Opening Arguments

The hits just keep on coming with this disgraceful, illegitimate Supreme Court. Andrew Seidel joins us to break down Carson v. Makin, and explains why precedent is meaningless, and the only thing that matters to this court when it comes to Church/State cases is: Christians win. Then, Ace Associate Morgan Stringer joins us to explain why the entire internet is wrong about Biden "banning Juuls and cigarettes."

If you watched Tuesday's hearing, you saw the heartbreaking story of how these two amazing women were viciously slandered by Rudy Giuliani and other members of the big lie insurrectionists. Their lives were absolutely turned upside down by complete racist fabrications. Do they have recourse? What will happen? Then, Andrew breaks down the complete breakdown of the legal fabric of our society. Say goodbye to any meaningful sense in which you have the right to remain silent! The Supreme Court has gutted Miranda rights, because why the f not, apparently. Oh but they make up for it by eroding states' ability to restrict open carry of guns. So that's cool. Links: environmental lawyer quote, Freeman and Moss v Giuliani, Giuliani idiot motion to dismiss, Maryland Code, Public Safety § 5-306, Vega v. Tekoh, 42 US Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

You may have recently seen people posting about a disturbing Supreme Court decision (what else is new) with images of how much of the US is within 100 miles of a border, and how federal agents can basically get away with anything in most of the country. What was that about? Was it overblown? Welp. Attorney Matt Cameron is here to tell us no, actually. It was underblown, if anything. Not blown enough. Listen for the full breakdown, including classic Bivens. Before that, Andrew does a quick refresher on pocket pardons and why they... are not a thing.

Today is two entire show's worth of things somehow crammed into one! First, Jan 6 hearing #3 is in the books. Some amazing bombshells! Also, I grill Andrew on intent and how it could possibly be that we have to prove what Trump had going on in his dumb brain. It's an extended cross examination but hopefully it will provide more understanding! THEN, you've likely seen the headlines: GEICO has to pay $5.2m for car sex? Really? Well, we might have another McDonald's coffee lawsuit on our hands! Get the break down! Links: Geico ordered to pay $5.2 million for STD in a car, RMCo 537.065, GEICO opinion

Surprise! An early episode for everyone! Here's why: the first Jan 6 hearing is in the books. The next one is Monday AM. Listen for Andrew's breakdown of hearing 1, and what to look for in hearing 2!

Given that the Jan 6 hearing is AFTER we record, we're doing a little switcheroo! Today is a Tuesday-esque deep dive! What's with this California court ruling that bees are fish? Is Elon Musk right to mock it? Find out all about it and how it relates to when Reagan designated ketchup as a vegetable! Links: Reagan cuts eat into school lunches - CSMonitor.com, 46 CFR 44452, California Endangered Species Act, § 2070, State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California, Forestry Ass’n v. Fish & Game Commission

About a week ago, there was yet another smoking gun document trove delivered to us by the Jan. 6 Committee in relation to the Eastman trial. Andrew gives us the full breakdown, including a couple new insurrectionist characters we haven't yet been introduced to. All of this, plus the first primetime Jan 6. Committee hearing is this Thursday! Listen and be primed for what's coming.

The way you know the Supreme Court is ruining the law in this country is if their lips are moving. Well, this time they've decided that a 10 year old precedent is already too old for them, and that if you were given a terrible lawyer by the state, you should have thought of that before you decided to be poor. Shinn v. Ramirez Also, check out Thomas's new podcast Dear Old Dads, with Eli Bosnick and Tom Curry!

In the wake of the pathetic police response to the Uvalde shooting, you have likely come across posts and memes talking about how police don't actually have any obligation to protect you or really do anything. Is this true or is it overblown internet leftist hyperbole? Well, it's true, and it's infuriating. Andrew breaks down the case in question. THEN! A special episode 600 celebration!!! We asked our patrons what terms/phrases/references/inside jokes they wanted us to explain, and we've got a fun list of 20! It's a fun stroll down memory lane as we talk the oranges of motions in lemonade, clownhorning, Konrad Michaels, and more! Links: Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

Another horrific mass shooting has us all asking WTF can we actually do about this? There is plenty of reason for pessimism, but Opening Arguments is here to break down what might realistically be done. This is part 1, focusing on why gun companies are immune from civil actions and what we should do about that. Part 2 will be about the police response. In the first segment, we give an update on Elon Musk. There was a filing that went virtually unnoticed but sheds more light on the Twitter situation. Links: Musk SEC filing, letter to himself, 15 US Code § 7902, Definition: qualified civil liability action from 15 USC § 7903, Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of US Mass Shootings