OA240: Libertarianism is Still Bad & You Should Still Feel Bad

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

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

4.3 • 3.7K Ratings

🗓️ 1 January 2019

⏱️ 64 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Today's special, hangover-free New Years' episode follows up on some of the things we discussed during our Episode 238 interview with Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast, including the never-controversial subject of libertarianism. Strap in; it's been an interesting year!

We begin with a listener question from Ricardo, who asks some follow-up questions to our original hot take on libertarianism waaaaaay back in Episode 22. Is there a robust theory of property rights that serves as a side-constraint on government action? You'll have to listen and find out! (Hint: no.)

After that, Andrew further explains the "Are You A Cop?"-style segment from Episode 238 regarding whether Brett Kavanaugh "voted with the liberals" in an abortion case. (Hint: no.) You'll figure out all you need to know about the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Gee v. Planned Parenthood and Andersen v. Planned Parenthood... as well as getting a deep dive into Clarence Thomas's dissent and an explainer on the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a!

After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas (and Matt) Take The Bar Exam #107 regarding defamation. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances

None! 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

Check out Matt & Mattingly's Ice Cream Social podcast!
We first discussed libertarianism back in Episode 22.
You can click here to read Clarence Thomas's blistering (and inaccurate) dissent from the Court's denial of cert in the Planned Parenthood cases; click here to check out 42 USC § 1396a(a)(23), the statute at issue; and click here to read the Washington Examiner article discussed on the show.

Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

Don't forget the OA Facebook Community!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	The first refugee ever elected to Congress.
0:07.0	The machinery of democracy should work for everyone everywhere, not just in certain places
0:25.5	and not just on a certain day.
0:30.5	Power sees nothing without a demand.
0:32.5	It never has and it never will.
0:34.5	We still have to be willing to show up every single day and demand our seed at the table.
0:42.5	So f**king proud of you guys!
0:48.5	Welcome to Opening Arguments, the podcast that pairs an inquisitive interviewer with a real-life lawyer.
0:59.5	This podcast is sponsored by the Law Offices of P.A.
1:02.5	Antitoura's LLC for Entertainment purposes is not intended as legal advice and does not form an attorney-client relationship.
1:08.5	Don't take legal advice from a podcast.
1:18.5	Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments.
1:20.5	This is episode 240.
1:22.5	That's a nice round number there.
1:24.5	It's got a multiple of 12.
1:26.5	That's always good.
1:27.5	I'm your host Thomas Smith out over there, Sandra Torres.
1:30.5	How are you doing, Andrew?
1:31.5	I have 10 fingers, so I like things that end in zeros.
1:35.5	I'm fantastic.
1:36.5	How are you, Thomas?
1:38.5	I am doing well.
	...

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.