Home Artists Posts Import Register

Downloads

Content

This episode is exactly why this show exists. Two stories about Merrick Garland's DoJ came out recently that gave the strong impression that Garland was defending Trump policies and even joining forces with religious bigots against LGBTQ rights. These stories are COMPLETELY misleading. As always with complicated legal stories, the truth faces a steep, uphill battle. Come along as Andrew explains why Garland is doing exactly what he should be, and would be doing even under a Bernie Sanders administration.
In the first segment, we discuss the Women's Health Protection Act. Can it save us from the Supreme Court overturning Roe? Find out!
Links: Manchin abortion record, Murkowski abortion record, 28 US Code § 2679 Westfall Act, Barr's first brief, E. Jean Carroll's response, CAIR v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (2006), DOJ Updates Filing, 20 US Code § 1681, Attorney General's Duty to Defend, The Indefensible Duty to Defend, Alliance defending freedom motion to intervene

Appearances

None. Invite us on!

-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

Small note. There was a throw away comment that they are trying to shut down planned parenthood by restricting/eliminating abortions. Abortions are a small percentage of the work that PP does. A universal healthcare system that works and associated clinics would shut down PP. realistically I would expect PP to be absorbed/associated with the system.

Anonymous

So what WOULD happen if SCOTUS torpedoes the incorporation of the 14th Amendment, thereby crippling the government? Is the only recourse a push for a new Amendment that explicitly gives Congress the right to legislate on inter-state commerce matters? Or would it be more expedient to impeach the Justices that went along with it?