Backup backup backup backup argument

Divided Argument

Will Baude & Dan Epps

Politics, Government, Justice, Legal, Supreme Court, News, Law

4.8 • 766 Ratings

🗓️ 6 April 2026

⏱️ 78 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

We recap and reflect on the oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara (the birthright citizenship case) and then analyze the Court's recent decision in Chiles v. Salazar, about the First Amendment limits on Colorado's conversion therapy ban. We also confront the taboo question: Are judicial opinions too long?

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Oh, yay, oh, yay, oh, yay, oh, yay.
0:03.4	The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court.
0:08.1	Unless there is any more question to be able to find an argument in this case.
0:10.9	The whole person's having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are in honorous to give their attention.
0:20.3	Welcome to divided argumented Argument,
0:22.5	an unscheduled, unpredictable,
0:24.5	Supreme Court podcast.
0:25.9	I'm Will Bode.
0:27.4	And I'm Dan Epps.
0:29.0	Back in the studio
0:30.5	after another successful live show, I think.
0:34.8	Was it successful?
0:36.2	We didn't get,
0:37.2	nobody threw anything at us.
0:38.8	Yeah.
0:39.6	I did,
0:40.8	you know,
0:41.2	have a fun little game
0:42.4	where I tried to convert
0:43.5	the issues
0:45.4	in a couple cases
0:46.2	into, you know,
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Will Baude & Dan Epps, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Will Baude & Dan Epps and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.