OA183: Dissenting on the Supreme Court

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

Law, Opinion, Politics, News, Liberal, Legal, Supremecourt, Harvard, Atheist

4.3 • 3.7K Ratings

🗓️ 19 June 2018

⏱️ 69 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

**Today's episode is brought to you by Framebridge! To custom frame your favorite things, go to framebridge.com promo code: OA** Today's episode takes a deep dive into two recent 8-1 decisions by the Supreme Court: Collins v. Virginia and Sveen v. Melin. What makes a decision nearly unanimous, and what causes that lone Justice to dissent? Listen and find out! Our first 8-1 case involves two unique aspects of the 4th Amendment: the "curtilage" exception and the "automobile" exception. Which one takes precedence, why, and which Supreme Court justice vehemently disagreed? Find out if you agree with Thomas -- and whether the law is "a ass." (Seriously!) Our second 8-1 case is Sveen v. Melin, which involves whether the state of Missouri can legislate certain presumptions regarding "governing instruments." It's the Contracts Clause! Seem arcane? It won't after you listen to our breakdown! After that, we answer a fun listener question about how a law firm makes someone a partner in light of our assessment of the Eagan Avenatti law firm in Episode 181. Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #80 regarding negligence per se and an impromptu ice rink. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on the David Pakman Show, with a two-part appearance discussing whether President Trump can be indicted and if so, whether he can pardon himself. You can watch the video on YouTube. And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links

Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Collins v. Virginia, and here to check out Sveen v. Melin.
The other decision Andrew referred to was the landmark case of Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).

Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	He thought I was gonna read me my rights.
0:04.3	You have the right to have your face kicked in by me.
0:06.3	You have the right to have your balls stomp by him.
0:08.4	I'll read my rights.
0:18.6	They're pretty simple.
0:19.7	The forms are all standard, boilerplate.
0:21.6	Okay, well, we're all hungry.
0:23.0	We're gonna get to our hot plate soon enough.
0:24.5	All right, let's talk about the contract here.
0:26.8	Sorry.
0:31.0	You'd be surprised how many doors a letter from a lawyer can open or close.
0:36.0	It seems like you're talking slower since you started charging by the hour.
0:44.6	What's the meaning of this?
0:45.4	This is my quiet time.
0:46.4	We're gonna have to take you into custody.
0:48.4	That's outrageous.
0:49.2	What am I charged with?
0:50.0	Don't have to tell you anymore.
0:51.3	Clearly haven't been reading your Scalia.
0:55.0	Welcome to opening arguments.
0:56.8	This is for interviewer.
0:57.6	This is for interviewer.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

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

Generated transcripts are the property of Opening Arguments Media LLC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.