Home Artists Posts Import Register

Downloads

Content

In this episode of Opening Arguments, the guys look at both United Airlines and an obscure law from 1996 that could threaten the "administrative state" held in such disdain by our newest Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch.

First, of course, Andrew breaks down the legality of the recent decision by United Airlines to forcibly remove a passenger.  How badly is United going to get sued?  You know we deliver the goods.

Then, Andrew and Thomas discuss a little-known law passed in 1996 as part of the Republican Revolution and Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America":  the Congressional Review Act.  What is it, and why does it matter?  Listen and find out!

In the "C" segment, Andrew answers a question from his mom.  Really!

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #19 about diversity jurisdiction.  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 was recently a guest on the Embrace the Void podcast, Episodes 5 and 6.  Listen and enjoy!

Show Notes & Links

  1. The Congressional Review Act is 5 U.S.C. § 802.
  2. ...and the Brookings Institute study can be found here.
  3. Finally, you can read Todd Gaziano's efforts to beef up the CRA here.

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

Files

Comments

Anonymous

Every case that illuminates a statute/regulation/case law instructing on what is/isn't legal leads me to more strongly believe that the law like anything else is an instrument of power. Those who have influence and wealth will always seek to bend it to their will. From the incomprehensible terms and conditions to virtually non-existent remedies for seeking damages for all but the most wealthy, it's clear whose side contract law favours, explicitly or implicitly. Ultimately, the only question worth debating isn't whether something is legal or not, but whether it is right or wrong.

Anonymous

I never affirmatively agreed to not take legal advice from this podcast...