It’s RFRA-MAS here at the podcast this week, as Brett and Nazim cover two cases involving religious rights before the Supreme Court, (1) Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrisey-Berru (whether the Court can decide employment discrimination cases for religious organizations) and (2) FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir (whether RFRA claims are entitled to money damages. Law starts at (05:04).
Listen, the amount you enjoyed/understood the pun in the title to this episode is directly proportionate to how much you’re gonna like this episode, which covers George v. Public.Resource.Org, a case that asks whether or not annotations in the State Code are protected by copyright law. The law here starts at (07:24), but you’re going to miss subtext and themes in the opening monologue, and plus there’s some substantial condiment talk at the end.
This week’s episode covers a few cases that have stalled out before making the vaunted grounds of the Supreme Court’s docket. These cases include Remington Arms v. Soto (Sandy Hook lawsuit on gun advertising), Trump v. Vance (the never-ending quest for Trump’s tax returns), Haidak v. University of Mass (College Due Process), and Syed v. Maryland (the Serial murder case). Law starts at (05:10).
Austin from Texas’ December 2019 Ballot
Posted: December 1, 2019 by Nazim in Fantasy Supreme Court League
There’s plenty to say, but sadly I don’t have time to say it. Please proceed directly to the ballot. Do not pass go, do not collect $200 (shouldn’t that have gone up with inflation?), and do make wondersome thanksgiving sandwiches with your leftovers.
WELCOME BACK! This is Austin from Texas’ Fantasy SCOTUS League.
Posted: November 1, 2019 by Nazim in Fantasy Supreme Court League
We know you missed it. So, no jibber jabber: here’s the thing.
Final 2018 Term Scores for Austin from Texas’ Fantasy SCOTUS League.
Posted: August 19, 2019 by Nazim in Fantasy Supreme Court LeagueWe’ve all been waiting for this with baited breath. We know. We’re professional breath-baiters. So, with precisely this much ado, and then this much more, here you go:
The winner, by a margin of 70 points, is Alyssa, who single-handedly proves that NJ judicial fantasialogisticians have everything we need to understand what’s right and wrong about the world. Kudos to Alyssa: if she keeps this up, maybe we’ll rename the league after her. Or, you know, if she purchases a sponsoring deal. We’ll take interesting food. No, seriously, you know we will.
One note, of the almost-dozen people who posted submissions twice, only one scored better the second time. The clear lesson here is to not overthink what we’re doing. Including this commentary. See you all next season.
Austin from Texas’ SCOTUS Fantasy League – May 2019 ballot
Posted: May 1, 2019 by Nazim in Fantasy Supreme Court League
It’s that time of the month, again, thank good. Get yourself sorted on our fresh (and abundant) batch of cases that may have some easy outcomes to determine. See? We can play nice when we feel like it, just like Rocky Racoon.
If you have no idea what this is, please click to our somewhat-more-helpful page (trademark pending). In brief, you guess what US Supreme Court justices might do, and compare your guesswork to others. If you guess best, we recognize you somehow. It’s all very specific.
This week’s episode covers the Freedom of Information Act, and how the Court will look at the pending case of Food Market Institute v. Argus Leader Media, which asks whether or not customer information is “confidential” to bar disclosure under FOIA laws. In the general theme of secrecy, Brett and Nazim share closely held secrets, like who likes Game of Thrones more, and who drinks Mountain Dew. Law starts at (07:55).
[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/9448877/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!
Look out drunks, because Wisconsin is coming for your blood. This week’s episode covers the case of Mitchell v. Wisconsin, which asks whether the police can take the blood of a passed out drunk driver without a warrant. Brett and Nazim discuss oral argument in general, previous cases on this topic and which opinion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is the lesser-est of three evils. Law starts at (06:05).
[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/9335924/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!
This week’s case covers Kisor v. Wlkie, which specifically questions whether or not Supreme Court precedent that defers to agency interpretations of their own regulations is Constitutional. This case covers admin law in general, when a Court should overturn precedent, and whether or not the Constitution permits delegating such power to un-elected officials. Now, just in case that sounds too serious, the words “The Farts Doctrine” comes up more than once. Law starts at (03:49).
[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/9292778/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!
