Supreme Court Dismisses Obamacare Challenge

  
0:00
-1:12:18

The big Supreme Court rulings have finally arrived! On today’s podcast, David and Sarah discuss two unexpected majorities in California v. Texas, which upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare (again!), and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which unanimously protected the religious liberty of Catholic Social Services after the city of Philadelphia excluded CSS from its foster parent program for refusing to certify same-sex couples as foster parents. Our hosts analyze how the Supreme Court denied standing to the states challenging the ACA and then dive into two spicy opinions from Alito. Plus, some “palace intrigue” discussion about whether Alito was denied his chance to write a majority opinion.

Show Notes:

-California v. Texas

-Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

DOJ Lawmaker Subpoenas Explained

  
0:00
-1:01:23

In today’s jam-packed episode, David and Sarah discuss the Supreme Court’s invitation to the Biden administration to weigh in on a pending challenge to Harvard’s affirmative action policy. Our hosts also untangle two criminal cases that united the justices unanimously in favor of the government, one on felons possessing firearms and another on sentence reduction. Then, Sarah shares insight from her own time at the Department of Justice into why a New York Times story that the Trump-era Justice Department seized the data of congressional Democrats might be overblown. They also explain why the DoJ appears to be siding with former President Donald Trump in a defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll. Finally, they discuss why a recent Twitter thread on critical race theory that inspired a “hate tsunami” online should inspire you to go attend your local school board meetings.

Show Notes:

-Greer v. United States

-Terry v. United States

-The New York Times’ June 10 initial subpoena story

-The New York Times’ June 13 follow-up story about Don McGahn’s records

-The New York Times’ June 11 follow-up story about DoJ opening an investigation into the subpoenas 

-Explanation of Assistant U.S. attorney 

-David’s Twitter thread

-David’s debate with Christopher Rufo on Bari Weiss’ podcast

Supreme Court Countdown Continues

  
0:00
-1:08:02

With a lot of big Supreme Court decisions on the horizon, David and Sarah discuss an unexpected concurrence from Justice Thomas in Borden v. United States, a case about how broadly the government can define “use of force.” Our hosts also review a decision from the 20th Judicial Circuit of Virginia about a school that suspended a professor for not using students’ preferred pronouns and an announcement that the Texas Bar Association will investigate Ken Paxton for his lawsuit to overturn the 2020 election.  Finally, they chat about a controversy at Yale Law School involving the infamous “tiger mom” law professor Amy Chua.

Show Notes:

-Borden v. United States

-20th Circuit of Virginia Ruling on preferred pronouns case

-Texas Bar Association investigating Ken Paxton

California's Assault Weapons Ban Overturned

  
0:00
-1:08:18

Today on the podcast, our hosts walk us through a bit of Supreme Court drama involving Sonia Sotomayor and some historical revision of a 1987 Supreme Court immigration case.  They then dive into last week’s 94-page ruling from a federal judge striking down California’s assault weapons ban, a decision that includes references to COVID vaccines and the Swiss Army knife in its robust defense of gun rights in America.  Finally, David and Sarah discuss whether civic education can reduce negative partisanship in America.

Show Notes:

-United States v. Palomar-Santiago

-United States v. Mendoza-Lopez

-Sotomayor’s statement on the Draft

-California assault weapons ban ruling

What Does 'So' Mean?

  
0:00
-53:33

On today’s podcast, David and Sarah engage in a riveting discussion about the meaning of the word “so,” specifically in conjunction with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Van Buren v. United States, which deals with the legality of accessing a confidential government database for improper reasons.  Our hosts then walk us through a free speech controversy at Stanford Law School involving a local Federalist Society chapter and a parody flyer, including discussing some previously hidden context.  Finally, they review the 6th Circuit Court ruling striking down racial considerations for COVID loans.

Show Notes:

-Van Buren v. United States

-“Law student’s graduation in jeopardy as Stanford investigates satirical email lampooning Federalist Society, Sen. Hawley, and Jan. 6 [UPDATED]” by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)

-“Sixth Circuit Enjoins Use of Race and Sex Preferences for Coronavirus Relief Funding” by Jonathan Adler in Reason

-Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

-Adarand Constructors v. Pena

Loading more posts…