunt led by America's Dumbest Congressman, Matt Gaetz, as well as the significance of Bill Taylor's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.

We begin with a brief overview of the "due process" argument throughout history with an eye towards how it applies to the Trump impeachment.

From there, we move to a specific application: the (false) claim by Matt Gaetz and others that the House impeachment inquiry violates Trump's rights of due process. Along the way, we'll learn what a SCIF is and why it was such a big deal -- a criminal big deal -- that Gaetz and others violated it.

Then, it's time to dive deeply into Bill Taylor's testimony and how that fits into the overall impeachment picture and whether Trump is guilty of bribery with respect to Ukraine. (Hint: yes.)

After all that, it's time for another fabulous #T3BE about an inexperienced innkeeper and a cleaning company that doesn't work on Sundays. Play along on social media, and remember to #T3BE in your answer!

Upcoming 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

Share out the Episode 324 super-transcript with your favorite Uncle Frank today!
This is the WIRED article we referenced on the technical data regarding SCIFs, and these are the 174-page technical guidelines set forth by the DNI.
Laws! Obstruction of justice is 18 U.S.C. § 1505, bribery is 18 U.S.C. § 201, and the relevant portion of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act is 2 U.S.C. § 683.

-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!

October 22, 2019

SCOTUScast - Peter v. NantKwest Inc. – Post Argument SCOTUScast

On October 7, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Peter v. NantKwest Inc., a case which considers whether a party opting to bring a challenge in federal district court to an adverse decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) must pay the PTO’s resulting attorney’s fees.
When a patent application is rejected by the PTO, and the PTAB affirms that decision on appeal, the aggrieved applicant may either pursue further (but relatively constrained) review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit--or the applicant may file a more expansive challenge in federal district court. The latter option is authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 145, but the statute also provides that “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.”
Here, NantKwest challenged an adverse PTAB decision in federal district court, but lost. After the judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, the PTO sought reimbursement of its expenses from NantKwest, including nearly $80,000 in attorneys’ fees. The district court denied recovery based on the “American Rule” that parties in federal court typically bear their own fees unless otherwise directed by Congress. A divided en banc panel of the Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court. This decision, however, was in tension with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s construction of similar language in the Lanham Act.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the phrase “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” in 35 U.S.C. § 145 encompasses the personnel expenses the PTO incurs when its employees, including attorneys, defend the agency in Section 145 litigation.
To discuss the case, we have Robert J. Rando, Founder and Lead Counsel, The Rando Law Firm P.C.*
*Please note that Mr. Rando is co-Counsel on an Amicus brief filed on behalf of the Association of Amicus Counsel in this case.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

October 22, 2019

Opening Arguments - OA325: Putin’s Puppet? The Open Skies Treaty

Today's show features a few segments from the LA live show, including a medium dive on the Open Skies Treaty. We break down what it is, what Trump is intending to do with it, and why his behavior is incredibly... weird. We also break down a story involving Covington and Burling winning legal fees against the government.