This week ends the three-part discussion on abortion and the Supreme Court, discussing cases that have shaped the Court's undue burden test that evaluates State laws that attempt to regulate or embolden a woman's right to choose. Brett and Nazim also discuss two cases which will likely go before the Supreme Court this term, which deal with a continuation of the Hobby Lobby decision and heightened regulations for clinics performing abortion services.
This week's podcast attempts the inenviable task of discussing Roe v. Wade without upsetting anybody. This week covers Roe, Webster v. Planning Services, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey to outline what rights we have under the Constitution following the cases and under what grounds the Supreme Court tied abortion in to the Constituion. If that all seems to dark for you, we also propose a Supreme Court fantasy league for the upcoming term and Nazim explains why he likes people posting pictures of food on social media.
Your boys are back and discussing the wild world of substantive due process. After recounting their short break and sharing what vegetables they learned were gross in the last two weeks, Brett and Nazim begin a three-part discussion on substantive due process, abortion, and Roe v. Wade. This week covers the background of the right to privacy we have in the Constitution, even though those words are not actually written anywhere.
In the season finale of the 2014/15 term, Brett and Nazim discuss the cases that were not selected for the 2015/16 term and also go over some superlatives from the last year. To tide everyone over for the two week break, Brett and Nazim also discuss dinosaurs, tattoos, rap icons, LOST, and being old.
The Citizens Guide to the Supreme Court will be back on September 13, 2015.
We're getting to the end of the relevant cases for the 2015 term, so this week ties up the loose ends that haven't been covered so far. In particular, Brett and Nazim discuss Kimble v. Marvel, a case patent case by day that serves as an interesting comment about precedent by night. The case of Bullard v. Blue Hill Banik is also covered along with a general overview about what happens in bankruptcy proceedings.
This week's episode takes a break from the seriousness of the Supreme Court to discuss the ridiculous and sublime details of the Tom Brady Federal Court case. Specifically, Brett and Nazim discuss what search and due process rights either side has in this situation and what chances Tom Brady has of getting an injunction granted. To ensure that this episode is free of any bias, Nazim is qualified as a person who knows very little about football and Brett keeps his hatred for all football teams that are not the Philadelphia Eagles at a simmer until the very end.
This week's episode covers two foreign policy cases that speak to broader issues about Substantive Due Process, Marriage and the President of the United States. Kerry v. Din discusses the Due Process rights of a person who is denied entry into the United States and Zivotsky v. Kerry addresses whether or not Congress or the President can recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. While both cases are important in their own right, Dinn presents an interesting foreshadowing into the Same Sex Marriage decisions and Zivotsky allows Brett to trick Nazim into supporting Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
This week's episode is all about controversial stances on long-held American Institutions. Brett and Nazim first take down BIG SANDWICH and then turn their attention to the Exclusionary Rule, the 4th Amendment stanards of probable cause & reasonable suspicion, and finally the balance between personal property & the need to fight crime. Through the cases of Rodriguez v. U.S. and California v. Navarette, Brett and Nazim come full circle from ambitious, liberal law students to grumpy old men.
In connection with the case of Mata v. Lynch, Brett and Nazim discuss how bad an attorney has to be to overturn a criminal conviction. Afterward, they play a game called "Is This Ineffective Assistance of Counsel?", which discusses whether or not bad-mouthing your client to a jury or falling asleep during trial warrants a new trial for criminal defendants.
This week covers Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Districting Committee & EPA v. Michigan, which are two cases where the political result of both did not mesh with Brett and Nazim's view of the legal rationale in the Court's decisions. In addition, Brett and Nazim play a spirited game of F@#$, Marry, Kill with American pasttimes and figure out what "Naziming" is.
This week's episode covers the Court's most recent decisions regarding same sex marriage and lethal injection. In both cases, Brett and Nazim discuss technical legal issues with the decisions and why it is not unreasonable to feel one way about the result but still question certain Constitutional elements in the legal reasoning. Brett and Nazim also ask deep, insightful questions about Bigfoot, which is the next big issue our Nation needs to tackle.
This week's episode covers King v Burwell, a case that saved Obamacare in America despite being almost completely incorrect from a strict statutory construction standpoint. King is also compared to the Texas Disparate Housing case and how both cases illustrate the difference between being persuasive and being correct. Brett and Nazim also share their thoughts on the outcome of the same sex marraige case, despite recording the day before it was decided.
In addition to discussing the decisions in Ohio v Clark, Brumfield v. Cain, and Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, Brett and Nazim discuss (1) which case would be worse to lose, Obamacare or Same Sex Marriage, (2) who won the Confrontation Clause Wars of 2015, (3) what is the best way to stop Nazim from criticizing the TSA, and (4) what happens when your license plate contains accidental explicit sex language?
Spoiler Alert! The answer is no. However, that did not stop the Court from hearing Glossip v. Gross, a case that determines whether or not a drug that sedates death row inmates before death violates the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. This episode talks about the likely ending to Glossip, along with a broader discussion about what the Supreme Court can really do when it comes to cases addressing the death penalty.
This week's episode reviews the recent decisions of Elonis v. U.S. and Abercrombie & Fitch v. EEOC. Within this episode, Brett and Nazim talk about how the decisions were more limited than expected, but how that may be in the best interests of the Court and the government at large. So rest easy, millenial-based businesses, your time has not yet come to be face the wrath of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
It's been a while since we've gotten into the background of the Supreme Court, so this week, Brett and Nazim discuss the self-imposed scope of the Supreme Court's Power by way of a weird behind-the-scenes nuance of the San Francisco v. Sheehan case on police force. Much like any powerful individuals with unfettered power, the Supreme Court has had a strange amount of discretion in the limits of what it can do under the Constitution and has defined its role in the government carefully. By discussing judicial review, Marbury v. Madison, and standing, Brett and Nazim illustrate how they're basically a government institution with the same morals as Spiderman.
This week's podcast covers Jesinoski v. Countrywide Loans, a case that deals directly with the mortgage crisis of the mid-2000s. Brett and Nazim give background on the general topic of buying a house and why the Jesinoski case could give aggrieved homeowners a leg up against banks that caused this mess in the first place.
AKA, the Devil's Threesome. This week, Brett and Nazim cover the case of Williams-Yullee v. Florida Bar, which decided whether restrictions on a Judge's campaign donations were a violation of the First Amendment. This leads to a bigger discussion on Citizens United, in which popular opinions are polled to see if Citizens United is the worst decision of last few years, or the worst decision ever.
Brett and Nazim discuss the technical side of the death penalty, including how it is administered, the jury requirements and why Nazim thinks it costs too much. The cases, Kansas v. Carr and Brumfield v. Cain, help show how the death penalty comes before the Court and also that Court officials adminstering the death penalty make the same dumb mistakes at work that we all do.
We're running back the same sex marriage case to talk about the Oral Argument held on April 28, 2015. Brett and Nazim discuss the nuances of oral argument, who should be panicking based on the judge's questions, and which N'Sync member can be most associated to Justice Breyer.
Stop scoffing at that title. This week's episode covers all aspects of the American Jury system, along with the current case of Warger v. Shauers, to help motivate you to celebrate, instead of cringe, when you receive your summons for jury duty. Brett and Nazim also shed light on the seminal Family Matters episode where Urkel's persistance in the jury room acquits a man unfairly charged with robbery.
The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a real law with history, scope, thoughts and feelings, and this episode gives that devil its due. Brett and Nazim address popular conclusions regarding the law to help shape ways to address the law's reach in either direction.
There is no good resolution to the case of Walker v. Sons of Confederate Soldiers. Whether you are a free speech advocate or someone who simply doesn't appreciate images of slavery, the determination of whether or not Texas should allow Confederate Flag license plates will likely make you feel gross. Brett and Nazim also revisit the premise of principal v. money in the context of why to enter into litigation.
Brett and Nazim discuss King v. Burwell, a dumb case based on dumb facts and dumb law that will probably have a dumb outcome. Making lemonade out of lemons, Nazim shares a wealth of great knowledge about the background and current state of the law, while Brett shares how many hotdogs he can eat in one sitting.
Like most great story arcs, our discussion into Equal Protection has a depressing epilogue. Through cases concerning equal protection and affirmative action, Brett and Nazim talk about how the Court's rigid approach to Equal Protection has blocked anti-discrimination efforts up through this term of the Supreme Court. The current case before the Supreme Court, which deals with the Texas Housing Authority and the Court's Disparate Impact test, is the litmus test under which to be depressed by.