OA188: Three Cases About Voting Rights

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

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

4.3 • 3.7K Ratings

🗓️ 3 July 2018

⏱️ 61 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Today's episode takes a look at three recent decisions from this Supreme Court and how each one will affect voting in the midterm elections: Husted v. Randolph Institute, Abbott v. Perez, and (surprisingly) Janus v. AFSCME. First, though, we begin by addressing a conspiracy theory that's making the rounds suggesting some nefarious relationship between Anthony Kennedy's son, Justin, and Donald Trump. Does this story hold water? Listen and find out! Then, we break down each of the three cases: Husted, involving Ohio's efforts to purge voters from its rolls; Abbott, involving Texas's efforts to racially gerrymander Congressional districts; and Janus, which will result in drastically weaker public sector unions. What does this mean for the midterms? (Hint: it's not good.) Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #82 regarding the search and seizure of heroin from plain sight. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Thomas was just a guest on Episode 421 of the Cognitive Dissonance Podcast. 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

If you missed last year's Fourth of July Spectacular, that was Episode 83.
You can read the Liptak & Haberman New York Times article about Trump and Kennedy by clicking here.
The Ohio case is Husted v. Randolph Institute, and the Texas cdase is Abbott v. Perez.
Before you read Janus v. AFSCME, you may want to check out our extensive coverage of the case back in Episode 150.
The statute the 5-4 majority blatantly ignores in Abbott is 28 U.S.C. § 1253.
Finally, this is the research Andrew mentioned regarding the correlation between right-to-work states and lower voter turnout and lower Democratic share of the vote.

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

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	He thought I was going to 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 wait where I'm at.
0:18.6	They're pretty simple.
0:19.8	The forms are all standard, boilerplate.
0:21.8	OK, well, we're all hungry.
0:23.0	We're going to get to our hot plate soon enough.
0:24.5	All right, let's talk about the contract here.
0:26.7	Sorry.
0:31.0	You'd be surprised how many doors a letter from a lawyer
0:34.2	can open or close.
0:36.1	It seems like you're talking slower
0:37.7	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 going to 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, a podcast that
	...

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.