Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

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. 

For a transcript, visit Slate.com/TeacherPodcast

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

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. 

For a transcript, visit Slate.com/TeacherPodcast

---

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

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

1. We first discussed Wells Fargo's fine and remediation requirements in Episode 169; you can check the OCC's News Releases for yourself to see when the rejection becomes public (if ever).  For now, we had to make due with this Reuters article.
2. You can read California SB10, as well as check out the opposition from both Human Rights Watch and the ACLU.
3. Here is the full decision in Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).
4. During the Glucksburg segment, we discussed Sen. Coons's question to Kavanaugh about it, and, of course, Ted Cruz's "Washington Generals" questions during the confirmation hearings.  Also, we referenced earlier written answers from Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings discussing Glucksburg.
5. Glucksburg was explicitly distinguished in the Obergefell decision.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

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.

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

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

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.

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

---

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

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

1. This is the (ugh) Newsmax exclusive about Collins's accusations of "bribery;" you can click here to see what Ad Fontes thinks about Newsmax as an organization.  The bribery law, of course, is 18 U.S.C. § 201., and the court decision we discuss is McDonnell v. U.S., 136 U.S. 2355 (2016).
2. Here's the late-breaking Feinstein letter.
3. We strongly recommend reading Kavanaugh's answers.  If you can stomach his misuse of the word "precedent" every few lines.
4. This is the transcript of Ted Cruz's "Washington Generals" questions of Kavanaugh, and if you want a head start on next week, you can start reading Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

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.

Today's episode takes a deep dive into a 2003 Supreme Court decision, Stogner v. California, and discusses the Constitution's ex post facto clause.  Why?  Listen and find out! After that, we break down the $95 million lawsuit filed by Roy Moore against Sacha Baron Cohen alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud.  Is it meritorious?  Who's Moore's lawyer?  Will you laugh?  There's only one way to know! Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #92 regarding the introduction of testimony against a gang member.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent 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

1. Here's the link to Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003).
2. Click here to read the $95 million lawsuit filed by Roy Moore against Sacha Baron Cohen.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's Rapid Response Friday tackles the ongoing Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings for Brett Kavanaugh -- including an analysis of documents that broke literally after we recorded the show!  Find out if any of this can slow down Kavanaugh's presumed path the SCOTUS. We begin, however, with listener feedback on our rather controversial Episode 205 (with Andrew Seidel) as well as follow-up emails regarding 3-D guns and our contributions to SwingLeft. After that, we break down the critical documents leaked today by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) that show 1) Kavanaugh's nakedly partisan approach to the court; 2) Kavanaugh's nonexistent view of the value of precedent when it comes to Roe v. Wade; and 3) possible perjury.  Is this a big deal?  YES.  Will it move the needle?  We'll see. After that, we return to Yodel Mountain to discuss Paul Manafort's impending DC trial and the somewhat-overlooked plea by W. Samuel Patten.  Who's that?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #92 regarding impeaching the testimony of a gang member at trial.  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! Recent Appearances Thomas was recently the guest masochist on this week's God Awful Movies, reviewing "New World Order."  It's hilarious -- don't miss it!  And 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

1. Here are the Kavanaugh email and Kavanaugh email 2 documents discussed during the main segment.  For more Kavanaugh document fun, check out this comprehensive New York Times article.
2. This is W. Samuel Patten's Criminal Information, to which he pled guilty, and here is the Statement of the Offense, which explains the connection to the Trump campaign and White House.
3. Finally, this is the late-breaking document showing possible perjury.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode takes us back to Yodel Mountain, where we take a look at a popular article making the rounds suggesting that (you guessed it) this ONE WEIRD TRICK might unravel the entire Mueller investigation.  Should you be worried? (No.) We begin, however, with the rare (but delightful!) Thomas Was Right segment revisiting 3-D guns and the Arms Export Control Act.  What's going on?  Listen and find out! In the main segment, we take apart this Politico story suggesting that McKeever v. Sessions hold the key to Yodel Mountain. After that, we tour what's left of Yodel Mountain to discuss the latest developments with our buddy Paulie M.  Did he really try to plead out in advance of his next trial?  What's next on the horizon for everyone's favorite ostrich-vest-wearing money launderer? Then, we end with Thomas (and Andrew!) Take the Bar Exam Question #91 regarding the separation of church and state and graduation prayers.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent 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

1. Here's the injunction granted in the 3-D guns case.
2. This is the Politico story regarding McKeever v. Sessions.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com