Divided Argument Podcast Por Will Baude Dan Epps arte de portada

Divided Argument

Divided Argument

De: Will Baude Dan Epps
Escúchala gratis

An unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast. Hosted by Will Baude and Dan Epps. In partnership with SCOTUSblog.Will Baude & Dan Epps Ciencia Política Política y Gobierno
Episodios
  • Jezebel Shouting

    Jezebel Shouting
    Apr 2 2026

    We're live at WashU Law's Admitted Students Day! After catching up on some shadow docket activity, we dig into Olivier v. City of Brandon, the Court's unanimous March 2026 decision by Justice Kagan. A Mississippi street preacher pleads no-contest to violating an amphitheater protest-zone ordinance, pays his $304 fine, then sues under §1983 to stop future enforcement — and the Fifth Circuit says the puzzling Heck v. Humphrey rule bars the whole thing. We work through why Heck is stranger than it first appears, what the Court got right in resolving the circuit split, and what the decision reveals about the ongoing mess at the intersection of §1983 and habeas.
    Más Menos
    38 m
  • A Subversive Mission

    A Subversive Mission
    Mar 11 2026

    We announce an exciting new partnership with SCOTUSblog and introduce the show to new listeners. We then return to the mysterious origins of the Chief Justice's "no, no, a thousand times no," debate the Court's new policy designed to maintain secrecy, and then take a close look at Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, a sovereign immunity decision in which the Court may, or may not, have paid attention to Will's amicus brief.
    Más Menos
    51 m
  • Cruel and Unusual and Stupid

    Cruel and Unusual and Stupid
    Mar 6 2026

    It's our live show at the University of Chicago! Hosted by the University of Chicago Federalist Society, we discuss this week's big shadow-docket rulings about gender transitions in California Schools (Mirabelli v. Bonta) and redistricting in New York (Malliotakis v. Williams), and also break down the recent merits decision about the right to counsel when a defendant is testifying (Villareal v. Texas).
    Más Menos
    48 m
Todas las estrellas
Más relevante
If you don't know what "per curium" or "stare decisis" mean without looking them up, then know this podcast is going to use technical terms without defining them. It's likely designed for law students, and those who have a solid foundation in prominent and current cases before the Court; as there is often reference to such cases without further explanation.

For the crossover part of anyone reading this who plays video games, this podcast comes across like the "Soulsbourne" experience. The term refers to a series or video games that have such a steep initial learning curve (particularly in combat) that the full potential of your experience with the game can be ruined as you give up in frustration before you "get good." if you hang in there, you might learn something...even if you needed Google to figure it out.

I listened to "Double Negatives" and was delighted by the implied game of "Clue" that seems to be scattered among the episodes, as some opinions are not signed by their authors. ("It was Kavanaugh on the basketball court consulting the ghost of Scalia!") The episode itself refers to current President Trump's assurance to the American public that, for a set time, at least, the currently held ban on TikTok is "unenforceable." That is true only if you use leaps of logic that you almost have to be enrolled in Stanford Law School to understand. Curiously, the titular case is about 2 minutes of the hour plus podcast.

But the handling of this and other Trumpy matters is where this podcast *really* shines. We don't get the cases unfolding with a heavy helping of the smugness or feigned irony I hear in most other SCOTUS podcasts that lean left. And in place of that liberal bias that I really feel upsets a full appreciation of what is going on, there is something much more usefull: the acknowledgement that Trump is a politician, not a constitutional scholar, and that his brand of politics is coming at the court like a wrecking ball. And I don't mean this in the sense that Trump doesn't get the Court's role in our system of checks and balances...rather, that his first week in office has set his agenda on a collision course with the Highest Court in the Land. It's refreshing to hear "we are going to hear more about this..." instead of...hey, chose your favorite pejorative for our duly elected President and throw in some contempt for good measure. The hosts of this podcast certainly have their own political points of view, but do a fantastic job of maintaining focus on more relevant matters.

Tldr; steep learning curve, worth it if you put in some extra work, as unbiased as any SCOTUS podcast I've found so far.

Not for newbies, but the most a-political podcast on Scotus I've found so far

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.
I have been listening since the podcasts started now over a year ago. Most episodes focus on one or more recent Supreme Court decisions. The hosts (both former Supreme Court clerks and now law professors) do a good job explaining the legal background and the reasoning of the majority, concurrences and dissents in the cases. Especially host Will Baude is always on top of things and just a delight to listen to. Less positively received is the performance of the second host who is often unnecessarily mean to Mr. Baude. Mr. Epps makes fun of Mr. Baudes arguments (e.g. on the positive law of the 4th amendment) and belittles his ideas. This creates a very tense atmosphere and is definitely not conductive to the learning and listening experience.

Informative but one of the hosts is mean

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.