"Naw Dawg" The Sequel

Advisory Opinions

The Dispatch

News, Government, Politics

4.7 • 4K Ratings

🗓️ 14 December 2020

⏱️ 85 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuit contesting the election results in four battleground states, ruling that “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” What does the court’s order mean in plain English? Should the justices have said more? Why did Justices Alito and Thomas issue a separate statement? “The bottom line is all nine justices rejected this case,” David explains. “Seven clearly for one reason, two for any number of additional reasons that they didn’t specify.” After breaking down the Texas lawsuit, Sarah and David discuss Trump v. Wisconsin, Bush v. Gore, the counting of the electoral college votes, and what options President Trump might still have to contest the election. They wrap things up by answering some listener mail about the LSAT. Show Notes: -Arizona v. California dissent, Supreme Court’s Friday order on Texas lawsuit, Trump v. Wisconsin, Bush v. Gore, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd, 3 U.S. Code § 15. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	You ready?
0:02.0	I was born ready.
0:04.0	Welcome to the Advisory Opinions Podcast.
0:22.0	This is David French with Sarah Isker and election commentary rolls on Sarah.
0:30.0	I think the nod dog doctrine is a thing.
0:40.0	Although there is a spelling controversy.
0:44.0	We should adjudicate that controversy because I think I'm on the side of the dissenters.
0:52.0	I think I am too, which basically just means Caleb, our producer, who actually this isn't a democracy.
0:58.0	He is the sole arbiter of the spelling of the nod dog doctrine.
1:02.0	And he spelled it in a w, which is correct, DOG.
1:08.0	Yeah.
1:10.0	Instead of DAWG.
1:12.0	Exactly.
1:14.0	It is not nod dog.
1:16.0	It's nod dog.
1:18.0	Right?
1:20.0	I think that's probably right.
1:22.0	So let's just roll the bus over Caleb, but then like back up and reverse it over Caleb.
1:28.0	Exactly.
1:30.0	Well, we got a lot of nod dog to talk about today.
1:32.0	So we had double nod dog from the Supreme Court in the sense that seven justices turn back the Texas Attorney General's lawsuit on one version of nod dog and two justices turned it back on another version of nod dog.
1:46.0	Then we had a Wisconsin nod dog that is very important that we need to talk about, which is going to lead us into a question about Bush v Gore.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

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

Generated transcripts are the property of The Dispatch and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.