
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Today's episode is inspired by the 56th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, one of the most famous and celebrated landmark Supreme Court cases that guarantees indigent defendants the right to a court-appointed lawyer. Is it under attack from our right-wing Supreme Court? (You bet it is.)
We begin with a quick update on the recent district court opinion in California v. Ross and what that means for the 2020 Census.
Then, it's time for an Andrew Was Right segment a update on the New York appellate court's ruling in the Summer Zervos lawsuit. As it turns out, Donald Trump does have to respond to Summer Zervos's lawsuit -- just like Bill Clinton had to respond to Paula Jones's.
Then it's time for a terrifying deep dive into Clarence Thomas's dissent in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Garza v. Idaho. What's the case about, and why is Thomas using it as a vehicle to try and overturn one of the most basic and fundamental rights criminal defendants enjoy today? Listen and (sadly) find out.
After all that, it's time for a fun listener question about footballer Wayne Rooney and public obscenity laws.
Then, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #118. Did Thomas get a dreaded real property question correct?? Listen and find out! And, as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
AppearancesNone! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected].
Show Notes & Links
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/
Don't forget the OA Facebook Community!
For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki
And email us at [email protected]
4.3
35203,520 ratings
Today's episode is inspired by the 56th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, one of the most famous and celebrated landmark Supreme Court cases that guarantees indigent defendants the right to a court-appointed lawyer. Is it under attack from our right-wing Supreme Court? (You bet it is.)
We begin with a quick update on the recent district court opinion in California v. Ross and what that means for the 2020 Census.
Then, it's time for an Andrew Was Right segment a update on the New York appellate court's ruling in the Summer Zervos lawsuit. As it turns out, Donald Trump does have to respond to Summer Zervos's lawsuit -- just like Bill Clinton had to respond to Paula Jones's.
Then it's time for a terrifying deep dive into Clarence Thomas's dissent in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Garza v. Idaho. What's the case about, and why is Thomas using it as a vehicle to try and overturn one of the most basic and fundamental rights criminal defendants enjoy today? Listen and (sadly) find out.
After all that, it's time for a fun listener question about footballer Wayne Rooney and public obscenity laws.
Then, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #118. Did Thomas get a dreaded real property question correct?? Listen and find out! And, as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
AppearancesNone! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected].
Show Notes & Links
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/
Don't forget the OA Facebook Community!
For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki
And email us at [email protected]
425 Listeners
4,041 Listeners
3,192 Listeners
1,000 Listeners
1,979 Listeners
2,575 Listeners
4,475 Listeners
2,634 Listeners
7,537 Listeners
1,087 Listeners
1,842 Listeners
516 Listeners
237 Listeners
295 Listeners
693 Listeners