Today's show is a companion to Episode 67 of Serious Inquiries Only regarding the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
We begin, however, with a question about progressivity and fines from listener Noah Lugeons.
In the main segment, Andrew tells the story of how Michael Dukakis, Slayer, and race-baiting ...
2017-08-15 01:27:03 +0000 UTC View PostThis was an easy one: A. That means Thomas is now riding high on a four-question winning streak (his longest since TTTBE began!), and is now 19-for-36 (52.78%) -- well on his way to becoming an actual lawyer.
There's not much to say here; we've previously discussed the Supreme Court's decision in Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323 (1974), which held that stat...
2017-08-13 23:59:01 +0000 UTC View Post
In today's episode, we interview Geoffrey Blackwell from the American Atheists Legal Center.
First, the guys break down the recent lawsuit filed by two LGBTQ advocacy organizations challenging President Trump's tweets regarding transgender service in the military.
During the main segment, we ask Geoff what the AALC does, what kinds of cases are on his plate, and whether Trinity Lutheran v. Comer is as b...
2017-08-11 03:10:25 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's show is a deep dive into the current Constitutional status of affirmative action in higher education.
We begin, however, with a question about Donald Trump from conservative listener Sage Scott. Is it really a big deal to just listen to the Russians? Couldn't you just pay them if their stuff turns out to be useful? No. The answer is no.
In the main segment, the guys outline the current state of the law of affirmative action in higher education as ...
2017-08-08 00:44:02 +0000 UTC View PostThomas's improbable win streak continues! Yes, Thomas got the answer correct ("B"), and is now 18-for-34 and over .500 for the first time in several months!
This question tested your knowledge of the principles of negligence, especially those set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 319 and the seminal case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California 2017-08-07 00:03:13 +0000 UTC View Post
In today's episode, Andrew reluctantly -- but definitively -- opines that the Second Circuit got the law right in dismissing out the claims of Davino Watson, who argued that he was falsely imprisoned by the U.S. government for 3 1/2 years.
We begin, however, with a question about Donald Trump from conservative listener Sage Scott. Is it really a big deal to just listen to the Russians? Couldn't you just pay them if their stuff turns out to be useful? No. The an...
2017-08-04 03:21:17 +0000 UTC View Post
With special guest Heath Enwright! This was easily one of the best yet!
2017-08-01 00:27:30 +0000 UTC View Post
For today's show, we revisit the topic first discussed in Opening Arguments Episode #60, namely, whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of "sex" implicitly extends to prohibiting discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" as well.
First, however, fan favorite "Breakin' Down the Law" returns with an explanation of civil and criminal asset forf...
2017-07-31 23:10:30 +0000 UTC View Post
This was broadcast live on video and you can still watch the video on patreon, but if you prefer audio, here you go!
2017-07-31 00:59:49 +0000 UTC View PostSo let's get this out of the way first: Thomas got the answer correct ("C"), and is now 17-for-34 and back at .500 for the first time in several months! I can think of no better birthday gift for the best co-host in the known universe.
This question tested your knowledge of the so-called "rape shield" law, Rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides that sexual beha...
2017-07-30 22:45:23 +0000 UTC View Post
We are so excited to try out this new circa 2009 technology of live streaming our patron only QnA!
2017-07-28 22:30:01 +0000 UTC View Post
In today's episode, Andrew definitively opines that the Presidential pardon power includes the right to self-pardon.
We begin, however, with "Andrew Was Wrong." This time, he was wrong about Thor Heyerdahl, but right about the fate of Ken Ham's Ark Encounter.
In our main segment, the guys analyze the recent claims by Laurence Tribe, Richard Painter, and Norm Eisen that Donald Trump does not have the power to pardon himself and find it less than persuasive.
Next,...
2017-07-28 00:20:11 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's show features an in-depth interview with Kirstin Beswick and Ben Knight of NorthPod Law UK, often referred to (by us) as the "Opening Arguments of England." Join all four of us as we discuss media, politics, Brexit, and maybe -- just maybe -- reasons for optimism about the future of politics.
Due to the length of the interview, we don't have any other segments, but we do end, as always, with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #33 regarding reasonable suspicion t...
2017-07-25 04:49:29 +0000 UTC View PostThis question primarily tested your reading comprehension skills. The setup paragraphs tell us that the police officer had "no articulable reason" to search a car after a routine traffic stop but did so anyway.
"Articulable suspicion" -- that is, a thing you're worried about and can put into words -- is the lowest level the police need to escalate their encounters with citizens; e.g., to conduct a "stop-and-frisk" on a public street. For searching an entire car, the ...
2017-07-23 23:01:21 +0000 UTC View Post
In today's episode, we discuss a recent court case involving an individual's expectation of privacy while browsing the Internet.
We begin, however, with the question so many of our listeners wanted to know: Is it legal for Ken Ham to sell his Ark Encounter theme park to his own non-profit ministry in a presumed effort to evade taxes?
In our main segment, the guys break down a recent court case involving search & seizure over the internet. Do you have an expectation of pri...
2017-07-21 02:45:10 +0000 UTC View Post
For today's show, we take a deep dive into the law of contracts, featuring the "parol evidence" rule.
First, however, we answer a question from special listener Lydia S. who wants to know all about Blac Chyna, Rob Kardashian, and "revenge porn." YOU asked for it!
In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas discuss what you can and can't do to dispute a written contract.
Next, Garry Myers asks us about why law firms are all structured as partnerships. Again, the answer might ...
2017-07-17 20:24:15 +0000 UTC View PostThis question asked about the state action requirement to bring a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The key test is that a private actor (here, the SPCA) can be considered to be acting on behalf of the government if they are doing so "under color of law," which requires a "close nexus" between the action and the governmental body.
As a result, the correct answer was "D."
Answer "A" (t...
2017-07-16 23:56:27 +0000 UTC View Post
In today's episode, we discuss the recent controversy over Donald Trump, Jr.'s contact with Russian officials during the 2016 election.
We begin, however, with a follow-up from Dave (and others) who asked us about doxxing.
In our main segment, the guys break the law of conspiracy to discuss whether Donald Trump Jr.'s conduct is potentially criminal. (Spoiler: Yes.)
Next, fan favorite segment "Are You A Cop?" returns with a question about taxation without representation....
2017-07-14 03:32:05 +0000 UTC View PostHere's the place for all of you to ask the questions you'd like to hear answered during our next Patrons-only Q&A. Remember to hit the little 'heart'/like button to upvote the questions you most want to see answered. And, as always, Andrew will NOT peek in this thread!
2017-07-12 14:39:35 +0000 UTC View Post
For today's show, we dive deeper into the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer with guest lawyer Andrew Seidel from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
First, however, we answer a question from Patron Christopher Arguin regarding cross-examination that was inspired by TTTBE #30.
In the main segment...
2017-07-11 00:20:19 +0000 UTC View PostThis question asked about the statute of frauds, which (broadly speaking) is the rule that requires that certain contracts be reduced to writing. Thomas hadn't heard of the term, but correctly reasoned his way to an understanding of the question from context clues.
Moreover, Thomas actually got the correct answer in this case, which was "C," that there is an exception to the statute of frauds for goods that are specially made for a buyer. See 2017-07-10 00:19:35 +0000 UTC View Post
In today's episode, we discuss the recent controversy over CNN's handling of a Redditor who posted a Trump meme online. Is this really "blackmail" by CNN?
We begin, however, with a follow-up from Patron Joerg regarding UK laws on personal jurisdiction/long-arm and defamation. Could Maajid Nawaz (whose potential lawsuit we discussed in Episode #83) really file against the SPLC in the UK after all?
In our main segment, the guys break down CNN's conduct and see if it qualifies a...
2017-07-07 02:55:05 +0000 UTC View Post
In this special holiday episode, Andrew and Thomas talk about fireworks law across the U.S. Where can you go for a cherry-bombin' good time? Listen and find out!
First, however, we take a look at Maajid Nawaz's threatened lawsuit against the SPLC. In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas figure out the best place to set off bottle rockets. And after that, Andrew tackles another question from the patron-only Q&A mailbag.
Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas ...
2017-07-04 01:07:58 +0000 UTC View PostI'm just getting back from my talk to the Lehigh Valley Humanists, which was awesome and will be up on YouTube (and which I'm going to try and talk Thomas into turning into an episode of the show). So you might want to check it out -- there's some good bits in it and I go into more depth on some familiar targets from the show.
Anyway, the answer to the bar exam question was, in fact, "A," so Thomas and Andrew got it right. This was, in fact, an objectionable question based on pure ...
2017-07-02 23:10:09 +0000 UTC View Post
On a scale of 1 to the killing of Inigo Montoya's father on the vendetta scale, my hatred to those who made me watch this movie TWICE is an 11. THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE IN HISTORY. Stop equivocating. Stop it!
This recording sort of featured Ishmael Brown from Angry Black Rant until the physics of how bad this movie is destroyed his computer and probably killed him. RIP.
For today's show, we break down the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer with guest lawyer Andrew Seidel from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
We begin, however, with a parenting question from Garrett Thomas Fox in our Super-Secret Patron-Only Q&A thread that didn't get answered on our patron-only...
2017-06-30 02:16:16 +0000 UTC View Post
In this episode, Thomas and Andrew interview Denise Howell from the This Week in Law podcast.
First, however, we take a look at the Supreme Court's recent decision denying certiorari in an appeal of a Fourth Circuit case striking down various provisions of a North Carolina law that restricted voting rights. There's a lot of misinformation going on, so you'll want...
2017-06-27 01:07:37 +0000 UTC View PostI have watched Pauly Shore's "Jury Duty" twice for you people. All my higher central nervous system functions are literally hanging by a thread.
That being said, I can reveal to you that the correct answer to Thomas (and Denise) Take The Bar Exam Question #29 was -- of course -- Thomas's second-choice answer, "C." This means that both Thomas and our guest expert, Denise Howell, managed to get the question wrong.
This question tested whether you knew that, in order to...
2017-06-25 23:59:01 +0000 UTC View Post
This was so much fun! Thanks for your support and helping to try to stump Andrew with this inaugural patron only QnA!
2017-06-24 21:37:53 +0000 UTC View Post
It's our first Flashback Friday! On today's episode, we revisit topics from previous episodes that are once again back in the news.
We begin with the breaking-est of breaking news, the new Senate version of the AHCA that literally just got released right before the show was scheduled to record. What's in the new bill? Listen and find out!
After that, our main segment goes through the recent Supreme Court victory for our friend Simon Tam of the Slants, who previewed this...
2017-06-22 23:07:24 +0000 UTC View Post