Liz Warren's CFPB Saved By... Originalism?
Added 2024-05-17 08:45:42 +0000 UTCOA1033
We begin with a quick check-in on Trump’s trial in New York, from the recent appellate ruling on his gag order Todd Blanche's bizarrely personal start to his cross-examination of the most important witness in one of the most important criminal trials in US history. Matt then explains why it might be a felony to run for governor in Washington State if your name is Bob Ferguson.
Then: Clarence Thomas just rejected an originalist 5th Circuit ruling to save the
Consumer Protection Finance Bureau on behalf of a 7-2 court--with Alito dissenting for totally different originalist reasons. What is going here?
We then stop in for a quick layover with the current state of the Boeing non-prosecution agreement before Thomas takes on a bar question about some extremely unpleasant fish.
There's a new episode out on www.patreon.com/gavelpod!
RCW 29A.84.320 (WA criminal statute addressing “Duplicate, nonexistent, and untrue names”)
DOJ letter to court overseeing Boeing nonprosecution agreement (5/14/24)
Comments
T3BE: There's something fishy about whomever is representing the divers, either he's clowning around, being koi with his clients about their chances of winning, or salmon needs to check if he went to an offishal law school. The answer is [A]: in favour of Jack, because the divers were trespassing on his property. Whilst Jack may be liable for Negligence if he didn't post adequate warning signs, or the divers could prove Jack didn't secure the fish, this is a separate tort - the question asks about whether the divers can sue under Strict Liability. Strict Liability is where intentions or fault of the party causing the injury do not get considered - but injuries caused during the act of the plaintiffs Trespassing are an exception to the Strict Liability doctrine, so Strict Liability cannot apply here.
I am a philosophical hole
2024-05-19 02:39:13 +0000 UTCT3BE on behalf of my 10-year-old who goes by ZebraChu: They're divers not lawyers, so I don't think they understand strict liability. Strict liability also means that if Jack puts up warning signs and they trespassed anyway, they're just being stupid. The answer is C.
Patrick Crawley
2024-05-19 01:54:58 +0000 UTCTreason is treason, but strict criminal liability is not strict tort liability. There are few defenses to strict liability, but voluntary assumption of a known risk is one of them, so the answer is C. If trespass were enough, we wouldn't have all those Beware of Fish signs on our fences.
Dr. Clerk
2024-05-18 15:47:42 +0000 UTC"Die mad, founders!" lol Thomas
Quark Twain
2024-05-18 12:21:04 +0000 UTCWe all know Republicans' main goal is to break government so they can point at it and say "look! It doesn't work!"
subpoenaspoenaspoenaspoenaspoenaspoenaspoenas
2024-05-18 09:22:28 +0000 UTCI had to pause listening to this episode and when I came back to it and hit play, it went right into Thomas being a demon payday lender 🤣🤣🤣
can I get a CHEE-HOOOOO
2024-05-18 01:49:36 +0000 UTCHot(?) take: SCOTUS doesn't just an expansion, it needs non-lawyers and non-judicial branch people on it. Maybe governors or reps who will say "hey, no, we aren't breaking the other branches for fun, we've actually ran an executive branch and passed legislation, this court is not meddling with the EPA." Plus a lot of the mystique of "these genius impartial sages in their cult robes, above the fray" goes away if it's Justice Beto O'Rourke who's been elected and lost elections and has run on specific platforms.
Apple Ventus
2024-05-17 23:14:41 +0000 UTCStep 1, does any answer seem weirdly tautological? It's usually correct (B). But maybe they know you know that and that's what they want you to think. Step 2, eliminate internally contradictory options (D - if the divers sue for strict liability and succeed, the outcome can't be based on negligence). Step 3, eliminate options that are just common sense dumb (C - if you can be held liable for injuries to trespassers caused by your giant piranha pit, a sign that says WARNING GIANT PIRANHA PIT probably won't get you... off the hook...). A seems like a possibility but I'm swayed by the tautological simplicity of B. Some things are so egregiously and inherently dangerous that it's your fault even when it isn't - stuff like piranha farming I mean. Not stuff like not knowing where your own gun is at all times. Apparently.
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2024-05-17 22:11:05 +0000 UTChttps://youtu.be/lvh6NLqKRfs?si=jGilD4A8ivFKXMD0
Dann de Grand Pre
2024-05-17 21:14:15 +0000 UTCSince Thomas is a sports guy, and you had so many Bobs in this episode, I thought he might appreciate this gem
Dann de Grand Pre
2024-05-17 21:14:05 +0000 UTCRe: Bob Ferguson I proposed doing this in one of my weird OA qna questions. I suggested getting people to change their names to something similar to Republican front runners like Ted Cruiz or Madison Crawthorn.
Stormy Decisis says visit sharebannedbooks.com
2024-05-17 18:48:12 +0000 UTCOMG I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BOB FERGUSON DEBACLE. (I am from Seattle, lol)
SpunRightRound
2024-05-17 16:41:47 +0000 UTCSo Trump violates the gag order by coordinating with his surrogates to say the things he would get in trouble for. He also indirectly complains about one of the prosecutors but not by name. Let’s say that the prosecutors just want to focus on getting the trial over with and get to the verdict and hopefully the sentencing phase. Can they bring up the gag order violations then? Could the judge rule on them then and give Trump a night or two in jail while the jury deliberates punishment?
Mark M
2024-05-17 15:43:52 +0000 UTCThe Amicus podcast by Slate is doing a good series on how originalism is bullshit (I paraphrase slightly)
Jono Price
2024-05-17 15:19:46 +0000 UTCThe name-borrowing candidate was the inciting incident of the Eddie Murphy movie The Distinguished Gentleman.
Gmork
2024-05-17 13:46:23 +0000 UTCI am Jack's complete lack of regard for foreseeable hazards. I prevent Jack from securing his dangerous wild animals, but because he owes no duty of care to undiscovered trespassers the answer is A.
Congress- the opposite of PROgress
2024-05-17 13:46:08 +0000 UTCHey guys, I hear a lot about originalism, and I get what it is supposed to be (stupid though it maybe), but can we get a breakdown of competing legal philosophies and how they are supposed to work? I don’t even know what they are called.
Richard Stifle
2024-05-17 13:18:12 +0000 UTCHis Tony D not history D. lol!
KeepingThePlatesSpinning
2024-05-17 11:43:18 +0000 UTCOMG Eli (possibly using history D voice as Cohen)!!! I’m so excited!
KeepingThePlatesSpinning
2024-05-17 09:19:03 +0000 UTC
