This week’s episode covers the recent decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis, which can be more aptly stated as Overly Power Arbitration Act v. Sensible Worker’s Rights Requests. Brett and Nazim break down the basis for the decision, debate judicial activism, and talk about why Weezer sucks. Law starts at (05:14).
This week’s episode covers the improbable case of Christie v. NCAA, where New Jersey’s second bite at legalizing State gambling actually worked, and now Federal Gambling laws are unconstitutional. Brett and Nazim celebrate this brand new world by setting odds for one-on-one fights between Supreme Court Justices. Law starts at (04:15), but it takes a while to get focused.
Brett and Nazim celebrate their 200th episode (!!!) the only way they know how, by talking about food for way too long, going on a weird tangent about the Mueller investigation that dovetails into the shady side of corporate law, and finally landing on Trump v. Hawaii, the travel ban case that asks the Supreme Court to gauge how prejudiced the President is allowed to be before we do anything about it. Law starts at (11:50).
This week’s episode covers judges, and more specifically judicial mistakes currently before the Supreme Court. Brett and Nazim discuss Rosales-Mireles v. U.S, which basically covers how the Court should approach math problems, and Dalmazzi v. U.S., which discusses the current applicability of Civil War military appointment statutes. Law starts at (04:30).
This week’s episode covers oral arguments and recent decisions with varying degrees of stakes. Brett and Nazim discuss Abbott v. Perez (which might decide the fate of modern democracy) Jesner v. Arab Bank PLC (which may facilitate terrorism), SAS Institute v. Matal (which deals with paperwork), and Trump v. Hawaii (which has something to do with the President). Law starts at (04:18).
Enclosed are results follows SAS Intitute and Jesner. We did not have Dimaya on the ballot, so that did not count. From what I have read from my sources (the Scotusblog twitter account), results will begin again May 15 and then come fast and furious.
170 Holy shit, my friend Ray
165 Hollywood Austin
135 DC Alyssa
125 Vito
Adam in Rodchester
115 Brian S.
110 Mitchel
Coridan the Arch-Villain
105 Will P.
100 Brett
Ken H.
95 Nazim
Dan H.
90 Steven from Houston
Andy the Wholeman
KC (“the Kid”)
85 Penni
Anthony from Georgia
Tony C.
80 Daniela
Max “Number 2”
75 Big Bears Dad
70 Arturo
Neil R.
Fabian
Todd S.
Spencer
“Doing It Wrong”
60 LA Scott
Silvia
55 C3PO
P Dub
Kyle WM
45 Emma
Prosecutor John
My dude keanuthon
Lane from Philadelphia
40 Michigan Drew
Cade
James N
30 ZLM
KJ
Denver Brad
Lauren from Baltimore
25 Zoe
Wayned
Sarah Corp.
Girl Carew
15 Victor
JB in ME
Jocelyn
Shannon
Kevin, aka Havertown’s worst gambler
David from ATL
0 Dan H.
Nora
Brandon N.
Young Maldy
Cam from Phoenix
CB
JB94
A few cases we covered last month are still undecided, but we don’t know for how long. Get your ballots in quick. Here is the ballot. You know what to do.
This week’s episode covers two recent decisions by the Court, including Microsoft v. U.S. (where the Court determined the dispute was moot after passage of the CLOUD Act), and Dimaya v. Sessions (where the Court invalidated the Immigrant Removal Act on grounds of vagueness under the Due Process Clause). Law starts at (08:48), but you’d be missing some pretty dope NASA talk.
Maybe a 6 out of 10? Depends on how you feel about lawsuits destined to fail, since this week we are covering sovereign immunity and the inherently futility of trying to hold the government accountable for bad actions. Brett and Nazim discuss the cases of Kisela v. Hughes (do police get qualified immunity for shooting people?) and Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (can the government stop your free speech rights by arresting you if you kind of deserve to be arrested). Law starts at (05:50).
This week’s episode covers double jeopardy, a legal concept that should be easy, but technical legal rules have made complicated and kind of boring. To that end(!!), Brett and Nazim spice up the case of Currier v. Virginia, where the Court has to determine whether a severed charge can be tried following an acquittal. Law starts at (07:09), but before them Nazim talks about how he thinks he could be the Bachelor, sooooooooo skip at your own peril.
