September 17, 2018

Listen to the Episode

From The Official Website:

Today’s episode takes two deep dives: first, into California SB10, which eliminates the “cash bail” system of pretrial detention in California, and second, into the Supreme Court’s 1997 decision in Washington v. Glucksberg. What does it all mean? You’ll have to listen to know for sure!

We begin, however, with an update on Wells Fargo’s $1 billion remediation plan first discussed in Episode 169.

After that, we tackle California SB10, which is now law — even though it won’t go into effect until October of 2019. Is this a good or a bad thing? Would it change your mind to learn that the ACLU flip-flopped on this bill? Listen and find out!

From there, we move into an in-depth analysis of Glucksburg and what it means for the future of the Supreme Court.

Then, we give you a little retroactive speculation regarding the possiblity that Paul Manafort might plead guilty. Yes, it’s a living record of the fact that we record on Thursdays — but we think you’ll like the analysis anyway.

Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #93 regarding double jeopardy. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Show Notes & Links

  1. We first discussed Wells Fargo’s fine and remediation requirements in Episode 169; you can check the OCC’s News Releases for yourself to see when the rejection becomes public (if ever). For now, we had to make due with this Reuters article.
  2. You can read California SB10, as well as check out the opposition from both Human Rights Watch and the ACLU.
  3. Here is the full decision in Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).
  4. During the Glucksburg segment, we discussed Sen. Coons’s question to Kavanaugh about it, and, of course, Ted Cruz’s “Washington Generals” questions during the confirmation hearings. Also, we referenced earlier written answers from Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings discussing Glucksburg.
  5. Glucksburg was explicitly distinguished in the Obergefell decision.

Law Talkin' Stuff

It's in the Constitution
Law Court Thingies






  • [00:00:00] Commercial
  • [00:00:07] Intro
  • [00:01:35] The Sharks have acquired Erik Karlsson
  • [00:04:20] Wells Fargo's remediation plan rejected by the OCC
  • [00:08:15] California SB10
    • [00:09:46] The problem
    • [00:25:10] SB10 1320.10
  • [00:29:30] Commercial
    • [00:30:53] ACLU flips
  • [00:39:50] Kavanaugh and the Ninth Amendment
    • [00:44:55] Kavanaugh misrepresenting Justice Kagan's statement
    • [00:50:45] What happened in Glucksberg
    • [00:53:20] Why is this a dog whistle?
  • [01:02:15] Yodel Mountain: Manafort Trial
  • [01:10:40] New Patron Tuesday
  • [01:13:00] Thomas Takes the Bar Exam: Double jeopardy involving a grand jury (answer)
  • [01:19:46] Outro
  • [01:21:31] Out-Takes

(The time stamps above are derived from the audio provided on the official website; they may vary from audio without ads that are provided through the patreon feed.)