 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:21:40 |
After duking it out over their Super Bowl disagreement, David and Sarah get into the meat of today’s episode: The ongoing saga of religious liberty in the age of pandemic law. On Friday, the Supreme Court partly sided with a California church’s First Amendment challenge to religious service restrictions enacted by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. Per David: “Pandemic law—while not entirely gone—is mostly dead.” Stay tuned to hear about technology company Smartmatic’s lawsuit against Fox News, Trump’s First Amendment defense in his impeachment trial, and more.
Show Notes:
-South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newsom.
-Typography for Lawyers by Matthew Butterick.
| 29 | 48 |
RE: Super Bowl officiating, Sarah just states flatly that both balls were uncatchable. This is where her argument falls apart. Whether they were catchable is a *judgement call*. Could've gone either way as to whether they were catchable, particularly the one on Evans. Calls were made in real time, and not in slow motion replay which the viewer has the benefit of. I don't believe catchability is reviewable, and when the receiver is held up it makes it *much harder* to determine that a ball is uncatchable. I would've been fine if they'd not called either one, but they were at least consistent in wanting very little contact downfield and KC refused to change their practices, partly because they've habituated themselves to holding and PI by commiting them throughout the season. They got away with it before, but this officiating crew wanted to call it tighter. Live by the PI, die by it too.
David: You hit my area of expertise. I just retired from holding administrative hearings, the majority of which involve driving offenses. Drivers are subject to suspension in my state if they offend under the age of 20 and they are entitled to a hearing. Over my career, I held thousands of these hearings. As you can imagine, the bulk of those offenses involved speeding. There are mirror images of the belief you expressed to that officer: one involves the increase in speed and the other involves a decrease in speed. The common refrains: "the increase in speed was within sight" and "I don't have to slow down until I reach the sign indicating the drop in speed". Drivers always want it both ways. The placement of the sign provides an objective standard. You were applying a subjective standard. You were speeding!