Opening Arguments is a great legal podcast. Is Gamble v US the reason for Kavanaugh?

[Imperialism Inc.]

Last edited Fri Oct 5, 2018, 10:34 AM - Edit history (1)

I've been listening to the podcast Opening Arguments for a few months now. It covers all sorts of legal topics, usually stuff that is or has been in the news one way or another, usually related to politics. There are two hosts; one is a liberal lawyer, Andrew Torrez, and the other is a liberal commentator (non-lawyer), Thomas Smith. Smith also hosts another podcast called Serious Inquires Only that covers political and skeptical/atheist topics.

With so much going on in the legal sphere these days it helps keep you up to date and to keep from falling for dubious ideas that sometimes circulate. They post new episodes every Tuesday and Friday.

OA215: IS GAMBLE V US THE REAL REASON BEHIND KAVANAUGH?
https://openargs.com/oa215-is-gamble-v-us-the-real-reason-behind-kavanaugh/
Today’s Rapid Response Friday tackles the #1 emailed story to us this past week: is the real story behind the Kavanaugh nomination that the Trump administration needs him on the Supreme Court to rule in Gamble v. U.S. regarding the dual sovereignty doctrine as it applies to double jeopardy?
...

Then it’s time to figure out this claim about Gamble v. U.S. that fact-checking website Snopes rated as “true.” Is it, though? (Hint: no.) We’ll tell you everything you need to know about the 5th Amendment’s double jeopardy clause and what it might mean for anyone Trump pardons once Kavanaugh gets to the Court.
...

[Imperialism Inc.]

1. In case anyone is wondering why Andrew thinks the answer is no:

1) Conservatives tend to be pro putting people in jail any way they can.

2) The US Government is a party to the suit and the Trump administration has already filed a strong defense of the dual sovereignty doctrine in the case, in fact arguing that the case shouldn't be heard at all. If they wanted it over turned they could just put up a weak argument or even no argument at all.

3) The case is not being heard because of the four conservative justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the primary party that expressed interest in revisiting the principle. She was joined by Clarence Thomas. The other two justices that wanted to hear the case are not know.

Much more in the podcast...

[Imperialism Inc.]

2. One shameless bump.

There will be plenty of more legal issues over the course of the Trump admin. Plus lots of great back episodes. Add OA to your podcast app today!