In this episode, we take you through Jeremy Bentham's view on the role of policing and what policing used to look like - in that mythical, pre-Benthamic society. Oh, and we'll also talk about his mummified head. It relates. We promise.

The delay was BAD in this one. We apologize for repeatedly interrupting each other.

VCA Lawsuit in Orange County: https://www.lexrex.org/post/voter-choice-act-lawsuit

Intellectuals by Paul Johnson: https://a.co/d/bXOHeQY

First off, as you can probably tell by the episode length, this is not a normal edition of the show. As Alexander was extremely busy with his day job "being a lawyer" and "defending Americans' constitutional rights," this episode only features David (for which he apologizes profusely). That being the case, we kept this one quick.

Thanksgiving was a bit more than a week ago, so we thought we might talk a little about the Pilgrims - specifically, whether it's accurate to say they were looking for "religious freedom." (Answer: depends on what you mean by that.)

We'll also delve into what the First Amendment means when it says "an establishment of religion," and why that's important for understanding the separation of church and state.

In this episode, we continue our Fall of Rome series with special guest Alex Bostic, the Lex Rex Institute’s resident Roman history buff. This time around, we’ll discuss Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus and the way their careers exposed flaws in the Roman constitutional system. After that, David and Alexander talk about a case that may or may not end up being heard by the Supreme Court (we think it shouldn’t be, but that’s just us), Daye v. Garland. We explore the meaning of “crimes of moral turpitude” and talk through the concept of unconstitutional vagueness.

Finally, we wrap things up with Captain Kangaroo Court, taking a special look at court cases with an inanimate object as the defendant. (Spoilers: inanimate objects usually don’t offer brilliant defenses.)

• Fall of Rome – the Gracchi Brothers (0:40)

• Daye v. Garland (33:00)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (47:25)

In this episode, we discuss a preliminary injunction against the Biden administration's plan to forgive certain amounts of student loan debt and why the judge (correctly, we think) ruled that the plan usurped congressional authority.

After that, we turn to a New York gun law drafted after the decision in New York State Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen and talk about the constitutionality of gun licensing.

Then it's time for a pair of cases dealing with "race conscious" admissions practices at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. We'll consider the meaning of the 14th Amendment, the distinction between "bonus points" and "plus factors," and the admission to Harvard of one John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Finally, it's Captain Kangaroo Court, featuring a couple of lawyers disbarred for some... colorful reasons.

• Stay on student debt program (0:00:55)

• New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act (0:07:35)

• Race in college admissions (0:19:00)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (0:54:50)

JFK's Harvard application essay

In this episode, we discuss the newly-revealed documents that show that the Department of Homeland Security collaborated with social media companies to suppress misinformation, disinformation, and “malinformation” – we’ll discuss why that’s concerning, and what exactly “malinformation” even means.

After that, we examine Bittner v. United States, in which how you think about interpreting legal language makes the difference between $50,000 and $2.7 million (at least, for one man in particular). Then we’ll talk about the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a case brought by a group of American Samoans seeking automatic citizenship rights for people born in the territory – and why their own government thinks otherwise.

Finally, we return once again to Captain Kangaroo Court, where you can hear about a court reporter sentenced to the opposite of work-release, and a Maine attorney with a… creative… solution for dealing with required professional development.

• DHS social media program (4:00)

• Bittner v. United States (15:20)

• American Samoa citizenship issue (34:45)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (50:15)

In this episode… well, we tell you right off the bat: this one probably isn’t our best, but at least it's short! Alexander’s actual legal work got in the way of prepping for the podcast, so we had to make this a quick one. We return to “Allegator Alley,” our etymology segment, to talk about the difference between “barristers” and “solicitors.” Next, we discuss why some federal judges are refusing to hire clerks from Yale, and finally bring you back to Captain Kangaroo Court where, among other things, we consider one Kentucky judge’s habit of roaming the courthouse in his unmentionables.

• Allegator Alley (etymology time!) (2:45)

• Judges won’t hire Yale clerks (11:50)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (19:00)

In this episode, we bring you another installment of our Supreme Court Hall of Shame series, this time dealing with 1990’s Employment Division v. Smith – in which the Court’s desire to prevent people from using drugs creates some very real problems for the First Amendment.

After that, we bring you the very first part of our (probably) short series on the Roman Republic, “The Fall of Rome” (get it?... because it’s Fall!). We start things off with a look at the way the Romans handled voting, which just goes to show you that wrangling over voting districts and procedure is a very old problem, indeed.

Finally, because we went a bit over time, we take the quickest of trips to Captain Kangaroo Court, where we’ll learn about this one weird trick for handling a bar investigation. (Spoiler: it doesn’t work all that well.)

• Supreme Court Hall of Shame – Employment Division v. Smith (1:00)

• Fall of Rome – Roman Voting (27:15)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (1:01:45)

In this episode, we bring you a brief update on some of Lex Rex’s real-world legal work and discuss one of the cases before the Supreme Court in the new October term, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross. We’ll talk you through what’s meant by the “dormant commerce clause” and consider the implications of allowing one state to dictate policies to the rest.

After that, we have an extra-special, extra-long edition of Captain Kangaroo Court for you! Alexander relates his experiences defending a client before an actual kangaroo court before we consider the age-old question: what legal rights do trees have? (There’s a stealth edition of the Supreme Court Hall of Shame in there, as well, although in this case we’re looking at a dissenting opinion.)

• National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (3:50)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (26:45)

• Not-so-secret Supreme Court Hall of Shame: dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton (40:30)

In this episode, we bow to the wishes of you, the listener, and introduce a new segment on etymology, in this first edition covering the word “contract,” as well as a surprise word chosen by Alexander. (We will be hosting another poll to see if the audience has come to regret this decision already.)

After that, we take a tip from one of our listeners and weigh in on Rachel Maddow’s reporting on Moore v. Harper, which we previously covered. We’ll discuss why we think she got a few key details very wrong and explain why normalcy bias can make some people miss basic aspects of the Constitution.

Next up, we examine one man’s lawsuit seeking to block the Biden administration’s proposed plan to cancel substantial amounts of student loan debt. We’ll discuss some legal issues with the plan before looking at the Department of Education’s strategy in responding to the suit and, finally, asking whether there might not be a better solution to the student debt crisis.

Then we return once again to wrap things up in Captain Kangaroo Court, where we’ll introduce you to the legendary Florida Man.

• Etymology time (0:02:30)

• Rachel Maddow on Moore v. Harper (0:10:30)

• Biden’s student debt plan (0:29:00)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (0:48:45)

Ask an Attorney – “Can Biden forgive student loan debt?” (https://youtu.be/qH7-GUtncAw)

Our prior episode on Moore v. Harper (https://rss.com/podcasts/lexrexpod/623596/)

In this episode, we review the 5th Circuit's decision on the Texas House Bill 20, which imposes restrictions on social media companies, and discuss why plans to set term lengths (and not "term limits" - we are nothing if not pedantic) for Supreme Court justices is a very counterproductive idea.

After that, we return yet again to Captain Kangaroo Court to discuss the purchasing habits of attorneys who embezzle funds. It may surprise you to learn that they do not always make the most sensible of financial decisions.

All this, plus how to instantly prove your superior knowledge to anyone who says people in the olden days didn't live as long!

• Texas social media law (4:05)

• Plans to impose terms on the Supreme Court (27:50)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (38:10)

Note: the chart we referenced with the lengths of Supreme Court tenures couldn't be uploaded as art for this episode, but please check out our website or our Facebook page for the image.

Link to the episode where we discuss the Florida social media law: https://rss.com/podcasts/lexrexpod/505303/

In this episode, we return to the Supreme Court Hall of Shame to discuss Gonzales v. Raich, in which the court decided that an activity that: 1) takes place entirely in a single state, 2) involves no commerce, and 3) can’t even legally be done across state lines nevertheless counts as “interstate commerce.” We’ll also discuss the proposed “Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act” and explain why, although probably very well-intentioned, it makes a real mess of American law.

We’ll then wrap things up with Captain Kangaroo Court, covering the time the city of Riga put a statue on trial for witchcraft and a pair of Ivy League law professors whose position on law seems to be “do whatever you feel.” All this, plus a brief story about an implausibly French man David saw on the streets of Edinburgh!

• LRI’s legal challenge against vaccination restrictions at polling centers (0:03:45)

• Supreme Court Hall of Shame: Gonzales v. Raich (0:06:55)

• The “Justice for Victims of War Crimes” bill (0:32:05)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (0:46:00)

Our episode on Wickard v. Filburn can be found here: https://rss.com/podcasts/lexrexpod/570868/

In this episode, David makes his triumphant(?) return to hosting duties as we discuss the state of succession law in the United Kingdom and ponder the possibility of a new round of religiously-motivated civil war in Britain. After that, we discuss the so-called “independent state legislature theory” in relation to the upcoming Supreme Court case Moore v. Harper and why Alexander thinks it should be called “independent state legislature fact.”

After that, we make a trip once again to the whimsical world of Captain Kangaroo Court to hear about an attorney hauled before an ethics board for saying the word “gadzooks.” Alexander also has a really funny story that he can’t tell you because of professional ethics, so you’ll just have to take our word for it… it’s pretty funny, though.

• Introduction, and why the funeral of Queen Elizabeth has caused David personal inconvenience (0:00)

• British succession law and its recent alteration (7:00)

• Moore v. Harper (23:30)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (45:50)

In this episode, usual co-host, Lex Rex President, and constitutional attorney Alexander Haberbush is joined by special surprise host and Lex Rex VP of Marketing, Eric Hampton. (We’ll let the audience decide if he makes a better host than David.) They take a moment to mark the passing of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom before diving into a pair of petitions before the Supreme Court that could result in some interesting implications for criminal procedure, before returning once again to Captain Kangaroo Court for more oddities and nonsense from the world of law.

Along the way, they’ll explain why the only evidence that’s supposed to count is the evidence on the record, why Alexander might suggest that a defendant wear a bag over his head at trial, and why it’s actually not constitutional for the president to take money from the Fed to set up a parallel government.

• Introduction and observations on the death of the Queen (0:00:00)

• Shaw v. United States (0:05:00)

• Ruiz v. Massachusetts (0:25:00)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (0:41:30)

In this episode, we give an update on our case on behalf of the parents of the Los Alamitos Unified School District, break down the new California law that would strip doctors of their medical licenses for being (supposedly) wrong about COVID, discuss how President Biden’s speech gets some key elements of the American political system wrong, and wrap up our “Summer of the Revolutions” series by giving our final thoughts on the American independence movement and the French Revolution and asking the key question: exactly how alike are the two? (Spoiler: not very much at all.)

All that, plus Alexander’s sister, Vanessa, joins us for Captain Kangaroo Court to share one of her strangest experiences as an attorney and help us figure out whether debtors’ prisons are still around. (They’re not supposed to be, but…)

Los Alamitos case (0:02:40)

California COVID misinformation bill (0:05:45)

Biden’s speech and “democracy” (0:13:50)

Final thoughts on America and France (0:34:50)

Captain Kangaroo Court (0:47:40)

In this episode, we wrap up the story of the French Revolution by examining the Constitution of the Year III (which is 1795 for those of you who do not follow the Revolutionary Calendar), the collapse of the French Directory, and the rise of a certain short fellow with a world class ego from the Isle of Corsica. We discuss how the French tried to fix the problems that led to the Reign of Terror, why new problems led to the masses clamoring for one-man rule, and how Napoleon packed France to the gills with stolen art.

Then, in Captain Kangaroo Court, we consider whether certain (pretty racist) memes qualify as “public comment on immigration” and learn how 12th century Icelandic warriors dealt with undead squatters (answer: initiate court proceedings to evict them).

• The Constitution of the Year III (2:25)

• Napoleon’s coup (35:00)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (52:00)

Follow these links for our YouTube videos on precedent and stare decisis.

In this episode, we discuss the latest news in one of the Lex Rex Institute’s biggest cases, as we represent a group of parents from the Los Alamitos Unified School District in a dispute against the district. You can find out more information about the case and contribute to the legal fund at https://www.GiveSendGo.com/LosAl.

After that, we continue our “Summer of the Revolutions” series by examining the specific ways that the U.S. Constitution was designed to correct flaws with the Articles of Confederation. Along the way, we take a detour to discuss Edmund Burke’s analysis of the French Revolution and explain why it remains relevant for political philosophy today.

Finally, we return to Captain Kangaroo Court to bring you the tale of the Roving Judge Gang of Indiana – hear what happens to a group of intoxicated judges who pick a fight in the parking lot of an Indianapolis White Castle – and Alexander tells the story of perhaps the worst judge he’s ever met. (She thinks the word “upon” is too fancy to use in a legal brief.)

• The Los Alamitos case (1:45)

• The Constitution and the Articles of Confederation (10:33)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (41:50)

For those who expressed interest in the book on the French Revolution that David has been alluding to: https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-French-Revolution-ebook/dp/B07F37RP98/ref=sr_1_4?crid=2SHOJYCFTJFXO&keywords=history+of+the+french+revolution&qid=1661211691&sprefix=history+of+the+french+revolution%2Caps%2C93&sr=8-4

In this episode, we plunge once again into the murky depths of American jurisprudence to induct Korematsu v. United States, the case that upheld Japanese internment, into the Supreme Court Hall of Shame. After that, we revisit the trial of Alex Jones (where we previously made a pitstop to discuss his attorney’s predilection for obscene hand gestures) to discuss how discovery works in legal proceedings, how the 1st Amendment affects defamation cases, why some people argue (wrongly, we think) that imposing a limit on punitive damages is unconstitutional, and why you should probably say more than “please disregard” if you accidentally send the opposing party’s attorney a bunch of files you really shouldn’t have.

All this, plus the debut of Captain Kangaroo Court, the new segment where we revel in the world of the legally bizarre: first up, what’s embarrassing John Bolton today? And why is a former court mediator wearing gloves while sending letters to congressmen?

• Korematsu v. United States (0:02:26)

• Heslin v. Jones (0:40:54)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (1:03:47)

In this episode, we bring you an investigation into lawyers and politicians behaving badly – our “Special Report on Pettiness and the Law.”

We’ll also continue our series on the founding of America and the French Revolution by doing our best to describe the proposed French constitution of 1793 (which never went into effect because everyone basically shrugged and said “we don’t feel like it”) and what happened after that (spoiler alert: it’s called “The Reign of Terror”).

Special Report on Pettiness and the Law (0:02:00)

The French Constitution of 1793 (0:12:20)

The Reign of Terror (1:05:08)

Alex Jones Attorney Flipping the Bird: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer-flips-the-bird-at-opposing-counsel-after-judge-leaves-the-bench-in-alex-jones-defamation-case

Thomas Carlyle's History of the French Revolution: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1301/1301-h/1301-h.htm

In this episode, we return to the Supreme Court Hall of Shame to discuss 𝘞𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘷. 𝘍𝘪𝘭𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘯, in which the Court determined that the definition of “interstate commerce” includes actions that are not commercial and take place entirely within one state (who knew!). We also continue our comparison of the French Revolution and the Founding of America with an examination of the first attempt at a constitution for the United States, the Articles of Confederation – its structure, its flaws, and the decision to replace it with our current Constitution.

Plus, we’ll take another look at the hottest of hot takes from the world of online legal commentary and tell you why putting your drugs in an envelope does not necessarily prevent the police from searching you, and why the amendment that abolished slavery is probably not a magic bullet for abortion rights.

Supreme Court Hall of Shame: 𝘞𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘷. 𝘍𝘪𝘭𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘯 (0:04:07)

The Articles of Confederation (0:26:35)

Hot takes (1:09:20)

James Madison on the flaws of the Articles of Confederation: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch5s16.html

In this episode, we track back to last month to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Carson v. Makin, which has major significance for parental rights in schooling, with the Court holding that public programs cannot discriminate against a school simply for being a religious school.

After that, we continue our discussion of the French Revolution and why it actually doesn’t make much sense to liken it to the American movement for independence by comparing the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen to the American Declaration of Independence.

Finally, we bring you the hottest legal takes from the internet. Topics include: why “the physics” don’t count as a witness in a trial, why overturning Roe v. Wade doesn’t automatically release all military personnel from their contracts, and why it’s not illegal for Supreme Court justices to be Catholic.

• Carson v. Makin (0:06:00)

• The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (0:28:00)

• Hot takes (1:17:50)

In this episode, we return to the Supreme Court Hall of Shame to talk about Griswold v. Connecticut and explain why bad laws aren’t automatically unconstitutional. We also discuss why American Hospital Association v. Becerra is a solid example of the Court’s restraint and review Vega v. Tekoh’s impact on Miranda rights (spoiler alert: it didn’t have any, but it might still be a disappointing decision).

All this, plus a tour of some of the most blistering hot takes from the world of online legal commentary, including why there aren’t special “protected” parts of the Constitution, why it’s not true that “anything is legal if there’s a contract for it,” and the sad case of a Twitter user who should really have paid more attention in elementary school.

• Supreme Court Hall of Shame – Griswold v. Connecticut (0:06:00)

• American Hospital Association v. Becerra (0:35:20)

• Vega v. Tekoh (0:59:15)

• Hot takes (1:16:15)

• 0:03:00 - Arizona v. Mayorkas
• 0:14:10 - National Pork Producers Council v. Ross
• 0:39:20 - varieties of jurisdiction in American law
• 1:04:00 - Captain Kangaroo Court

Part 2 of our first annual Independence Day Special features a line-by-line breakdown of the Declaration of Independence. We explain why the parts everyone remembers ("We hold these truths to be self-evident..." and such) are - while fantastic - just the introduction to the meat of the document.

We'll break down why you should really think of the Declaration as a legal complaint against the Crown of Great Britain and why your high school teachers were wrong to tell you that the French Revolution was similar to the American independence movement.

Instead of our usual hot takes segment, this week we wrap things up by remembering the sacrifices made by the men who signed their names to the Declaration, knowing they would be convicted as traitors and put to death if they failed in their bid for independence.

• Reading the Declaration of Independence closely (0:00:30)

• The Fate of the Founders (1:05:35)

It’s (almost) the 4th of July, and that means it’s time for the first annual Independence Day Special for the Lex Rex Institute Podcast! Because we (very predictably) ended up going way over time, we’ve split this episode into two parts, with the first releasing today and the second releasing tomorrow, on the 4th itself.

In this part, we will give you a handful of reasons you should be grateful that America is now independent from Britain (things like: courts not allowing the police to use evidence against you when they obtained it illegally, knowing when the next election is for the chief executive, and not having your silence held against you when you’re interrogated) and also discuss the final ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District and why the media – as well as Justice Sonia Sotomayor – seem to be confused about what the Supreme Court actually does.

Tune in tomorrow for our discussion of the Declaration of Independence and the sacrifices made by the men who signed it.

• Reasons to be thankful for independence (0:03:30)

• Kennedy v. Bremerton (0:36:00)

In this episode, we present the first edition of our Supreme Court Hall of Shame, highlighting some of the worst legal reasoning in American history – first up is National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.

We also examine two enormously important decisions that were handed down by the Court this week, with massive impacts on gun rights and abortion (and also completely changing our original plans for this episode), as well as take a deep dive into the concept of “substantive due process.”

All this, plus the economics of being an expert witness on “being of average intelligence” and why you shouldn’t bring your drugs with you to your drug trial.

• Supreme Court Hall of Shame: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (0:09:05)

• New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (0:23:30)

• Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (0:37:00)

• Substantive due process (0:58:48)

• Hot takes (1:14:00)

On this episode, we are joined by Attorney Zachary Jones to discuss his recent article for Lex Rex and why the 17th Amendment poses issues for federalism. We also discuss the decision in the recent case Denezpi v. United States and explain why the Supreme Court found that federal courts could try someone twice for the same crime without violating the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution.

All this, plus a deep dive into why keeping an elephant in the zoo isn't the same as imprisoning a person without a charge, a romantic guide to the Founding Fathers, and another batch of hot takes from the darkest corner of the internet.

Sections:

0:03:30 - Happy the Elephant's habeas corpus petition denied

0:17:30 - Attorney Zachary Jones joins us for a discussion of the 17th Amendment

0:39:00 - Who Wants to Marry a Founding Father?

0:47:35 - Denezpi v. United States and double jeopardy

1:04:40 - Hot takes

In this episode, we explain why (under one California law, at least) bumblebees are fish and why you shouldn't laugh at the court for saying so, report on the abortive attempt on the life of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and consider the main alternatives to originalism as a judicial philosophy. We'll also reminisce about Attack of the Clones, brush up on our Kantian philosophy, and recount the linguistic theory behind Orwell's 1984.

0:01:13 – Bumblebees are fish

0:07:40 – Gunman apprehended outside home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh

0:19:10 – Judicial philosophy and judicial methodology

0:22:50 – Textualism… and all the rest

0:30:30 – Consequentialism

0:34:20 – Legal realism

0:41:17 – Purposivism

0:56:35 – Cooperative partnership theory

1:00:20 – Intentionalism

1:09:20 – The “Kantian judiciary” (Alexander’s name for it) or “moralism” (David’s)

1:15:08 – Hot Takes

In this episode, we get into some serious stuff about the shooting in Uvalde as well as some more light-hearted stuff, as usual. Fair warning.

Topics include:

• Oregon's Department of Human Services was using an algorithm to trigger mandatory investigations without any human oversight (0:04:11)

• The police response to the Uvalde shooting, and whether anyone can be held liable for it (0:20:50)

• The Supreme Court reimposes a preliminary injunction against Texas's social media law (0:50:43)

• Hot takes from the internet (1:08:54)

All this, plus far too many mentions of old sci-fi media and a deep dive into the legal validity of calling "shotgun."

In this episode, we revisit the saga of the Louisiana Lawyer Dog, update you on the January 6th Congressional Committee, discuss the 11th Circuit Court's ruling on Florida's new social media law, talk about interpretive methods for law, and dig deeper into the origins of (and alternatives to) the American regulatory system.

All this, plus a fun(?) fact about the Jonestown Massacre, one man's valiant but misguided attempt to discover the secret to infinite free beer, and an explanation of why the movie Double Jeopardy comes up short in its jurisprudence.

Sorry, this is a long one - it kinda got away from us. See below for a handy timestamp reference in case you want to skip around:

• Lawyer Dog (0:00:56)

• January 6 (0:11:45)

• Florida Social Media Law (0:17:13)

• Originalism and Interpretive Methods (0:50:33)

• Regulatory state (1:07:57)

• Legal Hot Takes (1:42:07)

In this episode, Lex Rex lead writer David Truschel and president Alexander Haberbush explore the wild, wacky world of state law, talk through the importance of abiding by legal procedure (even in unusual circumstances), and explain why you don't necessarily want to put the guy who knows the most about ketchup in charge of making all your laws.

Links we mentioned in this episode:

https://www.lexrex.org/news/eastman-lands-blow

https://www.givesendgo.com/eastman

https://www.lexrex.org/media/youre-wrong-about-the-constitution

In this episode, Lex Rex lead writer David Truschel and president Alexander Haberbush explore the "super super double secret" drone program of the Brockton, MA Police Department, review the latest from the House January 6th Committee, talk First and Second Amendment rights, and tell you why Justice Sonia Sotomayor doesn't get it when it comes to judicial review.

All this, plus a discussion of Mexican food at buffet restaurants, how CSI has ruined criminal trials, and why the French Revolution preferred round numbers to sanity.

In this episode, Lex Rex Institute lead writer David Truschel and president Alexander Haberbush explore the hip-hop aspirations of Richard Milhous Nixon, recount the saga of two LAPD patrolmen fired for pursuing Pokemon instead of criminals, and review more of the hottest legal takes in the whole internet.

Along the way, they also discuss the City of Boston's big loss in court and the leaked draft that would purportedly overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

But mostly the rapping Nixon and Pokemon stuff.

In this episode, we bring you up to speed on the latest activities of the Lex Rex Institute before diving into Groff v. DeJoy, a Title VII religious discrimination case that produced some... interesting... questions from certain Supreme Court justices. We'll explain why religious obligations aren't just a nice bonus you get for being a good person and, for the umpteenth time, explain how stare decisis works and wonder why Justice Elena Kagan seems to struggle with the concept.After that, we'll take a minute to address David's biggest pet peeve in legal interpretation: acting like the Constitution is just another law. Finally, we return to Captain Kangaroo Court to discuss a bankruptcy judge who writes pulp fiction and hear from a Twitter user impersonating the mistress of King Louis XV about why you don't have rights at school.

• 0:01:45 - Lex Rex updates

• 0:12:50 - Groff v. DeJoy

• 0:45:10 - statutory law vs. constitutional law

• 1:01:35 - Captain Kangaroo Court

Links

LRI's primer on paper ballots

Amicus brief on voting in San Francisco county

In our first episode, lead writer David Truschel and Lex Rex president Alexander Haberbush celebrate May Day by highlighting explicit mentions of Communism in California and US law, review cases currently before the Supreme Court dealing with religious freedom and an Oklahoma jurisdiction dispute, explain why Clarence and Ginni Thomas continue to be in the news, and review the hottest of legal hot takes from the internet.

• Latest on LRI cases - 0:01:15 1924
• Lenin Constitution - 0:06:55 1936
• Stalin Constitution - 0:49:20
• Captain Kangaroo Court - 1:13:00

In this episode, we continue our series on the Russian Revolution and the birth of the Soviet Union, but first we review oral argument in the pair of Supreme Court cases revolving around the Biden administration's plan for student debt relief.

Finally, it's a special awards show edition of Captain Kangaroo Court! Alexander will award one nominee the coveted title of Most Plausible Lawsuit and another the even more coveted title of Most Creative Lawsuit.

• Student loan debt relief cases before the Supreme Court (0:05:10)

• The February Revolution (0:31:30)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (1:07:35)

Link to the amicus brief in the San Francisco voting rights case: https://www.lexrex.org/news/lex-rex-president-alexander-haberbush-files-amicus-brief-in-voting-rights-case

Our “Ask an Attorney” episode on the Biden debt forgiveness program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH7-GUtncAw&list=PL5BkZsnxImY163ZJLP5zOb4FFf9hRMERH&index=17

Episode 29 of the podcast, in which we discuss the debt plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrDkdJ7PNFw&list=PL5BkZsnxImY21-5sLx-P7BXgNws0fQ01R&index=27&t=2s

In this episode, we kick off our new series on the Russian Revolution and the rise of the Soviet Union. We'll start by telling you why this story is important for understanding American law, how the Tsars got things wrong, and why a group called "The People's Will" isn't necessarily a good barometer for, well, the people's will.

• Why is the Russian Revolution important? (0:03:03)

• The last years of the Tsars (0:08:30)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (1:02:30)

Welcome to the Season 2 of the Lex Rex Institute Podcast! We're now a video podcast (at least until enough of you complain about having to look at our faces that we switch back to audio-only), and we've got a new upload schedule that we'll tell you all about.

In this episode, we bring you the top six (because David wanted a top five and Alexander wanted a top... more than five) developments in the world of American law from 2022.

We'd also like to thank everyone for your generosity in our end-of-year matching fundraiser drive, with supporters of LRI contributing more than $20,000! It's thanks to your support that we can continue our efforts to defend the rights of the American public and, more importantly, equip them to defend their rights themselves.

• 0:05:30 - Crackdowns on COVID-19 "emergency measures"

• 0:11:00 - Election law in the spotlight

• 0:21:40 - Conflicts between state and federal policy

• 0:33:50 - The end of Roe v. Wade

• 0:43:45 - New limits on federal bureaucracies

• 0:58:05 - The death of the Lemon test in 1st Amendment jurisprudence(?)

• 1:05:30 - Honorable mentions

• 1:07:15 - Captain Kangaroo Court

Victoria Catano's Give Send Go fundraising page: https://www.givesendgo.com/G9QPC?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=G9QPC&fbclid=IwAR0uG9sPk1ALk3iaO4YFJGK8K8gsf5DBSr3Hkg6c3uvIMvW8tZwL1sASOd8

In this episode, we are joined again by Alex Bostic to conclude our "Fall of Rome" series while it's technically still fall. This time around, we'll talk about the civil wars between Sulla and Gaius Marius and between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great. We'll discuss how the use of extra-legal means to restore the rule of law just ends up undermining it anyway, and consider some ways that the American constitution learned from Roman history.

After that, it's back to Captain Kangaroo Court, where we'll ask hard hitting questions like "Is being a mean person a good excuse?" and "What is the value of time spent waiting for instant macaroni to thicken?"

Finally, we'll let you know our plans for what we're calling "season two" of the podcast, which will be starting up sometime around February.

We wish you all a good end to 2022, and we'll see you in the new year!

• Fall of Rome: the civil wars that ended the Republic (1:55)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (38:10)

• Season two announcement (51:00)