OA123: Cards Against Humanity (And Thomas), "Magic Words" & so much more!
Added 2017-11-21 04:16:35 +0000 UTCIn this fun, pre-Thanksgiving episode, we delve into a number of interesting topics. We begin with the popular (if much maligned by Thomas) card game "Cards Against Humanity" and their pitch to "save America." Are you surprised that it turns into a deep dive about eminent domain? (You shouldn't be.)
After that, Andrew answers a listener question about whether, in fact, there are "magic words" in the law. How does this relate to the infamous lawyer dog? Listen and find out!
Next, the guys discuss Trump's secret war on the judiciary, beginning with a judge less qualified than Thomas and most OA listeners. It's depressing! It's true! It's... depressing.
The episode closes with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #50 involving hot rods, cruisin', and assault with a deadly car hood. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
Recent Appearances
Andrew was a return guest on Episode 7 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen!
Show Notes & Links
- Check out Cards Against Humanity Saves America! Oh, and afterwards, give Episode 52 of Comedy Shoeshine a listen and hear how Thomas really feels about adult Apples-to-Apples!
- You can read this Washington Post story about the infamous "lawyer dog" by clicking here.
- And, of course, you can always read Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/
And email us at openarguments@gmail.com
Comments
I think you just described the most depressing bivariate analysis iPython Notebook conceivable. "Aha! r = -0.87 ... Wait ... The points in this plot spell 'LOSER'."
Tyler
2017-11-21 23:01:32 +0000 UTCThe frequency of Air Bud shoutouts on this podcast is disproportionate to his cultural import.
2017-11-21 20:35:46 +0000 UTCThe judge’s concurrence was specifically about the lawyer dog reference. So at least to one of them that was the point of contention. I agree with Thomas though. Seems the questioning antecedent to the lawyer dog clause was the more ambiguous issue.
Dan Irizarry
2017-11-21 19:07:03 +0000 UTCTime for another Andrew was wrong, and on a few points. The Louisiana Supreme court actually is the highest court in the state, and the lawyer dog decision was a 6-1 denial. And it seems clear (based on the judge specifically citing to the part of the Davis decision about the construction "maybe I should have a lawyer") that Thomas was right, the "lawyer dog" part was just a side show to the defendants use of the phrase "if y’all think I did it."
Ball Arena Live Show, with the MVPs
2017-11-21 16:30:32 +0000 UTC
