meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Divided Argument

Bok Choy

Divided Argument

Will Baude & Dan Epps

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

4.8766 Ratings

🗓️ 22 January 2026

⏱️ 47 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

With shocking and uncharacteristic efficiency, we manage to discuss three merits opinions and one orders list dissent in only 47 minutes. Specifically, we revisit Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton (time limits for moving to vacate void judgments) and break down Berk v. Choy (an interesting Erie doctrine puzzle), and Ellingburg v. United States (criminal restitution and the Ex Post Facto Clause), while also managing to discuss Justice Jackson's broadside against the Court's practice of "martinization."

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

Oh, yay. Oh, yay. Oh, yay. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court.

0:08.1

Unless there is any more question, be able to find an argument in this case.

0:10.9

All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to give their attention.

0:20.1

Welcome to Divided Argument, an unscheduled, un-predictable Supreme Court podcast.

0:24.6

I'm Will Bode.

0:26.0

And I'm Dan Epps.

0:28.0

Will, we need to be quick.

0:30.5

We have a hard stop in less than an hour.

0:34.6

I am trying to squeeze in a recording session before office hours.

0:38.2

We have, I think, three plus opinions to talk about. Can we do it?

0:43.0

I think you should invite all your students to join, but failing that, the opinions are short.

0:47.9

I think we can do it. At least the majority opinions are short. Let me try to lead us through as quickly as possible.

0:58.1

Okay, shadow dockety order.

1:01.0

This is a cool one.

1:02.4

This is a category of order, non-merits order, that we don't talk about much at all.

1:09.2

Martinization.

1:11.6

Okay. Martinization. Okay.

1:12.8

Martinization is when the Supreme Court tells a pauper, an informa popperous or IFP petitioner,

1:22.7

who has filed a number of previous petitions that have been deemed frivolous by the court after a certain

1:29.4

number of those. I think my memory is the number is four. They will tell the petitioner no more.

1:36.5

If you want to file another petition in the future, you've got to pay the filing fee and print

1:41.9

the fancy briefs in booklet format, which is, you know, not a trivial cost.

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

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.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.