x

75% of people globally want unbiased news (Pew Research) but are concerned they're not getting that.

Get balanced coverage with Symby. See how stories are covered across diverse outlets and spot when one side covers a story the other skips.

PODCAST

5-4

Prologue Projects

5-4 is a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks. Hosted by Peter Shamshiri, Rhiannon Hamam, and Michael Liroff, it's a progressive and occasionally profane take on the ideological battles at the heart of the Court's most important landmark cases and an irreverent tour of all the ways in which the law is shaped by politics.Subscribe to our premium episodes & much more at fivefourpod.com/support5-4 is a production of Prologue Projects.

government news commentary

All Episodes

49:14

McCleskey v. Kemp ft. Josie Duffy Rice

5-4 ·

2021/02/23

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.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy),

en

57:32

Atkins v. Virginia

5-4 ·

2021/02/16

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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

en

49:41

US v. Morrison

5-4 ·

2021/02/09

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.Follow eter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on

en

49:30

Navarette v. California

5-4 ·

2021/02/02

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. Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. Hosted on Acast. See

en

40:20

Morse v. Frederick

5-4 ·

2021/01/26

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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more

en

1:00:13

The Rise and Fall of Roe v. Wade, Pt. 2

5-4 ·

2021/01/19

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. Hosted on Acast. See

en

54:21

The Rise and Fall of Roe v. Wade, Pt. 1

5-4 ·

2021/01/12

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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

en

1:24:30

5-4 x Know Your Enemy

5-4 ·

2020/12/29

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.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. Hosted on Acast

en

49:11

Herrera v. Collins

5-4 ·

2020/12/15

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.

en

43:13

Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo

5-4 ·

2020/12/08

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.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on

en

55:38

Ashcroft v. Iqbal

5-4 ·

2020/12/01

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.”Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael

en

47:08

Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett

5-4 ·

2020/11/17

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

en

52:16

The Courts Can’t Save Him

5-4 ·

2020/11/10

The hosts look back at the week-long presidential election, which Joe Biden won. They discuss the challenges mounted by the Trump campaign in various states and explain why none of them is likely to change the outcome of the election. They also reflect on some state-level initiatives and put forth their strategy for how President Biden should deal with a split Senate, especially on matters pertaining to the Supreme Court. Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael

en

1:00:06

Reliving Bush v. Gore

5-4 ·

2020/11/03

The hosts reflect on a string of cases pertaining to the coming election, discuss the legacy of Bush v. Gore, and the significance of Justice Kavanaugh recently citing Justice Rehnquist’s infamous concurrence in the case. They then replay their original analysis of the 2000 election case that put George W. Bush in the White House. Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. Please support our sponsors: HelixSleep.com/FiveFour Hosted on Acast. See

en

1:12:05

How to Fix the Court feat. Rep. Ro Khanna

5-4 ·

2020/10/27

The hosts discuss options for reforming the court — from court packing, to term limits for judges, to stripping the court of jurisdiction to hear cases pertaining to new laws. They also speak to Congressman Ro Khanna about court reform, and about the bill he has introduced to limit Supreme Court Justices' tenure. But they remain clear on their preferred option: packing the court to include more liberal justices.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on

en

59:36

Rucho v. Common Cause

5-4 ·

2020/10/20

The hosts reflect on the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings, then move on to discussing gerrymandering, the practice of drawing up voting districts to favor a particular political party. Specifically, they talk about Rucho v. Common Cause, a 2019 case in which the Supreme Court not only refused to rule on two states’ gerrymandered maps, they found all partisan gerrymandering to be outside the purview of the Court going forward.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael

en

47:41

The Electoral College Coup Is Coming

5-4 ·

2020/10/13

The hosts discuss the past, present, and future of the Electoral College, and all the ways it could be used to stage a procedural coup in the upcoming election. They also talk about how the Electoral College could be restructured to give greater representation to states with large populations, like California. But if it were up to them, they’d get rid of this undemocratic institution all together, and switch to a system in which the president is chosen by popular vote. Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy),

en

1:01:24

“What if Trump Dies?” And Other Questions

5-4 ·

2020/10/06

The hosts discuss the recent news that Donald Trump has contracted COVID-19 and what implications it might have for the upcoming election and the Supreme Court. Then they answer listener questions, covering everything from court reform to how to decide if you should go to law school. Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. Please support our sponsors: BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

en

49:05

Amy Coney Barrett is a Right Wing Freak

5-4 ·

2020/09/29

The hosts talk about Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. They discuss the nominee's judicial record, her faith, and what it means to be nominated by President Trump at this time. Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

en

45:50

What RBG Didn't Understand

5-4 ·

2020/09/21

On this week's episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are discussing the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Specifically, the hosts talk about the consequences of RBG's decision not to step down from the Court during Barack Obama's presidency, what that decision tells us about her, and what lies ahead. Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

en

292 results

Similar Podcasts

The Fly

Georgetown"s Institute of Politics and...

THE CONSTITUTION STUDY

Paul Engel

The DSR Daily

The DSR Network

The Lawfare Podcast

The Lawfare Institute

Fora do Baralho

Rádio Observador