Opening Arguments

Today's Rapid Response Friday tackles (1) Paul Manafort's plea deal and (2) the surprise resumption of the Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh in light of Dr. Ford's allegations, which are discussed in depth on Episode 158 of Serious Inquiries Only.  What should you look for during Monday's hearings?  Listen and find out! We begin with an acknowledgment of the story sent to us by several hundred thousand listeners regarding crazy person Cody Wilson. After that, it's time for an important Andrew Was Wrong:  Paul Manafort did not plea over the weekend; he pled guilty pretty much the second we stopped recording!  We break down everything there is to know about his deal, including the strong incentives Manafort has not only to cooperate but to roll over and expose his belly to Mueller's team in hopes of being thrown a bone or two.  Oh, and we time-travel back to the 19th century to answer a super-interesting listener question on asset forfeiture! The

Today's episode takes two deep dives:  first, into California SB10, which eliminates the "cash bail" system of pretrial detention in California, and second, into the Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Washington v. Glucksberg.  What does it all mean?  You'll have to listen to know for sure! We begin, however, with an update on Wells Fargo's $1 billion remediation plan first discussed in Episode 169. After that, we tackle California SB10, which is now law -- even though it won't go into effect until October of 2019.  Is this a good or a bad thing?  Would it change your mind to learn that the ACLU flip-flopped on this bill?  Listen and find out! From there, we move into an in-depth analysis of Glucksburg and what it means for the future of the Supreme Court. Then, we give you a little retroactive speculation regarding the possiblity that Paul Manafort might plead guilty.  Yes, it's a living record of the fact that we record on Thursdays -- but we think you'll like the analysis anyway. Finally, we end with Thomas

Today's Rapid Response Friday is all about the conclusion of the Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings for Brett Kavanaugh.  What did we learn?  What's still outstanding?  Are liberals really guilty of trying to bribe Susan Collins?  And, most importantly:  what can we do about any of this??  Listen and find out! We begin, however, with an important Andrew Was Wrong. After that, we delve into all the week's issues surrounding the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, including:  (1) the status of Kavanaugh's nomination; (2) whether liberal crowdfunding efforts really count as efforts to "bribe" Republican Sen. Susan Collins; (3) an in-depth look at Kavanaugh's written answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee; (4) a shockingly misleading question from Opening Arguments's good friend, Sen. Ted Cruz; and finally (5) a preview of next Tuesday's discussion of a weird case called Glucksburg.  Phew! After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #93 regarding double jeopardy.  Did Thomas learn enough fro

Today's episode takes a deep dive into a 2003 Supreme Court decision, Stogner v. California, and discusses the Constitution's ex post facto clause.  Why?  Listen and find out! After that, we break down the $95 million lawsuit filed by Roy Moore against Sacha Baron Cohen alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud.  Is it meritorious?  Who's Moore's lawyer?  Will you laugh?  There's only one way to know! Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #92 regarding the introduction of testimony against a gang member.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here's the link to Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003). Click here to read the $95 million lawsuit filed by Roy Moore against Sacha Baron Cohen. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon

Today's Rapid Response Friday tackles the ongoing Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings for Brett Kavanaugh -- including an analysis of documents that broke literally after we recorded the show!  Find out if any of this can slow down Kavanaugh's presumed path the SCOTUS. We begin, however, with listener feedback on our rather controversial Episode 205 (with Andrew Seidel) as well as follow-up emails regarding 3-D guns and our contributions to SwingLeft. After that, we break down the critical documents leaked today by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) that show 1) Kavanaugh's nakedly partisan approach to the court; 2) Kavanaugh's nonexistent view of the value of precedent when it comes to Roe v. Wade; and 3) possible perjury.  Is this a big deal?  YES.  Will it move the needle?  We'll see. After that, we return to Yodel Mountain to discuss Paul Manafort's impending DC trial and the somewhat-overlooked plea by W. Samuel Patten.  Who's that?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam

Today's episode takes us back to Yodel Mountain, where we take a look at a popular article making the rounds suggesting that (you guessed it) this ONE WEIRD TRICK might unravel the entire Mueller investigation.  Should you be worried? (No.) We begin, however, with the rare (but delightful!) Thomas Was Right segment revisiting 3-D guns and the Arms Export Control Act.  What's going on?  Listen and find out! In the main segment, we take apart this Politico story suggesting that McKeever v. Sessions hold the key to Yodel Mountain. After that, we tour what's left of Yodel Mountain to discuss the latest developments with our buddy Paulie M.  Did he really try to plead out in advance of his next trial?  What's next on the horizon for everyone's favorite ostrich-vest-wearing money launderer? Then, we end with Thomas (and Andrew!) Take the Bar Exam Question #91 regarding the separation of church and state and graduation prayers.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you

Today's episode tackles two big church/state separation stories currently circulating right now:  the recent lawsuit filed by the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, and the Pennsylvania grand jury  investigation of the Catholic Church.  And, of course, there's no better guide to these issues than friend of the show and Director of Strategic Response for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Andrew Seidel. We begin the Masterpiece, going in depth on the case we first discussed back in Episode 201.  Find out what the Andrews think will happen to this case -- and along the way, you'll learn something about Younger abstention! After that, we turn to the Pennsylvania grand jury investigation regarding the Catholic Church, discuss statutes of limitation, and learn what we can do about it going forward. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas (and Andrew!) Take The Bar Exam #91 involving -- by sheer coincidence! -- the First Amendment and prayers at a student graduation.  If you'd like to play along, just retweet our

Today's episode welcomes back one of our favorite guest experts, former prosecutor and current law professor Randall Eliason of the Sidebars blog, who will help us break down what exactly a "perjury trap" is -- and whether Robert Mueller is laying one for the President. Of course, when we have a guest this good, we also have to take advantage of his expertise in a couple of other areas.  So we begin by checking in on the news of the day:  Mueller has already reportedly offered immunity to David Pecker, the CEO of the National Inquirer, whom we discussed at great length on Episode 203 in connection with the Cohen plea. After that, we delve into Rudy Giuliani's contention that Mueller is laying a "perjury trap" for the President.  Is that a thing?  Is that what he's doing?  Listen and find out! After that, we revisit the issue of reporters and confidential sources, where Professor Eliason has been a consistent voice opposing a federal privilege.  Is that a view he still holds?  There's only one way to know for

Today's extra-long, extra-early Rapid Response episode tackles the two biggest stories in the news right now:  Paul Manafort's conviction, and Michael Cohen's plea deal.  We tell you exactly what these two big stories actually mean. We begin with Paul Manafort.  What did the jury decide?  Why did they fail to reach a verdict on 10 counts?  What were those counts?  How long is Paulie M going to stay in prison and what's next?  And, most importantly:  what does this mean for Yodel Mountain?  How likely is Paulie M to flip on Donald Trump?  We answer all of these questions and more! After that, we turn to everyone's favorite weasel, Michael "I Would Take A Bullet For Donald Trump" Cohen, who... has not taken a bullet for Donald Trump but has in fact pled guilty to eight separate crimes.  What are they, what does it mean, and what comes next?  Listen and find out! And if all that wasn't enough, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #90 involving  foreseeability, cross-motions for summary judgment, and

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the recent $289 million dollar verdict handed down by a California state jury for a man who alleges that the herbicide Roundup (TM) gave him cancer. First, we break down the facts of the lawsuit.  Then, we have on special guest Yvette d'Entremont -- a.k.a. the SciBabe -- to break down the science behind glyphosate (the active chemical in Roundup). After that, it's time for everyone's favorite Thomas (& Yvette) Take the Bar Exam, where our dynamic duo attempts to get it right when it comes to the proper measure of damages for breach of contract.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links If you'd like to read some of the original court documents, here's the Roundup complaint, the Roundup motion to strike; and finally, here's the Roundup v

Today's Rapid Response Friday is actually a Follow Up Friday!  We revisit four stories from recent episodes and go into more depth on each one, particularly in light of recent developments. We begin with our most recent story regarding reporter's privilege in Episode 200.  What's the other side of the argument?  Find out why friend of the show Randall Eliason thinks that reporter's ought not to have the right to keep their sources confidential! After that, we move back one more episode to Episode 199 and tackle some important listener questions about asbestos.  Along the way, we discuss the difference between strict liability and negligence and delve into theories of market share liability. Our main segment covers the unsurprising fact that Masterpiece Cakeshop is back in the news.  What does this mean?  How has the Supreme Court's decision changed the landscape for religious exemptions to laws?  Listen and find out! After that, we go back to Yodel Mountain and check in with the conclusion of the Manafort tri

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the legal protections reporters have (and don't have) to keep their sources confidential. We begin, however, with an update on how "Elections Have Consequences," this time, looking at the state of the House of Representatives in light of last week's special election in OH-12. After that, we dive deeply into reporter privilege, beginning with a discussion of the Supreme Court's decision in Branzburg v. Hayes and continuing through to the recently-proposed Free Flow of Information Act of 2017. Next, the guys break down the Electronic Frontier Foundation's take on the 3-D guns.  Do Andrew and Thomas change their minds?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #88 about waiver and/or modification of contract.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on The Thinking Atheist podcast with Seth Andrews.  If you'd

Note: the SaneBox url in this episode is incorrect. Please go to https://www.sanebox.com/opening to take advantage of a great deal on their product! Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down everything you need to know regarding the Trump EPA's recent rules change regarding asbestos.  Is it as ominous as it sounds?  (Yes.) We begin, however, with the oddest OA segment of all time:  Devin Nunes was right!  What was he right about, and what's a Michael Kinsley gaffe?  You'll just have to listen and find out! After that, in a bonus segment, the guys break down the recent indictment of Chris Collins (R-NY-27) for insider trading. The main segment breaks down the EPA's Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) regarding asbestos and help you evaluate the competing claims being lobbed back and forth.  Did the Trump Administration open up the use of asbestos in household products?  Or did they make it harder to use asbestos as the EPA claims?  We give you a definitive answer. After that, Andrew partially answers a listener qu

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at Donald Trump's favorite "liberal," Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz as seen through the eyes of one of his former students. We begin, however, with an update from the Paul Manafort trial, taking a look at the prosecution's strategy, witness list, and some preliminary rulings by Judge Ellis. After that, we dive very deeply into what looks like a very weird phenomenon:  why is Alan Dershowitz carrying water for a President whom he ostensibly opposes?  Why is he saying things that are demonstrably and indefensibly untrue about the law? Andrew has a theory.  Mostly, though, he has stories and research... but they lead to a theory (we promise)! Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #87 regarding constitutional law and a state vs. the federal Confrontation Clause.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a gue

Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down all of the legal wrangling regarding the Trump Administration's secret settlement with a self-described "crypto-anarchist" who uploaded material that allows anyone with access to a 3-D printer to make their own plastic, undetectable, untraceable firearm. We begin, however, with a  listener who's considering coming over to the "dark side" and wants an honest answer about getting electoral help from overseas.  What if the Irish want to help elect Liz Warren in 2020?  Listen and find out! The main segment breaks down the "Defense Distributed" settlement and subsequent litigation -- and along the way you'll learn about Cold War arms sales, the Export Control Act, F-15s, Richard Nixon, and... well, let's just say there's a lot on the table! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #87 regarding a state supreme court ruling over whether witnesses must face their accusers.  If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Faceb

Today's episode tells you everything you need to know about voting, including in particular West Virginia's "Sore Loser" law and whether it applies to big fat racist criminal loser Don Blankenship... and, in turn, what that means for Joe Manchin's chances of holding on to his Senate seat in the 2018 midterms.  Phew! We begin, however, with... *sigh*... Andrew Was Wrong.  This time, an astute listener clarifies where Andrew elided over two different sections of the Voting Rights Act when discussing the Supreme Court's opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). Oh, and we have more on McDonald's, too!  After that, it's time to dig into West Virginia's "sore loser" law.  What does this mean for the upcoming Senate elections?  Listen and find out! Then, the guys tackle a very good listener question from listener Greg regarding freedom of the press, freedom of speech, limited public fora, and more. Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #86 regarding the sale of an automobile and a slippery salesm

Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down all of a busy week's developments in the Trump Administration's trip up Yodel Mountain, including the surprising revelation that Michael Cohen has audio tapes of his conversations with Donald Trump.  What does it all mean?  Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a challenging listener question regarding legal ethics and summer associates that hearkens back to our last episode. The main segment tackles an entire week's worth of yodeling, including the Cohen tapes, the emoluments lawsuit, and the Manafort trial.  Phew! After that, we check in with our buddy Andrew Seidel from the FFRF about a recent victory in the 9th Circuit regarding prayers at public school board meetings. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #86 involving the questionable sale of a used car.  If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's epi

Today's episode tells you everything you need to know before Paul Manafort's trial in the Eastern District of Virginia, which begins Wednesday, July 25, 2018.  Oh, and we break down the recent lawsuit against McDonald's to boot! We begin, however, with a very good listener question from "Judicial Noir" regarding ethics, science, and a summer internship! After that, it's time to discuss an actual lawsuit over actual cheese.   Yes, there's a class action lawsuit against Thomas's favorite restaurant (McDonald's) -- and we're here to help you separate fact from fiction!  Oh, and along the way, you might learn something about Microsoft, illegal tying arrangements, and antitrust law! Then, it's back to Yodel Mountain to explain in depth exactly what's going on with our buddy Paulie M, and what you can expect over the next two weeks. Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #85 regarding real property.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play

Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down the recent lawsuit filed by the Mandalay Bay casino regarding the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.  Is it true that the casino is suing the victims?  What's that all about??  Listen and find out!  Also, we check in with Yodel Mountain and figure out, once and for all, if this is really worse than Watergate.  (Hint:  yes.) We begin, however, with everybody's favorite segment, Andrew Was Wrong, in which we revisit the Supreme Court with a few corrections. The main segment tackles the Mandalay Bay lawsuit and explains the concept of a declaratory judgent as well as the 2002 SAFETY Act upon which Mandalay Bay is attempting to rely. Next, we return to Yodel Mountain to discuss the recent Mueller indictments, Donald Trump's Treason Summit with Russia, and ingenue Mariia Butina.  It's as salacious as OA ever gets! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #85 involving (ugh) real property.  If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it

Today's episode takes an in-depth historical look at the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" and what that might mean for the future of Obergefell v. Hodges in the next Supreme Court.  What does capital punishment have to do with gay marriage?  Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a discussion of the District Court's refusal to modify the Flores settlement we discussed in Episode 184.  Find out what the court thinks of Trump's Executive Order to "keep families together" at the border... by indefinitely detaining minors in violation of the law. After that, it's time for a double-length dive into the history of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, and in particular, the Supreme Court's decision outlawing capital punishment in 1972 (Furman v. Georgia) and then reversing itself just four years later (Gregg v. Georgia).  Is this a blueprint for what the next SCOTUS will do?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #84 regarding spousal privilege