Pale Fire

Divided Argument

Will Baude & Dan Epps

Constitution, Constitutional Law, News, Law, Politics, Supreme Court, Government, Legal System, Supreme Court Of The United States, U.s. Supreme Court, Scotus, Supreme Court Justice

4.9 • 676 Ratings

🗓️ 24 May 2023

⏱️ 71 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

We debate Justice Gorsuch's unusual "statement" in Arizona v. Mayorkas. Then, we don't let our complete lack of knowledge of intellectual property law stop us in trying to make sense of Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, the big copyright throw-down between Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Oh, yay, oh, yay, oh, yay, oh, yeah.
0:03.4	The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court.
0:08.0	Unless there is any more question to be able to find an argument in this case.
0:10.8	The all persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to give their attention.
0:19.5	Welcome to Divided Argument, an unscheduled, unpredictable,
0:22.8	Supreme Court podcast. I'm Dan Epps.
0:25.5	And I'm Will Bowd.
0:26.5	So Will, we just narrowly averted a sound quality disaster in the pre-show set up.
0:32.3	You were not connected and the right driver and was going to sound super bad.
0:37.5	So people who complain about the sound quality could be worse today.
0:41.4	Dan's looking out for you all.
0:42.7	Yeah.
0:43.2	I've got to eliminate reasons for people to give us those low-star reviews on the podcast app.
0:49.5	I haven't checked in on our review situation since last time we were complaining on these. Let's see. We've got one
0:56.6	from Saturday. It says insufficient coverage of the criminal side of the SCOTUS docket and how many
1:01.3	big non-capital criminal cases get ignored. It would be my only knock on a great podcast,
1:06.5	especially because originalism ought to be and sometimes is quite pro-defendant in many respects.
1:10.6	The SCOTUS criminal docket provides an important setting to explore how various justices reveal their Jewish prudential and political commitments.
1:16.7	I don't think that's totally fair because I feel like we're kind of interested in that stuff.
1:19.9	Yeah, I feel like we cover the criminal stuff disproportionately.
1:22.5	They just haven't been any cases about it this year that we haven't.
1:25.5	We talked like on two episodes about the frauds
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Will Baude & Dan Epps, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Will Baude & Dan Epps and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.