The delay was BAD in this one. We apologize for repeatedly interrupting each other.

VCA Lawsuit in Orange County: https://www.lexrex.org/post/voter-choice-act-lawsuit

Intellectuals by Paul Johnson: https://a.co/d/bXOHeQY

• 0:01:45 - Lex Rex updates

• 0:12:50 - Groff v. DeJoy

• 0:45:10 - statutory law vs. constitutional law

• 1:01:35 - Captain Kangaroo Court

Links

LRI's primer on paper ballots

Amicus brief on voting in San Francisco county

Finally, it's a special awards show edition of Captain Kangaroo Court! Alexander will award one nominee the coveted title of Most Plausible Lawsuit and another the even more coveted title of Most Creative Lawsuit.

• Student loan debt relief cases before the Supreme Court (0:05:10)

• The February Revolution (0:31:30)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (1:07:35)

Link to the amicus brief in the San Francisco voting rights case: https://www.lexrex.org/news/lex-rex-president-alexander-haberbush-files-amicus-brief-in-voting-rights-case

Our “Ask an Attorney” episode on the Biden debt forgiveness program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH7-GUtncAw&list=PL5BkZsnxImY163ZJLP5zOb4FFf9hRMERH&index=17

Episode 29 of the podcast, in which we discuss the debt plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrDkdJ7PNFw&list=PL5BkZsnxImY21-5sLx-P7BXgNws0fQ01R&index=27&t=2s

• Why is the Russian Revolution important? (0:03:03)

• The last years of the Tsars (0:08:30)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (1:02:30)

In this episode, we bring you the top six (because David wanted a top five and Alexander wanted a top... more than five) developments in the world of American law from 2022.

We'd also like to thank everyone for your generosity in our end-of-year matching fundraiser drive, with supporters of LRI contributing more than $20,000! It's thanks to your support that we can continue our efforts to defend the rights of the American public and, more importantly, equip them to defend their rights themselves.

• 0:05:30 - Crackdowns on COVID-19 "emergency measures"

• 0:11:00 - Election law in the spotlight

• 0:21:40 - Conflicts between state and federal policy

• 0:33:50 - The end of Roe v. Wade

• 0:43:45 - New limits on federal bureaucracies

• 0:58:05 - The death of the Lemon test in 1st Amendment jurisprudence(?)

• 1:05:30 - Honorable mentions

• 1:07:15 - Captain Kangaroo Court

Victoria Catano's Give Send Go fundraising page: https://www.givesendgo.com/G9QPC?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=G9QPC&fbclid=IwAR0uG9sPk1ALk3iaO4YFJGK8K8gsf5DBSr3Hkg6c3uvIMvW8tZwL1sASOd8

After that, it's back to Captain Kangaroo Court, where we'll ask hard hitting questions like "Is being a mean person a good excuse?" and "What is the value of time spent waiting for instant macaroni to thicken?"

Finally, we'll let you know our plans for what we're calling "season two" of the podcast, which will be starting up sometime around February.

We wish you all a good end to 2022, and we'll see you in the new year!

• Fall of Rome: the civil wars that ended the Republic (1:55)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (38:10)

• Season two announcement (51:00)

Thanksgiving was a bit more than a week ago, so we thought we might talk a little about the Pilgrims - specifically, whether it's accurate to say they were looking for "religious freedom." (Answer: depends on what you mean by that.)

We'll also delve into what the First Amendment means when it says "an establishment of religion," and why that's important for understanding the separation of church and state.

Finally, we wrap things up with Captain Kangaroo Court, taking a special look at court cases with an inanimate object as the defendant. (Spoilers: inanimate objects usually don’t offer brilliant defenses.)

• Fall of Rome – the Gracchi Brothers (0:40)

• Daye v. Garland (33:00)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (47:25)

After that, we turn to a New York gun law drafted after the decision in New York State Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen and talk about the constitutionality of gun licensing.

Then it's time for a pair of cases dealing with "race conscious" admissions practices at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. We'll consider the meaning of the 14th Amendment, the distinction between "bonus points" and "plus factors," and the admission to Harvard of one John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Finally, it's Captain Kangaroo Court, featuring a couple of lawyers disbarred for some... colorful reasons.

• Stay on student debt program (0:00:55)

• New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act (0:07:35)

• Race in college admissions (0:19:00)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (0:54:50)

JFK's Harvard application essay

After that, we examine Bittner v. United States, in which how you think about interpreting legal language makes the difference between $50,000 and $2.7 million (at least, for one man in particular). Then we’ll talk about the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a case brought by a group of American Samoans seeking automatic citizenship rights for people born in the territory – and why their own government thinks otherwise.

Finally, we return once again to Captain Kangaroo Court, where you can hear about a court reporter sentenced to the opposite of work-release, and a Maine attorney with a… creative… solution for dealing with required professional development.

• DHS social media program (4:00)

• Bittner v. United States (15:20)

• American Samoa citizenship issue (34:45)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (50:15)

• Allegator Alley (etymology time!) (2:45)

• Judges won’t hire Yale clerks (11:50)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (19:00)

After that, we bring you the very first part of our (probably) short series on the Roman Republic, “The Fall of Rome” (get it?... because it’s Fall!). We start things off with a look at the way the Romans handled voting, which just goes to show you that wrangling over voting districts and procedure is a very old problem, indeed.

Finally, because we went a bit over time, we take the quickest of trips to Captain Kangaroo Court, where we’ll learn about this one weird trick for handling a bar investigation. (Spoiler: it doesn’t work all that well.)

• Supreme Court Hall of Shame – Employment Division v. Smith (1:00)

• Fall of Rome – Roman Voting (27:15)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (1:01:45)

After that, we have an extra-special, extra-long edition of Captain Kangaroo Court for you! Alexander relates his experiences defending a client before an actual kangaroo court before we consider the age-old question: what legal rights do trees have? (There’s a stealth edition of the Supreme Court Hall of Shame in there, as well, although in this case we’re looking at a dissenting opinion.)

• National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (3:50)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (26:45)

• Not-so-secret Supreme Court Hall of Shame: dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton (40:30)

After that, we take a tip from one of our listeners and weigh in on Rachel Maddow’s reporting on Moore v. Harper, which we previously covered. We’ll discuss why we think she got a few key details very wrong and explain why normalcy bias can make some people miss basic aspects of the Constitution.

Next up, we examine one man’s lawsuit seeking to block the Biden administration’s proposed plan to cancel substantial amounts of student loan debt. We’ll discuss some legal issues with the plan before looking at the Department of Education’s strategy in responding to the suit and, finally, asking whether there might not be a better solution to the student debt crisis.

Then we return once again to wrap things up in Captain Kangaroo Court, where we’ll introduce you to the legendary Florida Man.

• Etymology time (0:02:30)

• Rachel Maddow on Moore v. Harper (0:10:30)

• Biden’s student debt plan (0:29:00)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (0:48:45)

Ask an Attorney – “Can Biden forgive student loan debt?” (https://youtu.be/qH7-GUtncAw)

Our prior episode on Moore v. Harper (https://rss.com/podcasts/lexrexpod/623596/)

After that, we return yet again to Captain Kangaroo Court to discuss the purchasing habits of attorneys who embezzle funds. It may surprise you to learn that they do not always make the most sensible of financial decisions.

All this, plus how to instantly prove your superior knowledge to anyone who says people in the olden days didn't live as long!

• Texas social media law (4:05)

• Plans to impose terms on the Supreme Court (27:50)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (38:10)

Note: the chart we referenced with the lengths of Supreme Court tenures couldn't be uploaded as art for this episode, but please check out our website or our Facebook page for the image.

Link to the episode where we discuss the Florida social media law: https://rss.com/podcasts/lexrexpod/505303/

We’ll then wrap things up with Captain Kangaroo Court, covering the time the city of Riga put a statue on trial for witchcraft and a pair of Ivy League law professors whose position on law seems to be “do whatever you feel.” All this, plus a brief story about an implausibly French man David saw on the streets of Edinburgh!

• LRI’s legal challenge against vaccination restrictions at polling centers (0:03:45)

• Supreme Court Hall of Shame: Gonzales v. Raich (0:06:55)

• The “Justice for Victims of War Crimes” bill (0:32:05)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (0:46:00)

Our episode on Wickard v. Filburn can be found here: https://rss.com/podcasts/lexrexpod/570868/

After that, we make a trip once again to the whimsical world of Captain Kangaroo Court to hear about an attorney hauled before an ethics board for saying the word “gadzooks.” Alexander also has a really funny story that he can’t tell you because of professional ethics, so you’ll just have to take our word for it… it’s pretty funny, though.

• Introduction, and why the funeral of Queen Elizabeth has caused David personal inconvenience (0:00)

• British succession law and its recent alteration (7:00)

• Moore v. Harper (23:30)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (45:50)

Along the way, they’ll explain why the only evidence that’s supposed to count is the evidence on the record, why Alexander might suggest that a defendant wear a bag over his head at trial, and why it’s actually not constitutional for the president to take money from the Fed to set up a parallel government.

• Introduction and observations on the death of the Queen (0:00:00)

• Shaw v. United States (0:05:00)

• Ruiz v. Massachusetts (0:25:00)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (0:41:30)

All that, plus Alexander’s sister, Vanessa, joins us for Captain Kangaroo Court to share one of her strangest experiences as an attorney and help us figure out whether debtors’ prisons are still around. (They’re not supposed to be, but…)

Los Alamitos case (0:02:40)

California COVID misinformation bill (0:05:45)

Biden’s speech and “democracy” (0:13:50)

Final thoughts on America and France (0:34:50)

Captain Kangaroo Court (0:47:40)

Then, in Captain Kangaroo Court, we consider whether certain (pretty racist) memes qualify as “public comment on immigration” and learn how 12th century Icelandic warriors dealt with undead squatters (answer: initiate court proceedings to evict them).

• The Constitution of the Year III (2:25)

• Napoleon’s coup (35:00)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (52:00)

Follow these links for our YouTube videos on precedent and stare decisis.

After that, we continue our “Summer of the Revolutions” series by examining the specific ways that the U.S. Constitution was designed to correct flaws with the Articles of Confederation. Along the way, we take a detour to discuss Edmund Burke’s analysis of the French Revolution and explain why it remains relevant for political philosophy today.

Finally, we return to Captain Kangaroo Court to bring you the tale of the Roving Judge Gang of Indiana – hear what happens to a group of intoxicated judges who pick a fight in the parking lot of an Indianapolis White Castle – and Alexander tells the story of perhaps the worst judge he’s ever met. (She thinks the word “upon” is too fancy to use in a legal brief.)

• The Los Alamitos case (1:45)

• The Constitution and the Articles of Confederation (10:33)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (41:50)

For those who expressed interest in the book on the French Revolution that David has been alluding to: https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-French-Revolution-ebook/dp/B07F37RP98/ref=sr_1_4?crid=2SHOJYCFTJFXO&keywords=history+of+the+french+revolution&qid=1661211691&sprefix=history+of+the+french+revolution%2Caps%2C93&sr=8-4

All this, plus the debut of Captain Kangaroo Court, the new segment where we revel in the world of the legally bizarre: first up, what’s embarrassing John Bolton today? And why is a former court mediator wearing gloves while sending letters to congressmen?

• Korematsu v. United States (0:02:26)

• Heslin v. Jones (0:40:54)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (1:03:47)

We’ll also continue our series on the founding of America and the French Revolution by doing our best to describe the proposed French constitution of 1793 (which never went into effect because everyone basically shrugged and said “we don’t feel like it”) and what happened after that (spoiler alert: it’s called “The Reign of Terror”).

Special Report on Pettiness and the Law (0:02:00)

The French Constitution of 1793 (0:12:20)

The Reign of Terror (1:05:08)

Alex Jones Attorney Flipping the Bird: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer-flips-the-bird-at-opposing-counsel-after-judge-leaves-the-bench-in-alex-jones-defamation-case

Thomas Carlyle's History of the French Revolution: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1301/1301-h/1301-h.htm

Plus, we’ll take another look at the hottest of hot takes from the world of online legal commentary and tell you why putting your drugs in an envelope does not necessarily prevent the police from searching you, and why the amendment that abolished slavery is probably not a magic bullet for abortion rights.

Supreme Court Hall of Shame: 𝘞𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘷. 𝘍𝘪𝘭𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘯 (0:04:07)

The Articles of Confederation (0:26:35)

Hot takes (1:09:20)

James Madison on the flaws of the Articles of Confederation: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch5s16.html

After that, we continue our discussion of the French Revolution and why it actually doesn’t make much sense to liken it to the American movement for independence by comparing the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen to the American Declaration of Independence.

Finally, we bring you the hottest legal takes from the internet. Topics include: why “the physics” don’t count as a witness in a trial, why overturning Roe v. Wade doesn’t automatically release all military personnel from their contracts, and why it’s not illegal for Supreme Court justices to be Catholic.

• Carson v. Makin (0:06:00)

• The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (0:28:00)

• Hot takes (1:17:50)

All this, plus a tour of some of the most blistering hot takes from the world of online legal commentary, including why there aren’t special “protected” parts of the Constitution, why it’s not true that “anything is legal if there’s a contract for it,” and the sad case of a Twitter user who should really have paid more attention in elementary school.

• Supreme Court Hall of Shame – Griswold v. Connecticut (0:06:00)

• American Hospital Association v. Becerra (0:35:20)

• Vega v. Tekoh (0:59:15)

• Hot takes (1:16:15)

We'll break down why you should really think of the Declaration as a legal complaint against the Crown of Great Britain and why your high school teachers were wrong to tell you that the French Revolution was similar to the American independence movement.

Instead of our usual hot takes segment, this week we wrap things up by remembering the sacrifices made by the men who signed their names to the Declaration, knowing they would be convicted as traitors and put to death if they failed in their bid for independence.

• Reading the Declaration of Independence closely (0:00:30)

• The Fate of the Founders (1:05:35)

In this part, we will give you a handful of reasons you should be grateful that America is now independent from Britain (things like: courts not allowing the police to use evidence against you when they obtained it illegally, knowing when the next election is for the chief executive, and not having your silence held against you when you’re interrogated) and also discuss the final ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District and why the media – as well as Justice Sonia Sotomayor – seem to be confused about what the Supreme Court actually does.

Tune in tomorrow for our discussion of the Declaration of Independence and the sacrifices made by the men who signed it.

• Reasons to be thankful for independence (0:03:30)

• Kennedy v. Bremerton (0:36:00)

We also examine two enormously important decisions that were handed down by the Court this week, with massive impacts on gun rights and abortion (and also completely changing our original plans for this episode), as well as take a deep dive into the concept of “substantive due process.”

All this, plus the economics of being an expert witness on “being of average intelligence” and why you shouldn’t bring your drugs with you to your drug trial.

• Supreme Court Hall of Shame: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (0:09:05)

• New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (0:23:30)

• Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (0:37:00)

• Substantive due process (0:58:48)

• Hot takes (1:14:00)

All this, plus a deep dive into why keeping an elephant in the zoo isn't the same as imprisoning a person without a charge, a romantic guide to the Founding Fathers, and another batch of hot takes from the darkest corner of the internet.

Sections:

0:03:30 - Happy the Elephant's habeas corpus petition denied

0:17:30 - Attorney Zachary Jones joins us for a discussion of the 17th Amendment

0:39:00 - Who Wants to Marry a Founding Father?

0:47:35 - Denezpi v. United States and double jeopardy

1:04:40 - Hot takes

0:01:13 – Bumblebees are fish

0:07:40 – Gunman apprehended outside home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh

0:19:10 – Judicial philosophy and judicial methodology

0:22:50 – Textualism… and all the rest

0:30:30 – Consequentialism

0:34:20 – Legal realism

0:41:17 – Purposivism

0:56:35 – Cooperative partnership theory

1:00:20 – Intentionalism

1:09:20 – The “Kantian judiciary” (Alexander’s name for it) or “moralism” (David’s)

1:15:08 – Hot Takes

Topics include:

• Oregon's Department of Human Services was using an algorithm to trigger mandatory investigations without any human oversight (0:04:11)

• The police response to the Uvalde shooting, and whether anyone can be held liable for it (0:20:50)

• The Supreme Court reimposes a preliminary injunction against Texas's social media law (0:50:43)

• Hot takes from the internet (1:08:54)

All this, plus far too many mentions of old sci-fi media and a deep dive into the legal validity of calling "shotgun."

All this, plus a fun(?) fact about the Jonestown Massacre, one man's valiant but misguided attempt to discover the secret to infinite free beer, and an explanation of why the movie Double Jeopardy comes up short in its jurisprudence.

Sorry, this is a long one - it kinda got away from us. See below for a handy timestamp reference in case you want to skip around:

• Lawyer Dog (0:00:56)

• January 6 (0:11:45)

• Florida Social Media Law (0:17:13)

• Originalism and Interpretive Methods (0:50:33)

• Regulatory state (1:07:57)

• Legal Hot Takes (1:42:07)

Links we mentioned in this episode:

https://www.lexrex.org/news/eastman-lands-blow

https://www.givesendgo.com/eastman

https://www.lexrex.org/media/youre-wrong-about-the-constitution

All this, plus a discussion of Mexican food at buffet restaurants, how CSI has ruined criminal trials, and why the French Revolution preferred round numbers to sanity.

Along the way, they also discuss the City of Boston's big loss in court and the leaked draft that would purportedly overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

But mostly the rapping Nixon and Pokemon stuff.