Source: https://openargs.com/tag/gerrymandering/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 19:53:18+00:00

Document:
Today’s episode returns to one of the most critical political issues of our time: gerrymandering of congressional districts, and in particular, the state of MD-6, which pits the Democrats as villains and Republican voters as the plaintiffs alleging disenfranchisement. Will that role reversal be enough to win approval from SCOTUS? Listen and find out!
We begin, however, with an update on the June Medical Services v. Gee lawsuit we first discussed in Episode 249.
After that, it’s time for the deep dive into gerrymandering, which takes a look at the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland’s 3-judge panel decision invalidating Maryland’s 6th district; the motion to stay before the Supreme Court filed by the Plaintiffs; the opposition by the State of Maryland; and an amicus brief filed on behalf of the incumbent, Democrat David Trone.
We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #113 that’s coincidentally about the constitutionality of abortion restrictions. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
1. Episode OA: 249 “Overturning Roe v. Wade Starts Today” for reference to our past discussion on the abortion cases.
3. If you’re curious, this is what MD-6 looks like today, and this is what it looked like before the 2011 redistricting.
Today’s Rapid Response Friday revisits some cases we’ve previously discussed with recent positive developments: the Summer Zervos lawsuit and the future of political gerrymandering in Pennsylvania.
We begin with the Zervos lawsuit we first covered in Episode 176, in which a state trial court judge has ordered Donald Trump to respond to discovery served by Zervos’s attorney. What’s next for the President and why does it have Yodel Mountain implications? You’ll have to listen and find out!
After that, we revisit our discussion from Episodes 146 and 148 regarding the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion redrawing congressional maps in that state. The U.S. Supreme Court — and yes, that’s the Brett Kavanaugh-and-Neil-Gorsuch-laden Supreme Court! — just declined to intervene to protect the Republicans. Why is that, and how is that a map forward? We tell all!
Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #100 that is the dreaded real property question Thomas needs to get right in order to hit “60% at the half.” Can he do it?!?? You’ll have to listen and find out! And, of course, if you’d like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!
Click here to read the cert petition in Turzai v. Brandt and here to read the opposition.
This is the James Savage response on Gary Hart.
Today’s episode takes an in-depth look at gun control. First, we answer two listener questions about originalism and the Second Amendment, including a provocative one about whether DC v. Heller deserves stare decisis respect under Andrew’s model of jurisprudence. The answer may surprise you!
In the main segment, we examine HR 5087, the most recent gun control bill to be introduced in Congress. What’s in it? What kinds of laws are Democrats looking to pass in light of the Parkland massacre?
After that, we check in on the state of Pennsylvania’s efforts to combat gerrymandering. Could there actually be good news in this episode? Listen and find out.
Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #69 about the firefighter’s rule. Don’t forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
This episode builds on our two-part masterclass in the Second Amendment: Episode 21 (Part 1) and Episode 2 (Part 2).
The two primary cases discussed are DC v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.
This is the text of HR 5087, the proposed gun control legislation, which amends 18 U.S.C. § 921 and 922.
We discussed the Parkland massacre in Episode 148. You can read Chief Justice Thomas Saylor’s statement here.
In this emotional episode, Thomas and Andrew begin by discussing the recent school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, Florida.
After that, the guys break down the recent settlement between Waymo (the Google-backed automotive company) and Uber regarding allegations of stolen trade secrets in the nascent self-driving car industry.
Then, Andrew updates us on the state of gerrymandering litigation in Pennsylvania and before the Supreme Court.
Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #63 about hearsay. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!
Andrew was just a guest on Episode 6 of the Wayward Willis Podcast — give it a listen!
We discussed a modest proposal for gun control in Episode 110., and the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill in Episode 95.
Andrew quoted from this CNN article when referencing teacher Melissa Falkowski; from this Washington Post article about Colt’s decision to suspend sales of the AR-15 in 1989, and from this blog post on “The Firearm Blog” by the AR-15’s designer, Jim Sullivan.
California’s Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 can be found at California Penal Code § 30150 et seq.
This is the Waymo v. Uber lawsuit, and here is the link where you can view the Powerpoint used during the REAL OPENING STATEMENTS by Waymo’s attorneys.
Finally, we last discussed gerrymandering in Pennsylvania and elsewhere way back in Episode 146. If you’re curious, this is what MD-6 looks like today, and this is what it looked like before the 2011 redistricting.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 921
 § 30150
 v.