Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, cover everything Voting Rights Act in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais. Why was the Voting Rights Act enacted, and how does it relate to the Fifteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? What did the VRA accomplish? What did the Supreme Court do with Section 5 of the VRA in Shelby County, and was that case rightly decided? Is redistricting even covered by the language of the VRA? If it is covered, would that even be constitutional if the Fourteenth Amendment covers only civil rights, rather than political rights? How has the VRA been interpreted since it was held to cover redistricting? Ilan and Kathryn talk about the "Democrat Movement Lawyer" theory of the VRA, which required what Kathryn calls "Dem Maxxing" -- maximizing the political power of Democrats. The Supreme Court in Callais, Ilan argues, merely scuttled this crazy interpretation of the VRA, restoring it to its original and intended purposes.

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!

Subscribe to our Substack!

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, get a full hour with Mollie Hemingway, editor-in-chief of The Federalist and author of the new New York Times bestseller, Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution. They touch on several themes in the book and connect them to current issues and news. Is Alito an originalist? What is a "practical originalist"? Why did he make fun of Justice Scalia, saying he wanted to know what James Madison thought about video games? What do the attacks on Alito show us about the Left's strategy and tactics more broadly? What is "demosprudence"? The "Greenhouse effect"? And what's the Shadow Docket? Our hosts then talk with Mollie about the recent Voting Rights Act decision, about election integrity more generally, and here takeaway from the birthright citizenship oral arguments, which she attended. Enjoy and please like and subscribe!

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!

Subscribe to our Substack!

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, revisit the issue of Trump's ballroom after the recent assassination attempt. Ilan sticks to his guns and thinks Congress has to approve the ballroom; Kathryn is skeptical. Both agree, though, that the District Court case against the ballroom is ridiculous because the plaintiff doesn't have standing. Our hosts pivot to the Democrats' plan to pack the Supreme Court and make D.C. a state. They talk about the history of circuit riding and the need to increase the number of lower court judges after Biden shamefully vetoed a bipartisan bill in 2024. They talk about Congress's power over and duties toward the other branches through the Necessary and Proper Clause. Their longest discussion is about the Fifth Circuit's ruling allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed in Texas classrooms. The audience can join Kathryn as Ilan tests her on the application of the infamous "Lemon test" for religious establishment.

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!

Subscribe to our Substack!

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, take a deep dive into the ongoing January 6 lawfare, and particularly the civil lawsuit against President Trump brought by capitol police officers and lawmakers in D.C. Did you even know that such a lawsuit was going on? Our hosts break down the 2024 immunity decision, talk about the Independent Counsel statute from the Watergate era, and break down the causes of action against Trump in the civil case. Did Trump "direct" others to assault and batter capitol police officers? Did he "aid and abet" the attacks? Or is the civil lawsuit another outrageous attempt by Movement lawyers to abuse the legal process to harass their political opponents? The hosts round out the episode with discussion of the lawfare against the ordinary citizens who served as "alternate electors" in 2020 and the recent disbarment of Trump lawyer John Eastman.

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!

Subscribe to our Substack!

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, rave about the Supreme Court's shadow docket. The shadow docket allows the Court quickly to rein in rogue district judges and their crazy opinions. Our hosts in particular talk about Justice Kavanaugh's shadow docket decision involving "Kavanaugh Stops," Justice Sotomayor's personal attack on Kavanaugh, Judge Boasberg's TdA ruling, and the D.C. Circuit's benchslap of his recent attempt to hold Trump officials in contempt. They also talk about exit taxes, and their most academic topic to date: What is the object of legal interpretation? Does the intent of the legislature matter? Only the text? Something else?

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!

Subscribe to our Substack!

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, explore a series of issues involving both executive and judicial "lawmaking." Would the President have the power to "wipe out" Iranian civilization without Congress? Can the President on his own initiative order the postal service to deliver only certain kinds of election-related materials to advance his election integrity agenda? Can the President order the destruction of an entire wing of the White House pursuant to a statute authorizing the making of "alterations" and "improvements"? Our hosts discuss the Constitution's distribution of power between Congress and the President more generally before turning to the threat district courts currently pose with their judicial lawmaking. Do judges have a right to stop the building of the new ballroom? Who even has "standing" to bring such a suit? And why are district courts exercising jurisdiction over immigration decisions where Congress's statute specifically divests courts of jurisdiction? Finally our hosts talk about the First Amendment and the 8-1 decision in Chiles v. Salazar, which invalidated a crazy Colorado law prohibiting talk therapists from discouraging gender transitions.

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!

Subscribe to our Substack!

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, devote their episode to election integrity and the meaning of "election day." Does a federal "election day" preempt state laws providing that ballots can still be received days after the election? Is someone "elected" once the final selection is made by the voters, or when those selections are transmitted to election officials? Or perhaps it's only when the count is done? Our hosts penetrate this thicket of possibilities, and discuss the surprising history of the uniform election day -- voter fraud! Our hosts explore the "great frauds" that were committed in the Election of 1840, how Congress responded, and how many election laws exist to prevent opportunities for fraud. Our hosts also break down some recent legal immigration news -- including what it means to "arrive in" the United States for purposes of seeking asylum -- before tying the topics together with their guest, Mateo Forero from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, who talks about FAIR's blockbuster report on the connection between illegal immigration policies and proven instances of voter fraud.

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!

Subscribe to our Substack!

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, break down what they just heard at the Supreme Court oral argument over President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. They prognosticate on the result. Wong Kim Ark will not decide this case. Justice Barrett will be the critical vote: what is her theory of what connects ambassadors, invaders, and Indian tribes? What is the government's theory of domicile? What is the plaintiffs' theory of extraterritoriality? They are joined in the second half by guest Theo Wold, one of the architects of the executive order when he worked for the first Trump administration. What is at stake? Why does this issue feel so existential? What's next if the Supreme Court rules against Trump? Tune in and enjoy this emergency pod.

Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!

Subscribe to our Substack!

New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!

Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!