Info

The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

Brett and Nazim are two attorneys who hate being attorneys. In lieu of practicing law, they have instead developed a podcast to help make the Supreme Court more accessible to the average person. Each week, Brett and Nazim will discuss current Supreme Court cases and how they affect your daily life, while also ruminating on how their dreams of fame and fortune resulted in jokes about Star Wars and wondering how Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinks about Facebook. This Podcast is for entertainment purposes only and is not legal advice. If anything you hear leads you to believe you need legal advice, please contact an attorney immediately.
RSS Feed Subscribe in Apple Podcasts
2017
October
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2016
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2015
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2014
December


All Episodes
Archives
Now displaying: March, 2017

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and is not legal advice.  If you hear anything that leads you to believe you need legal advice, please contact an attorney immediately.

Mar 26, 2017

In this week's episode, Brett and Nazim discuss the importance of tuna melts, debate the fairness of Public Defender funding, discuss the scope of Ake v. Oklahoma, and finally land on McWilliams v. Dunn, a case that not only covers whether an indigent defendant is entitled to an independent expert in a criminal case, but also perfectly sums out the contrary points in Brett and Nazim's criminal law jurisprudence.  Law starts at (06:06).

Mar 22, 2017

In this week's mini-episode, Brett and Nazim debate the District Court of Hawaii's recent opinion striking down the newest iteration of Trump's Executive Order Travel Ban.

Mar 19, 2017

This week's episode covers three cases that deal with how the criminal justice system makes money off criminal convictions, which include Nelson v. Colorado (whether the government has to refund your fees if you are later found guilty), Manrique v. U.S. (whether an appeal has to be amended if you want to appeal a subsequently determined monetary penalty) and Honeycutt v. U.S. (whether co-conspirators are jointly and severally liable for foreseeable profits from the conspiracy).  Law starts at (04:38).

Mar 12, 2017

This week's case, Hernandez v. Mesa, untangles the procedure hurdles that result when a U.S. government official standing on U.S. soil shoots and kills a Mexican citizen standing on Mexican soil.  Brett and Nazim discuss three big procedural hurdles, and why twenty feet in either direction make this case a lot easier to resolve.  The law starts at (09:30), but please start at (06:26) if you live in the Bay Area and don't want to hear about cool countries you can party in at age 19.

Mar 9, 2017

Today's mini-episode covers the recent decisions in Glouchester County School Board v. G.G. and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, which were both resolved earlier this week.  Brett and Nazim also debate the merits of the "chili cheesesteak" and request very specific listener feedback on a question entitled "Beef on beef?"

Mar 5, 2017

A lot happens in the Supreme Court, and this episode fills in the gaps for cases where changes have occurred over the last few weeks.  First, Brett and Nazim discuss the recent decisions in Buck v. Davis (is a racist expert grounds for IAC), and Frye v. Napoleon Schools (can a student file under the ADA for the schools' lack of accommodation), then the cases of Lee v. Tam (can you trademark racist rock band names) and Glouchester County v. G.G. (transgender bathroom case) are updated.  There was a weirdly high number of curse words in this one, but they have been unconstitutionally beeped in post-production.  Law starts at (4:00).

1