Hey, Patreon may be in the midst of screwing over its customers, but we're still cranking out exclusive content just for you BECAUSE WE LOVE YOU.
This question asked whether a witness can be compelled to answer a question on cross-examination relating to whether he falsified tax returns, even if the subject of the witness's testimony was unrelated to taxes.
The answer is "yes." Rule 608 of the Federa...
2017-12-11 00:50:51 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode concludes the discussion begun in Episode 125 about antitrust law in light of the proposed AT&T/Time Warner merger.
First, though, we begin with some news items, including an update on Patreon practices and the status of Leandra English's lawsuit to become Acting Director of the CFPB.
In the main segment, Andrew breaks down the Department of Justice's lawsuit against A...
2017-12-08 03:45:24 +0000 UTC View Post
We're on YouTube this time because the other service wanted to charge an arm and a leg..
2017-12-05 23:58:32 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's special episode tackles the breaking news that Gen. Michael Flynn has pled guilty in connection with the Mueller investigation. To break down the significance of this deal, we welcome back Prof. Randall Eliason.
After that, Andrew answers a bunch of listener questions regarding the tax bill that just passed the Senate.
Recent Appearances
Andrew ...
2017-12-04 23:59:24 +0000 UTC View PostThis question asked whether Congress has the constitutional power to tax something (in this case, cigarettes) and then earmark the funding to discourage citizens from using that same product.
The answer is "yes." And, in fact, Thomas managed to get this one correct, too, by picking the right "yes" answer -- (B), that the tax is constitutional and the additional spending would come under the General Welfare Clause.
"A" isn't a good answer because the severability part suggests that ...
2017-12-04 00:05:43 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode breaks down the recent kerfuffle over the simultaneous claims of Leandra English and Mick Mulvaney to be Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
First, we begin with an "Andrew Was Wrong (?)" segment that gives voice to an anti-Net Neutrality argument, a clarification on the Obama administration's antitrust policies, and a factual clarification on the Anheuser-Busch/InBev merger.
After the main segment, Andrew and Thomas answer a fun question a...
2017-12-01 04:41:21 +0000 UTC View Post
This month, we're reviewing.... whatever the hell this is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7QeMZ6xgoo
Unlock your potential limitless (meaning either $650k or a billion or something) worth!
2017-12-01 00:37:37 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode takes two deep dives into complicated legal issues in the news.
First, we tackle the FCC's recent "Order Restoring Internet Freedom," which is being characterized as ending Net Neutrality. Is that true? The answer... probably won't surprise you, actually.
Then, Andrew and Thomas discuss general principles of antitrust law with an eye tow...
2017-11-28 00:18:13 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode is the Happiest Episode Ever (TM)!
First, the guys discuss "the real meaning of Thanksgiving," cribbing from a blog post Andrew wrote for his old firm back in 2013.
In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down a pending case before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia regarding Donald Trump's tweets and the Freedom of Information Act, as well as an upd...
2017-11-23 20:52:22 +0000 UTC View PostHappy Thanksgiving from all of us here at Opening Arguments!
Also -- it's that time again! That's right, it's time for us to change the show intro quotes. So, you know the drill: post audio or video clips here with a time stamp and upvote the ones you like best, and we'll take the best ones and use them for the new show intro.
2017-11-22 20:13:39 +0000 UTC View Post
In 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 b...
2017-11-21 04:16:35 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode is, unfortunately, all about Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore.
First, the guys discuss the unintentionally hilarious litigation hold letter filed by Moore's attorney. After that, Andrew and Thomas break down Alabama's election laws and discuss a variety of proposals being circulated for replacing Moore on the ballot. Next, the guys end with a discussion of whether the Senate can expel Moore from its ranks in the event that he wins.
Finally, we end with an al...
2017-11-17 04:44:19 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode takes a deep dive into social contract theory, and in particular, one of the most influential works of modern philosophy, John Rawls's A Theory of Justice, with guest philosopher Aaron Rabi, host of the terrific podcast Embrace The Void.
After the discussion, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #49. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (2017-11-13 23:53:09 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode features Natalie Newell of the documentary "Science Moms" discussing GMO labeling and science awareness.
First, we begin with an "Andrew Was Wrong" segment that updates some previous stories, including good news from the Jane Doe v. Wright decision discussed in Episode 117 and some clarification regarding the Manafort indictment from 2017-11-10 03:02:16 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode takes a look at the recent decision in Doe v. Trump in which a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the majority of President Trump's ban on trans servicemembers in the armed forces.
First, though, we begin with a discussion of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and the requirement that prosecutors turn over exculpatory evidence to...
2017-11-06 22:54:08 +0000 UTC View PostThis was a pretty straightforward question about when a co-conspirator's statements are independently admissible (apart from having the co-conspirator testify, of course). This is another exception-to-the-hearsay-rules question.
Thomas analyzed this question exactly correctly in order to arrive at the right answer, "D," which is that under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 801(d)(2), the prosecutor must s...
2017-11-06 13:50:06 +0000 UTC View Post
With special guest Mark from How-To Heretic! Warning: This movie was far more pornographic than any of us expected...
2017-11-03 00:50:34 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's rapid-response episode tackles -- of course -- the indictment of former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his protege, Rick Gates, as well as the guilty plea entered by Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos. What does it all mean? Listen to a special full-length episode and find out!
After our full discussion, we end with a timely new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #48 about co-conspirator confessions. Remember that you can play along with #TTT...
2017-11-01 20:27:00 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode takes a look at a tragic case currently unfolding of a pregnant young woman being detained for being in this country illegally and the Trump administration's efforts to deny her the right to an abortion.
We begin with a quick procedural update on the 9th Circuit's ruling on EO-2 before taking a deep dive into the nuts and bolts behind Zarda v. Altitude Express, which we first discussed back in 2017-10-31 03:55:47 +0000 UTC View Post
Andrew sat down with listener Michael Rops for some bonus time on Serial and Undisclosed!
This will take the place of the QnA for this month.
2017-10-30 00:15:57 +0000 UTC View PostThis question asked whether landlords generally have immunity from suit from their tenants. Most people properly assumed that no, they don't. But -- as always with the bar exam -- the real question is "why?"
So we can eliminate both "C" and "D" right off the bat. Answer "C" says that the common law rule is "lessee beware" and that property is generally rented "as is"; that's no longer true. Similarly, answer "D" says that landlords cannot be liable for negligence in mai...
2017-10-29 21:11:03 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's rapid-response episode tackles the recent news that Hillary Clinton's campaign and/or the DNC paid for the "Russian dossier" on Donald Trump. What does that mean in terms of U.S. election law? Listen and find out!
We begin with a quick news update on various lawsuits against poker pro Phil Ivey, a story we covered way back in Episode 32 with guest 2017-10-27 03:39:08 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode features former NFL punter, social justice advocate, and game designer Chris Kluwe, who sued his former NFL team for wrongful termination after he alleged that they cut him for standing up for marriage equality.
Kluwe brings his unique behind-the-scenes knowledge to help us understand Colin Kaepernick's recently-filed grievance against the NFL, and gives us some bold predictions as to what's goin...
2017-10-24 12:03:58 +0000 UTC View PostAs some of you pointed out, I screwed up and repeated a prior question. Yes, the answer was "C" -- prenuptial agreements must be in writing to be enforceable.
Consider this a freebie for our attentive listeners and for Thomas, who's now 26-for-46 (56.5%).
2017-10-23 01:32:26 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's rapid-response episode begins with an update on the Allergan patent licensing scheme discussed in Episode 107. What does a federal judge think of this One Weird Trick to avoid certain legal proceedings? Listen and find out!
Next, our main segment looks at Donald Trump's efforts to undermine Obamacare from the Oval Office. Does this violate the Constitution?&n...
2017-10-20 03:43:37 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode is entirely Trump-free, and features a deep dive into the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the 8th Amendment.
We begin, however, with a great listener question from Captain Patrick Dobbins, who wants to know the ins and outs of "international waters." Ask, and ye shall receive!
After that, the guys break down the history of the 8th Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" -- what does it mean, what kinds of punishments are prohibited, and when...
2017-10-17 17:09:38 +0000 UTC View PostThis question asked whether a state could arbitrarily revoke the license for a massage parlor simply because some unsavory activities take place at other massage parlors. The key fact in the question was this: "The only procedure provided was a letter from the city declaring a new policy on massage parlors that had to be rapidly instituted for the welfare of the community. "
The correct answer, therefore, was "D" -- "No, because she had a property right in he...
Today's rapid-response episode begins with a discussion of a recent petition to the Supreme Court for certiorari filed in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, and in particular, an amicus curiae brief submitted by 76 employers. How does this brief affect the future of gay rights in this country? Listen and find out!
Next, our main segment looks at Donald Trump's recent threat to have the FCC "revoke NBC's license," and rewards you with a deep div...
2017-10-13 04:44:14 +0000 UTC View PostThread for user questions. Feel free to resubmit any that you have sent in the past & we haven't answered. And please do vote up the questions you'd like to hear answered on the show!
2017-10-11 20:16:14 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode marks the triumphant return of attorney Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation to the show!
We begin with an "Andrew Was Wrong" segment in which patron Kristen Hansen discusses how better to evaluate charities than the simple overhead metric the guys used in Episode 102.
After that, Andrew Seidel joins ...
2017-10-10 02:56:13 +0000 UTC View Post