Episode Format:
1. Supreme Court Allows Idaho to Enforce Ban on Gender-Transition Care for Minors While on Appeal (0:40)
2. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Fischer vs. United States: Were January 6th Defendants Improperly Charged with Obstruction? (4:48)
3. House Delivers DHS Secretary Mayorkas’ Articles of Impeachment to Senate (10:49)
4. Speaker Johnson Will Not Resign Despite Additional Support for Vacate Motion (12:50)
5. University of Southern California Cancels Muslim Valedictorian’s Speech Citing Safety Concerns (14:12)
If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!
Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok: @jordanismylawyer
All sources for this episode can be found here: https://www.jordanismylawyer.com/episodes/april162024
———————————————————————————–
0:00 Intro
0:40 Idaho Transition Ban
4:48 Fischer v. United States
10:49 Mayorkas’ ImpeachmentH
12:50 Speaker Johnson Will Not Resign
14:12 USC Cancels Valedictorian Speech
source
Thank you for covering Fischer. It seemed so clear to me based on the language, but your clarification as to how the "otherwise" could be interpreted differently helped me understand the issue.
I love this show! I listen to Mo News and Reuters and I am telling you that this show explains things SO much more clearly. I am a morning news kinda guy so I was bummed that this went to an evening format but the information is still up to date with most of the morning news when I listen. Even though Jordan is not my lawyer, Jordan is probably the only person I trust to lay things out the way they are. Keep it up!
I like this new format of shorter updates but more frequently. Thanks for sharing
Another excellent show, Jordan.
Great analysis. Like how you simplify the issues for us laypeople.
thank you for doing this, I was really confused this morning what Turley was on about.
the problem with 'otherwise', (if it's not constrained by section one) is it's vague enough that it (and can be so broadly interpreted) that section one isn't even required. Add to that, t/legal definition of obstruction is more limiting than t/colloquial use. It's shorthand for 'obstruction of justice'. that in itself begs the question, section 1, is just spelling out what obstruction of justice is.
and that's already a crime, you don't need an additional law for that. that said, there are both lawful, and unlawful ways to obstruct justice. you can plead the fifth, or demand due process… but what is clear, trespassing, could never be conflated with obstruction of justice.
This is the perfect answer for what to listen to if you don't want any
" leaning" to left or right.
Very Cronkite but better with Jordan's legal expertise.
Critical in this election year season
Thanks so much Jordan
Myorkas and the great, IMPEACH! BYE!
Thank you for another unbiased review of the rulings, Jordan. Love your channel. ❤
Another great update. Thanks!
Jordan, I'm thinking you'd make a great supreme court justice.
Excellent and truly unbiased! Better than any legacy media.
Great show tonight!!!
Jordan, great job explaining complex decisions.
Good episode!
Hi Jordan,
Thank you for today’s explanation of events. I’m looking forward to your clarity as the impeachment proceedings get underway.
this country is going a bit nutso.
Comments are closed.