meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Opening Arguments

OA267: Originalism and the Eighth Amendment (Bucklew v. Precythe)

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

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

4.33.7K Ratings

🗓️ 5 April 2019

⏱️ 87 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Today's breaking news episode takes an in-depth look at Bucklew v. Precythe, a recent Supreme Court decision that lays bare the "originalist" view of the Eighth Amendment.  Is it as bad as you think it is?  (Yes.)

We begin, however, with a look at Texas v. U.S. and the recent news that the Trump administration "changed its mind" and "will no longer defend" the Affordable Care Act.  What does that mean?  Listen and find out!

Then, it's time for our deep dive into Bucklew v. Precythe, the Supreme Court's analysis of how the 8th Amendment applies in capital punishment cases.

After that, we go back to Yodel Mountain for some updates on the congressional investigations, including the Congressional request for Trump's tax returns and an EPIC FOIA request.

And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #121 involving the constitutionality of Presidential executive orders.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances

Thomas was just a guest on the Cognitive Dissonance podcast; go check it out!  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

1. Wikipedia entry on sodium thiopental can be found here.
2. Glossip v. Gross (2015)
3. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bucklew v. Precythe (Apr. 1, 2019)
4. 8th Circuit’s opinion below in Bucklew
5. Congressional letter requesting Trump’s taxes
6. Bonus! Zuckerman amicus brief in the ACA litigation.

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!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

We find a defendant incredibly guilty.

0:19.8

I found his ultimate chicken sandwich on Brio's bon-to-be guilty of being delicious.

0:31.0

What section of the Constitution has been breached?

0:34.0

There is no one section.

0:37.0

It's just the vibe of the thing.

0:45.0

Objection, Your Honor.

0:46.0

What?

0:47.0

He's leading the witness.

0:48.0

To save.

0:49.0

And break our boat's lawyers.

0:55.0

Welcome to Opening Arguments,

0:56.0

the podcast that pairs an inquisitive interviewer with a real-life lawyer.

0:59.0

This podcast is sponsored by the Law Offices of P. Andrew Torres,

1:03.0

LLC for Entertainment purposes, is not intended as legal advice,

1:06.0

and does not form an attorney-client relationship.

1:09.0

Don't take legal advice from a podcast.

1:17.0

Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments.

1:18.0

This is episode 267.

1:20.0

I'm Thomas Smith.

1:21.0

That over there is Andrew Torres.

1:23.0

How are you doing, Andrew?

1:24.0

I am doing fantastic, Thomas.

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

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.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.