Arizona Republican Party Like It's 1864
Added 2024-04-12 09:58:52 +0000 UTCEpisode 1022
Courts in Arizona and Florida have both ended abortion rights in very different (but both terrible) ways this month. Did Arizona actually resurrect a 160-year law passed decades before it was even a state? And how weird can it get when you go full originalist on a law that is younger than most people in Florida?
Before we get there, Matt opens by sharing his experience with the OJ Simpson trial at the age of 14 and how it shaped his understanding of US criminal law. We then make sure to pay appropriate respects to the violent domestic abuser who (do we even have to say "allegedly" anymore?) brutally murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman on June 12, 1994.
Also, two different countries have committed extreme and unprecedented violations of international law involving embassies in the past week. How does the Vienna Convention protect diplomatic posts, and what actually happens when these international agreements are broken?
The first of the Trump trials will finally begin in New York in one business day! How does jury selection even work in a case where everyone on the planet has an opinion about the defendant?
1) Planned Parenthood v Florida (4/1/24)
2) In Re: TW, 551 So. 2d 1186 (1989)
3) Planned Parenthood of AZ v. Mayes (4/9/24)
3) The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
4) Judge Merchan's letter to the parties in NY v. Trump outlining jury selection process
Comments
Now I know how Matt feels. https://youtu.be/Q8PdffUfoF0?si=o6uVZ1kJ7h7n7MGF
David Clements
2024-04-14 17:54:48 +0000 UTCThere is another ballot amendment in Florida that you could talk about to expand more on ballot amendment law and the more you talk about the marijuana amendment the better it'll do I hope
What are you looking at dicknose
2024-04-14 12:37:50 +0000 UTCFYI the Court of Appeals is subordinate to the AZ Sct - thus if they don’t want to harmonize - because they are haters perhaps- they don’t need to.
Navi Girl
2024-04-13 16:34:20 +0000 UTCExactly! Can’t agree more!
Reese
2024-04-12 23:29:44 +0000 UTCAhhh. Yeah. Thank you!
Reese
2024-04-12 23:10:54 +0000 UTCHard agree, i'm coming from the same background and get the same vibes whenever a lawyer or judge has a super elaborate explanation for why they have to reach whatever inhumane conclusion they claim the law requires. When you have more than one legitimate interpretation of something that is in front of you (as i concede the az court did here) why not choose the one that does the most good for the most people? I will never understand people who treat the law like a fun sudoku puzzle to solve.
Matt Cameron
2024-04-12 22:50:40 +0000 UTCIt’s that me guy!
Torsten 'what the fluff' Pihl
2024-04-12 20:24:31 +0000 UTCRegarding Arizona’s bonkers trigger law with all the word salad, this sounds exactly how laws are “simply” put in the fundamentalist church i grew up in. They’re just gaslighting and manipulating the legal system. Its a red flag to me if somebody tries to make something very complex and confusing out of something simple and strait forward.
Reese
2024-04-12 18:46:24 +0000 UTCMy question about jury selection is how this works in rural communities, where I grew up its not hard to imagine someone like a Doctor or business owner being well know enough in jury pool that basically everyone knows them and will have heard all the details of a case before trial. Now I know about changes of venue, but what were other historical and international solutions for this?
I have nothing BUT contempt for this court
2024-04-12 18:04:40 +0000 UTCThink of the crime-fraud exemption that is in place for lawyers, then substitute “lawyer” for “doctor.” A pillar of contract law is that any contract which provides illegal activity is void regarding the illegal activity. I mourn with my fellow Arizonans.
Austin Flake
2024-04-12 15:49:02 +0000 UTCRegarding Right to Privacy and Abortion… could HIPPA be used in here somewhere federally to take care of this particular part of the abortion situation? Your thoughts? I know the Religious Right ignores it being a medical procedure but it IS a medical procedure.
Reese
2024-04-12 14:51:47 +0000 UTCThat is correct of course, but a potential juror's opinion of the defendant is relevant--just not usually actually an issue because it is so rare that you would walk into a jury pool knowing anything about the person on trial. Just to make the point more clearly than I did here (and I really should have stated it better up front) my point was that Donald Trump is as of now one of the most divisive and polarizing people in human history so there are going to be a lot of legitimate questions about impartiality in a way that there just wouldn't be for even the average celebrity defendant.
Matt Cameron
2024-04-12 13:33:41 +0000 UTCNot a lawyer but the way I thought jury selection could work here is not knowing trump but not knowing the details of the case or not having an opinion on it. Just a thought. Another wonderful episode!
KeepingThePlatesSpinning
2024-04-12 12:18:30 +0000 UTC
