Armchair Justice

Some times there are disconnects between what the Supreme Court says, and what they media says the Supreme Court says. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

The 4th Amendment protects you against the government searching your home. There are a few exceptions. Today we discuss one of them. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

When you sue someone, one of the first things you want to do is figure out how much you are owed. But to do that, you must decide which type of damages are owed. Nominal damages are, like they sound, "damage-in-name-only"; usually confined to a dollar. The question that the court faced was whether or not those damages are real enough to count in a lawsuit. Against John and James's better judgement, the court decided that those damages are real enough; nominal damages count for the court. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

Your home is the most sacred and protected location. Unless there is an emergency, the police can't enter your house without a warrant. The question is, if the police are pursuing you can you dodge them by entering your residence? --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

When can you sue another nation? Almost never. But one exception is for War Crimes. In our first episode about international law we discuss how heirs of Jewish art collectors failed to convince the Supreme Court to hear their case. As a bonus, we also discuss President Biden's order regarding the gun control. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

It's been for years since the city of Baltimore sued BP for causing climate change. Finally, the case has made its way to the Supreme Court. But even when the Supreme Court decides, they are only answering the question, which jurisdiction is this case to heard in. We haven't even gotten to the merits of the case. Listen to our podcast to find out why this is the case. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

Free speech zones are unconstitutional. For Georgia-Gwinnett student Chike Uzuegbunam, that much is clear. In fact, when he challenged Georgia-Gwinnett's free speech zone policy, Georgia-Gwinnett agreed with him and changed their policy. So why is Uzuegbunam still suing? Because, he doesn't just want Georgia-Gwinnett to agree with him, he wants to the Supreme Court to agree. In this case we tackle standing, harms, and the value of a good lawyer at the beginning of any lawsuit. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

With all the rioting in in Washington, D.C., we wanted to take this episode to explain the pillar of our legal theory: We are a nation of laws, not men. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

In this episode we spend time discussing the first half of the 2020 term. We bring up a decision from a case we reviewed and dig in deeper to more Constitutional theory. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

Last term the Supreme Court determined that a non-unanimous jury conviction was unconstitutional. This term they decide whether it is merely a rule change, and thus not retroactive, or if that decision was a fundamental right, thereby releasing everyone who has ever been convicted by an non-unanimous jury. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

In this episode we analyze why the Supreme Court ruled against New York and discarded a mandate that tried religious institutions as secondary entities when enforcing COVID-19 restrictions. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

In this episode we take a break from our normal format and just discuss several topics that we have been interested in. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

In this episode we explore the recent case California v Texas. This is the long await case, by conservatives, that challenges the entire ACA and asks if it is in fact completely unconstitutional. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

In this episode we go into the case Fulton v City of Philadelphia. The city of Philadelphia created a new non-discrimination policy that targeted Catholic Social Services, which is a fostering agency in the city. The policy stated that all agencies must have a non-discrimination policy against same-sex couples. Catholic Social Services asked for an exception because of its sincerely held religious belief that parenting is to only be done by couples when they are living within the bounds of a heterosexual marriage. The city demurred and instead froze all new referrals to Catholic Social Services. The question is, was Catholic Social services acting within the scope of the First amendment's guarantees against religious discrimination? --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

Please, do not arm the bears. In this week's episode we examine a past landmark case, District of Columbia verse Heller. This is the case that ensured you have the right to defend yourself with your own handgun. Together with Macdonald v Chicago, this case is a major victory for second amendment enthusiasts. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

In this episode we visit Torres v Madrid and the meaning of being seized. The central question is, can you be seized if the government agent has only intended to seize you. In this case government agents, while trying to execute a search warrant, approached Ms Torres. Before they could make contact with her, she fled in her vehicle. One officer, fearing for his life, shot at Ms Torres, hitting her twice. If Ms Torres wins her appeal, evidence that could be used to convict her of an unrelated crime could be barred for being used in her trial. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

In this episode we enter the on going confirmation process of Judge Amy Conney Barrett. Many of the questions revolved around her judicial philosophy. This episode is primer on the Originalism and judicial philosophy. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support

In this episode we give a brief explanation of the federal courts, discuss standing in Carny v Adams, and finish with Fair Use doctrine in Google v Oracle --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/armchair-justice/support