You ready?

I was born ready.

Welcome to a barely election related edition of the advisory opinions podcast.

We're almost there.

We're almost past the election legal analysis.

In fact, it's just going to be a whisper, a hint of it in this podcast.

Instead, we're going to deal with, I would say at this point far more interesting things because we've talked the election to death.

We're going to talk about the NCAA.

The Supreme Court took an antitrust case against the NCAA that could have some real ramifications.

We're going to talk college sports both on the front end and the back end because we're going to talk about Vanderbilt's use of the first female football player in a power five conference.

And that's going to launch into a discussion of outrage culture that you're not going to want to miss.

Between NCAA and NCAA, we're going to have also a discussion of vaccines, a discussion of vote fraud, vote suppression, and an interesting hypo regarding double jeopardy.

But before we get to that, Sarah, did I introduce this podcast already or did I say this is the advisory opinions podcast?

In case you're clicking on you thought you're clicking on Joe Rogan and you heard my voice, this is the advisory opinions podcast with David Franchins, Sarah Isker.

Good. Well, now you've done it.

Now I've done it. Okay.

But before I get to that, we need to clean up a correction.

So at the end of the last podcast, I erroneously asserted that if you're raising an election objection at the congressional counting of the electors on January 6th,

that the that the objecting senator and the objecting congressman and you need at least one objection from Senate and one objection from the House need to be from the same state.

We pulled a time out.

We talked about it. We looked at it and we said, wait a minute.

It doesn't seem to be the case in one sentence, but then the next sentence seems to make it a little bit more ambiguous.

...