Opening Arguments

Apparently, a group of TERFs is trying to sue for the ability to use the word “Democrats” in their group’s name while soliciting donations. Potential RRF topic?

Story: https://www.legalnewsline.com/cook-county-record/lawsuit-il-dems-can-t-use-state-law-to-control-the-name-democrat/article_789c773e-da86-4a47-8aa6-cac3ee364bbf.html

Complaint: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2026/01/Verified%20Complaint%20-%20DIAG%20v.%20Alexi%20Giannoulias.pdf

Dems pushing a bill to end Qualified Immunity for ICE

https://bsky.app/profile/gregsargent.bsky.social/post/3mdo4rrjck22f

https://youtube.com/@onthedocket-scotus?si=5vE82WkJrX0oKFr2

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/03/05/2026-04390/review-of-state-bar-complaints-and-allegations-against-department-of-justice-attorneys

Our old friend Tapper sucks

https://youtu.be/wQhaDVokJhw?si=ECyOZisbzk0tI_yO

Not sure what it takes to be a Gavel Gavel trial, but Afroman’s trial (with bonus music videos!) looks interesting.

This is off the usual path, but I’d love to hear something about the use of copyright law to unmask and silence critics by these guys https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/18/the-jehovahs-witnesses-are-back-abusing-copyright-law-to-unmask-their-critics-again/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/26/ice-lawyers-justify-detaining-on-false-information

https://www.propublica.org/article/florida-court-ordered-c-sections
Sent OA a longer email with thoughts but this is terrifying

I most definitely am not a lawyer or have much education on law beyond business ethics 201 or like 213 in university. But doesnt the existence of the Roberts memos directly conflict with whatever the fuck the major question doctrine is supposed to stand for?

Please tell me that Matt will cover the absolutely insane filing from Trump today in the ballroom case on either Wednesday or Friday’s show.

I read a Substack article by Dan Kagan-Kans about how the Left is missing out on AI, and I immediately thought of the Opening Arguments Facebook fan group. I’ve long since abandoned Facebook, and I’m hugely reluctant to make a burner account just to check in. But I’ve no problem supporting the show via Patreon, so here I am.

I’m interested in a spot-check of Kagan-Kans’s assertion that the Left is, by and large, so dismissive of (and hostile to) AI that they are ceding the debate ground to the Right by default. He made the charge that the Left has three reactions to AI: hate, mock, and ignore. That certainly matches my memory of the Facebook group’s engagement with the topic through all of 2023 and into 2024. Has anything changed?

I’m not sure what ground the left is losing?

We need to push for laws to regulate their use and development, to compensate for the intellectual property theft taking place, and to reign in the industries use of natural resources.

Obviously, a lot of things need to happen in order to do those things, so let’s focus on those things, like getting our democracy back.

In the meantime we can expose the lies and fear mongering the industry is peddling, expose the harm it’s doing to our environment, the harm it’s doing to our society.

I don’t see how the left is missing out or ceding ground. Can you give an example of what he means?

Take a look yourself

https://askwhocastsai.substack.com/p/the-left-is-missing-out-on-ai-by

i’m sorry, but there’s countless really clear eyed examples of people on the left engaging with AI.

I don’t know any serious journalist or technologist on the left that doesn’t take AI’s threat seriously.

Just bringing this into the consciousness because…wow https://gallusrostromegalus.tumblr.com/post/819443563910889472

If the person who was violated can’t sue for monetary damages, then what ramifications ARE there for violating his rights?

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-prison-dreadlocks-rastafari-louisiana-f9b4d53346daee56335185542db3d4ec

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/23/prairieland-ice-protesters-texas-sentenced

For cases like the reflecting pool damage case, can defense attorneys not request that the judge force the DOJ attorneys to swear as an officer of the court that they personally believe that the case is proper and likely to succeed? I know that’s a paper requirement but would there be some way to at least get the DOJ attorneys that are executing these travesties on record that they personally believe in them?

https://youtube.com/shorts/xU96gLJok_c?is=65DXkUw3ipNevBfB

Re: the Coyote v ACME episode, I’ve heard other podcasters (e.g. Brew Markets) pronounce EBITDA “EE-bit-duh” 😁 Not that many of us have the need to use it in normal everyday life, I was just tickled listening to the struggle to find a way to say it.

Maybe it’s regional. Almost everyone I know drops the T.

Have they already done LAM of The Postman Always Rings Twice?