show episodes
 
Brett and Nazim are two attorneys who hate being attorneys. Each week, they discuss current Supreme Court cases with the intent to make the law more accessible to the average person, while ruminating on what makes the law both frustrating and interesting. This podcast is not legal advice and is for entertainment purposes only. If anything you hear leads you to believe you need legal advice, please contact an attorney immediately
 
Eddie’s Wall is a weekly series hosted by former professional snowboarder Eddie Wall. Eddie famously climbed up the pro ranks while working a night janitor job in Mammoth Mountain so that he could shred during the day. In just a few years, he became one of the biggest names in pro snowboarding, in addition to winning contests and putting out legendary video parts. Eddie is now a professional host and manages our @TWSNOW (https://www.instagram.com/twsnow/?hl=en) Instagram Account
 
D
Dissed

4
Dissed

Pacific Legal Foundation

Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe
Monthly
 
Supreme Court dissents have it all: brilliant writing, surprising reasoning, shade, puns, and sometimes historic impact. Although they are necessarily written by the "losing" side, they’re still important: they can provide a roadmap for future challenges or persuade other justices. Sometimes they're just cathartic. In Dissed, attorneys Anastasia Boden and Elizabeth Slattery dig deep into important dissents, both past and present, and reveal the stories behind them. Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anas ...
 
Conservative talk show and commentary from a true right wing patriot touching on all subjects political with no holding back from the truth. All subjects political including President Bush, taxes, immigration, abortion, supreme court, Iraq, the War on Terrorism, Iran, Korea, China, jobs, and more.
 
Loading …
show series
 
This week's episode is the podcast's favorite tradition, which is answering listener-submitted questions about Thanksgiving, the law, and somehow both of those topics together. This year includes Biden's Supreme Court, Justices as Thanksgiving dessert, and the proper evaluation of Turkey. Happy Thanksgiving and we'll be back on December 4, 2021.…
 
Brett and Nazim return with a discussion on the oral argument in Whole Women's Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas, which both address the (procedural) Constitutionality of Texas' abortion ban supported by private enforcement. This discussion includes (1) what are they talking about, (2) how did this get here, and (3) is this going to be o…
 
This week's case covers Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, which asks whether or not the Kentucky Attorney General can intervene in a case to defend a defunct abortion law when everyone else in the government has given up, but also Nazim's birthday, Nazim's favorite taco, and Nazim's ideal birthday dessert. Law starts at (10:08).…
 
Gather round, all ye violent individuals, as we are discussing the text of the Armed Career Criminals Act through the case of Wooden v. U.S. Brett and Nazim discuss a few background cases on the ACCA, what Due Process requires of a criminal statute that gets discussed by the Court almost every year, and who would play Nazim in a biopic about his li…
 
Listen, if you're thinking that this title is just a cheap joke, you'll be happy to know that it is the heart and soul of this episode, which covers Nazim's favorite Constitutional issue, the Confrontation Clause, through the case of Hemphil v. New York. The law basically starts from the beginning, although you could start at (03:06) if we're being…
 
In this bonus episode, the Political Orphanage's Andrew Heaton joins the ladies to discuss big cases (guns, abortion, and executions, oh my!) coming up in the Supreme Court's new term. Stay tuned for a SUPREME poetry slam. Check out our guest's podcast here: https://mightyheaton.com/dissed. Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificL…
 
The boys are back in podcast town. The season kicks off with an analysis of President Biden's Vaccine Mandate under the most applicable provisions of the Constitution. Also, we added 15 minutes of content so we could talk about TOP 3 FAVORITE SNACKS! Our answers will not surprise you. The law kinda starts at (04:25), but then actually starts at (08…
 
With an episode title like this, you know its a party. This week's grab-bag episode covers cases regarding bankruptcy law (City of Chicago v. Fulton), immigration law (Pereida v. Wilkson), and admin law (Yellen v. Collins), all while discussing nu metals favorite sons. Not only does the law start at (07:40), but we don't even hit the into until (02…
 
This week's episode previews the biggest case of next year's term, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, in which the State of Mississippi has asked the newly-formed Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade. Brett and Nazim discuss a bit of the background of Roe and consider possible outcomes of the Dobbs decision. Law starts at (09:40), and d…
 
This week's episode covers Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, in which the Supreme Court struck down a law which required charitable organizations to disclose their major donors. Brett and Nazim discuss the ideological split on the Court and what it means to be "conservative" in this day and age. No time stamp because this all killer, no…
 
Take it!! This week's episode covers Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, in which the Supreme Court struck down a California law that allowed access to union organizers on private property. Brett and Nazim discuss the implications of the 6-3 ideological split, but also shellfish and roller coasters. Law starts at (07:30).…
 
This week's episode covers two Constitutional law cases, Lange v. California (how the hot pursuit exception applies to misdemeanors) and Mahanoy School District v. B.L. (holding that the First Amendment prevents school districts from disciplining out of school speech). From a big picture perspective, Brett and Nazim discuss what history teaches us …
 
In this bonus episode, the ladies discuss the cursing cheerleader case, Pacific Legal Foundation’s win in a property rights case, and two fractured, mind-boggling separation-of-powers cases. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!” Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends! Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @P…
 
This week's episode gets the big cases out of the way early, as the Court dropped California v. Texas (holding that ACA survives another challenge for lack of standing) and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (holding a Philadelphia law restricting referrals to a Catholic adoption agency violates the Free Exercise Clause). Both cases are more than just …
 
In this bonus episode, the ladies discuss the Supreme Court’s recent opinions and dissents related to the Affordable Care Act and a dispute involving Catholic Charities, same-sex couples, and foster care. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!” Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends! Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @An…
 
This is the story of the most consequential Supreme Court case in history: Dred Scott v. Sandford. It was a catalyst for Abraham Lincoln’s famous “House Divided” speech, which catapulted him onto the national stage. It led a dissenting justice to resign in protest. And it plunged our nation into its darkest hour—a civil war that nearly tore us apar…
 
Brett and Nazim return from vacation to see what we can learn about judges from the cases of Van Buren v. U.S. (deciding "access" under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), Borden v. U.S. (deciding reckless mindset under ACCA), Sanchez v. Myorkas (deciding admission status for permanent residency, and Garland v. Dai (deciding whether the 9th Circuit can …
 
Get ready to learn, folks, because this episode discusses time, poison, wars and 160 million dollars worth of garbage in the context of Guam v. U.S.. Although its mostly a case about statutory interpretation; and it's core, its the case you didn't know you needed to know more about. The law is a moving target here, but there's less nonsense than yo…
 
This week's episode covers three recent decisions, CIC Services v. IRS (procedure for challenging IRS notice requirements), Caniglia v. Strom (community care-taking exception for the home) and Edwards v. Vannoy (retroactivity of unanimous verdicts). Law starts at (04:07) and an explanation for the episode title follows soon after.…
 
Since the Supreme Court first upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action in college admissions in 1978, the clock has been counting down to a time when it would no longer be necessary. Instead of winding down their use of racial preferences, colleges have doubled down, to the point that one justice called it “affirmative action gone berserk…
 
Listen, there's a lot going on here. As a general proposition, this week's episode asks Brett and Nazim to narrow down which classification of lawyers would be best to sit with at a wedding table. Amidst discussing other wedding and marriage-related topics, your boys somehow find time to discuss recent opinions Facebook v. Duguid, Jones v. Mississi…
 
42 U.S. Code § 1983, one of our nation’s most important civil rights statutes, offers plaintiffs a way to seek damages against state officials in federal courts. But in Pierson v. Ray, the Supreme Court created a defense under Section 1983, called qualified immunity, even if officials do in fact violate people’s rights. In his dissent, Justice Doug…
 
This week's episode revisits the good old days of high school, specifically the case of Mahanoy School District v. BL, where the Supreme Court must decide whether a high school that suspended a student for making a vulgar Snapchat about school sports violates the First Amendment. The law kinda generally takes shape around (11:00) but stays pretty c…
 
For much of our nation’s history, courts asked whether government physically intruded on property to determine if it violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court later adopted a standard looking at whether the government violated an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” But in rece…
 
In the inaugural bonus episode, the ladies discuss the Supreme Court’s latest COVID order and Justice Breyer’s “dissent” on court packing. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!” Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends! Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal Send comments, questions, or ideas for f…
 
That's right, Hulkamaniacs. This week's supersized episode covers this year's Wrestelmania while covering the past, present and future implications that Ford Motor Company v. Bandemere has on personal jurisdiction. A time stamp would be pointless, but there's a surprising amount of law that is certainly more than I originally intended.…
 
Almost as soon as the government started passing measures to curb the spread of COVID-19, the lawsuits began. Many of them wound up arguing about Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 Supreme Court decision that said states had the power to impose mandatory smallpox vaccinations. If the government has the power to vaccinate you, surely---regulators arg…
 
We're talking sequels and remakes this week, as the podcast covers Collins v. Mnuchin (how to destroy a real estate admin agency in one easy step) and Edwards v. Vannoy (whether a rule about unanimous jury verdicts applies retroactively), two cases that carry on the spirit of decisions from last term. In this analogy, Collins is Chris Pratt, Selia …
 
This week's episode covers the hard-hitting questions associated with CIC Services v. Internal Revenue Service and American tax law in general, including things like, does Nazim like horror movies? Would you rather kill or marry textual statutory interpretation? Is this case going to de-fang the IRS? Who is winning the NCAA bracket pool? (Law start…
 
This week's episode covers the case of Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee, which asks once again whether neutral-looking voting laws that discriminate based on race violate whatever is left of the Voting Rights Act. The law starts at (2:30), but there are two food tangents we hope you enjoy.…
 
This week's episode is all about SPORTS! Brett and Nazim qualify their knowledge about college sports (including whether Nazim knows who Tim Tebow is) and then much later cover NCAA v. Alston, which asks whether regulations on student athlete benefits are a violation of anti-trust regulations. There's no timestamp because honestly it would be too h…
 
First off, you're welcome for that amazing episode title. Second, this episode covers the case of Republic of Germany v. Phillip, which covers how the Supreme Court uses the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act to resolve property theft in the 1940s. Depending on how you view the Supreme Court, the result will probably not surprise you. Law starts at (04…
 
You may think that Star Wars and the case of Van Buren v. U.S. have nothing in common; however, this episode strives to show how the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act should have had greater impact on Princess Leia and the Resistance at large. Brett and Nazim discuss how the Court should interpret the term access, but not before revealing their favorite…
 
This week's episode involves Nazim, a Big Computer Boy, explaining the case of Google v. Oracle to Brett, a complete Luddite. In addition to explaining fair use and its application to computer language, your boys also discuss Pokemon, Jurassic Park, Akira and Nintendo to keep things extra hip and cool. The law starts at (07:20) and we're happy to s…
 
Loading …

Quick Reference Guide

Copyright 2021 | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Google login Twitter login Classic login