Today's show is a deep dive into the current Constitutional status of affirmative action in higher education. We begin, however, with a question about Donald Trump from conservative listener Sage Scott. \xa0Is it really a big deal to just listen to the Russians? \xa0Couldn't you just pay them if their stuff turns out to be useful? \xa0No. \xa0The answer is no. In the main segment, the guys outline the current state of the law of affirmative action in higher education as set forth in\xa0Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin, 136 S.Ct. 1398 (2016) ("Fisher II"), and what that means in light of the Trump Administration's recent comments that it plans to focus DOJ resources on challenging college admission programs that (supposedly) disadvantage white people. Next, in a follow-up to the John Oliver defamation lawsuit we discussed in Episode 84,\xa0"Closed Arguments" returns with a dissection of the best legal brief ever written, an amicus curiae brief filed by Jamie Lynn Crofts of the ACLU of West Virginia in support of Oliver. \xa0Andrew tries to contain his jealousy. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #35 regarding a physician's duty regarding releasing patients who are a danger to themselves or others. \xa0And don'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 Andrew had a busy week! \xa0He was on the follow shows: