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.
This week discusses the Supreme Court's decision on whether a State can ban gay marriage. Brett & Nazim cover this history of gay rights in the Supreme Court (spoiler:its bad), and how the current court may decide the issue (spoiler:its good).
Brett and Nazim discuss the convoluted way that the Supreme Court evaluates Equal Protection Claims. In addition to walking through the three major tests used by the Court, the primary cases discussed involve why Virginia Military Academy could not exclude women, and then UPS v. Young, which deals with pregnancy discrimination in the workplace.
Brett and Nazim start a three-part discussion on Equal Protection and the Gay Marriage decision this summer that begins with how the Constitution has used creative means to ban private discrimination in states and private businesses. The Abercrombie & Fitch v. EEOC case is also discussed, which discussed the age-old battle between trendy clothes and religious freedom.
Brett and Nazim continue to empty out the mailbag, discussing whether the Federal or State government could require mandatory vaccinations, the inner workings of the Supreme Court, and the difference between judicial interpretation of the law and judicial activism. The last email also brings up the cases of Johnson v. U.S. and Whitfield v. U.S., where simple semantics could influence broader sentencing policy on guns and drugs.
Brett and Nazim open up the listener mailbag to answer questions posed by listeners and update previous cases that have since been decided. The topics this week include Holt v. Hobbs, smart phone technology, why DUI checkpoints are acceptable under the 4th amendment, and the possible scope of the Confrontation Clause decision. Due to the general breadth of this episode, we split it into two, so the remaining topics will be covered next week. Same Breyer time, same Breyer Channel.
The thesis of this week's episode is that taxes are nothing to be trifled with. First, Brett and Nazim discuss the many ways that citizens have failed trying to make income taxes unconstitutional. Afterward, Brett and Nazim discuss Comptroller of Maryland v. Wynn, in which the Court is asked to determine if a State is required to credit taxes paid to other states under the Dormant Commerce Clause. Finally, Brett's wife Jess comes on to confuse the issue entirely.
This week's episode covers Ohio v. Clark, which asks whether or not a teacher may testify on behalf of a three year old child who was the only witness to a child abuse case under the Confrontation Clause. This presents a good example of how the law can complicate an objective view of a bad situation, or how a sensitive topic can otherwise deny a citizen's Constitutional rights. Either way, Brett and Nazim get real awkward debating the issue somewhere around the 35 minuute mark, so get ready for that.
This week's episode discusses the legal issues surrounding the police in Ferguson, MS and Staton Island, NY. The goal here was to take a strictly legal and objective overview of the issues in each case, specifically what a grand jury does, why you can't sue the government and what the Constitution says about police use of deadly force, without getting too deep into the political issues that made up most of the media coverage. Let's call this one better late than never.
This week handles a hypothetical only a paranoid conspiracy theorist could love. Through the lens of whether police could solve crimes by searching fingerprints given to access smart phones, Brett and Nazim discuss how the 4th amendment has evolved with technology, specifically through cases like Katz v U.S., Riley v. California and Maryland v. King. We also cover which Supreme Court Justice loves the Philly Phanatic.
This week's episode cover topics that include; but are not limited to, jury duty, learning when you hate your job, why cigarettes are awesome, federalism, standing, Bush v. Gore, and ultimately the legalization of marijuana. Brett and Nazim talk about the legal issues surrounding this topic and how the decision could find itself before the Supreme Court in the next few years.
Brett and Nazim discuss the case of Elonis v. U.S., which covers whether or not the Supreme Court will afford special protection to threatening statements made on Facebook and/or prosecute people who share pictures of food. That last part is a joke, but seriously stop doing that.
Brett and Nazim break down one of the more controversial decisions of 2014, by discussing their initial thoughts on the case and then expanding on those thoughs after actually reading the decision for the first time.
This week's episode discusses two Supreme Court cases in the context of how Supreme Court cases move the needle with the general public. D.C. v. Heller deals with guns, the second amendment, and whether a State can ban the private ownership of handguns. Heien v. North Carolina talks about whether a police officer's knowledge of arcane traffic laws affects should affect an otherwise valid traffic stop.
Brett and Nazim discuss three important issues. (1) How to get to the Supreme Court. (2) The two main viewpoints of the Supreme Court. (3) Why the they do not passive agressively hate each other.
Brett and Nazim revel in their professional failures and discuss the nine justices that make up the Supreme Court. To solve the problem of remembering their names, the two share an acronym that is easy to remember and objectively related to their respective ideologies.