Advisory Opinions

Dive into the fascinating world of substantive due process as Sarah and David unravel its historical roots and implications. They tackle pivotal cases like Dred Scott and Obergefell, discussing how recent rulings may impact marriage rights. Enjoy a humorous take on leaked group chats among young Republicans, highlighting the extremes of tribal signaling. The hosts also ponder the delicate balance of unenumerated rights and originalism in modern jurisprudence, all while contemplating the future of legal precedent.

The podcast dives into the Eighth Amendment and a prisoner's request to die by firing squad, sparking a debate on humane execution methods. They also analyze recent legal actions regarding the National Guard in Portland and dissect the implications of horizontal stare decisis on judicial predictability. The hosts explore the pros and cons of the spoils system while considering who should present the tariff case at the Supreme Court. Lastly, they examine how presidential policies have influenced migration flows and the lasting impacts of such actions.

A fascinating discussion unfolds around a Supreme Court case that questions if marijuana users can own firearms. The hosts tackle the complexities of police entering homes without warrants, weighing exigent circumstances against probable cause. They delve into presidential powers over the National Guard and debate how federal law distinguishes between protest and rebellion. A critique of gender dynamics in legal fields raises eyebrows, while intriguing historical precedents are revisited. The conversation is packed with legal insights and cultural commentary.

Sarah and David tackle the buzz around the 'Let's Go Brandon' case and its implications for student speech in schools. They question whether euphemisms like this can be deemed vulgar and how vague standards complicate enforcement. The discussion shifts to the Supreme Court's confusion over the Calais oral arguments and the tensions between partisan and racial gerrymandering under Section 2. Finally, they delve into John Bolton's indictment, examining claims of selective prosecution versus legal accountability. A lively audience Q&A wraps up the thought-provoking session.

The hosts explore the pivotal Chiles v. Salazar case regarding conversion therapy bans for minors, debating its implications on First Amendment rights. They dissect the indictment against Letitia James for mortgage fraud, questioning its merits and whether it reflects 'lawfare.' Discussions also cover the legal strategies in James Comey's case, potential Supreme Court rulings on various critical arguments, and the balance of parental rights in student gender transitions. A wide-ranging analysis that connects legal precedent to contemporary issues makes for a captivating dialogue.

Sarah Isgur and David French engage in a lively discussion on threats to free speech, examining a Ball State employee's firing over social media posts. They delve into NYU's struggles with controversial speakers and the implications of 'jawboning' by the government. The duo explores anti-SLAPP laws, potential reforms for civic education, and the need for transparency in government communications. They emphasize that protecting free speech goes beyond legal measures, requiring cultural support and renewal.

Hosts delve into a pivotal Supreme Court case on conversion therapy, noting the surprisingly low media coverage. They explore First Amendment implications and the nuances of Colorado's Minor Protection Act. Justice Sotomayor raises provocative hypotheticals about therapy versus medical treatment, igniting a debate on malpractice versus state bans. Additionally, they discuss the federal deployment of the National Guard in Portland and tackle listener questions about sentencing and court preferences, providing a dynamic blend of legal insights and lively commentary.

David Lat, founder of Original Jurisdiction and seasoned legal commentator, joins to dissect the Supreme Court's long conference. They explore the implications of several key decisions, including the sentencing of Justice Kavanaugh's would-be assassin, and delve into why Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal was dismissed. The discussion also critiques Justice Alito's views on originalism versus living constitutionalism, shedding light on how judicial philosophies could shift the future of landmark rulings like Obergefell.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and former law professor, joins Judge Patrick Bumatay for an engaging conversation. They discuss her judicial philosophy, the significance of originalism, and the challenges of public scrutiny and recusal practices. Barrett reflects on her journey from academic to judge, the rigors of the Supreme Court confirmation process, and the role of historical context in legal interpretation. She also reveals personal stories and insights into how she balances her work with family life.

Explore the Supreme Court's intriguing upcoming term, covering vital topics. Delve into tariff cases that spark debates on foreign policy. Analyze the legalities surrounding conversion therapy and its implications. Discover the complexities of transgender participation in sports and potential First Amendment shifts concerning campaign finance. Additionally, consider how IQ tests intersect with the death penalty, as well as the importance of religious liberties in shaping legal outcomes.