About
Brett and Nazim are two attorneys who hate being attorneys. Each week, they discuss current Supreme Court cases with the intent to make the law more accessible to the average person, while ruminating on what makes the law both frustrating and interesting.
It’s important to note that we don’t represent you. Also, this podcast is not legal advice and is for entertainment purposes only. If anything you hear leads you to believe you need legal advice, please contact an attorney immediately. Here are some ways to find an attorney, but please understand that we do not endorse or support any of the attorneys you may find here:
The reason we have to not only state, but even underline, the above, is explained by an excellent post on reddit, which I reproduce in large part below in case it gets deleted:
As a matter of definition, “legal advice” is “the giving of a professional, formal opinion regarding the substance or procedure of the law,“, to which I might add “as regards a particular set of facts”.
Whether a particular communication from an attorney constitutes “legal advice” is closely related to the question of whether the attorney-client relationship exists, which is based on the perception of the “reasonable person,” which hypothetical, abstract person is not a lawyer. In other words, if a reasonable layman would conclude based on the circumstances that the lawyer with whom he is speaking is offering a formal legal opinion upon which the layman may rely because the lawyer is speaking as his attorney, that’s legal advice, and the attorney-client relationship probably exists.
This is why so many attorneys, whether on reddit, elsewhere on the internet, or just in general conversation, are so careful about saying “This is not legal advice, and I’m not your lawyer.” Doing that is sort of cover for us, as the explicit statement that I don’t represent you goes a long way to combat the notion that you could have reasonably concluded that I am your lawyer and giving you a formal opinion upon which you may rely.
And the problem for [us] is that non-attorneys have a tendency to rely on just about any old thing they happen to read on the internet, whether or not the attorneys says they should. Which is also why people who say “I’m not asking for legal advice, but could someone tell me. . .” are really asking for legal advice. They don’t want an off-the-cuff opinion upon which they cannot reasonably rely. They want to know what the law really says. So they’ll listen to the attorney’s off-the-cuff opinion on a subject, but won’t listen to the attorney’s deliberate, calculated opinion that they should really take the time to get a more formal opinion.
Why is that important? Because law, like life, is complicated. I can almost guarantee you that no matter what kind of scenario or question you may have a question about, there is a hugely significant fact that needs to be figured out, and neither you nor any attorney with whom you might converse will even necessarily know what that fact at the outset. What may seem like the tiniest, most insignificant change in a fact pattern can completely change the outcome of a case. Meaning the attorney cannot offer a professional opinion upon which you can rely unless he spends the time to investigate the facts and research the law, because he doesn’t have any way of knowing whether what he tells you is right, and he’s not going to spend that time unless you pay him.
The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court 
[…] About […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
I listened to the episode on Obamacare. Generally interesting content but I find it pretty unacceptable that you spent the first 10 minutes taking about sports. Have hat conversation before you hit record.
LikeLike
Thanks for the kind words.
I couldn’t care less about sports, so I agree, but we have some fans that would metaphorically kill us if we were to cut that, so, out of metaphoric fear for my safety, I can’t skip that.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I really, really like the banter before the law material. I always find the subjects interesting. Sometimes I know a little about the subject, like coffee, other times I know nothing, like wrestling.
But I feel like I am sitting around the kitchen table ruminating about “this and that”. Then we move on to look at both sides of a supreme court decision and all that it entails.
Not stuffy. Not dry. Very illuminating AND entertaining. So much so that I went back to 2014 to listen from the beginning…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you very much, Mindy. We’re glad you enjoy it. Let us know if you have any questions.
LikeLike
Nazim, I appreciate hearing about whatever nerdy ass board games you’re into, despite what Brett thinks the young people want to hear about.
Beyond the Sun is one I hadn’t heard of yet, so thank you for bringing it up!
I don’t care about sports or wrestling either, but I’m so glad Brett does and it brings me joy to hear him talk about them.
Been listening for a while. Love the show exactly as it is. Thanks for all the great content!
LikeLike
Thanks for the kind words, dstrinden! Beyond the Sun is available at boardgamearena.com at the moment, so it can also be played online. If you want to play asynchronously, I’m happy to show you the ropes. I’m Nazimr on BGA.
LikeLike
Hey! Just lostwmwe to your latest podxaatband had a queation. You were talking about gerrymandering, and how the legislature is called out to have final say on it according to the constitution.
If gerrymandering is allowed, it will be an abused power. The ‘system’ needs to be changed. You mentioned that senators elwxtions’ was separately called out. So I recall correctly that state legislators (gerrymandered) used to choose senators, but the Supreme court put an end to that. Wasn’t that the case that set the one man one vote precedent?
So the question is: couldn’t we don he same thing for representatives? Force them to be elected statewide with some type of multiple reps per laeter district (if not the whole state.) This would bypass the whole issue? And they’re seems.to be some precedent.
-Mike
LikeLike
I agree that statewide elections of representatives (i.e. at-large elections) would completely resolve the gerrymandering issue. Currently, there is federal law that requires states to have geographic districts and one representative per district, so states can’t do so, sadly.
LikeLike