Skip to content
Latest
Inconsistent and Repugnant
Go to my account
Podcast

Inconsistent and Repugnant

Ragers after oral arguments.

By and
Scroll to the comments section

On today’s episode, David and Sarah break down the most interesting Supreme Court argument of this term and what it means for the future of double jeopardy law. But first, they have to shout out the dating site that is the AO comment section. Also on the docket:

-Mistrials vs. double jeopardy

-Federal rights and state interpretations

-The coolest word you’ve never used

-David calls for thoughtful comments

-How to lose with valor at SCOTUS

-Fifth circuit on the brain

-A second bite of the Rahimi apple

-Revealing AO’s next long-awaited guest

Show notes:

-SNL: Weights and Measures with Nate Bargatze

-McElrath v. Georgia

-Blockburger v. United States

-Fifth Circuit and Rahimi

Listen on your player of choice
Sarah Isgur's Headshot

Sarah Isgur

Sarah Isgur is a senior editor at The Dispatch and is based in northern Virginia. Prior to joining the company in 2019, she had worked in every branch of the federal government and on three presidential campaigns. When Sarah is not hosting podcasts or writing newsletters, she’s probably sending uplifting stories about spiders to Jonah, who only pretends to love all animals.

David French's Headshot

David French

David French is a columnist for the New York Times. He’s a former senior editor of The Dispatch. He’s the author most recently of Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation.

Related Content

The Latest