May it Displease the Court

In June 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment that must be afforded to same-sex couples.  Since then, anti-LGBTQ activists, with funding from creepy right-wing billionaires and help from Republican state legislators in gerrymandered “red” states, have sought new ways to marginalize and bully LGBTQ people. To fracture the unity of LGBTQ people and their allies, the legislative attacks have targeted transgender people. First manufactured concerns about bathroom access, next trans people's ability to participate in sports, and most recently, attacks on transgender youths and their bodies with the increasing trend of criminalizing trans medicine. How has the medical community responded to the criminalization of practices, which are the standard of care for gender dysphoria, and the insertion of legislators who want to prohibit parents of trans youth from making decisions about their children's medical care? In this episode, Michigan State Professor stef shuster, who wrote the book wrote Trans Medicines - The emergence and practice of treating gender, joins host Mary Whiteside. *Since recording, the American Medical Association has come of opposing any and all criminal penalties for patients and families attempting to access gender-affirming care and protecting physicians from legal threats for providing care.  **Also, several important Court decisions have come out stopping laws banning or limiting gender-affirming care from taking effect. Huge wins for the trans community! However, these favorable decisions will undoubtedly be appealed, so the fight is not over. Find us @courtpod on Twitter, and May it Displease the Court on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Clapper Drop an email at mayitdispleasethecourt@gmail.com.  We would also love to rate and review the show. It helps others find the program. Sources https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-020-01131-3)    https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2020/toxic-masculinity-is-unsafe-for-men   https://socialscience.msu.edu/news-events/news/archives/2020/2020-06-16.html    ​​https://socialscience.msu.edu/research/thematic/sgm/journal.html    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2783699    https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2022/endocrine-society-alarmed-at-criminalization-of-transgender-medicine  Article on Willie Simmons: https://www.essence.com/news/willie-simmons-life-prison-alabama-habitual-offender/

Here in America, the number of people we choose to incarcerate makes up 25% of the world's prison population. And that statistic was driven by mainly by state and local “tough on crime” prosecutors. Prosecutors have a huge amount of power and control over who get criminally charged, who doesn't, what crimes get pursued, and what crimes get ignored, who gets a plea bargain, and who gets denied or offered rehabilitative diversion programs.  If you want to change the system the fastest way is to become a reform District Attorney. But while that may be popular with the majority of voters in some areas, even these officials face a ton of well-funded resistance. In this episode, Justin Kollar, who has been working as and for the Reform Prosecutor Movement since 2012 joins host Mary Whiteside to discuss the ways prosecutors can use their power to advance justice and divert resources to truly help communities and make them safer.  Find us @courtpod on Twitter and May it Displease the Court on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Clapper Drop an email at mayitdispleasethecourt@gmail.com.  We would also love to rate and review the show. It helps others find the program. Sources https://fairandjustprosecution.org/about-fjp/our-work-and-vision/    https://www.civilbeat.org/beat/kauai-prosecutor-stepping-down-for-nonprofit-gig/    https://fairandjustprosecution.org/about-fjp/our-team/ Article on Willie Simmons: https://www.essence.com/news/willie-simmons-life-prison-alabama-habitual-offender/

The Constitution protects our right to an impartial jury. Still, the normal process of selecting a jury often lets attorneys' unconscious or conscious biases infect jury selection. If a juror's biases are undetected or dismissed as something that can be set aside, they can inflect the verdict leading to wrongful convictions. Biases are habits of thought or patterns of thinking that include preferences, inclinations, or just impressions. Biases can include cognitive shortcuts that can lead to wrong assumptions or errors in judgment. Judging a past event using what you know today is hindsight bias. Confirmation bias is only seeking information to confirm a prejudgment. All of these are impediments to a fair jury. The stakes could not be higher for an innocent person accused of a crime. If a jury fills in gaps in the government's proof with stereotypes, hunches, and vague bad feelings, then the  In this episode, trial attorney Rhian Jones joins host Mary Whiteside to discuss the dangers of hidden biases on a jury and ideas to make jury selection better and fairer. Find us @courtpod on Twitter and May it Displease the Court on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Clapper Drop an email at mayitdispleasethecourt@gmail.com.  We would also love to rate and review the show. It helps others find the program. Sources Rhian Jones http://etksdefense.com/attorneys/rhian-jones/ Peremptory Challenges https://www.npr.org/2021/09/06/1034556234/arizonas-supreme-court-eliminates-peremptory-challenges  https://civiljuryproject.law.nyu.edu/understanding-bias-preserving-peremptory-challenges-preventing-their-discriminatory-use-and-providing-fairer-and-more-impartial-juries/  https://abovethelaw.com/2015/11/criminally-yours-dont-eliminate-peremptory-challenges/ Article on Willie Simmons: https://www.essence.com/news/willie-simmons-life-prison-alabama-habitual-offender/

We hear the terms cancel culture and wokeness thrown around these days, but do you know what they mean? A common defense tactic of someone embroiled in a public and embarrassing controversy is to proclaim loudly, through their platforms, they have been canceled, and of course, the people canceling them have to be woke. That is what Dr. Nicholas Niciosa and his wife, Mary, claimed after they received public criticism after it became known that they hosted a party with racist themes at their mansion. A lawsuit was filed by an employee whose supervisor took him and other employees to this party during work hours.  In this episode, we bring back one of the best people on the planet Prof.Lee Pierce. She joins host Mary Whiteside to discuss cancel culture, free speech, and wokeness. Find us on Twitter @courtpod and May it Displease the Court on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Youtube shorts, and we will launch a youtube channel soon. Drop an email at mayitdispleasethecourt@gmail.com.  We would also love to rate and review the show. It helps others find the program. Sources: https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2022/08/11/rochester-ny-firefighter-alleges-captain-took-him-to-racist-party-mocking-juneteenth/65400205007/  Article on Willie Simmons: https://www.essence.com/news/willie-simmons-life-prison-alabama-habitual-offender/

The Conservative majority on the Supreme Court is upending the legal landscape overturning cases like Roe v. Wade, making it almost impossible for states to enact limits on gun possession, and more, all under the guise of a legal theory called originalism.  In this episode, we bring back one of our most popular guests, Prof. Eric Segall. He joins host Mary Whiteside to discuss his book Originalism as Faith. Listen as Professor Segall debunks originalism as a legal theory. Self-avowed originalists on the Supreme Court only use the Constitution's original meaning in their opinions when it helps their argument. But, even though they claim originalism is the only correct method of Constitutional interpretation. They effortlessly abandon originalism when it doesn't help them reach their desired results. In short, originalism is nothing more than a rhetorical device that plays well on Fox News. It masks the Justices' true motive, which is to impose their moral value judgments on the rest of us without admitting that it is their views. They prefer to claim that they are only doing the will of the Founders, which somehow matches identically with what the Republican Party and their wealthy and religious donors want them to do. What luck! Find us on Twitter - Prof. Segall is @espinsegall and @scotussegall on TikTok The podcast is @courtpod on Twitter and May it Displease the Court on Facebook, Instagram and TikTok Drop an email at mayitdispleasethecourt@gmail.com.  We would also love to rate and review the show. It helps others find the program. Sources: Originalism as Faith https://www.abebooks.com/Originalism-Faith-Segall-Eric-J-Cambridge/30213915736/bd?cm_mmc=msn-_-comus_shopp_textbook-_-naa-_-naa&msclkid=a2162b84717d1beb3eb94831ae6abfb3  Read more from Prof. Segal - Originalism as Dangerous Nonsense http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2022/11/originalism-as-dangerous-nonsense.html?m=1  Additional References https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/alito-dobbs-opinion-ending-abortion-rights-extreme-lines.html  https://nysba.org/the-supreme-courts-bruen-decision-and-its-impact-what-comes-next/  https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2021/11/29/koch-spent-nearly-150-million-2020  Article on Willie Simmons:  https://www.essence.com/news/willie-simmons-life-prison-alabama-habitual-offender/

Political divisions are driving wedges at all levels, national, state, communities, and families. The fracture may seem unbridgable. But Americans agree that our government does not work for us. It works for the rich and powerful. Even acknowledging the problem can make you feel overwhelmed, and the knee-jerk reaction is often to look away because the solution feels impossible to achieve.  In this episode, Daniel G. Newman joins host Mary Whiteside to discuss his graphic novel Unrig: How to fix our broken democracy, art by George O'Connor. Unrig a nonfiction graphic novel by democracy reform leader Daniel G. Newman and artist George O'Connor takes readers on a journey. First it explains how the system is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful and then highlights the heroic efforts of those unrigging the system to limit the influence of big/dark money and to return political power to the voters.  ​”If you're overwhelmed by negative news and despairing for the direction of our country, Unrig is a tonic that will restore your faith and reveal the path forward to fix our broken democracy.” Find us on Twitter - Daniel is @danielgnewman, and the podcast is @courtpod. Drop an email at mayitdispleasethecourt@gmail.com.  We would also love to rate and review the show. It helps others find the program. Sources: Learn about and buy Unrig https://www.unrigbook.com/  Check out Daniel's organization Maplight https://www.maplight.org/ Article on Willie Simmons:   https://www.essence.com/news/willie-simmons-life-prison-alabama-habitual-offender/

Kathy Krauseneck, a wife and mother of a three-year-old girl, was murdered with an ax while sleeping in her bed nearly 40 years ago. Her husband, James, was initially a suspect, but almost 40 years passed, and no one was charged in Kathy's death. The District Attorney reopened the case, and a new forensic pathologist looked at the evidence.  Armed with a new forensic opinion, the DA's office indicted James for the death of his wife 40 years ago, claiming the case is solved. But is it In this episode, we speak with defense attorney Don Thompson, whose firm Easton, Thompson, Kasperak, and Shiffrin, represent James and attorney Alison Carling, who used to live in the house which was the crime scene of the infamous Brighton Ax Murder.  Find us on Twitter - @courtpod.  Drop an email at mayitdispleasethecourt@gmail.com.  We would also love to rate and review the show. It helps others find the program. Sources https://news.yahoo.com/james-krauseneck-sentenced-25-years-205415303.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACDrNVg0af3GFiGtqs7EFbZnjb2h_Tn3ZkHe_DIpxV9wnRszg6XHMQ1ye4wMvkviPZzSzAJvrMPFpYfXrJIT-bCf9QEEgZLt_4tP_we3cdwWxecPj_1QGYv_wyX0lFKqXTRzolDAJpJ5DtfYlSP9ExtcLp4BG05Yp20mv1AXO74L  https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/james-krauseneck-gets-25-to-life-for-wifes-1982-ax-murder  https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-camp-sends-pathologist-michael-baden-to-watch-over-his-autopsy  https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/why-to-be-skeptical-of-michael-baden-on-epsteins-death.html  https://vimeo.com/58066171  https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/33-Del-Rio-Dr-Rochester-NY-14618/30904078_zpid/  Article on Willie Simmons:  https://www.essence.com/news/willie-simmons-life-prison-alabama-habitual-offender/ 

In this episode, we continue the taboo discussion about law clerks. Only this time, we get even more controversial.  Did you know that Federal Judges empowered to judge discrimination and harassment cases are exempt from the same anti-discrimination laws that apply to other government branches and private employers? Yup, Judges are above the law. And some Judges abuse their staff with impunity.  In this episode, we speak with Aliza Shatzman, co-founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit aimed at ensuring that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences while extending support and resources to those who do not.  Find us on Twitter - @courtpod.  Drop an email at mayitdispleasethecourt@gmail.com.  We would also love to rate and review the show. It helps others find the program. Sources: https://ballsandstrikes.org/ethics-accountability/judicial-accountability-act-2021/ Former 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-who-quit-over-harassment-allegations-reemerges-dismaying-those-who-accused-him/2018/07/23/750a02f2-89db-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html  Article on Willie Simmons:  https://www.essence.com/news/willie-simmons-life-prison-alabama-habitual-offender/ 

In this episode, we examine how you can use the courts to fight police brutality.  A brief review of the death of Daniel Prude, which we discussed at length in a previous episode. Imagine your brother is visiting you from out of state. Sadly, he experiences a mental health crisis and runs out of your house on a freezing winter night. You call the police, desperate, asking for help finding your brother. You have no idea that getting the police involved will cause your brother to die. That is what happened to Joe Prude and Daniel Prude in March 2020. Police found Daniel naked, clearly unarmed, acting erratically in the freezing cold. Daniel's life ended seven days after police handcuffed him, naked, face down in the middle of the street, put a spit sock over his head and restrained him on the ground until he lost consciousness. Police and government officials tried to cover up police actions that resulted in Daniel's death. Don sued to have the police body camera footage released to the family and held a press conference to inform the public.  Protests erupted, and the police cracked down hard.  In this episode, we speak with Don Thompson, Joe Prude's attorney. He will update you on Daniel Prude's family's wrongful death litigation against the Rochester Police and City government.  Also, what happened with the prosecutions of the protesters?  And to fight police brutality directly, Don filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the police department city and state officials for decades of police brutality.  Find us on Twitter - @courtpod.  Drop an email at mayitdispleasethecourt@gmail.com.  We would also love to rate and review the show. It helps others find the program. Sources: Independent Investigation into Daniel Prude's Death https://ecbawm.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Final-Report-of-the-Independent-Investigation-of-the-City-of-Rochesters-Response-to-the-Death-of-Daniel-Prude-issued-March-12-2021-00452102x9CCC2.pdf  Prude Update - GJ/Prosecutors Role https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/the-high-price-of-a-new-york-city-cop?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_052421&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9d7e02ddf9c72dc252b18&cndid=25532216&hasha=de721cbe54e50bd1d0f198806b4d43ca&hashb=ee6c8266d070ad53598f1e645563b7aadbc07640&hashc=9634c4fd1ba5a0cf20a1b0fcdee3b9f159c9d7599530ab57e160b9d4f5fe40e2&esrc=AUTO_PRINT&utm_term=TNY_Daily&fbclid=IwAR1F686mqjZJig3RHSft4uZM5FWmD7qQlYjJR7MSKbQW9I5UWuBVSvXDm9Q Article on Willie Simmons: https://www.essence.com/news/willie-simmons-life-prison-alabama-habitual-offender/

Mary was a recent guest on HILF - History I'd Like to F**K with Dawn Brodie to discuss the Supreme Court. Dawn is joined by lawyer, Mary Whiteside, for a journey through the often-dark history of America's highest court. Hear about the worst villains, the occasional heroes - and why Mary and Dawn both still have hope for the future. EPISODE SUMMARY Dawn is joined by lawyer, Mary Whiteside, for a journey through the often-dark history of America's highest court. Hear about the worst villains, the occasional heroes - and why Mary and Dawn both still have hope for the future. EPISODE NOTES Dawn met guest, Mary Whiteside, while they were both backlot tour guides at Universal Studios, Hollywood. When Mary suggested the HILF subject of the Supreme Court, Dawn was a bit stymied. The legal system can feel a little dark, a little depressing, and just too damn hard to understand sometimes - with the dates and the names and the precedents and -- what's an amicus? Which is why Dawn immediately said yes, because Mary is not just a guest with a HILFY curiosity, she's a real lawyer, and a mom, and funny and cool and ready to go down on Justice... 00:02:13 - Dawn introduces Mary with a question of how a lawyer found herself being a movie studio tour guide to begin with. Mary explains that she was always interested in being a performer but that being a lawyer gave her (and her mom) the security she was looking for. ...And performing for the jury is like a little play.  00:08:22 - Along with the subject, Mary assigned Dawn the book INJUSTICES by Ian Millhiser. 'The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted.' It is a dark path through some dark history which, as Mary says, gives you lots stuff to get pissed off about it. 00:12:40 - Dawn begins with a quick overview of your middle school social studies, and the origin of the Supreme Court in the constitution. As one of the three branches of government, the purpose is to create reasonable checks and balances on the Executive and the Legislative... That's it's purpose, but certainly not always it's function.  00:19:14 - Mary gives the HILF on the individual that she thinks is the 'best' justice to have ever served on the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor.  00:29:17 - Dawn and Mary discuss the history of the changing number of justices on the Supreme Court from 5 in the very beginning, to as many as 10 after the Civil War. FDR briefly discussed raising the number to 15 but was quickly shot down politically for even suggesting it. Today, the subject has come up again and is no less controversial.  BREAK 00:37:18 - Dawn and Mary resume with a conversation about what it's like to be a Judge and how they are the closest thing to Royalty we have in America, given their lifetime appointments.  00:40:25 - After discussing the 'best' Justice ever to have been on the court, Mary now gives us the 'worst'... and what do you know, it's another one who is sitting there currently, Clarence Thomas. In addition to questioning the constitutionality of his decisions, Mary takes issue with the ethics of his wife, Ginny Thomas working as a powerful lobbyist and consultant on cases he oversees.  00:57:56 - After a lot of bad news and despair for the cause of democracy, Dawn and Mary discuss how the idea of Revolution is both the greatest threat and the last resort of any System... and too many people want it for too many different reasons.  01:03:08 - And before we sign off, as promised, a little home. The latest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, has a strong record and can be a sound voice of reason in an unreasonable time. And of course we can still vote... for now. 

A podcast about all the ways the legal system is unjust and fails to meet the stated ideal of equal justice for all.

Picture a single mom sitting on her couch in Houston with her one and three-year-old when suddenly the police are at her door and arrest her. They took her to jail. Put her children in foster care. She doesn't know where they are or who cares for them.  You might think this woman must be a dangerous criminal to justify disrupting this family and traumatizing these children. No. This happened because a mother could not afford to pay a court debt of a few thousand dollars. The Houston Courts then gave her the choice of sitting in jail at $25 per day to “pay her debt” or working as a janitor to “earn” slightly more money so she could get out of jail a little faster and try to find her babies. This woman inspired Civil Rights Attorney Alex Karakatsanis, founder of Civil Rights Corp to file a lawsuit challenging this oppressive cash bail system. In this episode, Alec Karakatsanis joins host Mary Whiteside and Prof. Lee Pierce to discuss his book Usual Cruelty - The Complicity of Lawyers in the Criminal Justice System.  Alec is a radical thinker challenging the status quo. He reframes the criminal justice system as a punishment bureaucracy. Alec challenges lawyers, in particular, “to examine why the punishment system exists and how it functioned throughout history as a mechanism of preserving white supremacy and the distribution of economic wealth and social control.” This interview also ran in the New Books Network Podcast series. Find us on Twitter - Alec Karakatsanis is @equalityAlec and the podcast is @courtpod.  Drop an email at mayitdispleasethecourt@gmail.com.  We would also love to rate and review the show. It helps others find the program. Sources: Usual Cruelty: The Complicity of Lawyers in the Criminal Justice System https://www.amazon.com/Usual-Cruelty-Complicity-Criminal-Injustice/dp/1620975270/ref=asc_df_1620975270?tag=bingshoppinga-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=80539318468052&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4584138864254121&psc=1  Civil Rights Corp: https://civilrightscorps.org/alec-karakatsanis-founder-executive-director/  Article on Willie Simmons:  https://www.essence.com/news/willie-simmons-life-prison-alabama-habitual-offender/ Danielle Ponder https://daniellepondermusic.com/ 

Do you think Judges who hate Black people should be allowed to decide cases? What about Judges who hire law clerks who–allegedly– “hate black people”; is that okay? The U.S. Judicial Conference reopened investigations into Judges William Pryor and Corey Maize regarding the hiring of Crystal Clanton, who purportedly sent a text message that said she “hates black people.”  I bet you never thought about the influence law clerks have over the cases that come before the Judges they serve. It is time to break the unwritten lawyer code of not talking about the power and influence of Judicial Law Clerks. Georgia State University Law Professor and author Eric Segall joins host Mary Whiteside to peek behind the bench and talk about what law clerks really do and how much silent power they wield.  Find the podcast on Twitter @courtpod or drop an email at mayitdispleasethecourt@gmail.com. We would also love to rate and review the show. It helps others find the program. Sources Cited Supreme Myths Podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/supreme-myths/id1523903890  Supreme Myths - Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges https://www.indiebound.org/book/9780313396878  https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/author/ericsegall/ https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2021/10/15/law-professor-calls-for-mea-culpa-from-judge-and-law-clerk-over-racist-rant/?slreturn=20220012161752 https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-news/judge-pryor-cleared-of-allegations-involving-hiring-of-controversial-clerk/X3JAHI2TQBCUBMTQ5MDHO56FU4/  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/08/crystal-clanton-racist-comments-william-pryor-clerkship/  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/18/clerk-texts-appeals-court-clanton/  https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/federal-judges-cleared-misconduct-after-hiring-clerk-accused-racism-2022-01-14/  https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judicial-panel-orders-probe-into-hiring-clerk-accused-racism-2022-07-08/

Minority representation in positions of power is increasing at all levels of government and on the bench. But, if a minority leader was chosen and promoted by the ruling elites, with an understanding that they would use their position of power to advantage the rich and powerful who put them in power. Then those minority leaders offer the minority group which they came from nothing more than symbolic representation.  We look at Justice Clarence Thomas, Vice President Kamala Harris, Senatorial Candidate Hershel Walker, and Robert Fogg, who may be the next Monroe County Public Defender. And argue that that representation, while important, isn't enough.   Pitting marginalized groups against each other is bad for coalition building. If a lesser qualified minority is chosen over a more qualified minority because they serve a niche need for representation, it hurts coalition building. For example, suppose a less qualified black person is selected over a more qualified white woman. In that case, it makes it harder for the two groups to unite to fight against the system still dominated by white male patriarchy.  Changing the lives of poor and minority groups requires a focus on achieving policies that redistribute public resources to change their material conditions. A person's membership in an underserved or minority group should be one factor considered. The most influential leader who will improve the lives of underserved minorities will be the person who will fight for institutional reforms and get them effectively implemented. Sources https://www.thedailybeast.com/herschel-walker-is-the-saddest-senate-candidate-ive-ever-seen https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/02/politics/caitlyn-jenner-transgender-athletes-california-recall/index.html    https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/2022/07/28/monroe-county-legislature-president-sabrina-lamar-says-robert-fogg-her-choice-for-public-defender/65384873007/ https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2021/11/19/monroe-county-public-defender-tim-donaher-not-seek-reappointment/8688265002/    https://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/rochester/candidates-make-their-cases-to-lead-the-monroe-county-public-defenders-office/Content?oid=14523858#:~:text=The%20Monroe%20County%20Public%20Defender%E2%80%99s%20Office%20was%20created,with%20one.%20Annually%2C%20it%20handles%20thousands%20of%20cases. http://etksdefense.com/ed-nowak-appellate-superstar/    Usual Cruelty: The Complicity of Lawyers in the  Criminal Justice System by Alec Karakatsanis N-word vs. F-word, Black v. Gay: Uncovering Pendejo Games to Recover Intersections by Catherin R. Squiresco in the book Critical Rhetoric of Race by Kent A. Ono              

Your host and NY appellate attorney, Mary Whiteside, looks at the arbitrary and opaque political appointment of the next Public Defender in the Monroe County Public Defender's Office as a microcosm of America's dysfunctional legal system. In one of the busiest court systems in the country (15,000 new cases in 2021), the stakes of the next MCPD appointment for the office are high—especially for the low-income and minority defendants this office is meant to serve. If we want the American legal system to start practicing what it preaches—namely, equality and democracy—then counties like Monroe need Public Defenders who, among other things: Are experienced supervisors, preferably with experience running a large office with a budget, not just a solo practitioner  See themselves as the LAST line of defense for poor people against the well-funded power of the government Know something about the county and have some investment in the local area Several exceptionally qualified Assistant Public Defenders from the Monroe County Public Defender's Office applied to become the next Public Defender. Any one of these people would have been an excellent choice. But the political process rejected all of these candidates in favor of a person who is none of these things.  If Monroe County Legislature President Sabrina LaMarr's recommended appointment goes through, which it almost certainly will, decades of reform are at risk. Which begs the question: why is LaMarr bringing a less qualified, outside candidate rather than tapping into the wealth of experience and indigent service already available within the public defender's office? Why have LaMarr's individual preferences come to stand in for reasonable and well-informed decision-making? What are the stakes for the defendants of Monroe County? And the rest of America, if this process is any indication of what's happening across the country? Find the podcast on Twitter @courtpod or drop an email at mayitdispleasethecourt@gmail.com. We would also love to rate and review the show. It helps others find the program. Sources Cited https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/2022/07/28/monroe-county-legislature-president-sabrina-lamar-says-robert-fogg-her-choice-for-public-defender/65384873007/ https://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/rochester/candidates-make-their-cases-to-lead-the-monroe-county-public-defenders-office/Content?oid=14523858#:~:text=The%20Monroe%20County%20Public%20Defender%E2%80%99s%20Office%20was%20created,with%20one.%20Annually%2C%20it%20handles%20thousands%20of%20cases. http://www.thebuffaloattorney.com/ https://twitter.com/gcraig1/status/1552743762274689024 https://danielleponder.com/home "Some Will Be Brave" https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2020/07/01/danielle-ponder-rejoining-public-defenders-office-boost-diversity/5358735002/

Episode 19- Texas Goddamn – Show Notes In this episode attorney, Mary Whiteside breaks down the tyranny emerging in Texas caused by the Republican controlled state legislature, which has enacted laws written by Dark Money funded political operatives like ALEC and SNP, groups designed to write right wing laws to benefit Dark Money donors and religious zealots .This unholy alliance has seemingly unlimited funding, which has been used to capture a large part of the Federal Judiciary including the Supreme Court. What is happening in Texas is the plan for the rest of the country. This is the all hands on deck moment for democracy and the rights of the majority of its citizens. MAIN POINTS:  The Texas 6 week abotion ban was passed to please the religious zealot voting block (aka the pro-life voters). The specifics of the far right agenda is deeply unpopular with voters because it hurts everyone who is not extremely rich. Therefore, they needed to build a coalition of voters. The religious zealot voting block only focuses on overturning Roe v. Wade leaving the Koch politicians free to enact other policies without scrutiny. The Captured Supreme Court was installed to make sure Roe is overturned or gutted to the point of practical irrelevance. The Robert's Court is fulfilling their promise to the Dark Money  Texas enacts the Koch operatives' long term strategy by passing the most restrictive voter suppression/restrictions, which is the key to permanently installing an autocratic Christian Nationalist minority.  Part 3 looks at all the other laws Texas passed this year to advance the Koch project to make America hospitable for corporations and the ultra wealthy.  CONCLUSION: We need to pressure the Democratically controlled Congress and President Biden to pass these laws.  The Women's Health Protection Act - This bill would establish a statutory right for health care professionals to provide abortion care and the right for their patients to receive care, free from bans and medically unnecessary restrictions that single out abortion care. The Judicial Ads Act would require identification of donors who fund advocacy campaigns aimed at confirming their favored nominees.  The Disclose Act The For the People Act, The Freedom to Vote Act We also need to make our voices loud, especially with our state, local and national representatives. We need to spend our money strategically and stop giving money to fossil fuel and businesses that are using their wealth to undermine and weaken democracy. Resources https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/31/new-texas-laws-september-2021/ https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/texas/new-texas-laws-2021/285-d5170afe-e39c-401f-a575-bf110bba780b https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/texass-proposed-voter-suppression-law https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Captured%20Courts%20-%20Reproductive%20Rights.pdf  https://www.npr.org/2021/07/09/1014579306/texas-republicans-have-a-new-voting-bill-heres-whats-in-it  https://www.uclalawreview.org/the-equality-argument-for-abortion-rights/  Need More Access Follow the pod on Facebook, Twitter @courtpod to see what we think about current events and let us know your thoughts. Have compliments, criticisms, or suggestions. Email us at displeasethecourt@gmail.com Subscribe so you don't miss an episode on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Podbean, Spotify,  Sticher,  Vurb, or via RSS. Rate and Review (5 Stars!) the show to help people find us.

Episode 18- No Seriously, Eat the Rich – Show Notes Appellate attorney, Mary Whiteside is joined by Professor of Rhetoric, Lee Pierce and today we are looking at how the legal system was rigged to protect the rich and well connected. To understand just how rigged the system is we have to understand a little bit more about the stinking filthy rich. This episode takes a peek inside their private jet lifestyle. The unchecked accumulation of wealth creates a vast disparity of wealth distribution is the single biggest threat to humanity. We the People can unite to stop it. Tax the Rich to Save the Planet. This podcast looks at the power behind the law. Law is about the rules that we as a society adopt. We think we can change those rules. But, can we? You cannot have an honest discussion about the law without acknowledging and talking about power distribution. The main reason the system is so broken is because it was designed by rich people, who rigged the rules to favor them and people like them especially when the rich people's priorities come into conflict with poorer people's rights.  How do the rich really live? Beware, this isn't some fetishized description of their indulgence luxuries. 2) For the rich, crime pays. They don't get prosecuted for the crimes they commit and if they do get prosecuted they receive light sentences, e.g. the Sacklers, Bernie Madoff. Whereas, the poor get hammered by the system. The police and prosecutors project an image of being tough on crime and focused on law and  order, but in reality they ignore the crimes committed by the rich people, like tax evasion, corporate theft, wage theft, fraud, and vast criminal conspiracies like those perpetrated by the pharmaceutical companies. The police and prosecutors instead shift the public's attention on individual crimes like assaults, smaller thefts, and drug dealing. They chose to wield the power of the state against the poor.  3) What is the plan? Tax the rich to save the planet. It's not super complicated, frankly. CONCLUSION: The deadliest of the seven deadly sins is proving to be avarice. The accumulation of gobs and gobs of wealth derived from the underpaid labor of the masses. The ultra rich clearly aren't going to give their wealth away because if they were they would already have done it. They are miserable, to benefit them and us Tax the Rich to Save the Planet. Resources https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Jackpot/Michael-Mechanic/9781982127213 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/books/review-jackpot-super-rich-michael-mechanic.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/14/bernie-madoff-dies-mastermind-of-the-nations-biggest-investment-fraud-was-82.html https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7015a1.htm https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/07/purdue-and-sacklers-agree-to-usd4-5-billion-opioid-settlement.html https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WHB-4703 https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/20/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-happy-according-to-wealth-experts.html https://bookshop.org/books/jackpot-how-the-super-rich-really-live-and-how-their-wealth-harms-us-all/9781982127213 Article: Money Buys Happiness citing a study from Princeton University conducted by economist Angus Deaton and psychologist Daniel Kahneman Need More Access Follow the pod on Facebook, Twitter @courtpod to see what we think about current events and let us know your thoughts. Have compliments, criticisms, or suggestions. Email us at displeasethecourt@gmail.com Subscribe so you don't miss an episode on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Podbean, Spotify,  Sticher,  Vurb, or via RSS. Rate and Review (5 Stars!) the show to help people find us.

In this special episode of May it Displease the Court, a podcast about how unjust the court system has always been, but especially in this age of rampant misinformation, produced specifically for The Big Rhetorical Podcast Carnival. The Carnival runs from August 16-19, 2021. Check out participating podcasts who all produced episodes incorporating this year's theme “Contending with Misinformation in the Community and the Classroom”. The Carnival culminates with the keynote speaker, Dr. Renee Hobbs, Professor of Communication Studies at the Harrington School of Communications and Media and Founder of the Media Education Lab at the University of Rhode Island.  Mary Whiteside, an attorney, is joined by expert guest, Dr. Amanda Cronkhite, an assistant professor at the US Army School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth. Dr. Cronkhite's research focuses on the role of media and information in politics and national security. Her latest published research looks at #FakeNews and the handling of misinformation in the media. This episode looks at how misinformation spreads throughout populations, as well as how easy it has become to create deep or cheapfakes, which may become a problem in courtrooms. Here are the highlights: MAIN POINTS: 1) A small percentage of social media users share an overwhelming majority of the mis/mal or dis-information out there, especially if it confirms their existing prior biases.  2) Strategies for combating misinformation or mal-information include: teach individuals to check for fact-checking articles about a news story trace the source of information  read laterally, that is, check other sources' evaluations of the story's source 3) One type of misinformation, deepfakes, which are videos produced or altered to present content that never occurred in real life and the technology to produce videos has evolved so quickly that now it can be done cheaply even from a single image. Mary and Dr. Cronkite explore weather deepfakes can create a big enough doubt to be reasonable so often that they create a “liar's dividend” as described in (Chesney and Citron 2019) that undercuts the existing legal system? Resources mis/dis/mal-info written: https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-report-november-2017/1680764666 mis/dis/mal-info video: https://www.weareiowa.com/video/news/local/explaining-the-difference-between-disinformation-misinformation-and-malinformation/524-151c0a53-76d8-4481-842f-116a527f5ad4 Kahneman book https://bookshop.org/books/thinking-fast-and-slow/9780374533557 Peter W. Singer on media literacy https://time.com/5932134/cyber-citizenship-national-priority/ Estonia & media literacy https://www.educationestonia.org/finland-denmark-and-estonia-top-the-media-literacy-index-2021/ Foreign Service https://careers.state.gov/work/foreign-service/officer/ The Conversation is a website where scholars write about their work for the mass public. Some articles from there:How to not become a misinfo spreader https://theconversation.com/7-ways-to-avoid-becoming-a-misinformation-superspreader-157099 How to talk to misinformed family members https://theconversation.com/how-to-talk-to-someone-you-believe-is-misinformed-about-the-coronavirus-133044 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/05/14/deepfake-cheer-mom-claims-dropped/ https://apnews.com/article/dc-wire-donald-trump-health-coronavirus-pandemic-election-2020-b7e929bb8d49b77d0922eae7ad3794b7 https://www.journalism.org/2020/09/28/many-americans-get-news-on-youtube-where-news-organizations-and-independent-producers-thrive-side-by-side/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/23/younger-americans-are-better-than-older-americans-at-telling-factual-news-statements-from-opinions/  https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1007472092/facebook-researchers-say-they-can-detect-deepfakes-and-where-they-came-from   Need More Access Follow the pod on Facebook, Twitter @courtpod to see what we think about current events and let us know your thoughts. Have compliments, criticisms, or suggestions. Email us at displeasethecourt@gmail.com Subscribe so you don't miss an episode on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Podbean, Spotify,  Sticher,  Vurb, or via RSS. Rate and Review (5 Stars!) the show to help people find us. ​​​​

Broadening the Bench with Julie Cianca – Show Notes This episode, hosted by appellate attorney Mary Whiteside, welcomes Julie Cianca, a Monroe County Public Defender. Julie is a 26 year veteren trial attorney who is running for Monroe County Court Judge.  The Judiciary at the state and federal level is heavily male, white, and straight. The reform movement has focused a lot of attention on increasing diversity by getting more women and people of color on the bench. With the goal of expanding the bench to include people with different backgrounds and perspectives. However, not enough attention has focused on how a person's professional background shapes their priorities. The vast majority of the judiciary at the state and federal level are composed of former prosecutors, corporate attorneys and government attorneys. A much smaller percentage were public defenders or civil rights attorneys.  Mary spoke with Julie Cianca about why she is running for Monroe County Court Judge and what she thinks she can bring to the bench.   Here are a few highlights:   1) Most Judges act as if their job is to rubberstamp the actions of the police and the prosecution. Whereas, a public defender's job is to fight for the Constitution. To make sure that the police, the prosecution, and the Judge affords their client all of the protections guaranteed them under the state and federal constitutions. This makes everyone safeer and is the perfect training for a Judge.    2) Even if it is unpopular, it is a Judge's responsibility and obligation to suppress unconstitutionally obtained evidence. While this is frustrating to police it also serves to teach them how to do their job better by showing them what is and is not allowed under the Constitution.    3) If a person is convicted they have to be sentenced. A public defender is used to taking the time and effort to understand who are the people that are accused and convicted of crimes. In a system of mass incarceration and a prison bureaucracy a more balanced bench can help curb the trend of longer and longer sentences without any empirical data to show they are effective at increasing public safety.    Finally, we encourage everyone to pay attention to their local judicial races and especially to the background of the candidates. In Monroe County, New York Primary Day is June 22nd. Please get to know who is running and make sure you VOTE!   Check out Julie Cianca's Website: http://ciancaforcountycourt.com/   Follow Julie on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/julieciancaforcountycourt   For more on Julie's work as a Public Defender: https://rochesterbeacon.com/2019/10/10/the-public-defenders-burden/   For Monroe County Voting Information: https://www.monroecounty.gov/elections   Resources https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/cuomo-criminal-justice-court-nominees.html?fbclid=IwAR3jjrDQEKF0pljVxCSm3tG9YyjzqhWOzqx9cR_w5CvoHFv9RgV-Kph33ag https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2021/06/04/singas-nomination-to-ny-court-of-appeals-draws-concern-from-law-professors/?slreturn=20210504151541 https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-senate-oversee-this-court-20210606-cufiprvi5zacfc3vol3pranlbm-story.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true&s=04&fbclid=IwAR333yxeP6Tdjou5G4Z8KPWsjxaVIk7vlU6usMBk6cLP6T2NUoJPUT7L7tU https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/alessandra-biaggi/new-york-state-senators-issue-joint-statement-opposition https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/ny-state-of-politics/2021/06/08/singas--cannataro-confirmed-for-new-york-s-top-court https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/43907/20210608/cuomo-s-court-nominees-approved-but-faced-scrutiny-from-the-left-and-the-right https://www.cato.org/study/are-disproportionate-number-federal-judges-former-government-advocates#introduction-summary-findings https://www.vox.com/2021/3/30/22358434/biden-first-judicial-nominees-ketanji-brown-jackson-public-defenders-diversity-criminal-justice https://splinternews.com/why-public-defenders-are-less-likely-to-become-judges-a-1793855687   Need More Access Follow the pod on Facebook, Twitter @courtpod to see what we think about current events and let us know your thoughts. Have compliments, criticisms, or suggestions. Email us at displeasethecourt@gmail.com Subscribe so you don't miss an episode on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Podbean, Spotify,  Sticher,  Vurb, or via RSS. Rate and Review (5 Stars!) the show to help people find us.

HR1 - The Most Important Bill in American History  The episode looks at HR1 or S1 as it is titled in the Senate, the most important bill in Biden's presidency and, perhaps, in modern American history. It is a must-pass for Democrats, for Biden, and for Democracy worldwide. This bold, comprehensive bill fixes a lot of what has been broken in the past 4 decades. It combats dark money, foreign interference, partisan gerrymandering, but most importantly it raises the national minimum standards to protect voting rights. The Right to Vote is the bedrock of democracy. It's under massive attack and this bill might just be the only thing that can save it.  This episode is subtitled Why Congress Matters, because it is imperative to know what laws Congress is considering and to be part of that process.   This episode is an in depth primer on HR1 or The For the People's Act as it is known. This bill does a lot. It is the Democrats taking the fight back to the Republicans who have been chipping away at the ability of the people to participate in government and to elect Representatives who listen to them and advance their interests and priorities.  The provisions of HR1 have 4 main categories  Voting Rights and election security; Campaign Finance Reform - tackles dark money, foreign election interference Ethics Reform for all three branches of government - important because the Supreme Court is not subject to any ethical standards; A catchall that closes all the loopholes Trump and his kleptocratic cronies used to treat the office of the Presidency and the Executive Branch as their person piggy banks to benefit themselves and their interests at the expense of the country and it outlaws those practices.  Who opposes HR1/S1? Republicans, obviously, but also some Democrats. What should be a Democratic legislative slam dunk, a patriotic message screamed from every Demcratic House Representative and Senator is seeming dead on arrival. Under the guise of protecting a legislative procedural rule, unique to the Senate, namely the filibuster. Joe Manchin the ostensibly Democratic Senator from West Virginia penned an Op-Ed coming out against HR1/S1 and declared his firm commitment to keeping the filibuster. He is joined by one of the most annoying alleged-Democratic Senators, Kirsten Sinema from Arizona. She joined Senator Cornyn from Texas, in Texas right after the Texas Democrats temporarily blocked the Republican's massive voter suppression bill to declare Sinema's commitment to the filibuster. Seemingly a clear message that they are both in league with the Republicans to suppress the vote. But they are not the only Democratic Senators standing in the way of HR1/S1. Finally, we encourage listeners to advocate for the passage of this bill by following the link below to Vote Save America (a helpful tool from the Pod Save America guys) so they  can contact your Senators and PUSH them to get on board with saving democracy.  Resources https://votesaveamerica.com/forthepeople/ https://messagebox.substack.com/p/a-plan-b-for-democracy https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2021 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/annotated-guide-people-act-2021 https://www.cardin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/John%20Lewis%20Voting%20Rights%20Advancement%20Act%20one%20pager.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-to-restore-and-strengthen-voting-rights-act https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4/summary https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/05/heritage-foundation-dark-money-voter-suppression-laws/ Need More Access Follow the pod on Facebook, Twitter @courtpod to see what we think about current events and let us know your thoughts. Have compliments, criticisms, or suggestions. Email us at displeasethecourt@gmail.com Subscribe so you don't miss an episode on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Podbean, Spotify,  Sticher,  Vurb, or via RSS. Rate and Review (5 Stars!) the show to help people find us.

The first episode of Season 2 hosted by Mary welcomes back Erik Teifke, who is the Second Assistant at the Monroe County Public Defender’s Office in Rochester, NY. The episode looks at the effects of New York’s historic 2020 Bail Reform law.    This law took away judges’ ability to set bail on certain charges with the goal of drastically reducing the number of people held pre-trial and pre-conviction. Here are the highlights:   1) The purpose of bail has always been ensuring that a person charged with a crime comes back to court to participate in their defense. For decades judges across the state abused their discretion in setting bail resulting in thousands and thousands of people held in jail during the prosecution of their case simply because they could not afford to post bail, which disrupted their lives, jobs, and families. The cost of jailing pre-trial detainees as well as the economic cost from their disrupted lives is significant prompting the change in the law.   2) Immediately after the law took effect and before any data could be collected on the impact of the law, District Attorneys, Police Departments and Police Unions enacted a coordinated fear mongering campaign to make New Yorkers believe that now dangerous (minority) criminals would be roaming free to victimize them.    3) Four months after the Bail Reform law passed, legislators watered it down by giving judges the ability to set bail on more charges, but the law is still a significant reform that has drastically reduced the amount of people held pre-trial and proven that bail was not needed to incentivize people returning to court, the vast majority come back on their own as required.   Finally, we encourage listeners to advocate for bail reform in their own communities.   Resources https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-yorks-latest-bail-law-changes-explained https://gothamist.com/news/what-new-rollbacks-bail-reform-mean-new-york https://cornelllawreview.org/2020/10/09/new-york-bail-reform-a-quick-guide-to-common-questions-and-concerns-2/   Need More Access Follow the pod on Twitter @courtpod to see what we think about current events and let us know your thoughts. Have compliments, criticisms, or suggestions. Email us at displeasethecourt@gmail.com Subscribe so you don’t miss an episode on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Podbean, Spotify,  Sticher,  Vurb, or via RSS. Rate and Review (5 Stars!) the show to help people find us.  

Free Speech Hate Speech Counter Speech The first crossover episode between May it Displease the Court, which looks at corruption in the courts from judges through dark money anti-democratic far-Right donors, and RhetoricLee Speaking, banishing banality one speech at a time. Your co-hosts, Mary and Lee, look at censorship, free speech vs. hate speech, and counter speech. Here are the highlights:   1) as much as we may want the law to recognize hate speech sometimes when truly vile opinions (in our opinions) are being circulated, the law does not recognize a hate speech exception to the first amendment that guarantees the right to free speech and    2) if there were such an exception it would be used to suppress minoritized people and their fight for civil liberties more often than it would be to silence transphobic, racist, sexist, and other kinds of exclusionary speech.   We take you through a few cases that have been instrumental in establishing the “no hate speech” exception including Snyder v. Phelps SCOTUS 2011 (Westboro Baptist Church) and Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence , 468 U. S. 288    We also look at some personal examples. Mary discusses an experience at the Anne Frank House right after 9-11 and Lee discusses a current campus event where the free speech of a racist and transphobic student is being protected. They also discuss potential alternative terms to replace hate speech, including “racist erasure” and “transphobic erasure.”   Finally, Mary explains the issue of “school-sponsored speech,” in which first amendment rights come up against the purpose of educational institutions and the need for more counter-speech on the Left as the corrective for hateful-speech-that-isn’t-hate-speech by the anti-democratic far-Right funded by pro-corporate dark money donors.   Check out May it Displease the Court on Apple Podcasts, Podbean, and Spotify!   Resources The Dark Money Behind Campus Speech Wars First Amendment | US Constitution Harry CONNICK, Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney, etc., Petitioner, v. Sheila MYERS. CITY OF SAN DIEGO ET AL. v. ROE William P. CLARK, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Petitioners v. COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE et al. Fairness Doctrine: History and Constitutional Issues Local and Independent Television Protection Act would overturn a Trump-era rule that’s permitted… Watch Field of Vision - Do Not Split about the suppression of Hong Kong pro-democracy protests   Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/free-speech-hate-speech-counter-speech/   *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com  *Follow the show  on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee  *Subscribe to the show on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have thoughts? Hit me up on social media or Gmail @rhetoriclee   Free Speech Hate Speech Counter Speech   Mary: I was flying back from France when the planes hit the Twin Towers. After US airspace was closed my plane was turned back to Amsterdam. I spent an extra week in Europe until I was able to get back home. After a few days of securing funds bc I had no money and no credit card. We decided to do a little sight seeing and went to the Ann Frank House. I had been interested in the Holocaust since I was in elementary school and had read and studied it extensively.    Set the scene  - First you went on a tour and saw the attic where Ann and her family and another family hid out from the Nazis. I saw her bedroom and the pictures she pasted on the walls. We saw the hidden bookcase entrance. It was really emotional to be stranded in another country, far away from family.    Describe the exercise –Then you descend into a part of the House that is more like a typical museum exhibit. They have the tour group sit around a table and in front of each person were two buttons, red and green and above the table were two lines of lights. At the end was a screen and on came a film that showed footage of far right Austrian politicians saying racist, hateful things and then the moderator asked whether we thought that speech should be protected, hit the green button or censored hit the red button. We did and the vast majority supported free speech. This process was repeated several more times and each time the speech got more extreme and then they started adding in comments that made it seem as if more people were supporting these hateful politicians and the votes became 50/50 free speech and censorship and by the end the vast majority had shifted from supporting free speech to supporting censorship of speech they didn’t like. I have never been a part of anything like that type of indoctrination before or since.   My reactions - I was pretty pissed because it was clearly a pro-censorship propaganda tool and it worked with the people in my group. Kind of soured my opinion of the Ann Frank House. I mean, I’m an American so the 1st Amendment; Freedom of Speech is beat into our collective identity. I was a law student at the time. I had recently taken Constitutional Law and studied this very topic. So I fully believed that the best medicine for hate speech was more speech, not censorship. Now, of course this was 2001, Fox news was 5 yrs old, it was just starting to ruin my former mother-in-law. Charles Koch and his brother were still toiling away in secret trying to remake the way American think. But I did get where the museum was coming from. Some ideas aren’t just offensive, they are dangerous and what do we do with those?   What is a Hate Crime?  the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity,” including skin color and national origin.  Hate crimes are overt acts that can include acts of violence against persons or property, violation or deprivation of civil rights, certain "true threats," or acts of intimidation, or conspiracy to commit these crimes. The Supreme Court has upheld laws that either criminalize these acts or impose a harsher punishment when it can be proven that the defendant targeted the victim because of the victim's race, ethnicity, identity, or beliefs. A hate crime is more than than offensive speech or conduct; it is specific criminal behavior that ranges from property crimes like vandalism and arson to acts of intimidation, assault, and murder.  Victims of hate crimes can include institutions, religious organizations and government entities as well as individuals.   1st Amendment  - What does it say? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.   What is Hate Speech? – Hate speech is subjective, meaning it means different things to different people. It’s a term that is thrown around as if it has a set definition. But, it doesn’t. Hate Speech is not a legally defined term.  The 1st Amendment protects the free exchange of ideas even if the expression of those ideas is considered offensive or hateful.  Matal v. Tam (2017) SCOTUS 8-0  Held that a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys. It does not permit discrimination based on viewpoint and like it or not giving offense is a viewpoint. Any oft repeated idea in Sup Ct case law is "the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.   What do most people mean when they use the term hate speech? Typically it is used to describe speech designed to demean, vilify or incite hatred against a group or class of people because of their race, religion, sexual or gender identity, disability or national origin.   If this speech is copacetic with the 1st Amendment, are there any legal limits on speech?   Yes Speech becomes criminal when it is a specific threat of violence or incites imminent criminal activity targeted at a specific person or group. “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend.   For example, two years ago two students at another SUNY school posted a snapchat of the two of them just lying in bed on Halloween and the caption said “gonna lynch some ni…. tonight.” To me, given the history of lynching, given the way it was phrased, given the use of the racial slur...that should be hate speech.   Problems with excluding Hate Speech from 1st Amendment protection So, eventually a Judge is going to have to decide whether specific words are hate speech or not, not a good idea to give Judges this power. Why?    Speech that makes people angry, or upset is protected by the 1st Amendment – example the Westboro Baptist Church    Snyder v. Phelps SCOTUS 2011 (Westboro Baptist Church) for 20 yrs this group has picketed military funerals to express their belief that God hates the US bc of it’s tolerance for homosexuality. Fred Phelps is the leader the other members are all his relatives. They traveled to Maryland and picketed 1,000 feet from the Church, on public property, in accordance with instruction from local law enforcement by silently holding up signs for 30 minutes that read “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” “Fags Doom Nations” “Priests Rape Boys” “You are Going to Hell''. The soldier’s father filed suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury awarded him millions in damages. The 4th Circuit reversed the conviction holding that the 1st  Amendment shielded them from civil liability because the statements were on matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric. “[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values” ’ and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers , 461 U. S. 138 . Although the boundaries of what constitutes speech on matters of public concern are not well defined, this Court has said that speech is of public concern when it can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,” id., at 146, or when it “is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public,” San Diego v. Roe , 543 U. S. 77 .  Court must independently examine the “ ‘content, form, and context,’   Even protected speech is “subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.” Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence , 468 U. S. 288 . Because this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.  Robert’s opnion – 8-1 (Alito dissenting)   Lee: and when you listen to these examples like Westboro Church of course you want to call it hate speech. I want to call it hate speech. But we always have to remember that even though the law does NOT equally apply to everyone, it pretends as if it does and so any law you want to make would apply to everyone. So you can only imagine what would happen if hate speech were enforceable and Black Lives Matter protests happened…   So while I can really understand wanting the law to step in and shut down some of these vile opinions, I also realize that if hate speech were regulated then it would be used against minoritized persons WAY more often than it would against homophobic speech, racist speech, etc.   How do we get social change if hate speech isn’t a crime? Punishing people for speech we don’t like – slippery slope – Watch Hong Kong Doc – Oscar Nom Don’t Split This is what happens when an authoritarian government – China, wants to stifle pro-democracy speech and to criminalize it. The GOP are authoritarian and anti-democratic as evidenced by their attempts to overthrow the government, propagate the big lie to undercut democracy and the 361 voter suppression bills currently being pushed by Republican state legislatures. What will they do to speech they don’t like if they get back in power?    Counter Speech is the antidote for hate speech – examples, strategies – in the US we believe that the remedy is more speech, not stifling speech. The First Amendment protects the right to advocate and agitate for a change in 1st Amendment law. And you could argue that the law should be changed to exclude hate speech, but this advocacy needs to define what constitutes hate speech, bc it is an undefined term and highly subjective. If the law is changed then it will be up to Judges to apply the new definition of hate speech to whatever circumstances brings about an alleged violation. Eugene Volokh who teached free speech law at UCLA law school, and used to clerk for Sup Ct justice Sandra Day O’Connor and also 9th Cir Judge Alex Kozinski (side note he retired after several law clerks accused him of workplace sexual misconduct including showing them porn at work on multiple occasions)  suggests advocates of this expanded area of non-protected  speech “should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected, and how judges, juries, and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two.”   Problems with continuing to say hate speech when it just legally isn’t defensible   --keeps us trapped in a binary of free speech/hate speech. so one side says hate speech the other side says free speech and it’s so obvious a slam dunk for whatever side claims free speech. --in fact, quote-unquote “american” who protect “free speech” are hoping you’ll scream about hate speech because they know it strengthens their position. I’ll give you an example on my campus a bit later when we talk about school sponsored speech   So I actually put a post on my Facebook page asking my rhetoric/communication scholar hive mind what options they suggest for navigating this binary between hate and free speech. What other options are there.   Here are some of the terms they suggested.   Symbolic racism.  Aversive racism.  Implicit racism.  the step below racism “racial animus.” symbolic racial violence overt racism racist erasure   The point isn’t to choose any one of these. The point is that when you’re willing to agree that the binary isn’t working and that counter speech is the only action we have THEN you start getting creative about inventing language to create arguments that short circuit the free speech logics of the opposition. Sure, it’s free speech. That isn’t the point. It’s also racism.    One thing I’ve heard a lot is “hateful speech” because it’s not “hate speech” but it’s close. To me, it’s too easily perverted. The other one suggested by Judith Butler and Wendy Brown is "injurious speech”--granted they’re writing about legal theory and not public protest--but even that seems to imply that we gauge the effects of speech by how HURT or INJURED the person on the receiving end is. I think that’s also a losing battle because it’s based on a subjective experience of injury that the far Right will just deny. We’ve seen this again and again with cancel-culture. “Who could get so upset over some drawings in a Dr. Seuss book?”    So I don’t use those two but I do use the earlier list and try to make the claim that I don’t care if your speech is free or not, it’s still racist, homophobic, etc. And, if necessary, I use a modifier like “symbolic racism.” Not to minimize the effects of the act but to think about what, argumentatively, I can sustain.   Mary what do you think?   Mary: concerns about many of the terms from a legal perspective but racist erasure is compelling and the most accurate description of what’s happening.   Now we are facing new challenges with the proliferation and popularity of propaganda right wing media Fox News, Oann, Newsmax, right wing radio, podcasts facebook, the internet.   Fairness Doctrine – what was it, who got rid of it. A quick google brings up some historical discussions and some negative opinion pieces about how unfair and awful the Fairness Doctrine was by the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute – Koch It was adopted in 1949 - The Fairness Doctrine required that stations provide balanced coverage of all controversial issues of public importance. The Fairness Doctrine never required “equal time” in the sense of strict equality for each side of an issue on a minute-for-minute basis. In talk programs and news coverage, a station just had to make sure that both points of view were presented in such a way that the listener would get exposure to them. How that was done was left to theon’s discretion, and the FCC intervened in only the most egregious cases. By contrast, “equal time” or “equal opportunities” stems from a different source in the Communications Act – the Section 315 provisions on the treatment by broadcast stations (and local cable systems) of candidates for public office. Essentially, equal time requires that, if a broadcast station gives one candidate free time, all other candidates can get the same amount of free time    The Reagan-era FCC eliminated this rule, which was never reinstituted in subsequent decades under either party. a subsequent Trump-era 2017 FCC decision loosened ownership restrictions on stations. In combination, these two decisions not only allowed given stations to present only one view, but for many stations nationwide — now more easily owned by the same conglomerate, such as the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group — to present the same view. Rush Limbaugh started his talk radio in 1988, Fox began in 1996   Now what?   School Sponsored Speech - The test to establish first amendment protection in the context of school-sponsored speech is laid out in Vanderhurst v. Colorado Mountain College District (2000).  “Whether an action restricting a plaintiff’s school-sponsored speech is reasonably related to the school’s legitimate pedagogical (educational) interests is the test for determining whether” his speech is protected by the First Amendment.    Lee:  Recent issue on campus, an education major--someone who is going to teach children--is posting horrible stuff on social media validating slavery and denying trans identity. Very much racist and transphobic erasure. When the student was suspended from student teaching for violating New York State law as an education major (can’t promote a bias free classroom) he lied on social media saying he was suspended from the school and then the far-Right anti-democratic dark money donor funded legal complex swooped in and miraculously, a few days later, he’s reinstated into his student teaching. Shortly thereafter, he painted over Black Lives Matter symbols on campus with USA and red and blue paint.    TFP Student Action TFP Student Action, a project of “The Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property,” is the front for this operation.   Describes itself as a group that was created to counter “liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and private property.” The petition, which has accumulated nearly 20,000 signatures, describes itself as a peaceful protest and argues that the student’s original suspension “sound[ed] like something right out of a communist gulag, not USA” and further elaborated that “What happened … is not merely an attack on truth, or on free speech, it is an attack against reality itself. It’s all part of the dark money, Koch and Mercer-funded attack on progressive values using “free speech” as their shield.   Speech First Inc. claims to be and is regularly called a grassroots civil rights watchdog is actually a highly professional astro-turfing campaign, with a board of former Bush administration lawyers and longtime affiliates of the Koch family.  Born in 2018, the group seems to have been enacted for the purpose of inserting itself or to put it more accurately to instigate campus culture wars:  Here’s how grassroots this group is – it President Nicole Neily said no students were involved in founding the group. The $5 lifetime membership dues—a requirement for the group to take up a student’s case in court—is a “negligible part” of its funding, which mainly comes from undisclosed backers AKA Dark Money AKA Kochs and their ilk. Speech First’s board of directors includes a former head of a Koch-backed trust and two conservative attorneys from Koch-funded programs.    “being branded as neutral, but having the people who know, know that you’re actually conservative, puts us in a unique position.” The board’s center of gravity is George Mason University, school recently revealed to have given the Kochs some sway over academic appointments in departments they funded – so much for academic freedom Speech First plans to “flood” the courts with similar lawsuits, starting with at least three more at other colleges this year.   Speech First Inc. v. Schlissel (6th Circuit) 2019 In this case, Speech First, Inc., an organization working to protect university students’ civil rights, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on behalf of three unnamed University of Michigan (UM) students. These three students claimed that their free speech rights were chilled by UM’s disciplinary rules and procedures which prohibited “harassment,” “bullying,” and “bias-related conduct.” Speech First also claimed that the “Bias Response Team” at UM investigated and punished students for engaging in “bias” conduct. “Harassing or bullying another person—physically, verbally, or through 83 some other means” is listed (Speech First v. Schlissel 2018). The Statement, including the violations section, governs all actions on UM property, at UM events, and occurring in the city of Ann Arbor, MI. The BRT was solely an educational resource and a support mechanism for students; it had no disciplinary authority. The term “bias incident” was written to be broad, because the BRT wanted to support any students who needed the resource, not to punish the alleged perpetrators   Speech First Inc v. Killeen (7th Circuit) 2020 - Speech First sued 29 administrators at the University on behalf of four anonymous students. These students claim that they wish to express what they describe as "political, social, and policy views that are unpopular on campus." Speech First's complaint lists examples of such viewpoints in general terms: opposition to abortion, support for President Trump, belief in traditional marriage, support for strong immigration policies, support for the "deradicalization of Islam," support for First Amendment protection of "hate speech," opposition to gun control, and support for LGBT rights. Speech First alleges that three University policies—the responsive action of the Bias Assessment and Response Team and the Bias Incident Protocol to reports of "bias-motivated incidents" on campus, the imposition of No Contact Directives, and the prior approval rule—chill their student members' speech, force these students to engage in self-censorship, and deter them from speaking openly about issues of public concern. Speech First challenges the actions of the University's Bias Assessment and Response Team ("BART"). BART "collects and responds to reports of bias-motivated incidents that occur within the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign community." In turn, BART defines "bias-motivated incidents" as "actions or expressions that are motivated, at least in part, by prejudice against or hostility toward a person (or group) because of the person's (or group's) actual or perceived age, disability/ability status, ethnicity, gender, gender identity/expression, national origin, race, religion/spirituality, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, etc." In addition, BART "[p]rovides opportunities for educational conversation and dialogue" and "[s]upports those impacted by bias."   determine whether to reach out to the involved students, if they are identified, to invite them to participate in a voluntary conversation. BART also devises a response plan, which could include "[e]ducational conversations," "[m]ediation, facilitated dialogue," "[e]ducational referrals," "[r]esolution agreements," or "[r]eferrals to other offices and/or programs."   Speech First Inc. v. Fenves (5th Circuit) 2020   Conclusion - What the left needs to appreciate is excluding hate speech from the 1st Amendment means it can be suppressed and that is a dangerous proposition especially when we are facing a huge increase in Trump appointed right wing Judges. It is the same tactic Republicans are using by passing bills to suppress the right to vote. Instead of trying to win over voters, to adopt policies that the majority of people support they are just working to suppress the power of those who disagree with them. That is lazy and authoritarian. The left wants to be the opposite of that approach. We need to do the hard work of making the arguments against offensive hateful speech and to engage in the debate as much and as passionately as the right. We don't have the Koch money to create and fund faux grassroots movements.    Lee: and the more popular argument AND if there’s one thing that not being bound by old traditions and outdated categories gets you, it’s the ability to think critically and creatively about new identity positions. If anyone can strategize counter-speech, it’s us.   Mary: We also have the numbers. And by using our voices collectively and consistently we can defend inclusivity without trying to exclude offensive speech. 

In the second Season 1 Bonus Episode, host Mary Whiteside, is joined by returning guest, attorney Don Thompson, who provides an update on what is happening with the various Daniel Prude cases, which include prosecutions of the Police Officers, civil lawsuits, and the independent investigation into the official governmental response.  Don also updates us on the federal and state prosecutions following the violent police crackdown of the Black Lives Matter protests that erupted after the coverup of Daniel Prude’s death was revealed.Next Don and Mary discuss the violent, deadly insurrection incited by Trump on January 6th. As we know, an overwhelmed, understaffed, under-equipped, and ill-prepared Capitol Police force were thrust into hand-to-hand combat akin to an hours long medieval battle against armed Trump supporters without backup. The police were overtaken and the insurgents swarmed the Capitol, stopping Congress's certification of President Biden’s election and sending the Legislative Branch and support staff running and hiding for their lives. Don and Mary discuss the infiltration of white supremacists in the police and military, the revelation that Blue Lives actually don’t matter, and the social media silence of the Blues Lives Matter/All Lives Matter crowd in the aftermath. They discuss possible ways to combat extremism and how to remove dangerous officers from police forces. Finally, Mary and Don discuss the Trump Administration’s restarted Federal executions after a 17 year moratorium so they could rush to execute 13 people in the last few months of Trump’s term. Facilitated by the Department of Justice who enacted new and untested execution protocols and blessed by the Right Wing Justices of the Supreme Court. These executions were fast tracked through the Supreme Court’s emergency Shadow Docket. Justice Breyer and Sotomayor blistering dissents in the last case highlight how their colleagues ignored black letter law, as well as refused to let lower courts decide meritorious legal claims so that these executions could be completed before President Biden, who is against the death penalty, was inaugurated. Need more? Follow the pod on Twitter @courtpod to see what we think about current events.Have compliments, criticisms, or suggestions. Email us at displeasethecourt@gmail.comSubscribe so you don’t miss an episode on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, on Spotify, or via RSS.Rate and Review the show to help people find us.Links to research cited in this episodehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-breach-security-failures/2021/01/06/e1e09b80-5061-11eb-b96e-0e54447b23a1_story.htmlhttps://www.npr.org/2021/01/21/958915267/nearly-one-in-five-defendants-in-capitol-riot-cases-served-in-the-militaryhttps://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/01/the-insurrection-at-the-capitol-has-renewed-democrats-calls-for-police-reform/https://www.vox.com/2021/1/16/22233514/capitol-riot-rally-police-white-supremacyhttps://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2021/01/an-fbi-agent-went-undercover-to-study-white-supremacists-hes-now-speaking-out-about-racist-police/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/opinion/politics/trump-lawyers.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=curhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-927_i42k.pdf 

We are back with the first of two Season 1 Bonus EpisodesIn this first Bonus episode, Mary and Lee discuss this momentous time in history where the Democrats improbably won the Executive and Legislative trifecta kicking Trump and McConnell out of power. Trump and McConnell each responded true-to-form with Trump promoting a big lie that he won the election, with no evidence to support his claim, and then he incited a violent coup attempt, backed by Republicans and bankrolled by wealthy donors who wish to remain in the shadows. McConnell has dug his talons into the majority gavel and is obstructing the Democrats from taking power in the Senate by refusing to agree to the rules that will govern the transfer. Republicans want to move on and sweep that whole murderous coup-thing under the rug. While, moderate Democrats are killing the Democrats’ legislative momentum by refusing to change the rules to prevent McConnell from stopping the government from functioning. Then, people might actually realize that the government can work to help people, and not just rich, white people. Frankly, there is just too much going on for Lee and Mary to stay silent. As a bonus to this bonus you also get a sneak peek at Season 2, and what Mary and Lee are doing in the off-season.Need more? Follow the pod on Twitter @courtpod to see what we think about current events.Have compliments, criticisms, or suggestions. Email us at displeasethecourt@gmail.comSubscribe so you don’t miss an episode on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, on Spotify, or via RSS.Rate and Review the show to help people find us.

Find us on Twitter @courtpodWelcome to the Season One Finale of May it Displease the Court. For our final episode, we’re gonna look at where the election stands in the courts, major upcoming court battles, shadow dockets, the crucial fight to rebalance the courts, and what we’ve got in store for next season!Biden and Harris may have won but the court takeover by Trump and McConnell is going to be a huge problem. A Democratic administration isn’t enough--we need the Senate and we need to rebalance the courts.We will still be active on Twitter as we prepare for season 2 @courtpod. Keep us in your podcast feed or subscriptions so that you also get teasers and announcements for Season 2, which will release sometime in mid to late 2021. We’d love to hear from you on Twitter or you can email us displeasethecourt@gmail.com. Let us know your thoughts on the season, ideas for episodes for next season. We take your comments to heart so drop us a review. And once again we really want to extend our appreciation to all of you who have taken the time to listen. References used in this episode:Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.3 Supreme Court Cases Employers Should Watch This Termhttps://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/123-163_Online.pdf#page=40SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESHow Democrats Could Pack the Supreme Court in 2021US Supreme Court is headed for a dramatic 2021. Here are 5 things that could changeSymposium on the Supreme Court's "shadow docket" Archives Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021 https://www.businessinsider.com/amy-coney-barrett-upcoming-supreme-court-cases-deciding-vote-2020-10#election-related-cases-are-expected-to-dominate-the-next-couple-of-weeks-1 

In this episode we dive into a question that has been driving us nuts all season: HOW is the new Right coordinating this massive court takeover? I mean all those politicians, judges, big money donors...where is the paper trail? You’ve got 80, 5-4 Supreme Court decisions in favor of corporate interests. And that is ALL of the court cases. How are they managing to all get on the same page with absolutely NO record of meetings or conspiracies and ALL of this money exchanging hands? Here’s the theory: Coded Communication. The money--the power--communicates to the foot soldiers. By foot soldiers I mean McConnell, Trump, the Supreme Court Justices--all the people you think are at the height of power but are actually bowing to the money. And in this episode we’re gonna lay out what we think are the three cornerstones of that communication code: Signalling (how Fox News is used to coordinate across the foot soldiers and the base), Auditioning (how Judges let the new Right know their opinions are for sale), and Amicus Briefs (“friends of the court” statements that the Money uses to tell Judges how to judge). Click here to visit the episode on our websiteClick here to see a transcription of the episodeFollow us on Twitter @courtpodLinks to references in this episode:Sinclair Broadcast Group, the pro-Trump, conservative company taking over local news, explainedRage review: Will Bob Woodward's tapes bring down Donald Trump?Whitehouse Gives Extensive Presentation On Dark Money Behind Conservative Court AppointmentsHow Charles Koch Backed the John Birch Society at the Height of Its Attacks on Martin Luther KingWatchdog group accuses Amy Coney Barrett of “unconscionable cruelty” in teen rape caseSenator Whitehouse Calls Out Dark-Money Networks Behind Amy Coney Barrett's SCOTUS NominationDPCC Report: Stabenow, Schumer, Whitehouse Unveil Report Detailing GOP's Big-Money Assault on the Constitution, Our Independent Judiciary, and the Rule of Law | Senate Democratic LeadershipIrony and Outrage: The Polarized Landscape of Rage, Fear, and Laughter in the United States 

This episode looks at the tragic and unnecessary death of Daniel Prude, a black man suffering from a mental health crisis when he was killed by police in March 2020 in Rochester, NY. However, the true nature of his death was concealed by police and possibly the city government until police body camera footage was released to the family and made public in September.Rochestarians and activists like Free The People Roc and BLack Lives Matter, who protested the death of George Floyd, returned to the streets to demand justice for Daniel Prude. The police responded to the protests with a violent, militarized crackdown causing serious, and in some cases permanent damage to protesters. Mary and Lee wanted to tell the story of Daniel Prude and Rochester’s response, because of their personal connections to the community. But more importantly, because what happened here can and is occurring across the country. Mary interviews two attorneys involved with lawsuits and legal representation of Daniel Prude’s family and protesters seeking justice and accountability for Daniel Prude’s death. Don Thompson returns to the pod as a lawyer representing Daniel Prude’s family and protesters who were seriously injured as part of the protests. He is also part of  litigation that is aimed at holding the government accountable for its failures, as well as changing police practices and the treatment of those who need assistance during a mental health crisis.  Jill Paperno, First Assistant Public Defender at Monroe County Public Defender’s Office joins us to discuss her role in defending protesters. The last part of the episode focuses on ways to protect yourself if you protest. What rights do protesters have? What types of charges could  you face if you are at a protest that becomes contentious? What can you do if you are stopped or detained by police, if you witness an arrest, or if you are being arrested?  What should you do after you are arrested? Valuable information to have especially give the hostility the Trump Administration and Attorney General Barr have towards protesters.  Resources mentioned in this episode:https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-happened-daniel-prude.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/nyregion/daniel-prude-rochester-police-mental-health.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/us/daniel-prude-rochester-city-council/index.htmlhttps://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/29/917317141/rochester-hospital-released-daniel-prude-hours-before-fatal-encounter-with-polichttps://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/09/15/police-killed-mentally-ill-daniel-prude-callous-ignorant-column/5792666002/https://www.yahoo.com/gma/protester-allegedly-assaults-officers-inside-124720833.htmlhttps://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2020/10/02/lovely-warren-indicted-rochester-mayor-accused-campaign-finance-fraud/5892804002/https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2020/09/25/ryan-howe-rylea-autumn-daniel-prude-rochester-ny-federal-riot-charges-antifa/3538856001/https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/rochester-pd-spent-1-4m-in-ot-on-daniel-prude-blm-protests/https://www.wsj.com/articles/barr-tells-prosecutors-to-consider-charging-violent-protesters-with-sedition-11600276683

Our legal system gives Judges power over trivial matters as well as over life or death. But who judges the Judges? The answer varies with the jurisdictions. In this episode Mary and Lee speak with Assistant Professor Michael Moodian who was appointed by the Governor of California, Jerry Brown, to the 11-member State of California Commission on Judicial Performance in 2015 and reappointed Mike for a four-year term in 2017. The commission investigates judicial misconduct and complaints and disciplines state judges. This is a behind the scenes look at the process of investigating judicial complaints including who files complaints, how investigations proceed, and what types of sanctions are available to deal with judicial misconduct. Is it going to be a private letter, or a public reprimand, all the way up to removal from the bench. Mary shares her experience with Judges who, perhaps, crossed the line of propriety.  Mary, Lee, and Mike wrap up the episode discussing the benefits of a systemic  change to include proactive judicial monitoring with financial and assets disclosure requirements that could help expose and deter judicial corruption.  Find us on Twitter @courtpod Click here to see the episode on our website Resources mentioned in this episode:https://www.chapman.edu/our-faculty/michael-moodianhttps://cjp.ca.gov/https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-judges-misconduct/https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/08/11/139536686/pa-judge-sentenced-to-28-years-in-massive-juvenile-justice-bribery-scandal 

In this episode we’re looking at specific strategies that the anti-democratic revolutionary libertarian right, the McConnell-Trump-Koch/Dark money axis of evil for short, redefines particular words such as “liberty” and “courage” and “conservatives” so that they can dupe their supporters into believing they are getting one thing--more liberty, more courage, more conservatism--while they’re in fact getting less. With help from Ian Haney López, author of Merge Left, and Nancy McLean, author of Democracy in Chains, this episode explores how the radical anti-democratic libertarian Right has exploited “religious liberty” and “conservatism” and how “courage” is being redeployed to mean pro-corporation and anti-democracy.Mary revisits the ever important issue of court packing, following some Koch surrogates like Carrie Severino of the Heritage Foundation. We unpack the word “courage” popping up in strange ways to describe the judicial quality that the Trump administration has been looking for in their nomination list of Federal Judges. Looking across excerpts not only Severino but also Justica Scalia, Don McGahn (former White House Council, and Leonard Leo, it’s clear that courage is joining liberty and conservative as code words for the willingness to undermine democracy in favor of the rich getting richer.Click here for the episode transcriptClick here to see the episode on our websiteResources mentioned in this episode:"The Politics and Rhetoric of Courage" by Vatz, Richard E. - USA TODAY, Vol. 141, Issue 2814, March 2013 | Online Research LibraryAnalysis | Five of John McCain’s most courageous political momentsScalia on Democracy Without Disclosure, Brennan CenterThe Conservative Pipeline to the Supreme CourtNancy MacLean, “Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America” (Viking, 2017)Ian Haney López, Merge Left: Fusing Race and Class, Winning Elections, and Saving America (New Press, 2019)Follow the show on Twitter @courtpod

We tell ourselves that prisons are populated by guilty people. We justify treating prisoners poorly, harshly because they "deserve to be there". There is a long tradition underlying this myth. Ben Franklin reportedly said "it is better to let a hundred guilty men go free than one guilty man be convicted". The advent and continued improvement of DNA technology has proven that wrongful convictions are a regular part of our criminal justice system. Mary and Lee welcome award winning attorney Don Thompson who is unfortunately an expert in wrongful conviction exonerations. Don has had five post conviction exonerations. They are amazing successes born out of epic systemic failures.  Don joined forces with The Innocence Project, out of New York City, which works to exonerate people based on DNA evidence.Here are some facts about exonerations pulled from The Innocence Project website: "The first exoneration occurred in 1989, to date there have been 375 more. The average number of years served before exoneration is 14. 21 of those people had been on death row. 44 pled guilty to crimes they did not commit. All but 15 of the exonerations involved some form of false confession. 60% of those exonerated were Black and 31% were white."  In a functioning system the appellate system would conduct meaningful reviews of convictions and would catch wrongful convictions in short order, but it doesn't and that is in large part because Judges and District Attorneys fight tooth and nail to oppose meaningful review of the evidence to keep these convictions intact.  Don discusses his representation of Valentino Dixon who was wrongfully convicted of murder even though another man confessed on camera within a day of the shooting. Mr. Dixon's conviction was affirmed by the appeals courts. He served 28 years before being released and it was in large part because of the interest taken by Golf Digest, of all publications. It is a truly fascinating and frustrating saga. Wrongful convictions hurt everyone, the innocent person loses years, decades of their life that can never be recovered, the victim and the public are decided and are sold a false sense of security while the true culprit remains free to commit more crimes, creating more victims, and tax dollars are spent incarcerating an innocent person. DNA does not exist in every case and there is no guarantee that it was preserved if it was collected begging the question, how many more innocent people are populating our crowded prisons?  Click here to see the episode on our website Resources mentioned in this episodehttps://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/douglas-warney/https://www.innocenceproject.org/golf-digest-helps-wrongly-convicted-man-regain-freedom/https://www.golfdigest.com/story/for-valentino-dixon-a-wrong-righted-murder-charge-vacated-by-court-after-serving-27-years-in-prisonhttps://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/frank-sterling/https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/freddie-peacock/https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3702https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/22/nyregion/after-25-years-just-days-till-freedom-with-new-evidence-judge-voids-woman-s.htmlBook: Among the Lowest of the Dead: The Culture on Death Row by David Von DrehleCourt Case: McCleskey v Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)https://www.vera.org/publications/price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends/price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends/price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends-prison-spending 

Get ready for a whirlwind primer in the GOP donor-funded Trump-McConnell takeover of the U.S. judiciary. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has essentially shut down the Legislative Branch for anything except confirming Trump judges. They know they’re not going to finish in Trump’s first term. If he gets a second term, they WILL finish. Already, the Trump-McConnell controlled courts have a unanimous victory on the 80 corporate cases that have appeared in front of the Supreme Court. That is 80, 5-4 decisions, in favor of corporate interests and that is EVERY case decided in favor of private interests and against the public good. Their priority is to pack the courts with judges who are young, inexperienced, and pro-corporate. McConnell and the Senate Republicans have turned the Senate and the Legislative Branch into  a conveyor belt for confirming Trump judges. The House Democrats have passed over 350 bills, 90% of which have bi-partisan support, that have yet to even be considered by the Senate.The courts are all but captured and with Justice Ginsberg’s seat now vacant, the stakes for America have never been higher. Click here to view the episode on our websiteClick here to view the episode transcriptLinks to research used in this episode:The Myth of 'Captured Courts' | OpinionPresident Trump's re-election rally in TulsaAn inside look at how Trump's Supreme Court list is made: ‘A tremendous investment of time’DPCC Report: Stabenow, Schumer, Whitehouse Unveil Report Detailing GOP's Big-Money Assault on the Constitution, Our Independent Judiciary, and the Rule of LawMitch Part 4: 'Not A Happy Choice' : Embeddedhttps://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/07/he-defended-anti-gay-and-anti-muslim-causes-now-hes-an-immigration-judge/ Frequently Asked Questions, fedsoc.orgTrump’s New Judicial Litmus Test: Shrinking ‘the Administrative State’Economic Inequality and Political Representation

In this BONUS episode, Mary speaks for herself and Lee, who is unable to appear on this episode. Mary pays homage to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg who recently died of pancreatic cancer. Celebrating the life of this iconic legal trailblazer who dedicated her career to challenging the patriarchal world and fought against gender discrimination in all forms. A few hours after Justice Ginsberg's death Mitch McConnell publicly announced that he will ignore Justice Ginsberg's dying wish, which was for her seat to not be filled until the next President is installed.  You will hear Trump, the very next day at a rally in Fayetteville, N.C. vow to fill her Supreme Court seat quickly. This is GOP hypocrisy laid bare after they refused to fill Justice Scalia's seat 11 months before the 2016 election claiming the voters needed a say in who was nominated. The GOP is aware of the stakes and they have never been higher. The GOP donors are so close to a complete power grab. True to form, Trump says the quiet part out loud when he admits that he is counting on the captured federal courts to hand him the election by limiting what ballots actually count. The fear for democracy is real and the fight is very much on. May Ruth Bader Ginsberg's life inspire a revolution. Resources cited in this episode:https://www.c-span.org/video/?475837-1/president-trump-announce-nominee-supreme-court-next-weekhttps://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-iba-syn&hsimp=yhs-syn&hspart=iba&p=Lindsey+Graham+use+my+words+video#id=2&vid=f034f8b39d4e9e9810e3600f2e31c2b9&action=click

In this episode, Mary and Lee are sticking with the theme of money infiltrating cornerstone institutions of American democracy. But this episode is going to focus on academics, but not like Lee’s people, whose research is independent and rigorously evaluated. This episode is about captured academics who are selling their research and ideas to the highest bidder. The collective mythology of academics, at least in this country, is kind of this crazy liberal professor who sits in their ivory tower with a bad wardrobe and just churns out books. And, yes, people mostly think academics are totally out of touch with the real world but nonetheless there’s a sense that they know what they’re doing. That their research is evidence-based, rigorously judged...you know, academic. And, more importantly, that their research can be trusted.Except now big money has infiltrated academia--public universities, private universities, law schools--using their “charitable donations” (can you hear my air quotes) to create an agenda for what research gets done and what the research says. We know that the Koch brothers have paid for a whole host of anti-climate change “science” (more air quotes). We know that the tobacco industry paid for studies that smoking didn’t harm people. We know that Volkswagon paid for studies to say that their emissions were not polluting. And it’s not just paying for research. They use their donations to determine who gets promoted, who gets tenure, even whether or not someone can get a book published. If we know that academics and judges and lawyers are being bought and paid for by corporations with horrifying motivations then we simply can’t trust these myths that wearing a robe or having a PhD makes you any better or worse than any other politician in the pocket of the highest bidder.One-Third Don’t Know Obamacare and Affordable Care Act Are the SamePrivate Companies Fund Public-University ResearchStudents want Koch, corporate influence off campusSUNY Geneseo: We never considered discipline in Snapchat photo investigationNancy MacLean, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for AmericaClick here for the episode transcript Click here to view the episode on our website

In this episode of May it Displease the Court podcast, your hosts appellate attorney Mary Whiteside and rhetorical scholar Lee Pierce are joined by Erik Teifke, 2nd Assistant Public Defender at the Monroe County Public Defender’s Office. Together, they explore the question: do Black lives matter in the courtroom?While overt racism does exist, the vast majority of unequal racial treatment occurs due to implicit bias, which we all harbor to some degree and usually avoid confronting in ourselves. That individual sense of implicit bias is certainly a problem. But it is REALLY a problem when it invades the courtroom, causing Black and Brown defendants to face harsher consequences than White defendants.Mary and Erik were former co-workers at the Public Defender’s Office and throughout this episode they draw on their experiences handling criminal cases to discuss how the courts regularly fail to acknowledge racial bias. Racial bias can permeate and taint every part of a criminal case, from the evidence collected, to the charges filed, to plea bargaining, sentencing, pre-trial motions, all the way up through trial. Erik explores how the current wave of BLM protests have increased awareness of police misconduct and how the groundswell of public attention and support for racial justice can be used to push for the equal treatment. Erik details the practical ideas and strategies to revamp what it means to zealously advocate for your client. Even after 25 years of practicing Erik has taken the time to think about how he can do better to push the courts to look more critically at the evidence police present, to address implicit racial bias in plea bargaining, to allow for more time to explore jurors feelings around race with the goal of trying to stop the courts from using racial and pro-police bias to victimize BIPOC defendants. Click here to take the Harvard Implicit Bias TestClick here to view the episode on our website

In the inaugural episode of May it Displease the Court podcast, your hosts appellate attorney Mary Whiteside and rhetorical scholar Lee Pierce explore what they believe to be the fundamental flaw in the court system:  the myth of objective, impartial, independent judges that hand down justice from on high.The myth of the deified judiciary is packaged and sold through education, entertainment and the media. Mary looks specifically at how law school indoctrinates future lawyers into the notion that the law and the Judges should be respected to the point of reverence. Lee connects the myth to some nerdy rhetoric stuff about the difference between the Book of Judges and the Book of Kings in the Bible. Even though the Bible replaces Judges with Kings, it still treats the Kings as these mythical godlike beings.The second half of the episode looks at what has happened to this myth under the Trump administration. In addition to the myth of reverence that insulates judges from criticism, we now  have big corporate money from the Koch brothers and other pro-corporate anti-democratic funders buying judges and court decisions and plotting to ruin democracy.Links to research cited in this episode:Why judges are better than kingsDark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical RightStatement on the Rule of Law and an Independent JudiciaryClick here for the episode transcript Click here to view the episode on our website