Just in time for the holidays, this week’s episode covers the case of American Legion v. American Humanist Association, which asks the Court whether a 93-year-old monument to World War I veterans violates the Establishment Clause because it is shaped like a cross. The law technically starts at (02:25), but if you’re no-fun and the title of this episode isn’t intriguing to you, the law starts at (08:00).
This week’s episode takes a long over-due detour into the world of International Law, as Brett and Nazim discuss Jam v. International Finance Corp., which discusses whether or not International Organizations are entitled to the same immunity protections as the Governments that make them up Voltron-style. Law starts at (05:30).
This week’s episode centers on a listener email, in which an intrepid college student shared a sample opinion he wrote for Virginia Uranium v. Warren (a case about federal preemption of State law), and now Brett and Nazim have to decide whether to join the opinion outright, write a concurrence, or write a dissent. Talk about Robots taking over the government starts at (01:40); Law talk starts at (08:24).
This week’s episode takes a deep dive into the Armed Career Criminal Act, a Federal Sentencing Enhancement Statute that is regularly before the Supreme Court on interpretation issues. Brett and Nazim discuss U.S. v. Stitt (Is Burglary of a Mobile Home rreeeeaaallllyyyy burglary?) and Stokeling v. U.S. (Are gentle robberies rrreeaaallllyy robberies??). Law starts at (5:00).
There be Supreme Court cases, and here be the ballot. If you don’t know what this is, you should click through our rules at the top of the page, even though most of them are obvious. But you should play and see if you can best one of our hosts in guessing Supreme Court case outcomes (you probably can). Prize is mostly bragging rights, so don’t get your expectations up.
Brett and Nazim celebrate Thanksgiving early by taking questions from listeners about the law, Thanksgiving, and random things like whether a straw has one hole or two. The Citizen’s Guide to the Supreme Court will return on December 2nd.
This week’s episode discusses Knick v. Township of Scott, PA, which on its face deals with the correct forum for Takings Clause cases, but on the sly is probably the best fact pattern we’ve dealt with so far on the podcast. The law starts in earnest at (10:06), but this episode generally covers Weird Al, realizing the law is boring, how young Nazim looks, bail bonds, and being a real estate lawyer.
Brett and Nazim cover sex offenders and Separation of Powers in the form of Gundy v. U.S., a case that asks whether Congressional delegation regarding sex offender registration to the attorney general violates the Constitution. The law starts at (06:15), but there’s a fair amount of tangents, including some solid Jeopardy talk.
This week’s episode tips its toes into International Law, and Brett and Nazim discuss treaties and how treaties fit into the hierarchy of domestic law. This episode also covers two cases involving U.S. treaties, Washington State Licensing Dept. v. Cougar Den and Herrera v. Wyoming. Law starts at (10:49).
We’re kicking off “Austin from Texas’ Fantasy SCOTUS League.” I’d abbreviate that to AfTFSCOTUSL, but I don’t find that helpful at all, and it’s not like I’m spending time on saying that, or even using up paper with it. I also feel compelled to make some jokes about Texas here, but I’m coming up blank. So, I’m going to move on to the helpful words.
We pick some US Supreme Court cases, you pick some outcomes, and we repeat that process every month. At the end of the term, we evaluate who guessed most accurately, and give the winner a pithy prize. If you win, we might send you some law books. Or, I don’t know, an alien femur from Area 51. If you win a couple of terms in a row, we can discuss naming rights.
Quote
—
Posted: November 1, 2018 by Nazim in Fantasy Supreme Court League
