Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@simon-marcus

simon-marcus/5-4.xml

Last active November 30, 2020 22:27
Show Gist options
  • Save simon-marcus/0c6a7675ba98ccb8cf422b8be549772d to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save simon-marcus/0c6a7675ba98ccb8cf422b8be549772d to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Download ZIP
Raw
5-4.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:googleplay="http://www.google.com/schemas/play-podcasts/1.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
<atom:link href="https://feeds.megaphone.fm/WWO5591736705" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
<title>5-4</title>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>2020 Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</copyright>
<description>5-4 is a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks. It's a progressive and occasionally profane take on the ideological battles at the heart of the Court's most important landmark cases, and an irreverent tour of all the ways in which the law is shaped by politics. Listen each week as hosts Peter, Michael, and Rhiannon dismantle the Justices’ legal reasoning on hot-button issues like affirmative action, gun rights, and campaign finance, and use dark humor to reveal the high court's biases. Presented by Slow Burn co-creator Leon Neyfakh, 5-4 is a production of Prologue Projects in partnership with Westwood One Podcast Network. </description>

<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:summary>5-4 is a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks. It's a progressive and occasionally profane take on the ideological battles at the heart of the Court's most important landmark cases, and an irreverent tour of all the ways in which the law is shaped by politics. Listen each week as hosts Peter, Michael, and Rhiannon dismantle the Justices’ legal reasoning on hot-button issues like affirmative action, gun rights, and campaign finance, and use dark humor to reveal the high court's biases. Presented by Slow Burn co-creator Leon Neyfakh, 5-4 is a production of Prologue Projects in partnership with Westwood One Podcast Network. </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>5-4 is a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks. It's a progressive and occasionally profane take on the ideological battles at the heart of the Court's most important landmark cases, and an irreverent tour of all the ways in which the law is shaped by politics. Listen each week as hosts Peter, Michael, and Rhiannon dismantle the Justices’ legal reasoning on hot-button issues like affirmative action, gun rights, and campaign finance, and use dark humor to reveal the high court's biases. Presented by Slow Burn co-creator Leon Neyfakh, 5-4 is a production of Prologue Projects in partnership with Westwood One Podcast Network. </p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:owner>
<itunes:name> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:name>
<itunes:email>[email protected]</itunes:email>
</itunes:owner>
<itunes:image href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/temp-assets.pippa.io/5-4.jpg"/>
<itunes:category text="Government">
</itunes:category>
<itunes:category text="News">
<itunes:category text="News Commentary"/>
</itunes:category>
<item>
<title>Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett</title>
<description>The hosts return to examining cases with a little-known campaign finance decision from 2011: Arizona Free Enterprise Club PAC v. Bennett. They discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling, which declared unconstitutional a matching funds program for political candidates who opt out of private fundraising, effectively killing public campaign financing. The hosts also talk about the Trump campaign’s ongoing efforts -- in the courts and otherwise -- to contest the results of the 2020 election, and how likely they are to affect the Biden victory.
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
Please support our sponsors: 
HelixSleep.com/FiveFour
BuyRaycon.com/FiveFour</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2020 08:05:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>The hosts return to examining cases with a little-known campaign finance decision from 2011: Arizona Free Enterprise Club PAC v. Bennett. They discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling, which declared unconstitutional a matching funds program for political candidates who opt out of private fundraising, effectively killing public campaign financing. The hosts also talk about the Trump campaign’s ongoing efforts -- in the courts and otherwise -- to contest the results of the 2020 election, and how likely they are to affect the Biden victory.
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
Please support our sponsors: 
HelixSleep.com/FiveFour
BuyRaycon.com/FiveFour</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>The hosts return to examining cases with a little-known campaign finance decision from 2011: Arizona Free Enterprise Club PAC v. Bennett. They discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling, which declared unconstitutional a matching funds program for political candidates who opt out of private fundraising, effectively killing public campaign financing. The hosts also talk about the Trump campaign’s ongoing efforts -- in the courts and otherwise -- to contest the results of the 2020 election, and how likely they are to affect the Biden victory.</p><p>Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. </p><p>Please support our sponsors: </p><p>HelixSleep.com/FiveFour</p><p>BuyRaycon.com/FiveFour</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2828</itunes:duration>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29ff17de-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-6bc9cd6aa408]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO2904641039.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Courts Can’t Save Him</title>
<description>The hosts look back at the week-long presidential election, which Joe Biden won. They discuss the challenges mounted by the Trump campaign in various states and explain why none of them is likely to change the outcome of the election. They also reflect on some state-level initiatives and put forth their strategy for how President Biden should deal with a split Senate, especially on matters pertaining to the Supreme Court.  
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
 
Please support our sponsors: HelixSleep.com/FiveFour</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>The Courts Can’t Save Him</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>The hosts look back at the week-long presidential election, which Joe Biden won. They discuss the challenges mounted by the Trump campaign in various states and explain why none of them is likely to change the outcome of the election. They also reflect on some state-level initiatives and put forth their strategy for how President Biden should deal with a split Senate, especially on matters pertaining to the Supreme Court.  
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
 
Please support our sponsors: HelixSleep.com/FiveFour</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>The hosts look back at the week-long presidential election, which Joe Biden won. They discuss the challenges mounted by the Trump campaign in various states and explain why none of them is likely to change the outcome of the election. They also reflect on some state-level initiatives and put forth their strategy for how President Biden should deal with a split Senate, especially on matters pertaining to the Supreme Court.  </p><p> </p><p>Follow Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) on Twitter. </p><p> </p><p>Please support our sponsors: <a href="HelixSleep.com/FiveFour">HelixSleep.com/FiveFour</a></p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3136</itunes:duration>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29fb4fdc-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-53518c127e17]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO3851966898.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Reliving Bush v. Gore</title>
<description>The hosts reflect on a string of cases pertaining to the coming election, discuss the legacy of Bush v. Gore, and the significance of Justice Kavanaugh recently citing Justice Rehnquist’s infamous concurrence in the case. They then replay their original analysis of the 2000 election case that put George W. Bush in the White House. 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
Please support our sponsors: HelixSleep.com/FiveFour</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2020 08:05:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Reliving Bush v. Gore</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>The hosts reflect on a string of cases pertaining to the coming election, discuss the legacy of Bush v. Gore, and the significance of Justice Kavanaugh recently citing Justice Rehnquist’s infamous concurrence in the case. They then replay their original analysis of the 2000 election case that put George W. Bush in the White House. 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
Please support our sponsors: HelixSleep.com/FiveFour</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>The hosts reflect on a string of cases pertaining to the coming election, discuss the legacy of Bush v. Gore, and the significance of Justice Kavanaugh recently citing Justice Rehnquist’s infamous concurrence in the case. They then replay their original analysis of the 2000 election case that put George W. Bush in the White House. </p><p>Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. </p><p>Please support our sponsors: HelixSleep.com/FiveFour</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3606</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29f70878-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-4b5bfd4f001b]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO4772744847.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>How to Fix the Court feat. Rep. Ro Khanna</title>
<description>The hosts discuss options for reforming the court — from court packing, to term limits for judges, to stripping the court of jurisdiction to hear cases pertaining to new laws. They also speak to Congressman Ro Khanna about court reform, and about the bill he has introduced to limit Supreme Court Justices' tenure. But they remain clear on their preferred option: packing the court to include more liberal justices.
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>How to Fix the Court feat. Rep. Ro Khanna</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>The hosts discuss options for reforming the court — from court packing, to term limits for judges, to stripping the court of jurisdiction to hear cases pertaining to new laws. They also speak to Congressman Ro Khanna about court reform, and about the bill he has introduced to limit Supreme Court Justices' tenure. But they remain clear on their preferred option: packing the court to include more liberal justices.
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>The hosts discuss options for reforming the court — from court packing, to term limits for judges, to stripping the court of jurisdiction to hear cases pertaining to new laws. They also speak to Congressman Ro Khanna about court reform, and about the bill he has introduced to limit Supreme Court Justices' tenure. But they remain clear on their preferred option: packing the court to include more liberal justices.</p><p>Follow Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) on Twitter. </p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>4325</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29f2bf5c-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-0bc5144b0f64]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO3441302376.mp3?updated=1604338502" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Gerrymandering Heist</title>
<description>The hosts reflect on the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings, then move on to discussing gerrymandering, the practice of drawing up voting districts to favor a particular political party. Specifically, they talk about Rucho v. Common Cause, a 2019 case in which the Supreme Court not only refused to rule on two states’ gerrymandered maps, they found all partisan gerrymandering to be outside the purview of the Court going forward. 
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR  
HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2020 07:30:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>The Gerrymandering Heist</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>The hosts reflect on the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings, then move on to discussing gerrymandering, the practice of drawing up voting districts to favor a particular political party. Specifically, they talk about Rucho v. Common Cause, a 2019 case in which the Supreme Court not only refused to rule on two states’ gerrymandered maps, they found all partisan gerrymandering to be outside the purview of the Court going forward. 
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR  
HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>The hosts reflect on the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings, then move on to discussing gerrymandering, the practice of drawing up voting districts to favor a particular political party. Specifically, they talk about Rucho v. Common Cause, a 2019 case in which the Supreme Court not only refused to rule on two states’ gerrymandered maps, they found all partisan gerrymandering to be outside the purview of the Court going forward. </p><p> </p><p>Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. </p><p> </p><p>Please support our sponsors: </p><p> </p><p>BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR  </p><p>HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3576</itunes:duration>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29ef720c-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-d304a11f885c]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO2689284919.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Electoral College Coup Is Coming</title>
<description>The hosts discuss the past, present, and future of the Electoral College, and all the ways it could be used to stage a procedural coup in the upcoming election. They also talk about how the Electoral College could be restructured to give greater representation to states with large populations, like California. But if it were up to them, they’d get rid of this undemocratic institution all together, and switch to a system in which the president is chosen by popular vote.
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR  
HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2020 07:05:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>The Electoral College Coup Is Coming</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>The hosts discuss the past, present, and future of the Electoral College, and all the ways it could be used to stage a procedural coup in the upcoming election. They also talk about how the Electoral College could be restructured to give greater representation to states with large populations, like California. But if it were up to them, they’d get rid of this undemocratic institution all together, and switch to a system in which the president is chosen by popular vote.
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR  
HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>The hosts discuss the past, present, and future of the Electoral College, and all the ways it could be used to stage a procedural coup in the upcoming election. They also talk about how the Electoral College could be restructured to give greater representation to states with large populations, like California. But if it were up to them, they’d get rid of this undemocratic institution all together, and switch to a system in which the president is chosen by popular vote.</p><p> </p><p>Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. </p><p> </p><p>Please support our sponsors: </p><p> </p><p>BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR  </p><p>HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2861</itunes:duration>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29ec07fc-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-1b05a1bba3cf]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO7176386481.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>“What if Trump Dies?” And Other Questions</title>
<description>The hosts discuss the recent news that Donald Trump has contracted COVID-19 and what implications it might have for the upcoming election and the Supreme Court. Then they answer listener questions, covering everything from court reform to how to decide if you should go to law school.
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>“What if Trump Dies?” And Other Questions</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>The hosts discuss the recent news that Donald Trump has contracted COVID-19 and what implications it might have for the upcoming election and the Supreme Court. Then they answer listener questions, covering everything from court reform to how to decide if you should go to law school.
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>The hosts discuss the recent news that Donald Trump has contracted COVID-19 and what implications it might have for the upcoming election and the Supreme Court. Then they answer listener questions, covering everything from court reform to how to decide if you should go to law school.</p><p> </p><p>Follow Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) on Twitter. </p><p> </p><p>Please support our sponsors: </p><p> </p><p><a href="BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR%C2%A0%20">BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR </a></p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3684</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29e888ca-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-bf8e25cf41d6]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO2090362141.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Amy Coney Barrett is a Right Wing Freak</title>
<description>The hosts talk about Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. They discuss the nominee's judicial record, her faith, and what it means to be nominated by President Trump at this time.
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Amy Coney Barrett is a Right Wing Freak</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>The hosts talk about Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. They discuss the nominee's judicial record, her faith, and what it means to be nominated by President Trump at this time.
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>The hosts talk about Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. They discuss the nominee's judicial record, her faith, and what it means to be nominated by President Trump at this time.</p><p> </p><p>Follow Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) on Twitter.</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2945</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29e54070-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-e743503cf630]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO3515223575.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>What RBG Didn't Understand</title>
<description>On this week's episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are discussing the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Specifically, the hosts talk about the consequences of RBG's decision not to step down from the Court during Barack Obama's presidency, what that decision tells us about her, and what lies ahead.
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2020 16:05:46 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>What RBG Didn't Understand</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week's episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are discussing the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Specifically, the hosts talk about the consequences of RBG's decision not to step down from the Court during Barack Obama's presidency, what that decision tells us about her, and what lies ahead.
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week's episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are discussing the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Specifically, the hosts talk about the consequences of RBG's decision not to step down from the Court during Barack Obama's presidency, what that decision tells us about her, and what lies ahead.</p><p> </p><p>Follow Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) on Twitter.</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2750</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[e7a2a5b4-fc23-11ea-af1e-2f9aa99e8d1c]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO7558771350.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>LA v. Lyons</title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are talking about police use of chokeholds. In 1983, the Supreme Court held in City of Los Angeles v. Lyons that a man who had been injured by a brutal police chokehold did not have standing to sue for an injunction—in other words, he could not ask the Court to order the police to stop using chokeholds. The Court’s decision allowed the practice to continue, and chokeholds have been a focus of police reform efforts and protests since then, particularly after the 2014 death of Eric Garner.
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
keeps.com/fivefour</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>LA v. Lyons</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are talking about police use of chokeholds. In 1983, the Supreme Court held in City of Los Angeles v. Lyons that a man who had been injured by a brutal police chokehold did not have standing to sue for an injunction—in other words, he could not ask the Court to order the police to stop using chokeholds. The Court’s decision allowed the practice to continue, and chokeholds have been a focus of police reform efforts and protests since then, particularly after the 2014 death of Eric Garner.
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
keeps.com/fivefour</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are talking about police use of chokeholds. In 1983, the Supreme Court held in City of Los Angeles v. Lyons that a man who had been injured by a brutal police chokehold did not have standing to sue for an injunction—in other words, he could not ask the Court to order the police to stop using chokeholds. The Court’s decision allowed the practice to continue, and chokeholds have been a focus of police reform efforts and protests since then, particularly after the 2014 death of Eric Garner.</p><p> </p><p>Follow Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) on Twitter. </p><p> </p><p>Please support our sponsors: </p><p> </p><p><a href="keeps.com/fivefour">keeps.com/fivefour</a></p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2488</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29de51c0-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-7f423e7f9f2f]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO4804760825.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Voting Rights</title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are discussing the right to vote. As the 2020 presidential election draws near, the Trump campaign has already started suing states over the use of mail-in ballots. The hosts talk through the basics of election law history and explain how individual citizens' right to vote is only sort of provided for in the Constitution.
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
buyraycon.com/fivefour</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Voting Rights</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are discussing the right to vote. As the 2020 presidential election draws near, the Trump campaign has already started suing states over the use of mail-in ballots. The hosts talk through the basics of election law history and explain how individual citizens' right to vote is only sort of provided for in the Constitution.
 
Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. 
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
buyraycon.com/fivefour</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are discussing the right to vote. As the 2020 presidential election draws near, the Trump campaign has already started suing states over the use of mail-in ballots. The hosts talk through the basics of election law history and explain how individual citizens' right to vote is only sort of provided for in the Constitution.</p><p> </p><p>Follow Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) on Twitter. </p><p> </p><p>Please support our sponsors: </p><p> </p><p><a href="https://rayconglobal.com/pages/fivefour?utm_source=podcast&amp;utm_medium=influencer&amp;utm_campaign=fivefour">buyraycon.com/fivefour</a></p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3000</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29dba04c-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-1311335d27ef]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO1691224459.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Flood v. Kuhn</title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy) and Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) are joined by their friend Adam to discuss the 1972 case that exempted professional baseball from antitrust law.
Please support our sponsors:
Helix
Raycon
  </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Flood v. Kuhn</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy) and Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) are joined by their friend Adam to discuss the 1972 case that exempted professional baseball from antitrust law.
Please support our sponsors:
Helix
Raycon
  </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy)</a> and Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>) are joined by their friend Adam to discuss the 1972 case that exempted professional baseball from antitrust law.</p><p><strong>Please support our sponsors:</strong></p><p><a href="HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR"><strong>Helix</strong></a></p><p><a href="BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR"><strong>Raycon</strong></a></p><p>  </p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2705</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29d8e406-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-3728b43a8972]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO8265613908.mp3?updated=1598969963" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Nielsen v. Preap</title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the 2019 case that denied immigrants who have committed certain crimes the right to a bond hearing, and illustrated the futility of objectively interpreting the law.  
 
Please support our sponsors: 
magicspoon.com/FIVEFOUR 
HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR  
jordanharbinger.com/subscribe </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Nielsen v. Preap</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the 2019 case that denied immigrants who have committed certain crimes the right to a bond hearing, and illustrated the futility of objectively interpreting the law.  
 
Please support our sponsors: 
magicspoon.com/FIVEFOUR 
HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR  
jordanharbinger.com/subscribe </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) talk about the 2019 case that denied immigrants who have committed certain crimes the right to a bond hearing, and illustrated the futility of objectively interpreting the law.  </p><p> </p><p><strong>Please support our sponsors: </strong></p><p><a href="https://magicspoon.com/pages/fivefour"><strong>magicspoon.com/FIVEFOUR </strong></a></p><p><a href="https://helixsleep.com/pages/landing-page?promo=54"><strong>HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR  </strong></a></p><p><a href="jordanharbinger.com/subscribe%20%20"><strong>jordanharbinger.com/subscribe </strong></a></p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2954</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29d63940-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-f33b1e72cea3]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO7595023077.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Boy Scouts of America v. Dale</title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the 2000 case that allowed Boy Scouts to discriminate against gay scout leaders.</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Boy Scouts of America v. Dale</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the 2000 case that allowed Boy Scouts to discriminate against gay scout leaders.</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) talk about the 2000 case that allowed Boy Scouts to discriminate against gay scout leaders.</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2420</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29d38952-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-9771a66a5a18]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO3561086162.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Milliken v. Bradley</title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and special guest Leon Neyfakh (@Leoncrawl) discuss the 1974 case that effectively ended school desegregation efforts. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Milliken v. Bradley</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and special guest Leon Neyfakh (@Leoncrawl) discuss the 1974 case that effectively ended school desegregation efforts. </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/the_law_boy?lang=en">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and special guest Leon Neyfakh (<a href="https://twitter.com/leoncrawl?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@Leoncrawl</a>) discuss the 1974 case that effectively ended school desegregation efforts. </p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3063</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29d0d8e2-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-1be7b41202ec]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO4242769870.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Term Recap: 2019-2020</title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) look back at the most recent Supreme Court term.</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2020 07:30:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Term Recap: 2019-2020</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) look back at the most recent Supreme Court term.</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) look back at the most recent Supreme Court term.</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3221</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29ce1a8a-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-b722ab305933]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO9139590675.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bennis v. Michigan</title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about civil forfeiture, the practice that lets police seize private property if it’s suspected of being involved in a crime.</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Bennis v. Michigan</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about civil forfeiture, the practice that lets police seize private property if it’s suspected of being involved in a crime.</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/the_law_boy?lang=en">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/aywarhiannon?lang=en">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) talk about civil forfeiture, the practice that lets police seize private property if it’s suspected of being involved in a crime.</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2889</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29c848b2-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-2f66faef6b2d]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO8589398857.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Epic Systems v. Lewis</title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss a decision that let employers pressure workers into signing away their rights to class action suits. 
Please support our sponsors: 
Magic Spoon
Spotify 
Helix</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Lewis v. Epic Systems </itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss a decision that let employers pressure workers into signing away their rights to class action suits. 
Please support our sponsors: 
Magic Spoon
Spotify 
Helix</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss a decision that let employers pressure workers into signing away their rights to class action suits. </p><p>Please support our sponsors: </p><p><strong>Magic Spoon</strong></p><p><strong>Spotify</strong> </p><p><strong>Helix</strong></p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2817</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29c58a0a-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-6f5892109c63]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO6231439776.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Buckley v. Valeo </title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about campaign finance in Buckley v. Valeo. The decision established that, when it comes to elections, money is speech based on the First Amendment.</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Buckley v. Valeo </itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about campaign finance in Buckley v. Valeo. The decision established that, when it comes to elections, money is speech based on the First Amendment.</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Bo</a>y), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) talk about campaign finance in Buckley v. Valeo. The decision established that, when it comes to elections, money is speech based on the First Amendment.</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2694</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29c28dc8-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-274497f04935]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO7961409189.mp3?updated=1594063172" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Janus v. AFSCME</title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) are joined by special guest Sam Bagenstos, professor at the University of Michigan Law School, to discuss a case that made it harder for unions to collect fees.
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
Raycon -- buyraycon.com/fivefour
Spotify</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Janus v. AFSCME</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) are joined by special guest Sam Bagenstos, professor at the University of Michigan Law School, to discuss a case that made it harder for unions to collect fees.
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
Raycon -- buyraycon.com/fivefour
Spotify</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) are joined by special guest Sam Bagenstos, professor at the University of Michigan Law School, to discuss a case that made it harder for unions to collect fees.</p><p> </p><p>Please support our sponsors: </p><p> </p><p><strong>Raycon -- </strong><a href="buyraycon.com/fivefour"><strong>buyraycon.com/fivefour</strong></a></p><p><strong>Spotify </strong></p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2603</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29bfb256-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-3b599a92e837]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO1355484066.mp3?updated=1593475334" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Qualified Immunity</title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) examine the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects police and other officials from being sued for civil rights and other abuses.
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
Raycon -- buyraycon.com/fivefour
Helix -- helixsleep.com/fivefour</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Qualified Immunity</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) examine the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects police and other officials from being sued for civil rights and other abuses.
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
Raycon -- buyraycon.com/fivefour
Helix -- helixsleep.com/fivefour</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) examine the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects police and other officials from being sued for civil rights and other abuses.</p><p> </p><p>Please support our sponsors: </p><p> </p><p><strong>Raycon -- </strong><a href="https://rayconglobal.com/pages/fivefour?utm_source=podcast&amp;utm_medium=influencer&amp;utm_campaign=fivefour"><strong>buyraycon.com/fivefour</strong></a></p><p><strong>Helix -- </strong><a href="helixsleep.com/fivefour"><strong>helixsleep.com/fivefour</strong></a></p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3423</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29bcc302-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-ab87d95b2068]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO3775099463.mp3?updated=1592870276" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Exxon Shipping v. Baker</title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss a decision that limited damages in the case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, one of the worst environmental disasters in US history. The ruling also capped damages that can be sought in all maritime law cases.
 
Please support our sponsor: 
Raycon -- buyraycon.com/fivefour</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Exxon Shipping v. Baker</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss a decision that limited damages in the case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, one of the worst environmental disasters in US history. The ruling also capped damages that can be sought in all maritime law cases.
 
Please support our sponsor: 
Raycon -- buyraycon.com/fivefour</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss a decision that limited damages in the case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, one of the worst environmental disasters in US history. The ruling also capped damages that can be sought in all maritime law cases.</p><p> </p><p>Please support our sponsor: </p><p><strong>Raycon -- buyraycon.com/fivefour</strong></p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2716</itunes:duration>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29b9beb4-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-2b9d3501318f]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO4478249267.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia </title>
<description>On this week’s bonus episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the Court’s surprise decision affirming that the Civil Rights Act prevents employers from discriminating against people on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation. The hosts pay special attention to Justice Alito’s special dissent.  </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:30:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia </itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>bonus</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s bonus episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the Court’s surprise decision affirming that the Civil Rights Act prevents employers from discriminating against people on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation. The hosts pay special attention to Justice Alito’s special dissent.  </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s bonus episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the Court’s surprise decision affirming that the Civil Rights Act prevents employers from discriminating against people on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation. The hosts pay special attention to Justice Alito’s special dissent.  </p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>1545</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[9a9cbb82-afcb-11ea-99de-87155a33dae5]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO5507820751.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Hernandez v. Mesa </title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about a case involving a Border Patrol agent who shot a teenager across the U.S.-Mexico border. The hosts are joined by Steven Vladeck, who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the victim’s family.</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Hernandez v. Mesa </itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about a case involving a Border Patrol agent who shot a teenager across the U.S.-Mexico border. The hosts are joined by Steven Vladeck, who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the victim’s family.</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) talk about a case involving a Border Patrol agent who shot a teenager across the U.S.-Mexico border. The hosts are joined by Steven Vladeck, who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the victim’s family.</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3414</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29b6713c-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-57abbeff2bf9]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO1780362128.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby </title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the religious freedoms enjoyed by corporations.</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby </itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the religious freedoms enjoyed by corporations.</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) talk about the religious freedoms enjoyed by corporations.</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2761</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29b39eb2-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-5b79f9dcddbc]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO4279806515.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Buck v. Bell</title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) go back to a 1927 case that gave rise to eugenics programs throughout the US.
Please support our sponsors: 
Blinkist</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2020 07:30:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Buck v. Bell</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) go back to a 1927 case that gave rise to eugenics programs throughout the US.
Please support our sponsors: 
Blinkist</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) go back to a 1927 case that gave rise to eugenics programs throughout the US.</p><p>Please support our sponsors: </p><p><strong>Blinkist</strong></p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2840</itunes:duration>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29aea65a-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-c75a584ad7f6]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO3383501775.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Tison v. Arizona</title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss a 1987 case on felony murder, and whether it’s eligible for the death penalty.</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Tison v. Arizona</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss a 1987 case on felony murder, and whether it’s eligible for the death penalty.</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/aywarhiannon?lang=en">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) discuss a 1987 case on felony murder, and whether it’s eligible for the death penalty.</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2886</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29abb364-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-bf6733b11d43]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO7280465712.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Clapper v. Amnesty International</title>
<description> On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss a 2013 case that tested the National Security Administration's ability to conduct surveillance on Americans without probable cause.</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2020 07:30:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Clapper v. Amnesty International</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary> On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss a 2013 case that tested the National Security Administration's ability to conduct surveillance on Americans without probable cause.</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p><strong> </strong>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss a 2013 case that tested the National Security Administration's ability to conduct surveillance on Americans without probable cause.</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2706</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29a82d98-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-932aa1986eb8]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO3334559242.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Biden Court</title>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss what’s at stake for the Supreme Court in the 2020 election, and what the Court might look like under Joe Biden. 
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
Roman -- GetRoman.com/fivefour</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>The Biden Court</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss what’s at stake for the Supreme Court in the 2020 election, and what the Court might look like under Joe Biden. 
 
Please support our sponsors: 
 
Roman -- GetRoman.com/fivefour</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra)</a> discuss what’s at stake for the Supreme Court in the 2020 election, and what the Court might look like under Joe Biden. </p><p> </p><p>Please support our sponsors: </p><p> </p><p>Roman -- <a href="https://www.getroman.com/?ro_con=1&amp;ro_ch=audio&amp;ro_p=podcast&amp;ro_n=veritone&amp;ro_c=other&amp;ro_g=five_four&amp;ro_t=national&amp;utm_source=veritone&amp;utm_medium=audio&amp;utm_campaign=five_four_podcast">GetRoman.com/fivefour</a></p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3388</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29a550e6-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-77d65b1df29c]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO6097612385.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>DC v. Heller</title>
<description>On the eleventh episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss the 2008 ruling that granted individuals the right to own guns, breaking with more than a century of precedent. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2020 07:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>DC v. Heller</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On the eleventh episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss the 2008 ruling that granted individuals the right to own guns, breaking with more than a century of precedent. </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On the eleventh episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra)</a> discuss the 2008 ruling that granted individuals the right to own guns, breaking with more than a century of precedent. </p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3037</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29a27b14-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-bb864d1073d9]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO1088633594.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Kelo v. New London</title>
<description>On the tenth episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) take aim at the liberals on the Court who ruled that the government can seize people’s land and hand it over to private developers. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2020 07:30:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Kelo v. New London</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On the tenth episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) take aim at the liberals on the Court who ruled that the government can seize people’s land and hand it over to private developers. </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On the tenth episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) take aim at the liberals on the Court who ruled that the government can seize people’s land and hand it over to private developers. </p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2745</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[299f64ba-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-cb2728336780]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO2932043008.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Castle Rock v. Gonzales</title>
<description>On the ninth episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about a domestic violence case in Colorado that led to the death of three children and a Supreme Court ruling that affirmed a broad vision of police discretion. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:30:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Castle Rock v. Gonzales</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On the ninth episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about a domestic violence case in Colorado that led to the death of three children and a Supreme Court ruling that affirmed a broad vision of police discretion. </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On the ninth episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) talk about a domestic violence case in Colorado that led to the death of three children and a Supreme Court ruling that affirmed a broad vision of police discretion. </p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3079</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[299caaa4-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-77a45af69361]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO8790854653.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Emergency Episode: RNC v. DNC</title>
<description>On a special episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the Supreme Court’s decision to block the state of Wisconsin from accepting late absentee ballots in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2020 16:45:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Emergency Episode: RNC v. DNC</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On a special episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the Supreme Court’s decision to block the state of Wisconsin from accepting late absentee ballots in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On a special episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the Supreme Court’s decision to block the state of Wisconsin from accepting late absentee ballots in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. </p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>1356</itunes:duration>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[f0b0b73a-79b6-11ea-b2cf-23a31a5267cd]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO8884106511.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Trump v. Hawaii</title>
<description>On the seventh episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the 2018 travel ban case, which tested the Supreme Court’s willingness to serve as a check on Donald Trump. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2020 07:30:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Trump v. Hawaii</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On the seventh episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the 2018 travel ban case, which tested the Supreme Court’s willingness to serve as a check on Donald Trump. </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On the seventh episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) talk about the 2018 travel ban case, which tested the Supreme Court’s willingness to serve as a check on Donald Trump. </p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2889</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[2999c992-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-6712fe2c2f53]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO7100846064.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>NFIB v. Sebelius</title>
<description>On the sixth episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) take on the Obamacare ruling in 2012, which isn’t as great as ACA fans might think.</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2020 07:30:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>NFIB v. Sebelius</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On the sixth episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) take on the Obamacare ruling in 2012, which isn’t as great as ACA fans might think.</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On the sixth episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) take on the Obamacare ruling in 2012, which isn’t as great as ACA fans might think.</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3066</itunes:duration>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[2996ebaa-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-c3590f687c3a]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO3633920497.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Terry v. Ohio</title>
<description>On the fifth episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the 1968 ruling by the Warren Court that that paved the way for stop-and-frisk laws around the country.</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2020 07:30:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Terry v. Ohio</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On the fifth episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the 1968 ruling by the Warren Court that that paved the way for stop-and-frisk laws around the country.</itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On the fifth episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) talk about the 1968 ruling by the Warren Court that that paved the way for stop-and-frisk laws around the country.</p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3582</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[29943900-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-4f815ac8a15c]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO8650170544.mp3?updated=1585152730" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Shelby County v. Holder</title>
<description>On the fourth episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the 2013 ruling by the Roberts Court that defanged a key component of the Voting Rights Act. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2020 13:15:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Shelby County v. Holder</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On the fourth episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the 2013 ruling by the Roberts Court that defanged a key component of the Voting Rights Act. </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On the fourth episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the 2013 ruling by the Roberts Court that defanged a key component of the Voting Rights Act.  </p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3100</itunes:duration>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[299187be-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-bbd4b6855b6b]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO4248330802.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Fisher v. University of Texas</title>
<description>On the third episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the affirmative action case that flipped the Equal Protection Clause on its head.  </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2020 07:30:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Fisher v. University of Texas</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On the third episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the affirmative action case that flipped the Equal Protection Clause on its head.  </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On the third episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@AywaRhiannon</a>), and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en">@_FleerUltra</a>) talk about the affirmative action case that flipped the Equal Protection Clause on its head.  </p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3093</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[298dcd90-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-c3ec02dce7d6]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO9420993874.mp3?updated=1583795555" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Citizens United v. FEC</title>
<description>On the second episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra), talk about the 2010 ruling that used the First Amendment as a basis for unleashing corporate spending in politics. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2020 08:30:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Citizens United v. FEC</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>On the second episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra), talk about the 2010 ruling that used the First Amendment as a basis for unleashing corporate spending in politics. </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>On the second episode of 5-4, Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon">@AywaRhiannon)</a>, and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_FleerUltra">@_FleerUltra</a>), talk about the 2010 ruling that used the First Amendment as a basis for unleashing corporate spending in politics. </p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>3040</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[35ff7a3e-5cce-11ea-99a0-7f935791ee56]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO1442392678.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bush v. Gore</title>
<description>The debut episode of 5-4, presented by Leon Neyfakh (@leoncrawl) and hosted by Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra), focuses on the ruling that ended the 2000 Florida recount and put George W. Bush in the White House. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 08:30:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Bush v. Gore</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>The debut episode of 5-4, presented by Leon Neyfakh (@leoncrawl) and hosted by Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra), focuses on the ruling that ended the 2000 Florida recount and put George W. Bush in the White House. </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>The debut episode of 5-4, presented by Leon Neyfakh (<a href="https://twitter.com/leoncrawl">@leoncrawl</a>) and hosted by Peter (<a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy">@The_Law_Boy</a>), Rhiannon (<a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon">@AywaRhiannon)</a>, and Michael (<a href="https://twitter.com/_FleerUltra">@_FleerUltra</a>), focuses on the ruling that ended the 2000 Florida recount and put George W. Bush in the White House.  </p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>2712</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[76ec5ca4-5753-11ea-9628-cf6f38f0a959]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO3820509646.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Official Trailer: 5-4</title>
<description>At a moment when the U.S. Supreme Court's influence on American life has never been more obvious, 5-4 offers an irreverent take on the high court's past. Each episode focuses on a pivotal, historical case in which the justices screwed up in some way. 5-4 balances humor with analysis as legal commentators Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael dissect the legal reasoning and practical outcomes of the Court's most questionable and misguided decisions. Slow Burn co-creator Leon Neyfakh narrates the facts and historical context around the case-of-the-week. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 20:26:00 -0000</pubDate>
<itunes:title>Official Trailer: 5-4</itunes:title>
<itunes:episodeType>trailer</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:author> Prologue Projects / Westwood One Podcast Network</itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:summary>At a moment when the U.S. Supreme Court's influence on American life has never been more obvious, 5-4 offers an irreverent take on the high court's past. Each episode focuses on a pivotal, historical case in which the justices screwed up in some way. 5-4 balances humor with analysis as legal commentators Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael dissect the legal reasoning and practical outcomes of the Court's most questionable and misguided decisions. Slow Burn co-creator Leon Neyfakh narrates the facts and historical context around the case-of-the-week. </itunes:summary>
<content:encoded>
<![CDATA[<p>At a moment when the U.S. Supreme Court's influence on American life has never been more obvious, 5-4 offers an irreverent take on the high court's past. Each episode focuses on a pivotal, historical case in which the justices screwed up in some way. 5-4 balances humor with analysis as legal commentators Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael dissect the legal reasoning and practical outcomes of the Court's most questionable and misguided decisions. Slow Burn co-creator Leon Neyfakh narrates the facts and historical context around the case-of-the-week. </p>]]>
</content:encoded>
<itunes:duration>107</itunes:duration>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[59efa312-478c-11ea-8c6b-43a40e51da9e]]></guid>
<enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/WWO4288775722.mp3" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment