OYENTE

DRobinson

  • 14
  • opiniones
  • 2
  • votos útiles
  • 50
  • calificaciones

biased

Total
2 out of 5 stars
Ejecución
3 out of 5 stars
Historia
1 out of 5 stars

Revisado: 10-28-24

generally love the show. Great format and topics. This Amazon one is bad though. It doesn't present both sides or explain Khan's attempt to rewrite legal history without court blessing.
It also leaves out how critical Amazon is. It created an ecosystem to support millions of disabled Americans. Hundreds of thousands of which lived in rural areas and were forced to move or be reliant on family for basic needs until Amazon arrived.
Presenting Khan's story without the other side was disappointing.

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

biased

Total
2 out of 5 stars
Ejecución
4 out of 5 stars
Historia
1 out of 5 stars

Revisado: 10-21-24

As a general rule, I appreciate the approach and framing as many times they are a fair representation of the case's oral argument. even if skewed, it's accurate.

This week's presentation of the EPA case seemingly relies on 15 second clips posted to Twitter and out of context. It doesn't convey the majority argument, even if they disagree with it, and doesn't explain to the listener why there are concerns.

At one point, they suggest the justices were calling for the end of the EPA solely because they asked the agency a question about torts. A complete attempt to mislead.

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

misleading

Total
2 out of 5 stars
Ejecución
4 out of 5 stars
Historia
1 out of 5 stars

Revisado: 09-01-24

I love the podcast and would recommend as a whole. this one misses the mark, primarily because they refuse to state the holding of the case.

Due to the SC chapter of the NAACP refusing to submit an alternative map, a negative inference against racial discrimination was found. there's no indication another method to achieve the same partisan efforts were available.

either the facts are inconvenient for the political conversation or they didn't read the opinion. either situation is dangerous.

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

chapter 58

Total
2 out of 5 stars
Ejecución
5 out of 5 stars
Historia
1 out of 5 stars

Revisado: 08-16-24

First need to say this review is solely related to this book. overall, the series is absolutely 5 *. The problem comes in this book's design and setup. it spends much of its time's discussion on magic related to a specific topic only to have the entire branch of magic bargained away for a plot hole. This happened in book 4 as well but was set up properly and fell into character.
This was not the case here. Here the situation falls out of character, pulls you out of the experience, and, essentially, let's readers know their investment was completely worthless.
While I suggest the series, this was a huge and unnecessary blunder.

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Great information with a slant, but it's honest at least

Total
4 out of 5 stars
Ejecución
5 out of 5 stars
Historia
2 out of 5 stars

Revisado: 07-03-24

This is one of my go-tos to test my mind on news I get elsewhere. The podcasters are biased left, but they are very honest, upfront and address real issues. They don't sugar coat bad information for the left side but still advance their points. It sharpens and clarifies my nature positions and has moved various ones. A compliment rarely given in this day and age.

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Case episodes are amazing and a huge service. Political episodes are hack jobs.

Total
2 out of 5 stars
Ejecución
4 out of 5 stars
Historia
1 out of 5 stars

Revisado: 06-06-24

The case covers are really great. I love listening to them and wish I had them while in law school.

The more political ones not connected to cases are extreme and biased to the left. They're so cringy its hard to listen to. They make attacks that make no sense (e.g. tell Alito to come out and say he doesn't know what the flag means but actually did do that, they just don't provide the whole statement).

Their leaps in logic are insane. A flag a wife puts up somehow shows that a justice is a fascist, with no other evidence. But pesky details like Merchan recusals? Never even possibly mentioned.

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Well thought out positions, but extremely biased

Total
3 out of 5 stars
Ejecución
5 out of 5 stars
Historia
1 out of 5 stars

Revisado: 06-06-24

This podcast is extremely topical and the podcasters are incredibly knowledgeable. They play off each other well and can easily break down the liberal version of supreme court cases and court culture in digestible ways.

It is extremely important to note this is the paramount podcast for the liberal interpretation of the law. With that mindset, you can ignore when they blatantly disregard obvious holes in their logic (e.g. justice Thomas criticisms but not even mentioning Merchan; glossing over whole parts of cases if they are coherent to give the impression the 3 middle justices aren't, etc.).

If you want to hone your legal mind and are willing to inform yourself with news from the other side (federalist society podcasts; heritage, etc.) this podcast is a must go to.

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Good for news but very biased

Total
2 out of 5 stars
Ejecución
3 out of 5 stars
Historia
1 out of 5 stars

Revisado: 06-05-24

It's rare to find daily podcasts in the legal news world so 2 stars at a minimum for content generation.

With that said, the podcast is extremely biased and should be fact checked as you listen. Only one side is included in stories. For example, only Hamas figures are reported in the Israeli war with no combatant figures; similar with Israeli viewpoints on specific events. Harsh criticism for recusals at the supreme court is consistently presented (even over a stupid flag for a whole episode) but no coverage for actual conflicts (judicial political donations against defendants).

The podcast fits in a mold like CNN. Yes, there's news. You just have to do research to get all of it and know your listening to an editorial board.

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

cancel culture

Total
2 out of 5 stars
Ejecución
3 out of 5 stars
Historia
1 out of 5 stars

Revisado: 04-15-24

I generally love the podcast and listen to all of them. This one was particularly concerning though as it calls for the canceling of all debate and friendships simply because of their association or legal ideology. The answer presented wasn't to provide more debate but to simply shut it down. Remove friends from your life/give them ultimatums. key people's cars because of their legal thought process. Dangerous.

This one, like many others, continues to state Crowe has had a case in front of the US Supreme Court, which has been proven untrue many times. It also criticizes recusal for judges subject to the rule of necessity yet leaves out any mention of the same actions by judges not subject to the rule (Merchan's 1 step relative receiving compensation, or, more directly, violation of the judicial code of ethics but refusal to recuse on the appearance of impropriety).

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Truly epic

Total
5 out of 5 stars
Ejecución
5 out of 5 stars
Historia
5 out of 5 stars

Revisado: 02-24-24

Cradle is one of the modern greats that sticks with you even when you move on 10 series later. One that you continually compare future series to, yet they fall short.

This ending only shows why. Not only was the action handled well, though selfishly I wish it was 2 of them, the wrap up period wasn't rushed and answered most of what you wanted. Highly suggest the full series.

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

adbl_web_global_use_to_activate_webcro805_stickypopup