Today's episode is inspired by the 56th anniversary of\xa0Gideon v. Wainwright, one of the most famous and celebrated landmark Supreme Court cases that guarantees indigent defendants the right to a court-appointed lawyer.\xa0 Is it under attack from our right-wing Supreme Court?\xa0 (You bet it is.)
We begin with a quick update on the recent district court opinion in California v. Ross\xa0and what that means for the 2020 Census.
Then, it's time for an Andrew Was Right segment a update on the New York appellate court's ruling in the Summer Zervos lawsuit.\xa0 As it turns out, Donald Trump does have to respond to Summer Zervos's lawsuit -- just like Bill Clinton had to respond to Paula Jones's.
Then it's time for a terrifying deep dive into Clarence Thomas's dissent in the Supreme Court's recent decision in\xa0Garza v. Idaho.\xa0 What's the case about, and why is Thomas using it as a vehicle to try and overturn one of the most basic and fundamental rights criminal defendants enjoy today?\xa0 Listen and (sadly) find out.
After all that, it's time for a fun listener question about footballer Wayne Rooney and public obscenity laws.
Then, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #118.\xa0 Did Thomas get a dreaded\xa0real property question correct??\xa0 Listen and find out!\xa0 And, as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page\xa0so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
Appearances
None!\xa0 If you'd like to have\xa0either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at\xa0openarguments@gmail.com.
Show Notes & Links
Support us on Patreon at: \xa0patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: \xa0@Openargs
Facebook: \xa0https://www.facebook.com/openargs/
Don't forget the OA Facebook Community!
For show-related questions, check out the\xa0Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!\xa0 @oawiki
And email us at openarguments@gmail.com
\xa0