Hold on to your butts gang, cuz Brett and Nazim are talking THE WALL! By way of background, Brett is sick with Kathleen Turner voice and Nazim has one foot on the door with busy weekend plans, so this episode is general coverage about whatever the hell is going on with the government these days, and then a quick and dirty look at Iancu v. Brunetti, which covers free speech and the trademark office.....again. (Law starts at 04:45).
AKA THIS AGAIN. This week's episode takes a dive into the last four years of gerrymandering cases to suss out what the Court is talking about in the current cases of Virginia v. Bethune-Hill (2019), Lamone v. Benisk, and Rucho v. Common Cause. Come for the nuanced political discussion, stay to hear how beaten-down Nazim is on this issue compared to four years ago. Law starts at (07:20).
This week covers the recent opinions in Timbes v. Indiana (Excessive fines and the Incorporation Doctrine), Madison v. Alabama (Death Penalty Capacity, and Garza v. Idaho (Ineffective Assistance for Appeals), but more importantly, it's time for wild dissents and the Men who love them. Law starts at (5:00) and Nazim spoils Infinity War and JAWS if you haven't seen it yet.
This immaculately titled episode covers the case of Department of Commerce v. New York as a play in two parts. The first part discusses the policy merits of asking a citizenship question on the census, the second predicts whether the lower court's ruling removing the question will hold up. Without giving it away, there's a good chance you won't like one of the part. Law starts at (07:05).
In honor of the Verona High School Debate Team (the East Coast's best High School Debate Team obv), Brett and Nazim debate the value of winning a boat, numbers, state flags, bacon, federalism, getting drunk, buying birth control on Amazon, Constitutional Amendments and Tennessee Wine and Spirits Assoc. v. Blair, which asks the Court whether the 21st Amendment supersedes the Dormant Commerce Clause. Law starts at (11:26).
The case of Timbs v. Indiana poses a very outcome dependent question of whether or not civil forfeiture is unfair and poorly managed, so to keep this podcast interesting, Brett and Nazim go through each argument for and against and assign a numerical value to really see what they think at the end of the day. The law was supposed to start at (05:06), but it gets side-tracked with DMV stories and truly starts at (09:18).
In response to the Supreme Court's late night session last Thursday, Brett and Nazim discuss the Court's recent injunction of the Louisiana Abortion Statute, and the Court's reversal of a death penalty stay in Alabama for a defendant who was not provided his religious counselor of choice during the execution. Law starts at (2:00).
I know that title is supposed to be a cliff-hanger, but the answer is yes. In support of such a thesis, Brett and Nazim discuss the Court's holdings in New Prime v. Oliveira and U.S. v. Stokeling, which both discuss how the Supreme Court is generally being used to clean up poorly written statutes. The play concludes with a great Dr. Pepper analogy. Law starts (01:52).
This week's episode covers a case that is not even a fraction of as delicious as it sounds, Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, which covers whether Apple is engaging in Anti-Trust violations for how they allow apps on to your iPhone. This episode goes off the rails early and often, so while the law starts at (05:37), you might miss which host doesn't know how to use Microsoft Excel and which host is a master of the DARK WEB (the answer may surprise you!).
Like all great podcasts, Brett and Nazim have devoted this week's episode to all the topical news stories from two weeks ago, including Ginsburg's health and the practicality of term limits, the Mueller investigation's mystery corporation, and Judge Kav-another-beer's first opinion. Law starts at (05:20).
America's favorite game returns, as Brett and Nazim decide whether Garza v. Idaho (can a lawyer override a client's request for an appeal when the client waived appellate rights pursuant to a plea agreement) constitutes Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, along with a few other half-explained scenarios. The law technically starts from the beginning but them goes on some kind of weird Mozzarella stick tangent before starting again at (09:28).
Today's episode covers the specific nuances underlying Obdusky v. McCarthy and Holthus, a case with topics as sexy as the names in its caption, including debt collection, mortgages, and statutory interpretation. Brett and Nazim spice it up even further by talking about non-legal legal work, rooting for the Eagles in the playoffs today, and Nazim's beloved mason jar. Law starts at (5:50).