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.

Advertisements

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!

The Abortion Cases of Tomorrow, TODAY!

In response to the Supreme Court’s late night session last Thursday, Brett and Nazim discuss the Court’s recent injunction of the Louisiana Abortion Statute, and the Court’s reversal of a death penalty stay in Alabama for a defendant who was not provided his religious counselor of choice during the execution.  Law starts at (2:00).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8583182/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!

Is Congress Incompetent? A Play in Two Parts

I know that title is supposed to be a cliff-hanger, but the answer is yes.  In support of such a thesis, Brett and Nazim discuss the Court’s holdings in New Prime v. Oliveira and U.S. v. Stokeling, which both discuss how the Supreme Court is generally being used to clean up poorly written statutes.  The play concludes with a great Dr. Pepper analogy.  Law starts (01:52).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8485739/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’ Fantasy SCOTUS League – February 2019 Ballot

Okay, so, I apologize for the mess I’ve made for the past couple of ballots. But, I have an excuse: it was Brett’s fault. I won’t say more. Anyway, this is a thing where we compete to predict the outcomes of some US supreme court cases covered here recently. If you need rules, here they are.

Otherwise, here is the February ballot. And, if you missed them because of all the ferrets, here are the January, December, and November ballots.

Anti Trust Falls

This week’s episode covers a case that is not even a fraction of as delicious as it sounds, Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, which covers whether Apple is engaging in Anti-Trust violations for how they allow apps on to your iPhone.  This episode goes off the rails early and often, so while the law starts at (05:37), you might miss which host doesn’t know how to use Microsoft Excel and which host is a master of the DARK WEB (the answer may surprise you!).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8390051/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!

Hot News From Hot Dudes 2019

Like all great podcasts, Brett and Nazim have devoted this week’s episode to all the topical news stories from two weeks ago, including Ginsburg’s health and the practicality of term limits, the Mueller investigation’s mystery corporation, and Judge Kav-another-beer’s first opinion.  Law starts at (05:20).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8308682/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!

Is This Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Part 4

America’s favorite game returns, as Brett and Nazim decide whether Garza v. Idaho (can a lawyer override a client’s request for an appeal when the client waived appellate rights pursuant to a plea agreement) constitutes Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, along with a few other half-explained scenarios.  The law technically starts from the beginning but them goes on some kind of weird Mozzarella stick tangent before starting again at (09:28).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8210408/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!

Barristers Always Pay Their Debts

Today’s episode covers the specific nuances underlying Obdusky v. McCarthy and Holthus, a case with topics as sexy as the names in its caption, including debt collection, mortgages, and statutory interpretation.  Brett and Nazim spice it up even further by talking about non-legal legal work, rooting for the Eagles in the playoffs today, and Nazim’s beloved mason jar.  Law starts at (5:50).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8131268/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!