law

TTTBE #20: Early Answer for Patrons, Post-ReasonCon Edition

It's "D."

OA62: The Supreme Court's Hall of Shame

In this episode, Andrew goes through five of the worst, most embarrassing cases in Supreme Court history.

First, though, the guys tackle a question from Scott, who's considering becoming a patron of the show (good!) but has some questions about a standard form indemnification clause in the Patreon...

OA61: Flyin' the Friendly Skies & Newt Gingrich Still Has a Contract on America

In this episode of Opening Arguments, the guys look at both United Airlines and an obscure law from 1996 that could threaten the "administrative state" held in such disdain by our newest Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch.

First, of course, Andrew breaks down the legality of the recent d...

TTTBE #19: Early Answer for Patrons

 Judging by the answers submitted online, this was perhaps the most difficult TTTBE question yet.  Only one person got the answer right, and almost everyone guessed (incorrectly) answer "A" along with Thomas.

This question tested two propositions of civil procedure:  (1) that, in or...

OA60: Sex and Sexual Orientation

In this episode, we take a look at a landmark decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana.

First, though, we ta...

OA59 Early for Patrons!

Is the Syria strike legal? The answer may surprise you, unless you already knew Andrew is a secret Trump supporter...

TTTBE #18: Andrew and Thomas are Both Jet-Lagged But We Still Do This For You Edition

This was a VERY difficult and controversial question involving the best reason to rule a draconian clothing law unconstitutional.  The answer is "D" (that the law lacks a rational connection to a legitimate government interest) although our patrons guessed all four answers in relatively equal p...

OA58: What Football Can Teach Us About Jury Nullification, Antitrust, and Donald Trump - Part 2

Today's episode is part two of a two-part series in which Thomas and Andrew walk through the short-lived history of the USFL, an alternative football league that ran into the bulldozer that is Donald J. Trump.  Along the way, we learn about jury nullification, antitrust law, and get so...

OA57: What Football Can Teach Us About Jury Nullification, Antitrust, and Donald Trump - Part 1

Today's episode is part one of a two-part series in which Thomas and Andrew walk through the short-lived history of the USFL, an alternative football league that ran into the bulldozer that is Donald J. Trump.  Along the way, we learn about jury nullification, antitrust law, and get so...

Law'd Awful Movies #5: Chicago Justice

For a change of pace, we checked out the first episode of a new (and terrible) TV show called "Chicago Justice," produced by an obviously-now-mailing-it-in Dick Wolf (of "Law & Order" fame).  We were joined by our good friend, Ris McCool.

Things we liked about the show:  the District...

OA56: Jury Secrecy and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado

In today's episode, we look at a recent Supreme Court decision that could have wide-ranging effects on future trials.

We begin, however, by "Breakin' Down the Law" regarding House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes.  Did he just violate the law Republicans kept trying to insist ap...

OA55: More on Gorsuch - Was He Just Unanimously Reversed By the Supreme Court?

Today's episode continues our look at appellate jurisprudence, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, and the philosophy of originalism that Andrew continues to insist is so extreme ast o be disqualifying.

First, our much-beloved segment "Are You A Cop?" returns in triumphant fashion with an examinat...

OA54: Gerrymandering

In today's episode, we look at the history and potential future of gerrymandered congressional districts.

We begin, however, with a listener question that's come to us from multiple sources, including Patrons Greg Boettcher and Adrian Borschow, who want to know if there's any difference between a ...

OA53: Did Jeff Sessions Perjure Himself & Other Trump-Related Stories

In today's episode, we take a look at a recent claim being made by Sen. Al Franken and others that Attorney General Jeff Sessions perjured himself during his confirmation hearings.

First, we begin with an examination of some legal issues in the news related to the Trump administration.  ...

TTTBE #15: Andrew is Sick Edition

Sorry for the abbreviated post, but my excuse is right up there in the title.  The answer is "A," which Thomas almost got right before talking himself out of it.

OA52: Thomas Knows Words! Thomas Has The Best Words!

In today's episode, we look at some legal terms that our patrons asked us to define.  In a twist, however, the guys switch chairs and Andrew asks the questions while Thomas tries to offer legal defini...

OA51: The Grimm Reality About Transgender Bathrooms

In today's episode, we take a look at the recent Supreme Court decision to rescind its grant of certiorari in the 4th Circuit opinion of Grimm v. Gloucester County School District.  What happened, and what does this mean for transgender rights?

First, we begin with...

TTTBE #14: Daylight Savings Time-inspired Super Super Early Answer for Patrons

This was a question involving the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).  In the hypothetical, a psychopath tortures the plaintiff's father outside of the plaintiff's presence, which is obviously distressing, and the plaintiff suffers (as you might imagine) extreme distres...

OA50: Obama's Fiduciary Rule (With Guest Ben Offit)

In today's episode, we take a look at a rule first proposed by President Obama's Department of Labor in 2016 that would require financial advisers to abide by a "fiduciary" duty with their clients.  What does that mean?  Listen and find out!

We begin with a relevant note about the status...

Secret Thread That Thomas Isn't Allowed to Read

Hi patrons!

One of the ideas we had for an upcoming episode was to define common legal terms that you see everywhere but maybe aren't entirely sure what they mean.  (I loved the question I got about the difference, if any, between a lawyer and an attorney.)

One of the difficult things a...

OA49: Why Originalists Don't Belong on the Supreme Court

In today's episode, we take a long look at the judicial philosophy of "originalism" made popular by former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and advocated by his would-be replacement.

First, we begin with a question from Jodi, who asks Andrew for his opinion of LegalZoom and other law-in-a...

TTTBE #13: Early Answer for Patrons

This was a question regarding the "excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule where a man observing an accident shouted out "Holy crap! That guy was going a hundred miles an hour" just after an accident and a woman, not looking at the scene, heard the man's excited utterance.

The answer to t...

LAM 4: Changing Lanes

Special thanks to Charone Frankel for picking like the best possible movie. What do you get when you mix Ben Affleck, Sam Jackson, and absolutely no grasp of how the law works? You get this movie, that's what. Listen as Andrew, Thomas, and guest Sam from the podcast Comedy Shoeshine, break down the ...

OA48: Three Cases You Care About - Planned Parenthood, Gay Florists, and Litigious Quacks

Today's episode is a little bit different than our usual format; today, we take a look at three cases that our listeners have asked about on Twitter and Facebook.

First up is an order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas enjoining the state of Texas (and nitwit ...

OA47: Is This The Gun Control Case That Could Overrule DC v. Heller?

In today's episode, we take a look at the just-decided case of Kolbe v. Hogan out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  Is this case as big a deal as people are saying it is?

We begin, however, with a preliminary question from patron Alice Ashton, w...

TTTBE #12: Early Answer for Patrons

The answer to the question was (A) -- that the trial court will likely not allow defense counsel to question the witness about her prior citations for pigeon-feeding.

This is another Rule 403 question; the rule states that:  "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its pro...

OA46: What Could Donald Trump's Tax Returns Tell Us? (With Guest Tony Di Fatta) - Part 2

Today's episode concludes our two-part look at one of your most requested questions:  what might be in Donald Trump's taxes!

We begin, however, with a listener criticism from Peter Crinklaw, who thinks Andrew gave short shrift to the policy argument for educational vouchers.

Ne...

#ReVote2017 is Hot Garbage

Lots of people have been asking about #ReVote 2017 (or #ReVote2016, or whatever they're calling it).   Here's a summary of my 16-minute rant:

It is a scam.

The lawsuit is hot garbage.

The Supreme Court has expedited the path to deny the writ.  

Anybody telling you ...

OA45: What Could Donald Trump's Tax Returns Tell Us? (With Guest Tony Di Fatta) - Part 1

In today's episode, we take a look at one of your most requested questions:  what might be in Donald Trump's taxes!

We begin, however, with a preliminary question from Jim Sabatowski, who asks us what's the big deal with Trump's tax returns, anyway?  Is there a good reason ...

TTTBE #11: Early Answer for Patrons

The answer to the question was (D) -- that the plaintiff was required to introduce the MRI report under the "best evidence" rule.  Sadly, Thomas got this question incorrect, and is now 6-for-11 (54.5%) and in danger of failing the bar exam.

Rule 1002 of the Federal Rules of E...