67 episodes
Divided Argument Will Baude, Dan Epps
-
- Government
-
-
4.8 • 566 Ratings
-
An unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast. Hosted by Will Baude and Dan Epps.
-
Radical Agreement
After taking some listener questions, we analyze the lengthy shadow docket opinions in Labrador v. Poe, dealing with universal relief, emergency applications, and more. We then tackle two recent merits opinions: Devillier v. Texas (takings) and Muldrow v. St. Louis (Title VII).
-
Bootlegging-Adjacent
After discussing a few pending issues at the Court, we look back to analyze several decisions from last month-- FBI v. Fikre, a mootness case with national security implications, and the shadow docket dispute in one of many cases named United States v. Texas (the SB4 case)-- and then turn to last Friday's more recent decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado about the Takings Clause and local land use policies.
-
Dinkus
After grappling with listener feedback ranging from the acoustic to the typographical, we catch up on last month's decisions in Great Lakes v. Raiders Retreat Realty (admiralty) and McElrath v. Georgia (double jeopardy). We then turn to last week's decisions about public officials on social media, Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratliff v. Garnier, and then finally to the statutory interpretation decision in Pulsifer v. United States. It's a lot of cases in just over an hour!
-
Political Hacks Pretending to be Lawyers
We (of course) break down the Court's opinions in Trump v. Anderson, the Section Three case from Colorado. We also discuss the Court's cert. grant on Trump's immunity from criminal prosecution, and several other opinions on the orders list, dealing with rent control, magnet school admissions, and campus speech.
-
Votin' for Lincoln
After quick review of an order about admissions at West Point and two new unanimous opinions, we spend almost all of the episode breaking down last week's oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson. What excuse will the Supreme Court use to keep Colorado from disqualifying Trump from the ballot?
-
Into the Brick Wall
After catching up on a few odds and ends, we decide to give the people what they want and discuss Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and whether the Supreme Court could possibly declare Donald Trump ineligible for the Presidency. You won't want to miss it.
Customer Reviews
I LOVE THIS PODCAST!!!!!!!!
I LOVE IT SO SO SO MUCH ESPECIALLY WILL BAUDE HE IS MY HERO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Slightly Disappointed
I used to really enjoy listening, but I’ve been disappointed lately by the one-sidedness of coverage re: certain cases and opinions. Listening sometimes feels like I’m trapped in an echo chamber designed by Neil Gorsuch himself. Hoping the hosts could spend more time discussing the counterpoints of other (often dissenting) justices like Jackson and Sotomayor rather than summarily dismissing them as uninteresting or lacking merit.
Garbage
This podcast consists of one host parroting the conservatives on SCOTUS with a straight “face” (voice) while the other host remarks on the 3rd eye they have grown trying to prop up the legitimacy of the court. Reporting and remarking on current decisions as if they are consistent in approach is its own form of bias. The only consistency has been the political bias in huge decisions. Cherry picking history and tradition as the only step in legal analysis is new and totally inappropriate for judges, who are not historians, to engage in. Endorsing some unemurated rights while saying other don’t exist is not legal analysis, it’s reasoning to a result. Ignoring text in favor of judicial doctrine is picking a political lane. The current court has a legitimacy problem because when history doesn’t work, then there’s text. If the text can’t be twisted, then there’s doctrine. If the doctrine is insufficient then spin the facts. This podcast ignores that and is much cheaper for it.