OA72: Body Slamming Journalists PLUS Political vs. Racial Gerrymandering

Published: May 26, 2017, 4 a.m.

In this episode, we revisit what Andrew has called the worst problem in American politics: \xa0gerrymandering -- but this time with a twist. We begin, however, with a listener question from Anna Bosnick, who is also our special guest for Law'd Awful Movies #7 - Legally Blonde! Anna watched the movie and listened to our intro and wants to know: \xa0what exactly\xa0is habeas corpus, anyway? Then, we tackle the recent news about Montana Congressional candidate Greg "Body Slam" Gianforte. \xa0Can he really take office if he's convicted of assault? In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas walk through the recent Supreme Court decision in\xa0Cooper v. Harris and discuss what it might mean for the future of gerrymandering legislation. After that, Andrew answers another listener question, this one from the exceptionally prescient Garry Myers, who wants to know whether corporations can assert 5th Amendment rights. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #25 about smoking pot and crashing cars. \xa0Remember that TTTBE issues\xa0a new question every\xa0Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. \xa0Don't forget to play along by following\xa0our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None! \xa0But check out our Law'd Awful Movies guest, Anna Bosnick, and her amazing ukulele work over at worthyfools.com. Show Notes & Links

  1. Don't forget to check out our prior Episode #54 on Gerrymandering.
  2. In the case of\xa0Herrera v.\xa0Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), Scalia opined that "of course" being actually innocent isn't grounds for habeas corpus relief, although that was walked back by the Supreme Court in\xa0McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S.Ct. 1924 (2013).
  3. You can also check out the\xa0Cooper v. Harris decision here.
  4. Finally, the case discussed in the C segment is\xa0Hale v. Henkel, 204 U.S. 43 (1906).
Support us on Patreon at: \xa0patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: \xa0@Openargs Facebook: \xa0https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download