Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Today's episode tackles a number of breaking legal issues. First, the guys break down the recent memorandum by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on marijuana.  What does this mean for the average recreational user in a state where pot is legal, like California?  Listen and find out! Next, Andrew walks us through the recent decision by a three-judge panel in North Carolina invalidating that state's electoral districts. After that, the guys tackle a question from listener Jeremy Feldman about Net Neutrality and the Congressional Review Act. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Cara Santa Maria!) Take the Bar Exam Question #58 about the hottest new gadget, the Mitsubishi Walk-and-Talkman!  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict, talking felon voting rights; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links

1. The Controlled Substances Act is 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.
2. You can read the Cole Memo here, and then the Sessions Memo rescinding it.
3. This is the US Attorney's Manual discussed on the show.
4. We first discussed gerrymandering back in OA 54, and then again in OA 72 and OA 80.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode is all about the First Amendment and features a full-length interview with the one and only SciBabe, Yvette Guinevere d'Entremont! First, though, we answer a listener question from Secular Saint about the free press clause that was  raised during our most recent patron-only Q&A show. Next, we talk to Yvette, who shares some amazing stories about her life taking down rich and powerful celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow, Vani Hari (the "Food Babe"), and David Avocado Wolfe. After that, we tackle Trump's cease-and-desist letters sent to Steve Bannon and the publishers of the new book Fire and Fury:  Inside the Trump White House .  Special thanks to Niall O'Donnell and Deborah Smith of the Opening Arguments Facebook Community for finding the texts of these letters! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas and Yvette Take the Bar Exam Question #57 about a  frostbitten drifter wandering through what might be a libertarian paradise.  (Seriously!) Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. In answering Secular Saint's question, Andrew discussed Sonja West's UCLA Law Review article, "Awakening the Press Clause" as well as this op-ed by Eugene Volokh.
2. We discuss the New York Times v. Sullivan standard for libel in numerous episodes, but in particular in Episode 84 about John Oliver's lawsuit.
3. Yvette has some great articles that we talked about, including "The Unbearable Wrongness of Gwyneth Paltrow" and "David Avocado Wolfe is the Biggest Asshole in the Multiverse."
4. Trump's cease-and-desist to Steve Bannon is here (Twitter screencap), and the one to Steve Rubin and Michael Wolff is here.  You can compare it to the laughable Roy Moore litigation hold letter we discussed in Episode 122.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Sometimes the technical stuff is how you get to the crucial stuff. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear a case about Ohio’s voter purge, and the case rests on some sticky statutory interpretation questions. Up to 1.2 million voters may have been purged from Ohio’s rolls after they sat out a couple of elections and in this episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick does a deep dive into the technicalities of the case. Dahlia and her guests also use this moment to take stock of the state of voting rights in the US. Dahlia talks with Mayor Joseph Helle of Oak Harbor, Ohio, a veteran who came home to find he’d been purged from the rolls after not voting while on active duty, and to the director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, Dale Ho. Ho even cites his favorite Justice Antonin Scalia opinion.

Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members several days after each episode posts. To learn more about Slate Plus, go to slate.com/amicusplus.

Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.

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

Today's episode tackles the recent lawsuit filed by Paul Manafort against the Department of Justice, Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein, and Robert Mueller. First, we share some insights from our listeners about our recent deep dive into cryptocurrency, and promise a return visit Real Soon Now. After that, we take a deep dive into Chevron deference, Neil Gorsuch's mommy, and the legal landscape set more than 30 years ago... and why that's all come under fire by one Paul S. Manafort.  It's an extra-long, double-length segment but we think you'll love it! Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Yvette!) Take the Bar Exam Question #57 about a  wanderer stuck in a snowstorm who breaks into a cabin... look, you'll just have to listen, okay?  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. We first discussed cryptocurrency in OA 134.
2. You should read the Manafort lawsuit, and then to understand it, try and tackle Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resource Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
3. We started warning you about Neil Gorsuch way back in Epsiode 40.  We were right.  The case in which he salivates about overturning Chevron deference is Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (2016).
4. Count I of the complaint arises under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.  Count II arises under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
5. This is Rod Rosenstein's Order appointing Mueller, No. 3915-2017, and this is 28 U.S.C. § 515, which plainly authorizes it.
6. Finally, you can read Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) and also laugh at the fantastic what-if comic about Ted Olson.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Happy New Year!  In today's special episode, Andrew, Thomas, and Chris Kristofco of the Titletown Sound podcast draft Democratic Presidential candidates for 2020. After the draft, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam question #56 about a bona fide sale of a stove.  Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. You can find Chris's show, Titletown Sound Off, by clicking here.
2. Our rosters are as follows:

Chris:

1.  Elizabeth Warren (Sen-MA)
2. Joe Biden (VP-DE)
3. Amy Klobuchar (Sen-MN)
4. Tim Kaine (Sen-VA)
5. Sherrod Brown (Sen-OH)
6. Bob Iger
7. Michelle Obama
8. Tim McGraw

Andrew:

1.  Kamala Harris (Sen-CA)
2. Cory Booker (Sen-NJ)
3. Andrew Cuomo (Gov-NJ)
4. John Hickenlooper (Gov-CO)
5. Julian Castro (HUD Sec'y)
6. Eric Holder (Att'y General)
7. Mark Cuban
8. Oprah Winfrey

Thomas:

1.  Bernie Sanders (Sen-VT)
2. Kirsten Gillibrand (Sen-NY)
3. Eric Garcetti (Mayor-LA)
4. Terry McAuliffe (Gov-VA)
5. Tulsi Gabbard (Cong-HI)
6. Mark Zuckerberg
7. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
8. Howard Schultz

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

Today's episode is a deep dive into cryptocurrency. First, we're delighted to share some breaking news with you that follows up on our Episode 132 about a student and his crazy-person lawyer trying to introduce creationism at Thomas's old high school, Bret Harte High.   As it turns out, friend of the show and FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel has written a masterful letter to the school and offered to co-counsel with them pro bono. In the extra-length main segment, we discuss some of the issues surrounding cryptocurrency and the law. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #56 about the fraudulent sale of a stove.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on Episode 14 of the How-To Heretic podcast!  Give it a listen! Show Notes & Links

1. We first discussed Bret Harte High in our Episode 132; you can also read an account of the school board hearing; visit crazy person Greg Glaser's website and read all about the evils of vaccinations, numerological theology, and (of course) his proposed Earth Constitution.
2. Andrew Seidel's letter is republished (with his permission) here.
3.  The actual cases relevant to the dispute are Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and Kitzmiller v. Dover, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).
4. If you love Andrew Seidel, you might want to go back to his previous appearances on the show, Episode 82 (on Trinity Lutheran), Episode 85 (which was originally a Patreon-only exclusive),Episode 111, and Episode 131.
5. And if that's still not enough Andrew for you, you can catch up on Andrew Seidel's most recent writings:  his op-ed on Masterpiece Cakeshop, which you can read here; his blog post on right-wing legal organizations; and, of course, his FFRF press release celebrating the victory in keeping Mateer and Talley off the federal bench.
6. You can view the IGM survey we discuss here.
7. This is the bitcoin FAQ.
8. The case I discuss is SEC v. Shavers, 2013 WL 4028182 (E.D. Texas Aug. 6, 2013, Case No. 4:13-cv-416).

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Happy holidays, everyone!  Today's special episode tackles a number of issues about being in law school and being a lawyer. First, however, we begin with an update on the Trump administration's efforts to restrict the reproductive rights of young women in federal custody first discussed in Episode 117. In the main segment, Andrew solicits some advice from some lawyer and law student friends-of-the-show and tries to answer some of your most recurring questions like "Should I go to law school?"  "If so, where?"  "What's it like?"  "Will I like being a lawyer?" and so forth.  If you've ever dreamed about sitting in the chair opposite Thomas, this is the show for you! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas TakeS The Bar Exam question #55 about water damage to a boat.  Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. We broke down Jane Doe v. Wright in Episode 117.
2. You can read the government's stay application in Hargan v. Garza by clicking here, and the court's Order here.
3. Resources for law students include the National Association of Law Placement's 2017 research, the in-depth reports put out by Law School Transparency, the somewhat off-color "Law School Sewage Pit Profiles" site, and the ATL report on cheapest law schools in the country.
4. Finally, if you're dying to know what a scorpion bowl is, you can check out the Kong's website.  It's a Harvard institution!

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

As a gift to our amazing listeners, here's the great Eli Bosnick breaking down Miracle on 34th Street with the guys! If you enjoy this Law'd Awful Movies, make sure to check out Patreon.com/law for more!  

The cultural whirlwind of #MeToo has reached the judiciary, reluctantly bringing Dahlia Lithwick into the fray along with it. In a piece for Slate, she detailed her firsthand experiences with Judge Alex Kozinski. Dahlia’s was one of many accounts that that have now surfaced. Heid Bond was one of the first women prepared to go on the record. A former clerk to Judge Kozinski, she now writes romance novels under the name Courtney Milan. You can read Bond’s piece here and Judge Kozinski’s statement here. We speak with three of Kozinski’s accusers—Heidi Bond, Emily Murphy, and Leah Litman—and hear their ideas about what needs to change to allow women to work safely and successfully in a system often shrouded in secrecy. Then Dahlia is joined by Mark Joseph Stern for a run through the headline arguments and decisions from the Supreme Court in 2017 and a look ahead at what to expect in 2018. 

Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members several days after each episode posts. To learn more about Slate Plus, go to Slate.com/amicusplus.

Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

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

Today's episode is all about the budding legal expert co-host of this show, one Thomas Smith, Esq. soon-to-be of Thomas's Second Chance Law Firm. First, taking a cue from the hilarious failed nomination of Matthew Petersen to the federal bench, Andrew asks Thomas the same kinds of basic questions.  Is Thomas more qualified than Trump's judicial nominees?  (The answer will not surprise you.) In the main segment, the guys break down a threatened "God's Not Dead 2"-style lawsuit at Thomas's old high school, Bret Harte High.  Strap in for a bumpy ride, because this one is a roller coaster of crazy. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #55 about damaging a boat.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. The fabulous "Thomas's Second Chance Law Firm" graphic was designed by fan of the show Kristen Hansen; you can follow her @wrathofkhansen on Twitter.
2. If you haven't yet watched Sen. Kennedy (R-LA) humiliate laughably unqualified former Trump federal judicial nominee Matthew Petersen, you really should.
3. You can read all about the hearing at Thomas's high school here.
4. Crazy person Greg Glaser is a serial blogger who writes about the evils of vaccinations, numerological theology; and (of course) his proposed Earth Constitution.
5.  The actual cases relevant to the dispute are Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and Kitzmiller v. Dover, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com