Admin Law Under Attack (???/!!!)

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!

Austin from Texas’ SCOTUS Fantasy League – April 2019

I always wonder, when I title these things, if it won’t turn up in some adolescent’s search for prurient material about something he or she misspelled. I know it does for me, and it’s annoying.

But, if you’re reading this second paragraph, you’re probably mildly interested in the link to cast your ballot. Because I know we’re getting close to the finish line, and I know I need to get to scoring this thing, and that laundry isn’t going to do itself. So, if anyone wants to do my laundry, please let me know. My wife says I have an unnecessarily rigorous t-shirt folding process, and I’m looking for a biased second opinion.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you’re in good company. But if you want to know more about the SCOTUS Fantasy League, click that link. If you just want to vote in this ballot, click this link.

We’re a True Crime Podcast Now

Brett and Nazim have gone big-time, as this week’s episode covers Flowers v. Mississippi, a criminal Batson challenge case that’s far more famous for being ripe for podcast commentary.  In place of ephemeral music and gotcha journalism, Brett and Nazim talk about the criminal justice system, Batson challenges, jury selection, and Clarence Thomas talking at oral argument.  Law starts at (06:32).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/9150875/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!

Presidential Free-Style

Hold on to your butts gang, cuz Brett and Nazim are talking THE WALL!  By way of background, Brett is sick with Kathleen Turner voice and Nazim has one foot on the door with busy weekend plans, so this episode is general coverage about whatever the hell is going on with the government these days, and then a quick and dirty look at Iancu v. Brunetti, which covers free speech and the trademark office…..again.  (Law starts at 04:45).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/9095192/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!

The Good Guys and Bad Guys of Gerrymandering

AKA THIS AGAIN.  This week’s episode takes a dive into the last four years of gerrymandering cases to suss out what the Court is talking about in the current cases of Virginia v. Bethune-Hill (2019), Lamone v. Benisk, and Rucho v. Common Cause.  Come for the nuanced political discussion, stay to hear how beaten-down Nazim is on this issue compared to four years ago.  Law starts at (07:20).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/9008534/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!

It’s Dissenting Opinion Season

This week covers the recent opinions in Timbes v. Indiana (Excessive fines and the Incorporation Doctrine), Madison v. Alabama (Death Penalty Capacity, and Garza v. Idaho (Ineffective Assistance for Appeals), but more importantly, it’s time for wild dissents and the Men who love them.  Law starts at (5:00) and Nazim spoils Infinity War and JAWS if you haven’t seen it yet.

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8914103/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!

Census? They Hardly Knew Us!

This immaculately titled episode covers the case of Department of Commerce v. New York as a play in two parts.  The first part discusses the policy merits of asking a citizenship question on the census, the second predicts whether the lower court’s ruling removing the question will hold up.  Without giving it away, there’s a good chance you won’t like one of the part.  Law starts at (07:05).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8826665/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!

Austin from Texas’ March 2019 SCOTUS Fantasy League Ballot

Welcome back to our monthly prediction-a-thon. Please give generously to those who get the answers wrong. They need it. If you’re lost, you’re in good company. This is a thing where we try to predict how some US Supreme Court cases are going to turn out, and then give the person who guesses best bragging rights. Austin from Texas was the best guesser for the past couple of terms, so that explains why the League has been renamed after him. Or her. I have not pantsed him to check.

Yet.

I’m behind, as usual, on some housekeeping. The fact that I am in the lead over my cohost has little to do with the fact that I haven’t re-tallied the score in a long time. It’s just that I prefer lounging in mid-century modern garments, smoking a corn-cob pipe and stroking a cat while contemplating possible alternate realities.

None of this is made easier by the fact that there is only one case this month. Better not screw it up.

Link to the March 2019 ballot.

Links to prior ballots.

Booze & Federalism

In honor of the Verona High School Debate Team (the East Coast’s best High School Debate Team obv), Brett and Nazim debate the value of winning a boat, numbers, state flags, bacon, federalism, getting drunk, buying birth control on Amazon, Constitutional Amendments and Tennessee Wine and Spirits Assoc. v. Blair, which asks the Court whether the 21st Amendment supersedes the Dormant Commerce Clause.  Law starts at (11:26).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8724920/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!

Math Fights: Civil Forfeiture

The case of Timbs v. Indiana poses a very outcome dependent question of whether or not civil forfeiture is unfair and poorly managed, so to keep this podcast interesting, Brett and Nazim go through each argument for and against and assign a numerical value to really see what they think at the end of the day.  The law was supposed to start at (05:06), but it gets side-tracked with DMV stories and truly starts at (09:18).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8563199/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!