Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@simon-marcus

simon-marcus/five-eleven.xml

Last active May 18, 2021 21:46
Show Gist options
  • Save simon-marcus/9131c9c20a06bc8a87902e8dfafc8616 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save simon-marcus/9131c9c20a06bc8a87902e8dfafc8616 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Download ZIP
Raw
five-eleven.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:googleplay="http://www.google.com/schemas/play-podcasts/1.0" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:podaccess="https://access.acast.com/schema/1.0/" xmlns:acast="https://schema.acast.com/1.0/">
<channel>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<generator>pippa.io</generator>
<title>5-4</title>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c</link>
<atom:link href="" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>2021 Prologue Projects </copyright>
<itunes:keywords/>
<itunes:author>Prologue Projects </itunes:author>
<itunes:subtitle/>
<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; 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&amp;rsquo; 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.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
<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; 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&amp;rsquo; 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.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<itunes:owner>
<itunes:name> Prologue Projects </itunes:name>
<itunes:email>[email protected]</itunes:email>
</itunes:owner>
<itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type>

<item>
<itunes:title>Roe v. Wade: The Movie [PATREON-ONLY]
</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2021 08:00:52 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>1:14:45</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/60994a69ef210a0d20edb824/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InByaXZhdGUifQ==&amp;sig=n4-E3Lg-PgN6W98R2pzxCr9wi0B5depKALU0kSmKmb8" length="125587520" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">60994a69ef210a0d20edb824</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/roe-v-wade-the-movie</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;In this first-ever 5-4 film review, the hosts have looked into the abyss and are ready to render their verdict.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;
</itunes:summary>
<title>Roe v. Wade: The Movie [PATREON-ONLY]
</title>
<description>&lt;p&gt;In this first-ever 5-4 film review, the hosts have looked into the abyss and are ready to render their verdict.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
<podaccess:premium locked="false"/>
</item>
<item>
<itunes:title>The Insular Cases [PATREON-ONLY]
</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2021 08:00:39 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>56:00</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/607dd6d5e5bdf35cea0c5a44/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InByaXZhdGUifQ==&amp;sig=mbXSm9GBMMj33QOXqoOGAdlh4uQYIvPDEXdsjwkPpqI" length="94098944" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">607dd6d5e5bdf35cea0c5a44</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/the-insular-cases</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss the Insular Cases, a series of holdings from 1901 that delineated the Constitutional rights afforded to citizens of US territories like Puerto Rico and the Philippines. And by "delineated" we mean "decimated." &lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;In these cases, and &lt;em&gt;since&lt;/em&gt; these cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly used economic justifications to create and reinforce racist policies that disadvantage and disenfranchise people who live in our country's de facto colonies. Do you love live-fire military exercises, half a millennium of genocidal rule, and not getting to vote in federal elections? Visit scenic Guam!&lt;/p&gt;
</itunes:summary>
<title>The Insular Cases [PATREON-ONLY]
</title>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss the Insular Cases, a series of holdings from 1901 that delineated the Constitutional rights afforded to citizens of US territories like Puerto Rico and the Philippines. And by "delineated" we mean "decimated." &lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;In these cases, and &lt;em&gt;since&lt;/em&gt; these cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly used economic justifications to create and reinforce racist policies that disadvantage and disenfranchise people who live in our country's de facto colonies. Do you love live-fire military exercises, half a millennium of genocidal rule, and not getting to vote in federal elections? Visit scenic Guam!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
<podaccess:premium locked="false"/>
</item>
<item>
<itunes:title>The Worst of the Worst: The Trump Judges [PATREON-ONLY]
</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:00:18 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>51:24</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/6058ec51172bd3673657cca9/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InByaXZhdGUifQ==&amp;sig=uYvl6KCNu2xiBJvzm4LTD6ItRUkC5SB1cDVA9ub2jQU" length="86370272" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">6058ec51172bd3673657cca9</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/the-worst-of-the-worst-the-trump-judges-patreon-only</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss Trump's appointees to the federal bench, and the effects that this rogue's gallery of cronies has had - and will continue to have - on the judiciary.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;This premium episode is available exclusively to our Patreon supporters. Thank you for supporting the show!&lt;/p&gt;
</itunes:summary>
<title>The Worst of the Worst: The Trump Judges [PATREON-ONLY]
</title>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss Trump's appointees to the federal bench, and the effects that this rogue's gallery of cronies has had - and will continue to have - on the judiciary.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;This premium episode is available exclusively to our Patreon supporters. Thank you for supporting the show!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
<podaccess:premium locked="false"/>
</item>
<item>
<itunes:title>Antonin Scalia [PATREON-ONLY]
</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2021 09:00:22 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>1:08:07</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/603d770a33322b0560a520cb/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InByaXZhdGUifQ==&amp;sig=fN0xOc3kd3Ld4k6dGaQ3M3hAs6g32sOtbq8YYOq8-XQ" length="114459377" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">603d770a33322b0560a520cb</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/antonin-scalia-patreon-only</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;In this first-ever Patreon-only episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss the life and legacy of former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia portrayed himself as methodical and apolitical, obsessed with carefully applying the Constitution, as it was written and understood by the founders.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But in practice, Scalia was a favorite son of the hyper-conservative Federalist Society, and he enthusiastically pursued their political agenda from the bench.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
</itunes:summary>
<title>Antonin Scalia [PATREON-ONLY]
</title>
<description>&lt;p&gt;In this first-ever Patreon-only episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss the life and legacy of former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia portrayed himself as methodical and apolitical, obsessed with carefully applying the Constitution, as it was written and understood by the founders.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But in practice, Scalia was a favorite son of the hyper-conservative Federalist Society, and he enthusiastically pursued their political agenda from the bench.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
<podaccess:premium locked="false"/>
</item>
<item>
<title>Jones v. Mississippi</title>
<itunes:title>Jones v. Mississippi</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2021 08:00:15 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>54:33</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/60a2d14423af8d7e308f1493/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=7ZJ4VX29fB41Jmdiyv1KtkmDa7JPQNLX08motEpUuVk" length="91665632" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">60a2d14423af8d7e308f1493</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/jones-v-mississippi</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss the 8th Amendment and juvenile life without parole, and the tension between modern neuroscience, and the conservative impulse to maintain 200-year-old traditions of punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;To get premium Patreon-only episodes, access to exclusive events, and membership in the 5-4 Slack, sign up for our Patreon at&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="http://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;www.patreon.com/fivefourpod&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss the 8th Amendment and juvenile life without parole, and the tension between modern neuroscience, and the conservative impulse to maintain 200-year-old traditions of punishment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;To get premium Patreon-only episodes, access to exclusive events, and membership in the 5-4 Slack, sign up for our Patreon at&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="http://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;www.patreon.com/fivefourpod&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Get Us to Seven feat. Rep. Mondaire Jones</title>
<itunes:title>Get Us to Seven feat. Rep. Mondaire Jones</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2021 08:00:14 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>1:06:58</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/60903718521b8b4cedcfe3ca/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=EhoNkeJ68Tu_cuJOEkV627wFrQwhONf75tr9_S3XxiM" length="112530560" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">60903718521b8b4cedcfe3ca</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/get-us-to-seven</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The hosts are joined by Rep. Mondaire Jones to discuss the Judiciary Act of 2021, Supreme Court reform, and the Biden Commission. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;To get premium Patreon-only episodes, access to exclusive events, and membership in the 5-4 Slack, sign up for our Patreon at&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="http://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;www.patreon.com/fivefourpod&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;The hosts are joined by Rep. Mondaire Jones to discuss the Judiciary Act of 2021, Supreme Court reform, and the Biden Commission. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;To get premium Patreon-only episodes, access to exclusive events, and membership in the 5-4 Slack, sign up for our Patreon at&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="http://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;www.patreon.com/fivefourpod&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bowles v. Russell</title>
<itunes:title>Bowles v. Russell</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2021 08:00:25 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>55:35</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/6086cf485aabaa29bf9538b0/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=Om8wmca-sowYkbPO4pcb0wkB33fKQvZ5iHgnbw77D0E" length="93382592" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">6086cf485aabaa29bf9538b0</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/bowles-v-russell</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>The hosts are joined by Josie Duffy Rice and Jay Willis of &lt;em&gt;The Appeal&lt;/em&gt;, to discuss "Worst Supreme Court Justice of All Time" bracketology, and simple arithmetic. This week's case is Bowles v. Russell, in which the petitioner sought to have his appeal heard because a judge had miscalculated a deadline, and his lawyer had the audacity to adhere to it. The court denied the petitioner, citing "rules are rules, even when they aren't actually rules."&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>The hosts are joined by Josie Duffy Rice and Jay Willis of &lt;em&gt;The Appeal&lt;/em&gt;, to discuss "Worst Supreme Court Justice of All Time" bracketology, and simple arithmetic. This week's case is Bowles v. Russell, in which the petitioner sought to have his appeal heard because a judge had miscalculated a deadline, and his lawyer had the audacity to adhere to it. The court denied the petitioner, citing "rules are rules, even when they aren't actually rules."&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board</title>
<itunes:title>Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:00:10 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>43:17</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/60709f9cd2207d6d8de91a9b/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=fFCFkF2wBk7nRTP2W0KpVWYyWMRGqVsXixH3lNHkjbA" length="72726656" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">60709f9cd2207d6d8de91a9b</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/hoffman-v-NLRB</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a 5-4 decision in which the Supreme Court denied a worker back pay that he was owed after being unlawfully terminated for union organizing, citing his lack of authorization to work in the United States. The decision completely rejected the ruling of the NLRB, guidance from the Department of Justice, standing immigration law, and basic human decency.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;To get premium Patreon-only episodes, access to exclusive events, and membership in the 5-4 Slack, sign up for our Patreon at&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="http://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;www.patreon.com/fivefourpod&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a 5-4 decision in which the Supreme Court denied a worker back pay that he was owed after being unlawfully terminated for union organizing, citing his lack of authorization to work in the United States. The decision completely rejected the ruling of the NLRB, guidance from the Department of Justice, standing immigration law, and basic human decency.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;To get premium Patreon-only episodes, access to exclusive events, and membership in the 5-4 Slack, sign up for our Patreon at&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="http://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;www.patreon.com/fivefourpod&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>5-4 x Even More News</title>
<itunes:title>5-4 x Even More News</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2021 08:00:26 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>57:18</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/606b41fda40ea252ddfdf01e/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=B79JxsqUTL8Canrxzq9xQpWGwrg67-39L6IKhalwvQk" length="96268832" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">606b41fda40ea252ddfdf01e</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5-4-x-even-more-news</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The hosts appear on &lt;em&gt;Even More News&lt;/em&gt;, with hosts Katy Stoll and Cody Johnston, to talk about voting rights cases at the Supreme Court, and H.R.1.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow &lt;em&gt;Even More News &lt;/em&gt;(@somemorenews), Katy Stoll (@katystoll) and Cody Johnston (@drmistercody) on Twitter. &lt;a href="https://www.patreon.com/SomeMoreNews" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;They're on Patreon&lt;/a&gt;, and so is &lt;em&gt;5-4. &lt;/em&gt;To get premium Patreon-only episodes, access to exclusive events, and membership in the 5-4 Slack, sign up at&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="http://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;www.patreon.com/fivefourpod&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;The hosts appear on &lt;em&gt;Even More News&lt;/em&gt;, with hosts Katy Stoll and Cody Johnston, to talk about voting rights cases at the Supreme Court, and H.R.1.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow &lt;em&gt;Even More News &lt;/em&gt;(@somemorenews), Katy Stoll (@katystoll) and Cody Johnston (@drmistercody) on Twitter. &lt;a href="https://www.patreon.com/SomeMoreNews" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;They're on Patreon&lt;/a&gt;, and so is &lt;em&gt;5-4. &lt;/em&gt;To get premium Patreon-only episodes, access to exclusive events, and membership in the 5-4 Slack, sign up at&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="http://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;www.patreon.com/fivefourpod&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Connick v. Thompson</title>
<itunes:title>Connick v. Thompson</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2021 08:00:13 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>57:03</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/606248e158f17841819e1e86/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=Yv8bSgoYtXQJNuNR536l7eqkzVuY2YAF4ZVx6VhXyPg" length="95852864" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">606248e158f17841819e1e86</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/connick-v-thompson</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss Connick v. Thompson, a 5-4 decision in which the Supreme Court holds that a conspiracy to convict an innocent man, by systematically withholding evidence that could prove his innocence, does not constitute a "pattern."&amp;nbsp; Where's your dictionary now, Scalia?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;To get premium Patreon-only episodes, access to exclusive events, and membership in the 5-4 Slack, sign up for our Patreon at&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="http://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;www.patreon.com/fivefourpod&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss Connick v. Thompson, a 5-4 decision in which the Supreme Court holds that a conspiracy to convict an innocent man, by systematically withholding evidence that could prove his innocence, does not constitute a "pattern."&amp;nbsp; Where's your dictionary now, Scalia?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;To get premium Patreon-only episodes, access to exclusive events, and membership in the 5-4 Slack, sign up for our Patreon at&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="http://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;www.patreon.com/fivefourpod&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky Inc. v. Williams</title>
<itunes:title>Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky Inc. v. Williams</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2021 08:00:56 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>39:56</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/604f9fe8b41d6033165e3c9a/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=1G5Ec03OQ5qrhyv1z25Qmjpp7PoVmE5g_TjLrtF-2H4" length="95863808" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">604f9fe8b41d6033165e3c9a</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/toyota-motor-manufacturing-kentucky-inc-v-williams</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams,where the Supreme Court unanimously narrowed the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks to Erin Hawley (@geekygimp) for her help prepping this episode.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;To get premium Patreon-only episodes, access to exclusive events, and membership in the 5-4 Slack, sign up for our Patreon at &lt;a href="http://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;www.patreon.com/fivefourpod&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams,where the Supreme Court unanimously narrowed the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks to Erin Hawley (@geekygimp) for her help prepping this episode.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;To get premium Patreon-only episodes, access to exclusive events, and membership in the 5-4 Slack, sign up for our Patreon at &lt;a href="http://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;www.patreon.com/fivefourpod&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez ft. Alec Karakatsanis</title>
<itunes:title>San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez ft. Alec Karakatsanis</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2021 09:00:33 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>52:05</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/6046aa536a6f04645278b004/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=npA0SBQgK4faN2DIKau5_gy_ISqaRfbw8H9K4tueG_8" length="87508640" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">6046aa536a6f04645278b004</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/san-antonio-isd-v-rodriguez</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The hosts are joined by Alec Karakatsanis (@equalityAlec), founder and executive director of Civil Rights Corps, and the author of &lt;em&gt;Usual Cruelty: The Complicity of Lawyers in the Criminal Injustice System&lt;/em&gt;. They discuss San Antonio ISD v Rodriguez, an equal protection case from 1973, which is widely cited by conservatives as holding that the equal protection clause does not protect impoverished people. The hosts beg to differ.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;To get premium Patreon-only episodes, access to exclusive events, and membership in the 5-4 Slack,&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;sign up for our Patreon.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;The hosts are joined by Alec Karakatsanis (@equalityAlec), founder and executive director of Civil Rights Corps, and the author of &lt;em&gt;Usual Cruelty: The Complicity of Lawyers in the Criminal Injustice System&lt;/em&gt;. They discuss San Antonio ISD v Rodriguez, an equal protection case from 1973, which is widely cited by conservatives as holding that the equal protection clause does not protect impoverished people. The hosts beg to differ.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;To get premium Patreon-only episodes, access to exclusive events, and membership in the 5-4 Slack,&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"&gt;sign up for our Patreon.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>McCleskey v. Kemp ft. Josie Duffy Rice</title>
<itunes:title>McCleskey v. Kemp ft. Josie Duffy Rice</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:00:12 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>49:14</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/603455f2791438306c44ca0d/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=2fk1m6sW3dmIzDsAfrThELZ_VWWIDI8i5IpztBmK1HU" length="118181888" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">603455f2791438306c44ca0d</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/mccleskey-v-kemp</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The hosts are joined by Josie Duffy Rice of The Appeal to discuss another death penalty case — McCleskey v. Kemp. In this 1987 decision, the Supreme Court held that statistical evidence of systemic racial disparities is not enough to prove discrimination. Instead, defendants have to show that individual prosecutors, judges or juries pursued them with racist intent. As a result, states were basically let off the hook for perpetuating systemic racism in death penalty cases.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;The hosts are joined by Josie Duffy Rice of The Appeal to discuss another death penalty case — McCleskey v. Kemp. In this 1987 decision, the Supreme Court held that statistical evidence of systemic racial disparities is not enough to prove discrimination. Instead, defendants have to show that individual prosecutors, judges or juries pursued them with racist intent. As a result, states were basically let off the hook for perpetuating systemic racism in death penalty cases.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Atkins v. Virginia</title>
<itunes:title>Atkins v. Virginia</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2021 09:00:33 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>57:32</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/602b31178237836e54f2717a/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=BY5g3UkyuJC7PNL7w4sVV7avr_wuilvITZDcPJYLKHg" length="138108608" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">602b31178237836e54f2717a</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/atkins-v-virginia</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>The hosts discuss Atkins v. Virginia, a case in which the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on people with intellectual disabilities. But the Court also created a loophole by allowing states to decide the standard for who qualifies as intellectually disabled. As a result of the Court’s lack of clarity, some states have continued to execute people with intellectual disabilities to this day.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>The hosts discuss Atkins v. Virginia, a case in which the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on people with intellectual disabilities. But the Court also created a loophole by allowing states to decide the standard for who qualifies as intellectually disabled. As a result of the Court’s lack of clarity, some states have continued to execute people with intellectual disabilities to this day.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>US v. Morrison</title>
<itunes:title>US v. Morrison</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2021 09:00:32 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>49:41</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/6021dfbfab37c75d07e4ce6b/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=j8J6ZwCU9tjQ5poNtMlrn3H7IlCADauV1IRl4KUBYpc" length="71556310" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">6021dfbfab37c75d07e4ce6b</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/us-v-morrison</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss a case in which the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that allowed women to sue abusers in federal court for damages. In the process, the Court constrained the ability of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not only weakening an important civil rights law, but also making it more difficult for Congress to pass progressive legislation going forward.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow eter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss a case in which the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that allowed women to sue abusers in federal court for damages. In the process, the Court constrained the ability of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not only weakening an important civil rights law, but also making it more difficult for Congress to pass progressive legislation going forward.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow eter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Navarette v. California</title>
<itunes:title>Navarette v. California</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2021 09:00:03 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>49:30</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/60189d494131db04239e6c93/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=7axeQ3VLAJuvAiJwqjIVcolvpuVFjTLOh0rr1Uh0jds" length="71294642" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">60189d494131db04239e6c93</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/navarette-v-california</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Your hosts discuss Navarette v. California, which held that an unverified anonymous tip about reckless driving could be sufficient grounds for the police to pull over a car. The case exemplifies how deferential the Supreme Court is to police power, and has resulted in an increased reliance on anonymous tips by the cops, and a corresponding erosion of citizens’ privacy rights. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Your hosts discuss Navarette v. California, which held that an unverified anonymous tip about reckless driving could be sufficient grounds for the police to pull over a car. The case exemplifies how deferential the Supreme Court is to police power, and has resulted in an increased reliance on anonymous tips by the cops, and a corresponding erosion of citizens’ privacy rights. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Morse v. Frederick</title>
<itunes:title>Morse v. Frederick</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:00:56 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>40:20</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/600f4d7c623ebb1664c09e43/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=zDo1QbSELH4DSkEFDnDGq7u0zeEcn5Nfqxi9qZK9gCQ" length="58091676" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">600f4d7c623ebb1664c09e43</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/morse-v-frederick</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>In 2002, a student held up a banner that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at an Olympic torch relay, in full view of his classmates and teachers. When he was suspended, he claimed his banner was protected free speech under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed. In this episode, your hosts discuss the contours of student free speech, the Court’s puritanical moralizing on marijuana, and the importance of absurdist speech in creating real change.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>In 2002, a student held up a banner that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at an Olympic torch relay, in full view of his classmates and teachers. When he was suspended, he claimed his banner was protected free speech under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed. In this episode, your hosts discuss the contours of student free speech, the Court’s puritanical moralizing on marijuana, and the importance of absurdist speech in creating real change.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Rise and Fall of Roe v. Wade, Pt. 2</title>
<itunes:title>The Rise and Fall of Roe v. Wade, Pt. 2</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:00:03 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>1:00:13</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/6006042cbb8e66414320121f/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=mLN432U5tvQpBrTpvnTglV__f8mIScwgqtaGaZ31L8Q" length="101185148" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">6006042cbb8e66414320121f</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/the-rise-and-fall-of-roe-v-wade-pt-2</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>In the second part of a two-episode series on abortion rights, the hosts discuss Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 case in which the Supreme Court made it easier for states to restrict abortion access so long as abortion regulations don’t create an “undue burden.” The vague standard set lawmakers on a new path of attacking abortion access and fueled anti-abortion groups’ efforts to spread stigma and misinformation, setting up Roe v. Wade for a death by a thousand cuts.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>In the second part of a two-episode series on abortion rights, the hosts discuss Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 case in which the Supreme Court made it easier for states to restrict abortion access so long as abortion regulations don’t create an “undue burden.” The vague standard set lawmakers on a new path of attacking abortion access and fueled anti-abortion groups’ efforts to spread stigma and misinformation, setting up Roe v. Wade for a death by a thousand cuts.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Rise and Fall of Roe v. Wade, Pt. 1</title>
<itunes:title>The Rise and Fall of Roe v. Wade, Pt. 1</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:00:53 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>54:21</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/5ffd140c7da265378c412dd4/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=pE6g9wXVchUiR07HRdFUKC0lzdbVYDBOBJL6VYL4wV8" length="78270160" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">5ffd140c7da265378c412dd4</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/the-rise-and-fall-of-roe-v-wade-pt-1</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>The hosts take on one of the Supreme Court’s most famous decisions, Roe v. Wade. In this first episode of a two-part series, they look at the legal and factual origins of Roe v. Wade. They also discuss how Roe was weaponized by the conservative legal movement to rally against an interpretation of the Constitution that allows for flexibility in favor of a far more rigid approach.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>The hosts take on one of the Supreme Court’s most famous decisions, Roe v. Wade. In this first episode of a two-part series, they look at the legal and factual origins of Roe v. Wade. They also discuss how Roe was weaponized by the conservative legal movement to rally against an interpretation of the Constitution that allows for flexibility in favor of a far more rigid approach.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>5-4 x Know Your Enemy</title>
<itunes:title>5-4 x Know Your Enemy</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2020 09:00:10 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>1:24:30</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/5fea495c6dd790193f45d0fb/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=dU_ipX6GNaG3_CMiAAPb5HNAAPNdX7NqyHujaIFFD8w" length="141960328" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">5fea495c6dd790193f45d0fb</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5-4-x-know-your-enemy</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael join the hosts of the podcast Know Your Enemy for a conversation about the conservative legal movement. They discuss the origins of conservative doctrines like originalism and textualism, and the rise of the Federalist Society from a small group of conservative students and academics to an organization whose members constitute the majority of the Supreme Court.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael join the hosts of the podcast Know Your Enemy for a conversation about the conservative legal movement. They discuss the origins of conservative doctrines like originalism and textualism, and the rise of the Federalist Society from a small group of conservative students and academics to an organization whose members constitute the majority of the Supreme Court.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Herrera v. Collins</title>
<itunes:title>Herrera v. Collins</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2020 09:00:25 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>49:11</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/5fd83f421c2b670fafd7ab60/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=TewkNTEsPLUgzRT0cdgKyE5LBl3DL1Sx-iFys5kk8Nw" length="70828898" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">5fd83f421c2b670fafd7ab60</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/herrera-v-collins</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>The hosts take on a 1993 death penalty case that has been called one of the worst decisions in capital punishment jurisprudence. Herrera v. Collins asks whether someone on death row can have new evidence of their innocence reviewed in federal habeas corpus proceedings, often the last resort for someone who has exhausted their appeals. In a 6-to-3 vote, the Court rejected the claim, barely shying away from holding that the Constitution does not protect against an innocent person being executed. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>The hosts take on a 1993 death penalty case that has been called one of the worst decisions in capital punishment jurisprudence. Herrera v. Collins asks whether someone on death row can have new evidence of their innocence reviewed in federal habeas corpus proceedings, often the last resort for someone who has exhausted their appeals. In a 6-to-3 vote, the Court rejected the claim, barely shying away from holding that the Constitution does not protect against an innocent person being executed. &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo</title>
<itunes:title>Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2020 09:00:46 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>43:13</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/5fce8ef4451253750707684e/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=X-DzvGe6cucKan0ck9FpRGph949RIX7Hj38HIXdR2U8" length="103740608" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">5fce8ef4451253750707684e</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/freedom-is-contagious</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, a recent case about COVID-19-related restrictions on religious gatherings. In it, the Supreme Court struck down hard capacity caps on religious gatherings in high-risk areas. The case has already spawned more challenges to pandemic-related restrictions on religious gatherings and likely foreshadows the expansion of legal exemptions for religious groups.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, a recent case about COVID-19-related restrictions on religious gatherings. In it, the Supreme Court struck down hard capacity caps on religious gatherings in high-risk areas. The case has already spawned more challenges to pandemic-related restrictions on religious gatherings and likely foreshadows the expansion of legal exemptions for religious groups.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Ashcroft v. Iqbal</title>
<itunes:title>Ashcroft v. Iqbal</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2020 09:00:01 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>55:38</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/5fc5b5683ce2ed1297b81a3b/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=gbEygqX_ZL_p6-Bh2ri9x_odmRFQzBgoKOB0B0GkOCQ" length="80118738" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">5fc5b5683ce2ed1297b81a3b</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/how-do-you-plead</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss Ashcroft v. Iqbal, a 2008 case in which the Court created a new pleading standard for legal complaints that made it much harder for plaintiffs to bring their cases. Here, a Pakistani immigrant who claimed he was detained and tortured in the wake of 9/11 had his case dismissed because, according to the Court, his allegations that Bush administration officials were responsible for his treatment were not “plausible.”&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;The hosts discuss Ashcroft v. Iqbal, a 2008 case in which the Court created a new pleading standard for legal complaints that made it much harder for plaintiffs to bring their cases. Here, a Pakistani immigrant who claimed he was detained and tortured in the wake of 9/11 had his case dismissed because, according to the Court, his allegations that Bush administration officials were responsible for his treatment were not “plausible.”&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett</title>
<itunes:title>Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2020 08:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>47:08</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29ff17de-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-6bc9cd6aa408/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=DYXFS5OozzaHuPSR24rUu-6gdX_58cA5EwjspPqAFG0" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29ff17de-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-6bc9cd6aa408</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970ad</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;HelixSleep.com/FiveFour&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;BuyRaycon.com/FiveFour&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;HelixSleep.com/FiveFour&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;BuyRaycon.com/FiveFour&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Courts Can’t Save Him</title>
<itunes:title>The Courts Can’t Save Him</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>52:16</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29fb4fdc-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-53518c127e17/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=SRHFUSW9-lvk5VMSDaOWHovTHzLmMS2riZoebgk8h1Q" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29fb4fdc-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-53518c127e17</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970ae</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;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.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;a href="HelixSleep.com/FiveFour"&gt;HelixSleep.com/FiveFour&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;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.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;a href="HelixSleep.com/FiveFour"&gt;HelixSleep.com/FiveFour&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Reliving Bush v. Gore</title>
<itunes:title>Reliving Bush v. Gore</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2020 08:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>1:00:06</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29f70878-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-4b5bfd4f001b/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=AH8GIuC_jn9LhH6Qe74KEcr1ZK2h_4zz7SOJwAnti5Q" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29f70878-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-4b5bfd4f001b</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970af</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;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. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: HelixSleep.com/FiveFour&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;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. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: HelixSleep.com/FiveFour&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>How to Fix the Court feat. Rep. Ro Khanna</title>
<itunes:title>How to Fix the Court feat. Rep. Ro Khanna</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>1:12:05</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29f2bf5c-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-0bc5144b0f64/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=duGDJVtyiP7pnRpbSwMJC2fsv3ab-_5bpfHZ4LhXdP8" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29f2bf5c-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-0bc5144b0f64</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970b0</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Rucho v. Common Cause</title>
<itunes:title>Rucho v. Common Cause</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2020 07:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>59:36</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29ef720c-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-d304a11f885c/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=t4ZJn5kGgRp64gq4TytT0IlDPvr-5aB7Bn0O-FLJFmQ" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29ef720c-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-d304a11f885c</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/rucho-v-common-cause</link>
<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;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.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors:&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;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.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors:&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Electoral College Coup Is Coming</title>
<itunes:title>The Electoral College Coup Is Coming</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2020 07:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>47:41</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29ec07fc-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-1b05a1bba3cf/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=lD99Ux3hveoKJD9qnsbgMMLDTsYueiVeAfnt1SubYbc" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29ec07fc-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-1b05a1bba3cf</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970b2</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>“What if Trump Dies?” And Other Questions</title>
<itunes:title>“What if Trump Dies?” And Other Questions</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>1:01:24</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29e888ca-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-bf8e25cf41d6/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=nLaUVe2oaOWYBQajjAf3136Q9fKgp9nXxUHgrFoN_-k" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29e888ca-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-bf8e25cf41d6</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970b3</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR%C2%A0%20"&gt;BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR%C2%A0%20"&gt;BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Amy Coney Barrett is a Right Wing Freak</title>
<itunes:title>Amy Coney Barrett is a Right Wing Freak</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>49:05</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29e54070-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-e743503cf630/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=nbgiBJGdizX6VgxC4uA51KDAYVZ62Dak-_N5UbSyAAQ" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29e54070-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-e743503cf630</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970b4</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>What RBG Didn't Understand</title>
<itunes:title>What RBG Didn't Understand</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2020 16:05:46 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>45:50</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/e7a2a5b4-fc23-11ea-af1e-2f9aa99e8d1c/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=SNUl81g3Ept5JS5r69GL5qJcIMTAHLBJ2-OZPcx79HU" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">e7a2a5b4-fc23-11ea-af1e-2f9aa99e8d1c</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970b5</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) on Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>LA v. Lyons</title>
<itunes:title>LA v. Lyons</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>41:28</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29de51c0-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-7f423e7f9f2f/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=snXKcUzjzAORFLCL1jwYLLC0BL-DNj4rUpMwr2th_9I" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29de51c0-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-7f423e7f9f2f</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970b6</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="keeps.com/fivefour"&gt;keeps.com/fivefour&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="keeps.com/fivefour"&gt;keeps.com/fivefour&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Voting Rights</title>
<itunes:title>Voting Rights</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>50:00</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29dba04c-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-1311335d27ef/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=C9ABu2GPtwDGRhV6tMA6vpAAXOCUAsjE04UhZo6i2Zs" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29dba04c-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-1311335d27ef</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970b7</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://rayconglobal.com/pages/fivefour?utm_source=podcast&amp;amp;utm_medium=influencer&amp;amp;utm_campaign=fivefour"&gt;buyraycon.com/fivefour&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) on Twitter. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://rayconglobal.com/pages/fivefour?utm_source=podcast&amp;amp;utm_medium=influencer&amp;amp;utm_campaign=fivefour"&gt;buyraycon.com/fivefour&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Flood v. Kuhn</title>
<itunes:title>Flood v. Kuhn</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>45:05</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29d8e406-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-3728b43a8972/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=O4N5ZunJvvDXP4nf9zCmM99wvpjdMNsdOKGycif9ztU" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29d8e406-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-3728b43a8972</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970b8</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy)&lt;/a&gt; and Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;) are joined by their friend Adam to discuss the 1972 case that exempted professional baseball from antitrust law.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Please support our sponsors:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Helix&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Raycon&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy)&lt;/a&gt; and Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;) are joined by their friend Adam to discuss the 1972 case that exempted professional baseball from antitrust law.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Please support our sponsors:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Helix&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Raycon&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Nielsen v. Preap</title>
<itunes:title>Nielsen v. Preap</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>49:14</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29d63940-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-f33b1e72cea3/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=YDGptwj27ChJn6igeKsyJLPjXK9URW9QItz1_gh03X4" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29d63940-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-f33b1e72cea3</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970b9</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) 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.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://magicspoon.com/pages/fivefour"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;magicspoon.com/FIVEFOUR &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://helixsleep.com/pages/landing-page?promo=54"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR  &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="jordanharbinger.com/subscribe%20%20"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;jordanharbinger.com/subscribe &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) 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.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://magicspoon.com/pages/fivefour"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;magicspoon.com/FIVEFOUR &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://helixsleep.com/pages/landing-page?promo=54"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR  &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="jordanharbinger.com/subscribe%20%20"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;jordanharbinger.com/subscribe &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Boy Scouts of America v. Dale</title>
<itunes:title>Boy Scouts of America v. Dale</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>40:20</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29d38952-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-9771a66a5a18/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=-LaVLNTg32Mki4Atadat1ddbg_xxxaXT24UrovHSyqs" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29d38952-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-9771a66a5a18</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970ba</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) talk about the 2000 case that allowed Boy Scouts to discriminate against gay scout leaders.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) talk about the 2000 case that allowed Boy Scouts to discriminate against gay scout leaders.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Milliken v. Bradley</title>
<itunes:title>Milliken v. Bradley</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>51:03</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29d0d8e2-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-1be7b41202ec/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=5DVXdIgqcgzkCl0U49hbrS3QSGHgie852KHRhvKQrO8" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29d0d8e2-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-1be7b41202ec</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970bb</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/the_law_boy?lang=en"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and special guest Leon Neyfakh (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/leoncrawl?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@Leoncrawl&lt;/a&gt;) discuss the 1974 case that effectively ended school desegregation efforts. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/the_law_boy?lang=en"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and special guest Leon Neyfakh (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/leoncrawl?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@Leoncrawl&lt;/a&gt;) discuss the 1974 case that effectively ended school desegregation efforts. &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Term Recap: 2019-2020</title>
<itunes:title>Term Recap: 2019-2020</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2020 07:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>53:41</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29ce1a8a-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-b722ab305933/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=-7-Rqlx0sFupqo0R7mhuHaTw8O7nt3_tWKG5Ia0vb_M" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29ce1a8a-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-b722ab305933</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970bc</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) look back at the most recent Supreme Court term.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) look back at the most recent Supreme Court term.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bennis v. Michigan</title>
<itunes:title>Bennis v. Michigan</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>48:09</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29c848b2-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-2f66faef6b2d/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=VUTnAIrxNIHrW2tuyVzgZUPMIOcJGNH6gkiFkAq73K0" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29c848b2-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-2f66faef6b2d</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970bd</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/the_law_boy?lang=en"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/aywarhiannon?lang=en"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) talk about civil forfeiture, the practice that lets police seize private property if it’s suspected of being involved in a crime.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/the_law_boy?lang=en"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/aywarhiannon?lang=en"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) talk about civil forfeiture, the practice that lets police seize private property if it’s suspected of being involved in a crime.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Epic Systems v. Lewis</title>
<itunes:title>Epic Systems v. Lewis</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>46:57</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29c58a0a-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-6f5892109c63/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=toBMfnzxPxG8QPU55An2UfF3q4yGnO6zm2Dh08uggR0" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29c58a0a-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-6f5892109c63</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970be</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;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. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Magic Spoon&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Spotify&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Helix&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;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. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Magic Spoon&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Spotify&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Helix&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Buckley v. Valeo</title>
<itunes:title>Buckley v. Valeo</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>44:54</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29c28dc8-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-274497f04935/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=nLGi9xmXagnUznTZzXhkySjHkxpj9OSVDnQTFxgqTEU" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29c28dc8-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-274497f04935</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970bf</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Bo&lt;/a&gt;y), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) 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.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Bo&lt;/a&gt;y), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) 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.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Janus v. AFSCME</title>
<itunes:title>Janus v. AFSCME</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>43:23</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29bfb256-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-3b599a92e837/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=uVaKmRtUI1Y9E7ZdL3KQpg_kWW4DaCZxvWhXR4ilwA8" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29bfb256-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-3b599a92e837</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970c0</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) 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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Raycon -- &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;a href="buyraycon.com/fivefour"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;buyraycon.com/fivefour&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Spotify &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) 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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Raycon -- &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;a href="buyraycon.com/fivefour"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;buyraycon.com/fivefour&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Spotify &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Qualified Immunity</title>
<itunes:title>Qualified Immunity</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>57:03</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29bcc302-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-ab87d95b2068/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=cjN72BW08KAE3lshCbIPAIsckILbEX0QYzHsQ8s3blw" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29bcc302-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-ab87d95b2068</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970c1</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) examine the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects police and other officials from being sued for civil rights and other abuses.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Raycon -- &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;a href="https://rayconglobal.com/pages/fivefour?utm_source=podcast&amp;amp;utm_medium=influencer&amp;amp;utm_campaign=fivefour"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;buyraycon.com/fivefour&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Helix -- &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;a href="helixsleep.com/fivefour"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;helixsleep.com/fivefour&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) examine the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects police and other officials from being sued for civil rights and other abuses.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Raycon -- &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;a href="https://rayconglobal.com/pages/fivefour?utm_source=podcast&amp;amp;utm_medium=influencer&amp;amp;utm_campaign=fivefour"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;buyraycon.com/fivefour&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Helix -- &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;a href="helixsleep.com/fivefour"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;helixsleep.com/fivefour&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Exxon Shipping v. Baker</title>
<itunes:title>Exxon Shipping v. Baker</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>45:16</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29b9beb4-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-2b9d3501318f/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=91JisqY9LpeMWcylucd5t1fj8i1zkYqKw6YGYUcNZ_s" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29b9beb4-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-2b9d3501318f</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970c2</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsor: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Raycon -- buyraycon.com/fivefour&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsor: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Raycon -- buyraycon.com/fivefour&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia</title>
<itunes:title>Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>25:45</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/9a9cbb82-afcb-11ea-99de-87155a33dae5/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=4cT51hp0Lh8uNR6jvlAH9PERXEL-dIsHOMI5U-frYAE" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">9a9cbb82-afcb-11ea-99de-87155a33dae5</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970c3</link> <itunes:episodeType>bonus</itunes:episodeType>
<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.  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<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.  &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Hernandez v. Mesa</title>
<itunes:title>Hernandez v. Mesa</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>56:54</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29b6713c-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-57abbeff2bf9/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=TbOR7RLWcjh5wMMQ6YY05HDpF28Vo_Kma9EgENsnSM4" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29b6713c-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-57abbeff2bf9</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970c4</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) 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.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) 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.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby</title>
<itunes:title>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>46:01</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29b39eb2-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-5b79f9dcddbc/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=x_FDEP-ITpJt90G1-uUMtE6oA3mjVZgjcRogemT2EHU" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29b39eb2-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-5b79f9dcddbc</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970c5</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) talk about the religious freedoms enjoyed by corporations.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) talk about the religious freedoms enjoyed by corporations.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Buck v. Bell</title>
<itunes:title>Buck v. Bell</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2020 07:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>47:20</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29aea65a-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-c75a584ad7f6/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=NPgeO_A3-G7u7gFU_M0yco3dElEqVGLHDxne54Bq_5U" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29aea65a-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-c75a584ad7f6</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970c6</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Blinkist&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Blinkist&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Tison v. Arizona</title>
<itunes:title>Tison v. Arizona</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>48:06</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29abb364-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-bf6733b11d43/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=0W5ibkBxqaawF1qJZZcSJKBKdLanfk93GwtbeNkqcbo" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29abb364-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-bf6733b11d43</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970c7</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/aywarhiannon?lang=en"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) discuss a 1987 case on felony murder, and whether it’s eligible for the death penalty.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/aywarhiannon?lang=en"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) discuss a 1987 case on felony murder, and whether it’s eligible for the death penalty.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Clapper v. Amnesty International</title>
<itunes:title>Clapper v. Amnesty International</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2020 07:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>45:06</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29a82d98-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-932aa1986eb8/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=_4XXGuswu7fiyqni1xRLWx4x4doPfAoDlUXiin-SRJs" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29a82d98-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-932aa1986eb8</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970c8</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;strong&gt; &lt;/strong&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;strong&gt; &lt;/strong&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Biden Court</title>
<itunes:title>The Biden Court</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>56:28</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29a550e6-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-77d65b1df29c/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=-b8N9fjukkqa2lZ8JtQjfkTaBZfmTDs1kHV9PwM-MHo" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29a550e6-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-77d65b1df29c</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970c9</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>&lt;p&gt;On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra)&lt;/a&gt; discuss what’s at stake for the Supreme Court in the 2020 election, and what the Court might look like under Joe Biden. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Roman -- &lt;a href="https://www.getroman.com/?ro_con=1&amp;amp;ro_ch=audio&amp;amp;ro_p=podcast&amp;amp;ro_n=veritone&amp;amp;ro_c=other&amp;amp;ro_g=five_four&amp;amp;ro_t=national&amp;amp;utm_source=veritone&amp;amp;utm_medium=audio&amp;amp;utm_campaign=five_four_podcast"&gt;GetRoman.com/fivefour&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra)&lt;/a&gt; discuss what’s at stake for the Supreme Court in the 2020 election, and what the Court might look like under Joe Biden. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Please support our sponsors: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Roman -- &lt;a href="https://www.getroman.com/?ro_con=1&amp;amp;ro_ch=audio&amp;amp;ro_p=podcast&amp;amp;ro_n=veritone&amp;amp;ro_c=other&amp;amp;ro_g=five_four&amp;amp;ro_t=national&amp;amp;utm_source=veritone&amp;amp;utm_medium=audio&amp;amp;utm_campaign=five_four_podcast"&gt;GetRoman.com/fivefour&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>DC v. Heller</title>
<itunes:title>DC v. Heller</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2020 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>50:37</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29a27b14-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-bb864d1073d9/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=Gb9aegX-YdsPA_gqVVVAihbbWCFxNDQp1agWuxfR2e4" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29a27b14-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-bb864d1073d9</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970ca</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On the eleventh episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra)&lt;/a&gt; discuss the 2008 ruling that granted individuals the right to own guns, breaking with more than a century of precedent. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On the eleventh episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra)&lt;/a&gt; discuss the 2008 ruling that granted individuals the right to own guns, breaking with more than a century of precedent. &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Kelo v. New London</title>
<itunes:title>Kelo v. New London</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2020 07:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>45:45</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/299f64ba-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-cb2728336780/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=T3u6t6PiJW6lPovhlkWTbHE4TUkV-8YO1MOB7OEZoXo" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">299f64ba-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-cb2728336780</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970cb</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On the tenth episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) 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. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On the tenth episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) 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. &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Castle Rock v. Gonzales</title>
<itunes:title>Castle Rock v. Gonzales</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>51:19</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/299caaa4-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-77a45af69361/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=RRCIR1mT66_5BPRV4Kq1NPZA87-cXVJmnxyoxNVw0MA" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">299caaa4-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-77a45af69361</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970cc</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On the ninth episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) 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. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On the ninth episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) 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. &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Emergency Episode: RNC v. DNC</title>
<itunes:title>Emergency Episode: RNC v. DNC</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2020 16:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>22:36</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/f0b0b73a-79b6-11ea-b2cf-23a31a5267cd/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=3wEzFz53RLsEIPsFOftCMhvl_ZlY4aQRFqDPU7fUU9g" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">f0b0b73a-79b6-11ea-b2cf-23a31a5267cd</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970cd</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<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. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<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. &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Trump v. Hawaii</title>
<itunes:title>Trump v. Hawaii</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2020 07:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>48:09</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/2999c992-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-6712fe2c2f53/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=FONgUqpUeP1N9TmukboCkasBgPr-_1kXm4PKgtDEOXI" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">2999c992-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-6712fe2c2f53</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970ce</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On the seventh episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) talk about the 2018 travel ban case, which tested the Supreme Court’s willingness to serve as a check on Donald Trump. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On the seventh episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) talk about the 2018 travel ban case, which tested the Supreme Court’s willingness to serve as a check on Donald Trump. &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>NFIB v. Sebelius</title>
<itunes:title>NFIB v. Sebelius</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2020 07:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>51:06</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/2996ebaa-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-c3590f687c3a/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=EU-4u1USfyLcGecmqSgXD9p7JFydIVTFPLxNM4aOs8Q" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">2996ebaa-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-c3590f687c3a</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970cf</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On the sixth episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) take on the Obamacare ruling in 2012, which isn’t as great as ACA fans might think.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On the sixth episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) take on the Obamacare ruling in 2012, which isn’t as great as ACA fans might think.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Terry v. Ohio</title>
<itunes:title>Terry v. Ohio</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2020 07:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>59:42</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/29943900-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-4f815ac8a15c/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=eacMnNgZiq9T6yl0X6mHUNe4rFpy8_Fj_XGxpSkUatQ" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">29943900-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-4f815ac8a15c</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970d0</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On the fifth episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) talk about the 1968 ruling by the Warren Court that that paved the way for stop-and-frisk laws around the country.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On the fifth episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) talk about the 1968 ruling by the Warren Court that that paved the way for stop-and-frisk laws around the country.&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Shelby County v. Holder</title>
<itunes:title>Shelby County v. Holder</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2020 13:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>51:40</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/299187be-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-bbd4b6855b6b/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=UeE7Y29mPU13O_n1qL2f-K6mXqLiZbTIzVTO30DqFwk" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">299187be-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-bbd4b6855b6b</guid>
<itunes:explicit>yes</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970d1</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<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.  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<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.  &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Fisher v. University of Texas</title>
<itunes:title>Fisher v. University of Texas</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2020 07:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>51:33</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/298dcd90-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-c3ec02dce7d6/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=Pu483cYALRjmirRFqemCUfaS6MWhg4I9WPcnFm4r6TI" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">298dcd90-5cd4-11ea-9fd6-c3ec02dce7d6</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970d2</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On the third episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) talk about the affirmative action case that flipped the Equal Protection Clause on its head.  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On the third episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor"&gt;@AywaRhiannon&lt;/a&gt;), and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_fleerultra?lang=en"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;) talk about the affirmative action case that flipped the Equal Protection Clause on its head.  &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Citizens United v. FEC</title>
<itunes:title>Citizens United v. FEC</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2020 08:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>50:40</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/35ff7a3e-5cce-11ea-99a0-7f935791ee56/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=7Z_yv4tW1HdQmGJhWlv4xX9QNqV1XjnGDgwrlDQtR4E" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">35ff7a3e-5cce-11ea-99a0-7f935791ee56</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970d3</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>On the second episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon"&gt;@AywaRhiannon)&lt;/a&gt;, and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_FleerUltra"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;), talk about the 2010 ruling that used the First Amendment as a basis for unleashing corporate spending in politics. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>On the second episode of 5-4, Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon"&gt;@AywaRhiannon)&lt;/a&gt;, and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_FleerUltra"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;), talk about the 2010 ruling that used the First Amendment as a basis for unleashing corporate spending in politics. &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bush v. Gore</title>
<itunes:title>Bush v. Gore</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 08:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>45:08</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/76ec5ca4-5753-11ea-9628-cf6f38f0a959/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=d5i_LEoO1x1UtU5bAWvSdBSFK7wt8MugflTMHTsZo58" length="64994578" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">76ec5ca4-5753-11ea-9628-cf6f38f0a959</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970d4</link> <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
<description>The debut episode of 5-4, presented by Leon Neyfakh (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/leoncrawl"&gt;@leoncrawl&lt;/a&gt;) and hosted by Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon"&gt;@AywaRhiannon)&lt;/a&gt;, and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_FleerUltra"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;), focuses on the ruling that ended the 2000 Florida recount and put George W. Bush in the White House.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<itunes:summary>The debut episode of 5-4, presented by Leon Neyfakh (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/leoncrawl"&gt;@leoncrawl&lt;/a&gt;) and hosted by Peter (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy"&gt;@The_Law_Boy&lt;/a&gt;), Rhiannon (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AywaRhiannon"&gt;@AywaRhiannon)&lt;/a&gt;, and Michael (&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/_FleerUltra"&gt;@_FleerUltra&lt;/a&gt;), focuses on the ruling that ended the 2000 Florida recount and put George W. Bush in the White House.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
<title>Official Trailer: 5-4</title>
<itunes:title>Official Trailer: 5-4</itunes:title>
<pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 20:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
<itunes:duration>1:47</itunes:duration>
<enclosure url="https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5fc574d8d429ec34a8292b1c/e/59efa312-478c-11ea-8c6b-43a40e51da9e/media.mp3?tk=eyJ1aWQiOiI0YmE1OTNjYS0yOTI5LTQzYzEtOGJmZC01NmM0ZmJhODQwNDAiLCJ0ayI6InVFZEhMNkVCIiwiYWRzIjpmYWxzZSwic3BvbnMiOmZhbHNlLCJ0IjoiNjc5NzYyOCIsInN0YXR1cyI6InB1YmxpYyJ9&amp;sig=Noy1UfQ4kvT-fhh0GHq-YjJ9ZxLa6ZXzvxiQc22KdXA" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
<guid isPermaLink="false">59efa312-478c-11ea-8c6b-43a40e51da9e</guid>
<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
<link>https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/5fc574df5d0d2f39035970d5</link> <itunes:episodeType>trailer</itunes:episodeType>
<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. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
<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. &lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
</item>
<itunes:category text="Government"/>
<itunes:category text="News">
<itunes:category text="News Commentary"/>
</itunes:category>
</channel>
</rss>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment