OA66: Sanctuary Cities

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

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

4.3 • 3.7K Ratings

🗓️ 5 May 2017

⏱️ 64 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

In this episode, the guys break down the recent decision by a federal court to enjoin the enforcement of President Trump's Executive Order 13768 regarding Sanctuary Cities. First, though, Andrew tackles a popular question from Brad Kalmanson (and others) as to whether Donald Trump can really make good on his weird threat to "break up" the 9th Circuit. The answer will almost certainly surprise you. In the main segment, we analyze the Sanctuary Cities Executive Order and the Trump Administration's rather amazing legal "strategy" they orchestrated to try and defend it. If you have Trump supporters in your news feed (or are one yourself!), you'll be amazed at what the administration did. After that, Andrew answers an in-person question from David at ReasonCon about the practice of law. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #22 about selling a priceless work of art. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

This is a nice primer on the creation of the current federal judiciary, beginning with the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789.
Here is a link to the decision by the Northern District of California enjoining the enforcement of EO 13768.
This link is to the text of EO 13768.
And this is 8 U.S.C. § 1373, referenced in the EO.

Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman.
0:19.8	Due to habeas corpus, you and Miss Bonifante had a common law marriage.
0:31.0	So you don't work on a contingency basis?
0:33.0	No, money down! Oops, shouldn't have this bar association logo here either.
0:45.0	Would you please point at that robot over there?
0:51.0	No further questions?
0:55.0	Welcome to Opening Arguments, the podcast that pairs an inquisitive interviewer with a real-life lawyer.
1:00.0	This podcast is sponsored by the law offices of P. Andrew Torres, LLC for entertainment purposes,
1:05.0	is not intended as legal advice, 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. This is episode 66.
1:21.0	I'm your host Thomas Smith, that over there is your host, Andrew Torres.
1:24.0	How are you doing today, Andrew?
1:26.0	Hi, Thomas. I'm great. How are you?
1:28.0	I'm ready to tackle some more important legal questions.
1:32.0	So with that said, let's get to our first listener question for the day.
1:36.0	He who questions training, only trains himself at asking questions.
1:43.0	What?
1:44.0	Okay, Brad Kelmanson asks, could Trump really carry out his threat to break up the 9th Circuit?
1:50.0	Now, I admit, I didn't catch this threat. Is this a recent threat or is this a persistent line that he's using or something?
1:57.0	This is, I love this question on every conceivable level.
2:01.0	Trump's threat to break up the 9th Circuit came about after what happened in our main segment occurred,
	...

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.