Today is two entire show's worth of things somehow crammed into one! First, Jan 6 hearing #3 is in the books. Some amazing bombshells! Also, I grill Andrew on intent and how it could possibly be that we have to prove what Trump had going on in his dumb brain. It's an extended cross examination but hopefully it will provide more understanding! THEN, you've likely seen the headlines: GEICO has to pay $5.2m for car sex? Really? Well, we might have another McDonald's coffee lawsuit on our hands! ...
2022-06-17 04:21:03 +0000 UTC
View Post
2022-06-17 04:00:04 +0000 UTC
View Post
Thomas nails it, picking (B) on the theory of "is this question trying to trick me?" (Yes.) He's now 148-for-280 (52.9%).
2022-06-14 00:00:08 +0000 UTC
View Post
Surprise! An early episode for everyone! Here's why: the 1st Jan 6 hearing is in the books. The next one is Monday AM. Listen for Andrew's breakdown of hearing 1, and what to look for in hearing 2!
-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!
-Follow us on Twitter: 2022-06-12 19:27:45 +0000 UTC
View Post
Given that the Jan 6 hearing is AFTER we record, we're doing a little switcheroo! Today is a Tuesday-esque deep dive! What's with this California court ruling that bees are fish? Is Elon Musk right to mock it? Find out all about it and how it relates to when Reagan designated ketchup as a vegetable!
Links: Reagan cuts eat into school lunches - CSMonitor.com, 2022-06-10 04:39:00 +0000 UTC
View Post
2022-06-10 03:55:00 +0000 UTC
View Post
Hey everyone, very sorry but we have to cancel the QnA scheduled for today. Andrew has COVID and isn't feeling up to it. Let's all wish him a quick recovery!
2022-06-07 20:33:22 +0000 UTC
View Post
About a week ago, there was yet another smoking gun document trove delivered to us by the Jan. 6 Committee in relation to the Eastman trial. Andrew gives us the full breakdown, including a couple new insurrectionist characters we haven't yet been introduced to. All of this, plus the first primetime Jan 6. Committee hearing is this Thursday! Listen and be primed for what's coming.
-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
2022-06-06 05:08:06 +0000 UTC
View Post
The way you know the Supreme Court is ruining the law in this country is if their lips are moving. Well, this time they've decided that a 10 year old precedent is already too old for them, and that if you were given a terrible lawyer by the state, you should have thought of that before you decided to be poor. Shinn v. Ramirez
Also, check out Thomas's new podcast Dear Old Dads, with El...
2022-06-03 07:08:09 +0000 UTC
View Post
You know the drill: post your questions & up-vote with the heart all the ones you want answered. (Then we will sort through and pick a dozen questions from Teresa Gomez, Stormy Decisis, General Unit Problem Child, and maybe one from someone else.)
2022-06-03 02:00:09 +0000 UTC
View Post
Thomas continues his winning streak, picking (B), and is now 146-for-278 (52.5%).
2022-05-30 23:00:02 +0000 UTC
View Post
In the wake of the pathetic police response to the Uvalde shooting, you have likely come across posts and memes talking about how police don't actually have any obligation to protect you or really do anything. Is this true or is it overblown internet leftist hyperbole? Well, it's true, and it's infuriating. Andrew breaks down the case in question.
THEN! A special episode 600 celebration!!! We asked our patrons what terms/phrases/references/inside jokes they wanted us to explain, and we've ...
2022-05-30 05:10:42 +0000 UTC
View Post
Another horrific mass shooting has us all asking WTF can we actually do about this? There is plenty of reason for pessimism, but Opening Arguments is here to break down what might realistically be done. This is part 1, focusing on why gun companies are immune from civil actions and what we should do about that. Part 2 will be about the police response.
In the first segment, we give an update on Elon Musk. There was a filing that went virtually unnoticed but sheds more light on the Twitter ...
2022-05-27 04:45:21 +0000 UTC
View Post
2022-05-27 04:00:03 +0000 UTC
View Post
Matt Donnelly of Ice Cream Social joins us for a very fun LAM! Some idiot decided to adapt the Lincoln Lawyer into a TV show, despite it being one of the dumbest premises in LAM history. There's so much to roast here, come enjoy!
2022-05-24 03:27:36 +0000 UTC
View Post
Thomas nailed this one, picking (C)! He's now 145-for-277 (52.3%).
2022-05-23 23:00:00 +0000 UTC
View Post
Some folks on the internet have been trying to "one weird trick" our way to saving Roe by claiming that tribal sovereignty could help ensure abortion access. Well, not only is this wrong, it's offensively wrong. OA brings you the deep-dive on Indian Law (yes, that's what it's called...) with a refresher on McGirt v. Oklahoma, and why none of that equals an instant abortion rights fix. After that, a wildcard question – now that Roe is being overturned, does that mean justices committed perju...
2022-05-23 04:18:03 +0000 UTC
View Post
The 5th Circuit has never been in the top 10 circuits in terms of not being insane, but now it has gone even more off the rails. Andrew takes us through the deep dive on a terrible decision that will decimate the SEC's ability to do anything, and why the logic will be applied elsewhere. Before that, a quick update on how much Elon Musk sucks and has completely blown it with the Twitter deal. And a quick word on primaries.
Links: 2022-05-20 05:32:57 +0000 UTC
View Post
2022-05-20 04:00:00 +0000 UTC
View Post
For episode 600, we are considering doing an explainer segment of all our inside jokes, anything that might help a new listener (e.g., "What's a 'coat factory' law firm and why?") enjoy the show. So if you think we have an inside joke or a thing that's worth explaining, please post it here!
2022-05-20 01:59:59 +0000 UTC
View Post
It's that time again! Submit your favorite law quotes of 15 seconds or less here on this thread, and upvote with the heart the ones you like.
Please post a link to the audio clip itself and not just "hey, how about that really part from My Cousin Vinny about the thing, you know, it's like 20 minutes in?"
Have fun!
2022-05-19 22:56:13 +0000 UTC
View Post
Despite analyzing the question exactly correctly, Thomas got this one wrong, picking (D), when the correct answer was (B). Thomas is now 144-for-276 (52.2%).
2022-05-17 00:00:00 +0000 UTC
View Post
By popular demand, we old out of touch guys have invited Ace Associate and Poplaw Expert Morgan Stringer on to explain to us just what in the h is happening in the Depp v. Heard lawsuit. Who is suing whom and for what? Can we take what we're seeing on TikTok at face value? Also who is Amber Heard? All these answers and more(gan)!
-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
-2022-05-16 05:23:46 +0000 UTC
View Post
According to a lawsuit filed by some shareholders, Twitter may have failed to disclose important information about the Musk deal, and it might be Musk's doing! Get the full breakdown on this very interesting lawsuit that isn't getting much coverage elsewhere! Also, a Connecticut Bill paves the way for how other states might fight against abortion restrictions. Something to fight for in your state! Also, why Andrew is definitely right about Clarence Thomas.
Links: 2022-05-13 04:59:09 +0000 UTC
View Post
2022-05-13 04:00:00 +0000 UTC
View Post
Thanks for the great questions!
2022-05-11 02:42:48 +0000 UTC
View Post
Thomas got this one right, picking (D), and is now IN THE WIN COLUMN and 144-for-275 (52.4%).
2022-05-09 23:01:01 +0000 UTC
View Post
It's a breakdown I've been begging Andrew to do for months and it's finally here! The case for why the House should start impeachment proceedings for Clarence Thomas.
Links: Ginni's texts, Trump v. Thompson, 2022-05-09 17:42:30 +0000 UTC
View Post
It is absurd to say "point to where in the Constitution it says you have a right to an abortion." Legally speaking, there's something a lot deeper and more basic going on. As we all already know, this leaked decision makes a mockery of the law. Andrew has some further deep-diving for us on how the court, a mere 20 years ago, ruled in the opposite direction on similar legal questions. Many of the same Justices were a part of that ruling. Listen and learn!
Links: 2022-05-06 05:07:07 +0000 UTC
View Post
