Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

OA468: SCOTUS News! Trump's Taxes, Affirmative Action, and Title X (Patreon)

Published:
2021-02-26 05:53:55
Imported:
2022-10

Downloads

Content

Normally we're bracing ourselves every time there's SCOTUS news, but this time there's actually some good! Cy Vance HAS TRUMP'S TAX RETURNS. Ok that's pretty much the end of the unambiguously good news. But listen in as Andrew gives us the expert analysis on the anti-affirmative action case and the Title X case!

Before that, we talk about what elections actually would have looked like under Lessig's proportional system from last episode. The results are very fascinating! Yay spreadsheets! We finish off with a quick answer to the question, "could the Senate have voted anonymously on impeachment?"

Links: 2021 Cornelius Vanderbroek Memorial Essay Competition for Law School Students, Maryland FBA Essay Contest, BBC Facebook v Australia: Who blinked first?, Daily Kos How minority rule plagues Senate, Andrew's Spreadsheet, CNN Trump's tax returns turned over to Manhattan district attorney, Mayor v. Azar, 973 F.3d 258, California v. Azar, 950 F.3d 1067, 42 US Code § 18114 - Access to therapies

Appearances

None, invite us on your show!

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Files

Comments

Anonymous

On your analysis of the election using the Lessig rule, I was under the impression that he wanted to award electoral votes fractionally, which completely eliminates the rounding issues you were discussing. I'm guessing he has some vote floor for qualifying for electors and this would all be dependent on winning at SCOTUS and the precise relief they craft or adopt. I'm also curious how this would impact states with instant runoff/rank choice voting.

Anonymous
>>54459998

I thought I was crazy, but I am not the only one who understood Professor Lesssig as wanting to allocate votes fractionally. I would be curious what the implications are on the 2020 and 2016 elections are, but I am pretty sure all the issues and weirdness flagged in this segment go away. Of course, even if electoral votes are allocated as a fraction, there has to be rounding, therefore issues, but if the limit is 2 decimal places, it is a maximum of 0.02 unallocated votes per state. Maybe it's OK that an absolute maximum of 0.1% (50 states x 0.02 unallocated votes per state / 538 total votes) of all electoral votes are unallocated...

Anonymous

I added the 2016 election to the spreadsheet and posted: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UUKTpHvfvwQz-lQcD8lDoByfxkiwAo3a/view?usp=sharing Indeed, the 2016 election would have gone to Congress to decide in a full proportional elector model. Looking at more of the EqualVotes literature, it looks like the suggestion to address not reaching 270 electoral votes is to throw out votes for candidates with fewer than 5% of the votes in a state. While this would allow Clinton to reach 271 in 2016, it seems like it goes against the 1-person-1-vote principle. Gary Johnson was close to 5% of the vote in a number of states. If he got 4.9% of the vote in one state but 5.1% in the other, why should the votes be thrown out in the first case but grant fractional electors in the 2nd? (if you want to round to 5%, just replace these figures by 4.4% and 4.5%)