To celebrate the 300th episode, the podcast goes through a 2020 edition of the “Which Justice Are You” Buzzfeed Quiz from a few years ago. You can also submit your answers for review on any of our social media accounts. There is also little to no law in this episode.
This week’s episode asks Nazim (specifically) what he thinks about each of the strange opinions in June Medical Services v. Russo, the recent Supreme Court decision which struck down a Louisiana law which set high medical requirements for abortion clinics. The law starts at (02:20), but there’s a long tangent about the theater sometime around 40 minutes.
This week’s episode is a symposium on weird political opinions, as Brett and Nazim discuss the DACA decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of California, while also discussing the Flynn criminal dismissal. We also talk about the Undertaker. Law starts at (07:05).
In this week’s episode, Brett and Nazim talk about all the good things and the bad things that may be about Bostock v. Clayton County, the recent landmark decision by the Supreme Court holding that employers cannot fire LGBT employees under Title 9. Law starts at (03:28).
This episode is a tale in two-parts. The first is about Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, which discusses whether a ban on political robo-calls violates the First Amendment. The second is Brett and Nazim discussing multiple questions about pasta. Even by our standards, there’s a lot of tangents here. The law starts in earnest at (10:45).
This week’s episode covers the Supreme Court’s discussion around qualified immunity, which covers the recent case of Mesa v. Hernandez, plus a few of the pending cases which have not been accepted to the Supreme Court’s docket. Law starts at (09:40).
This week’s episode covers the collection of cases dealing with the Puerto Rico Oversight Management and Economic Stability Act, and whether or not the appointment of an oversight board complies with Article II of the Constitution. Law starts at (09:53).
Listen, if the prospect of Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca (i.e. can electoral college voters do whatever they want) brings you anxiety, allow this episode to calm you down. Recorded in two parts because we lost part of the first version, the legal analysis has the weight and experience of two guys who talked about this twice over the weekend. Law starts at (12:00).
This week’s episode covers the recent decisions in Kansas v. Glover (does the 4th Amendment protect against police stops to investigate suspended licenses) and Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org (does copyright law protect annotations to the Georgia Code). Come for the legal analysis, stay for the Sex in the City references. Law starts at (04:12).
If there’s one overarching theme this week, it’s that technology is not easy for lawyers. Brett and Nazim discuss US Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International (regarding free speech and government coercion), while also discussing how oral argument must go over ZOOM. Also, we had our own technology issue, so there’s a small echo for Brett’s track that was mostly edited out, but you can hear it from time to time. Law starts basically from the start.
