Untested Theories

"The great thing about America is that everyone gets their decade in court."

By and

Face to face at last, The One And Only Host Sarah Isgur and Untitled Tennessean David French exchange rants about NY prosecutors’ untested legal theory for indicting Trump and about Biden’s approach to ending emergency law (we believe the technical term is “¯\_(ツ)_/¯”).

Also:

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By and
Comments (95)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. AMDalTX

    With respect to the Jack Phillips cases: I remember hearing from an electrician that his firm would never say "no" to work. They would just bid a ridiculously high price. (But in Dallas at the height of the building boom of the 1980's, sometimes the client would say, "OK." Ruh-roh.)

    Why doesn't JP simply say, "I prayed about it and the Lord led me to see that, as an artist, I can name my price for each work of art and use that money for charitable purposes. So I'll bake that Satanic cake. The price is $1,000,000 in advance by cashier's check." But I guess he has to wait for the verdict on the 303 case to be resolved first? Like the punchline to the old joke, "We've established what you are. Now we are haggling over price."

    Collapse
  2. Jfiorillo

    I am a big fan of of the pod. I do have a question though for Sarah regarding the process and procedure when Mark Houck was arrested. On the podcast, Sarah justified the use of the raid by the FBI agents in the morning, because of uncertainty and danger surrounding an arrest. It was reported that prior to his arrest, his lawyer had offered to bring him in. That was not mentioned. Assuming that it was true that the defense lawyer had offered to surrender him into custody, I wonder why such an offer would be refused. Assuming that the report regarding the offer is true, would that change your opinion regarding the necessity of a raid on the family home? What is the DOJ procedure with respect to someone who offers to turn themselves in as opposed to waiting for the FBI to show up with the swat team?

    Given that the Philadelphia district attorney refused to prosecute, and that the private criminal complaint was dismissed, the show of force with the FBI raid and prosecution appear to be politically motivated. Again, if he was going to surrender himself into custody through his lawyer, there would be no need for the optics of the FBI raid.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Tomadonna

    I feel the 'sincerely held religious belief' discussion missed an important caveat, EVEN 1st amendment protections end when when the inalienable rights (life, liberty, property) of others are violated. USCourts.gov defines "The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest".

    Isn't that the whole rub of the reasonable persons debate on abortion, that somewhere during gestation right around viability the fetus gets SOME rights. That late term abortion of 'healthy fetuses that do not threaten the life of the mother as a result of gestation or childbirth and not products of Rape or Incest' are not in cohesion with 'public morals' AND there is a compelling governmental interest in protecting the limited rights of Fetus's. (this probably swings both ways, such that prohibiting abortion up to viability is also not in line with public morals, and there is no compelling governmental interest in this prohibition)

    If a Muslim that follows the 'personal religious law' of Sharia(defined by americanprogress.org 'understanding sharia law') , filed a lawsuit against 18 U.S. Code 1111 - Murder stating the statute violates their 'sincerely held religious belief' because they cannot execute an LBGTQ+ person or say someone who renounces Islam and that this exercise is protected by the Free Exercise of Religion under the first amendment, we would recognize that this violates our founding principles and thus is incorrect.

    It is perfectly okay for any religion to believe (sincerely or otherwise) whatever they want to believe in regards to the ability to terminate pregnancy. That is the religions, in this case Judaism's, responsibility to define that.

    However, it is society's job to define when a fetus gets SOME rights. It doesn't matter if your religion believes 'Dilation and Evacuation' is moral any more than if you believe the 'execution of apostasies' is moral, you violated the right of life of the 'healthy fetuses that do not threaten the life of the mother as a result of gestation or childbirth and not products of Rape or Incest'.

    and that is from a prior enlisted sailor and aspiring Engineer, I expect you lawyers to do better.

    Collapse
  4. Andrew L

    Sarah, paraphrasing: It doesn't hurt you to have 20 agents vs 3 agents knock down your door.

    This just seems wrong to me. Every agent there is some small but nontrivial percent chance that someone gets spooked or has an itchy trigger finger. Every agent increases the odds that each other agent hears an unexpected noise. I'm sympathetic to not wanting the federal agents to not come home, but it's not costless to increase federal force to arbitrarily large levels.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Gibby

    Eastern Michigan University is in Ypsilanti which is right next door to Ann Arbor.....perfect place to be glared at by a court reporter!

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Janet W

    Love this podcast! I learn so much. By the way, Atlanta DA Fani Willis’ name is pronounced “Fahni”. David keeps saying Fanny.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Steve Gordon

    Since Sarah seems focused on some interesting law in WA after her fantastic visit, here's another log for the fire. The WA state senate has introduced a bill to protect minors seeking "protected health care" which is primarily abortion and gender affirming care. No age restrictions, no parental consent, and all paid for either by the parents if they have coverage, or by the taxpayer if they don't. Oh, and it specifically allows for residents of other states to get this same treatment and requires law enforcement to not cooperate with law enforcement of other states. The state vs. state culture war stuff is heating up and getting really ugly. Here's the relevant bill.
    https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5599&Year=2023&Initiative=False

    Collapse
  8. Davidcopeland57

    GREAT discussion of Justice Kavanaugh’s remarks at ND Symposium. May have broader implications for antitrust. See my weekend post on LinkedIn:

    The FTC’s recent NOPR proposes a broad condemnation of non-compete agreements. Many antitrust practitioners have objected to this approach as inconsistent with antitrust precedent and policy. Which in turn raises a broader question: Should the aggressive approach on “labor-side antitrust” taken by the FTC and DOJ under the Biden Administration be viewed as a progressive approach which will inevitably be rejected by a conservative SCOTUS?

    Perhaps not. Consider this quote from Justice Kavanuagh’s concurring opinion in Alston v. NCAA, 141 S.Ct. 2141 (2021): “Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work. Businesses like the NCAA cannot avoid the consequences of price-fixing labor by incorporating price-fixed labor into the definition of the product. Or to put it in more doctrinal terms, a monopsony cannot launder its price-fixing of labor by calling it product definition.” (Id. At 2167-68; citation omitted).

    Also worth noting is Justice Kavanaugh’s recent public comment about his concurrence (from his 1/23/22 speech at a Notre Dam Law Review Symposium): “And I just thought, you know, when a group of organizations is coming together and making a lot of money and agreeing to suppress the money that goes to the people, who are the actual athletes generating all the money, many of whom are from low income families, many of whom are African American, that there's something really quite wrong with that picture, both legally and otherwise.” (Transcript available through links on “The Dispatch” website).

    David Copeland

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Taylor

    I hope the Rahimi case out of the Fifth Circuit is addressed in the proposed Bruen retrospective episode. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-11001-CR1.pdf

    Collapse
  10. Jim S

    Hmmmm…History and Tradition may not be a panacea to solve America’s ills? The Witch Hunters may not have been as infallible as they have been portrayed? Chesterson’s fence!

    I am all ears. :).

    Collapse
Load More