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

OA57: What Football Can Teach Us About Jury Nullification, Antitrust, and Donald Trump - Part 1 (Patreon)

Published:
2017-04-02 05:01:44
Imported:
2022-10

Downloads

Content

 

Today's episode is part one of a two-part series in which Thomas and Andrew walk through the short-lived history of the USFL, an alternative football league that ran into the bulldozer that is Donald J. Trump.  Along the way, we learn about jury nullification, antitrust law, and get some insight into Trump's legal strategies that just might have some relevance today....

First, though, "Breakin' Down the Law" defines "jury nullification" in order to get you prepared to tackle our main story.  Afterwards, we answer a question from listener Collin Boots, who wants to know why Andrew was so dismissive of term limits back in Episode 54.

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #17 about selling a lemon of a used car in "as is" condition. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)!

Recent Appearances:

Andrew just recorded a delightful and moderate discussion of the law of God's Not Dead 2 with the hosts of the "Is This Reel Life?" podcast.

Show Notes & Links

  1. This is the AmLaw article Andrew mentions in which lawyers second-guessed Donald Trump's choice of litigation tactics way back in 2009.
  2. And here is a link to U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), in which the Court struck down state efforts to limit Congressional and Senate terms.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Comments

Anonymous

All of the information is in the question. You cannot speculate and insert facts. There was a mention of a "30-Point Inspection" that was performed. A reasonable person would expect such an inspection to reveal evidence of a serious accident. I don't think the question even said that the seller denied that the vehicle had been in an accident. The seller knew and intentionally withheld the info. There was no evidence of an accident on the way to the mechanic after purchase, so it didn't happen. The question isn't about argument. It's about ruling.

Anonymous
>>4559556

Did the question say there was no evidence of an accident on the way to the mechanic? I don't recall. Maybe it's just me... but, I don't think there's enough information in the question to conclude the dealer knew any of it.

Anonymous

The question did not explicitly say there was no accident. My point was that all significant facts are on the question. You brought in an extra fact, and it lead you in the wrong direction.