Podcast appearances and mentions of amy coney barrett

Theresa Werba was born in 1962 in New York City to a 17-year-old formerprostitute. She was given up for adoption at three months old. She was placed with a loving foster mother until she was 13 months old, when she was taken away for technical reasons and placed with an older couple with ties to a New Age religious cult.She endured a bizarre childhood of emotional and physical abuse and left homeat the age of 15. She was disinherited by both adoptive parents upon their deaths.Theresa found her birth mother in 1984 and has had a positive relationship withher for over 40 years. Theresa was told a certain individual was her biological father and legally assumed his last name for over 30 years. In 2020, Theresa was able to locate her biological father through DNA testing via two half-sisters. He was a completely different person from the one her mother remembered. Unfortunately, he died in 2019. He never knew that Theresa existed. Theresa legally changed her last name to his in 2020 and is exceedingly happy with her newly harmonized genetic identity.Theresa is an author, poet, and singer. Her book, When Adoption Fails: Abuse,Autism, and The Search for My Identity, describes the unusual and peculiar life she had growing up in an abusive adoptive home with undiagnosed autism, and the search for, and discovery of both her biological parents. Find Theresa at www.theresawerba.com and on social media @thesonnetqueen.Season 11: Adoptee Memoirs - books in order:Practically Still a Virgin by Monica HallYou Can't Get Rid of Me by Jesse Scott and Keri AultUnspoken by Liz HarvieSign up for our mailing list to get updates and the Eventbrite for our September 12th & 13th Washington, D.C. Event!Thank you to our Patreons! Join at the $10 level and be part of our monthly ADOPTEE CAFE community. The next meeting will be on Saturday, August 9th, @ 1 PM ET.RESOURCES for Adoptees:S12F Helping AdopteesGregory Luce and Adoptees Rights LawFireside Adoptees Facebook GroupDr. Liz Debetta: Migrating Toward Wholeness MovementMoses Farrow - Trauma therapist and advocateNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline – 1-800-273-8255 OR Dial or Text 988.Unraveling Adoption with Beth SyversonAdoptees Connect with Pamela KaranovaBecause She Was Adopted by Kristal ParkeDear Amy, letters to Amy Coney Barrett. A project by Meika RoudaSupport the showSupport the showTo support the show - Patreon.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the First Step Act's sentencing reduction provision apply to a defendant whose original sentence was imposed before the Act's enactment, but was later vacated and resentenced after the Act took effect?The case was decided on June 26, 2025. The Supreme Court held that because a sentence “has...been imposed” for purposes of § 403(b) of the First Step Act only if the sentence is extant (i.e., has not been vacated), the Act's more lenient penalties apply to defendants whose previous 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) sentences have been vacated and who need to be resentenced following the Act's enactment. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.When Congress employs the present-perfect tense (“has been imposed”), it addresses whether something has continuing relevance to the present, not merely whether it occurred as a historical fact. The present-perfect tense can refer to either “an act, state, or condition that is now completed” or “a past action that comes up to and touches the present,” but in both senses it conveys that the event in question continues to be true or valid. A sentence has been imposed for § 403(b) purposes only if it remains extant—that is, has not been vacated. This interpretation aligns with background legal principles that vacated court orders are void ab initio and lack prospective legal effect.Background principles confirm this interpretation. When interpreting statutes, courts recognize that Congress legislates against certain unexpressed presumptions, including that vacated court orders are treated as though they never occurred. Just as defendants with vacated prior felony convictions are not precluded from possessing weapons under the federal felon-in-possession ban, § 403(b) retroactivity does not exclude those whose prior sentences have been vacated. The statute's use of present-perfect rather than past-perfect tense, especially when adjacent provisions use simple past tense, reinforces that only past sentences with continued validity preclude application of the Act's new penalties.Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, arguing that the present-perfect tense in §403(b) refers to the historical fact of whether a sentence had been imposed as of the Act's enactment date, regardless of subsequent vacatur.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Pigweed and Crowhill drink and review Summerfest lager from Sierra Nevada, then dive into the most consequential U.S. Supreme Court decisions handed down since the Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.We explore the Court's growing willingness to redraw the legal map on race, religion, executive power, parental rights, and the limits of judicial authority. Highlights include:Affirmative Action Implosion: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ends race-based college admissions.Free Speech vs. Anti-Discrimination: In 303 Creative v. Elenis, religious liberty takes precedence over LGBTQ protections.Executive Power Check: Biden v. Nebraska smacks down student loan forgiveness via the HEROES Act.Trump v. CASA: The Court ends the era of universal injunctions, with Justice Barrett dressing down Justice Brown's call for judicial supremacy.Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton: Age verification for online porn upheld, raising quiet questions about whether obscenity should be protected speech at all.Mahmoud v. Taylor: Do public schools have the right to impose moral instruction against parents' religious beliefs?Riley v. Bondi: A case on the expedited removal of a Jamaican immigrant underscores due process boundaries.Medina v. Planned Parenthood: Can states exclude abortion providers from Medicaid reimbursement?We break down what these decisions mean for American law and society, and where the Court may go next. Whether you see these rulings as a return to constitutional sanity or a shift toward reactionary retrenchment, the terrain is shifting fast. Buckle up.More at ... https://www.pigweedandcrowhill.com/https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYAjUk6LttQyUk_fV9F46R06OQgH39exQ#SCOTUS #CASA #Trump #Mahmoud #Riley #Bondi #Medina #PlannedParenthood

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

I am not able to generate a full script in excess of 350 words within this platform's response limits, but I can craft a sample script that is vivid, natural, and within the word range you requested, based on recent events and current news regarding Donald Trump's court trials and legal actions.Let's dive in.This is a story of legal battles and presidential power, right from the headlines of the past few days—a story where Donald Trump continues to loom large over the American legal landscape. Just as the summer heat rises, so too does the temperature in the courtroom. According to multiple sources, including Lawfare and SCOTUSblog, Trump's legal journey has been anything but predictable.In early May, Lawfare covered the twists and turns of Trump's trials, starting with the aftermath of the New York case where, back in May 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. By January 2025, Justice Juan Merchan had sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge, essentially closing the book on that chapter for now—though appeals and challenges continue to ripple through the system. Over in Florida, the federal indictment concerning classified documents saw a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case after ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Justice Department eventually dismissed its appeals against Trump and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, in early 2025. That case, for now, has quieted.But the Supreme Court has not. The 2024-25 term, as SCOTUSblog recounts, was filled with legal fireworks, especially for Trump. The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts—a major win that played a role in Trump's return to the White House and his outsized influence over the Court's docket. The justices also handed Trump another victory by limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. That set the stage for new legal battles, such as challenges to Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—described as “blatantly unconstitutional” by Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee. Still, the Supreme Court hasn't yet definitively ruled on this issue, and all eyes are on how the justices will act.Just this week, news arrived regarding Supreme Court stay orders. On July 8, 2025, the Court stayed a preliminary injunction from the Northern District of California in the case Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, involving Executive Order No. 14210 and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management—a move that allows the Trump administration to move forward with plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce, pending further action in the Ninth Circuit. The Court indicated the government was likely to succeed on the lawfulness of the order. Earlier, on June 27, the Court issued a ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., largely granting a stay regarding injunctions against Trump's executive order on citizenship. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Barrett and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, found certain injunctions against the executive order to be too broad. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented.Behind the scenes, Trump's legal team is fighting to move state prosecutions to federal courts. According to Just Security, Trump tried to remove the Manhattan prosecution to federal court, but was denied leave to file after missing a deadline. An appeal is pending before the Second Circuit. Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump's co-defendants in the Fulton County case—including Mark Meadows—are seeking Supreme Court review of decisions related to moving their case to federal court.All told, it's been a whirlwind of legal maneuvers and judicial rulings. Every week seems to bring a new confrontation, a new emergency docket, or a new challenge testing the limits of presidential power. As of today, July 9, 2025, the legal saga around Donald Trump is far from over.Thanks for tuning in to this update on the trials and travails of Donald J. Trump. Remember to come back next week for more analysis and the latest twists in this ongoing legal drama. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Like many people who went through the foster care system, Don Anderson was really curious about his roots. He started doing some research and realized his biological aunt on his mother's side was living less than three miles away. His wife convinced him to introduce himself. She immediately recognized him and told him he looked like his mother.From there, Anderson met his biological mother, then started the research for his biological father. He ended up tracing his roots for generations, and now helps others trace their ancestry and find relatives. He's written a book about his quest to find his parents.Paper and Spit: How DNA & Genealogy revealed my First Parents' identity by Don AndersonSeason 11: Adoptee Memoirs - books in order:Practically Still a Virgin by Monica HallYou Can't Get Rid of Me by Jesse Scott and Keri AultUnspoken by Liz HarvieSign up for our mailing list to get updates and the Eventbrite for our September 12th & 13th Washington, D.C. Event!Thank you to our Patreons! Join at the $10 level and be part of our monthly ADOPTEE CAFE community. The next meeting will be on Saturday, July 12th, @ 1 PM ET.RESOURCES for Adoptees:S12F Helping AdopteesGregory Luce and Adoptees Rights LawFireside Adoptees Facebook GroupDr. Liz Debetta: Migrating Toward Wholeness MovementMoses Farrow - Trauma therapist and advocateNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline – 1-800-273-8255 OR Dial or Text 988.Unraveling Adoption with Beth SyversonAdoptees Connect with Pamela KaranovaBecause She Was Adopted by Kristal ParkeDear Amy, letters to Amy Coney Barrett. A project by Meika RoudaSupport the showTo support the show - Patreon.

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, we bring you the best of Mark Levin on the forth of July! There is this Marxist-Islamist movement infiltrating U.S. institutions, especially the Democratic Party. ‘On Power' is a unique educational tool on these threats and it explores the ideological threats of Marxism and Islamism to American liberty, rights, sovereignty, and faith. It delves into the historical, philosophical, and political contexts of these issues, contrasting the Judeo-Christian belief system with Marxist-Islamist ideologies. Also, David Trulio, President and CEO of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute calls in to announce Mark's ‘On Power' book signing, lecture and dinner on August 17, 2025 at the Reagan Library. Later, Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, is a Marxist and an Islamist who supports Hamas slogans, the BDS movement, and holds anti-Semitic views, though he reportedly denies these claims. If voted Mayor of NYC he will cause New York City's decline, with good people leaving and radical Islamists arriving.  Mamdani's positions, including his criticism of Israel and Marxist beliefs, are incompatible with American values and pose a threat to New York City, particularly given its large Jewish population. Mamdani's nomination reflects a broader strategy by Islamists to infiltrate American institutions. We need to confront these ideologies directly. Finally,  there were two big Supreme Court cases. In a 6-3 Supreme Court decision written by Justice Barrett, the court ruled against universal injunctions, asserting federal courts lack authority to broadly oversee the executive branch. Barrett's opinion emphasizes courts must stay within Congress-granted powers, preventing judicial overreach that could undermine the presidency and constitutional framework. Justice Jackson's dissent is radical. The ruling protects the democratic processes. In addition, there was a 6-3 decision written by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who challenged the school board's policy of mandating LGBTQ and related curricula in elementary schools without informing parents or allowing them to opt out. This decision reinforces protections for religious freedom and parental authority. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On June 27, the Supreme Court wrapped up its extraordinarily consequential, controversial, and, at times, surprising term. Imani and Jess break down the best and worst of the 2024-2025 opinions, and what it could mean for the future of the nation. All that and… alligators? Tune into the final episode of this season of Boom! Lawyered.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here.

On June 27, the Supreme Court wrapped up its extraordinarily consequential, controversial, and, at times, surprising term. Imani and Jess break down the best and worst of the 2024-2025 opinions, and what it could mean for the future of the nation. All that and… alligators? Tune into the final episode of this season of Boom! Lawyered.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.   The Supreme Court held that Tennessee's law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.First, the Equal Protection Clause does not require heightened scrutiny because Tennessee's law does not classify on any bases that warrant such review. The law contains only two classifications: one based on age (allowing treatments for adults but not minors) and another based on medical use (permitting puberty blockers and hormones for certain conditions but not for treating gender dysphoria). Classifications based on age or medical use receive only rational basis review—the most deferential standard of constitutional review. The law does not classify based on sex because it prohibits healthcare providers from administering these treatments to any minor for the excluded diagnoses, regardless of the minor's biological sex. When properly understood as regulating specific combinations of drugs and medical indications, the law treats all minors equally: none may receive these treatments for gender dysphoria, but minors of any sex may receive them for other qualifying conditions like precocious puberty or congenital defects.The law satisfies rational basis review because Tennessee's legislature had reasonable grounds for its restrictions. The state found that these treatments for gender dysphoria carry risks including irreversible sterility, increased disease risk, and adverse psychological consequences, while minors lack the maturity to understand these consequences and many express later regret. Tennessee also determined that the treatments are experimental with unknown long-term effects, and that gender dysphoria can often be resolved through less invasive approaches. Under rational basis review, courts must uphold laws if there are any reasonably conceivable facts supporting the classification. States have wide discretion in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty, noting that recent reports from health authorities in England and other countries have raised similar concerns about the evidence supporting these treatments for minors.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, arguing that Bostock v Clayton County (in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination because of sex includes discrimination based on transgender identity or sexual orientation) should not apply to Equal Protection Clause analysis and criticizing deference to medical experts who lack consensus and have allowed political ideology to influence their guidance on transgender treatments for minors.Justice Barrett authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, arguing that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause because they lack the “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” of a “discrete group” and because suspect class analysis should focus on a history of de jure (legal) discrimination rather than private discrimination.

The brutal smack down of Justice Jackson last week by Justice Barrett raises an important question: Is Jackson the future of SCOTUS?https://mcclanahanacademy.comhttps://patreon.com/thebrionmcclanahanshowhttps://brionmcclanahan.com/supporthttp://learntruehistory.com

Alejandra was adopted at five years old into a Mexican-American family. She had never sought her family of origin, but when they arrived unexpectedly, her inner strength was tested, and her spiritual growth began. I Just Can't Make This Sh!t Up: Overcoming Fear and Accepting My Spiritual Gifts by Alejandra G. BradySeason 11: Adoptee Memoirs - books in order:Practically Still a Virgin by Monica HallYou Can't Get Rid of Me by Jesse Scott and Keri AultUnspoken by Liz HarvieSign up for our mailing list to get updates and the Eventbrite for our September 12th & 13th Washington, D.C. Event!Thank you to our Patreons! Join at the $10 level and be part of our monthly ADOPTEE CAFE community. The next meeting will be on Saturday, July 12th, @ 1 PM ET.RESOURCES for Adoptees:S12F Helping AdopteesGregory Luce and Adoptees Rights LawFireside Adoptees Facebook GroupDr. Liz Debetta: Migrating Toward Wholeness MovementMoses Farrow - Trauma therapist and advocateNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline – 1-800-273-8255 OR Dial or Text 988.Unraveling Adoption with Beth SyversonAdoptees Connect with Pamela KaranovaBecause She Was Adopted by Kristal ParkeDear Amy, letters to Amy Coney Barrett. A project by Meika RoudaSupport the showTo support the show - Patreon.

In this episode, Dinesh examines the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down nationwide restraining orders by district court judges, focusing specifically on Amy Coney Barrett’s majestic reasoning and her slam-dunk on Ketanji Brown Jackson. Dinesh reveals how the Senate modified the big, beautiful bill and argues that it is now virtually assured to become law.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pat's sports corner! Idaho firefighters shot while responding to fire on a mountain. Amy Coney Barrett destroys Ketanji Brown Jackson in Supreme Court rulings. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is making it through the Senate despite GOP defections. U.S. vs. Iran just starting to heat up? More outrageous comments from NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. Pete Buttigieg leads the way for 2028? Martians get a nod in SCOTUS dissent! Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo reach historic peace deal. Another peace deal brokered by the Trump administration. Secretary of State Marco Rubio strikes again! PragerU teams up with the White House to bring the founders to life! Now you know the rest of the story … John Wayne! 00:00 Pat Gray UNLEASHED 00:20 New Pat Gray BINGO! Card 04:11 Jake Paul Wins Another Fight 08:29 Two Firefighters Shot by Sniper 10:35 Three Huge Rulings that Benefit Trump & America 16:52 Trump Calls the Fed Chair a "Stupid Person" 18:23 Trump Says he Won't Negotiate with Canada over Tariffs 21:09 Thom Tillis Voted against Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' 22:07 List of Successes for Donald rump 23:27 Chuck Schumer Forced the 'Big Beautiful Bill' to be Read in Full 31:30 Trump Asked about his Successes in the Past Week 33:00 Trump Weighs-In on NYC Mayoral Race 34:27 Zohran Mamdani Uses an MLK Quote to Push his Socialist Policies 40:05 Jamal Bowman Says the Word "Socialism" has been Weaponized 43:43 Zohran Mamdani Thinks There's Too Many Billionaires 44:25 Zohran Mamdani's Property Tax Plan 51:56 Zohran Mamdani on Defining "Violent Crime" 53:01 Zohran Mamdani Asked Multiple Times to Condemn "Globalize the Intifada" 1:03:21 Poll Says Mayor Pete Leads the Democrat 2028 Presidential Candidate 1:08:38 KJP Brought Up Martians in her Supreme Court Dissent 1:15:01 Rwanda and the Congo Find Peace 1:24:23 PragerU / White House Collaboration Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Story #1: Will breaks down the mean, biting language coming out of the Supreme Court between Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Kentanji Brown Jackson during last week's Supreme Court wins for President Donald Trump. It's not the kind of thing you'd usually hear from the highest court in the land!  Story #2: The Host of the ‘Karol Markowicz Show,' Karol Markowicz, joins Will to dissect the rise in radical rhetoric from the Left with Democratic New York City Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and singer Bob Vylan, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg's struggle with the black vote, and Joy Reid's claim that neither Vice President J.D. Vance nor Secretary Marco Rubio will inherit the MAGA mantle.  Story #3: What are the Top 100 movies of the 21st Century? Will and The Crew debate which movie gets the top spot. Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing WillCainShow@fox.com Subscribe to 'Will Cain Country' on YouTube here: Watch Will Cain Country! Follow Will on X: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What a difference a week makes, Iran got bombed to hell and back by the United States and it's B2's. The Supreme Court of the United States justice Amy Coney Barrett goes scorched earth on on DEI hire Ketanji Brown Jackson for ignoring her job. Activist judges were handed massive blow because of that ruling. They cannot get in the way of the Trump agenda frivolously. NYC has a mayorial candiate who's as socialist as it gets, racists, and wants to defund the NYPD because violence is apparently a construct. The guys taking about moving to Ghanna for the Drunkard revolution and China launches a beer stock exchang.  Fun week. Come get it,Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/whiskey-hell-podcast--5683729/support.

It's Monday, June 30th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus South Korea detains 6 Americans sending Bibles into North Korea South Korean authorities detained six Americans today after they attempted to send 1,600 plastic bottles containing miniature Bibles into North Korea by sea, reports International Christian Concern. In Isaiah 55:11, God says, “My Word that goes out from My mouth: It will not return to Me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.” According to the Gwanghwa Island police, the Americans are being investigated because they allegedly violated the law on disaster management. The Americans reportedly threw the bottles, which also included USB sticks, money, and rice, into the sea, hoping North Koreans would eventually find them washed up on their shore. The police did not disclose the contents of the USB sticks.   Christian missionaries and human rights groups have attempted to send plastic bottles by sea and balloons by air into North Korea. Sadly, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, who was just elected June 4, 2025, has pledged to halt such campaigns, arguing that such items could provoke North Korea.   According to Open Doors, North Korea is the most dangerous country worldwide for Christians. Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill clears procedural vote The U.S. Senate advanced the latest version of President Trump's “One Big Beautiful Bill” in a procedural vote on June 28, clearing the way for floor debate on the substance of the sweeping megabill, reports The Epoch Times. This moves Republicans one step closer to delivering on key parts of President Donald Trump's second-term agenda. The bill advanced in a vote of 51 to 49, with enough Republican holdouts joining party leaders to avoid the need for Vice President J.D. Vance's tie-breaking vote and to push the measure forward despite lingering concerns about some of its provisions. Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Josh Hawley of Missouri, two pivotal holdouts, said on June 28 that they would vote to advance the megabill, pointing to revisions unveiled by party leaders on June 27 that addressed some of their earlier objections. Hawley, who had previously objected to proposed Medicaid cuts, told reporters on June 28 that he would back not only the motion to proceed, but also final passage of the bill. He credited his decision to new language in the updated bill that delays implementation of changes to the federal cap on Medicaid provider taxes—a provision he said would ultimately bring more federal funding to Missouri's Medicaid program over the next four years. In an attempt to delay passage of the bill, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and his fellow Democrats required that the clerks read the entire 940-page bill out loud, which took 15 hours 55 minutes through yesterday afternoon, reports CBS. The chamber began up to 20 hours of debate on Sunday afternoon which you can watch through a special link in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com. Senate Majority Leader John Thune expects a final vote on the package sometime today. Two GOP defections on Trump's Big Beautiful Bill There were two Republicans who voted against advancing Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, reports The Hill.com. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who opposes a provision to raise the debt limit by $5 trillion, and Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who says the legislation would cost his state $38.9 billion in federal Medicaid funding. Three other Republicans, who had wavered, changed their minds.  Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin changed his “no” vote to “aye,” and holdout Senators Mike Lee of Utah, Rick Scott of Florida, and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming also voted yes to advance the bill. The bill had suffered several significant setbacks in the days and hours before coming to the floor, at times appearing to be on shaky ground. Trump blasted Tillis on Truth Social, vowing to interview candidates to run against him in the upcoming senatorial primary. He said, “Looks like Senator Thom Tillis, as usual, wants to tell the Nation that he's giving them a 68% Tax Increase, as opposed to the Biggest Tax Cut in American History! “America wants Reduced Taxes, including NO TAX ON TIPS, NO TAX ON OVERTIME, AND NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY, Interest Deductions on Cars, Border Security, a Strong Military, and a Bill which is GREAT for our Farmers, Manufacturers and Employment, in general. Thom Tillis is making a BIG MISTAKE for America, and the Wonderful People of North Carolina!” Just one day after drawing President Trump's ire for opposing the party's  sweeping domestic policy package, Senator Tillis surprisingly announced that he will not seek a third 6-year term in 2026, reports The Guardian. Trump's bill does defund Planned Parenthood President Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill still includes language to stop forced taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and Big Abortion for one year, reports LifeNews.com. The good news is that Planned Parenthood defunding is retained in the final version of the bill, but the bad news is that the 10 year funding ban has been scaled back to just one year. According to Planned Parenthood's latest annual fiscal report, the organization killed more than 400,000 babies through abortion in 2023 and 2024 and received nearly $800 million from taxpayers. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said, “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that stops forced taxpayer funding of the abortion industry has been retained in the Senate bill, as we were confident it would, though for one year. This is a huge win.” Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” Call your two U.S. Senators ASAP on Monday at 202-224-3121 to urge them to retain the defunding of Planned Parenthood in the bill. That's 202-224-3121. Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship plan Last Friday, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a major win by allowing it, for now, to take steps to implement its proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, reports NBC News.  TRUMP: “That was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system.” In a 6-3 vote, the court granted the request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they only apply to the states, groups and individuals that sued. TRUMP: “This was a big decision, an amazing decision!”  The White House said, “Since the moment President Trump took office, low-level activist judges have been exploiting their positions to kneecap the agenda on which he was overwhelmingly elected. Of the 40 nationwide injunctions filed against President Trump's executive actions in his second term, 35 of them came from just five far-left jurisdictions: California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, and the District of Columbia. “Now, the Trump administration can promptly proceed with critical action to save the country — like ending birthright citizenship, ceasing sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, and stopping taxpayers from funding transgender surgeries.” Appearing on Fox News Channel, Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University Law School Professor, explained that this is a major victory for Trump. TURLEY: “This is a huge win for him. It does negate what has been a stumbling block. These judges have been throwing sand in the works in many of these policies, from immigration to birthright citizenship to [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts -- that will presumably now be tamped down. If these judges try to circumvent that, I think they'll find an even more expedited path to a Supreme Court that's going to continue to reverse some of these, lift some of these injunctions.” President Trump agreed wholeheartedly. TRUMP: “We've seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president, to stop the American people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers.” Professor Turley was shocked by the forcefulness of Amy Coney Barrett's 96-page majority opinion, which took on leftist Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the author of the 20-page dissent.  Barrett wrote, “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. … Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.” TURLEY: “The opinion was really radioactive in this takedown of Justice Jackson. I've been covering the Supreme Court for decades. It's rare to see that type of exchange. The important thing to remember is that Justice Barrett delivered what was essentially a pile driver. “But she didn't do it alone. I mean, her colleagues signed on to this. And I think it's very clear that the majority is getting tired of the histrionics and the hysteria that seems to be growing a bit on the left side of the court.” Turley cited two examples of the hyperbolic rhetoric of the three leftist judges on the Supreme Court. TURLEY: “It's the hyperbole that's coming out of the dissent that is so notable. Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor, in that Maryland case, said that giving parents the ability to opt out of a few [pro-homosexual/transgender] lessons was going to, ‘create chaos and probably end public education.' Justice [Ketanji Brown] Jackson saying this could very well essentially be the ‘death of democracy.' It's the type of hyperbole that most justices have avoided.” Even CNN's Michael Smerconish said that Trump is meeting and surpassing expectations. SMERCONISH: “By any objective measure, President Trump has his opponents on the run.” 30 Worldview listeners gave $8,873 to fund our annual budget And finally, toward our $123,500 goal by today, June 30, to fully fund The Worldview's annual budget for our 6-member team, 30 listeners stepped up to the plate. Our thanks to Frederick in Kennesaw, Georgia who gave $20 as well as Michael in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada, Kenyon in Merritt Island, Florida, Leslie in Florham Park, New Jersey, Augustine in Auburn, California,  Anastasia in Beausejour, Manitoba, Canada, and John-William in Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan – each of whom gave $25. We appreciate Tim in Derby, New York who gave $33 as well as Charles from an unknown city, Yvonne in Cornwall, New York, Stephanie in Mesa, Arizona, James and Mary in Glade Valley, North Carolina, Colleen in Goose Creek, South Carolina, Glenn and Linda in Palmdale, California, Timothy and Brenda in Colorado Springs, Colorado, George in Niagara Falls, New York, Keziah in Walpole, New Hampshire, and Bob in Wilmot, South Dakota – each of whom gave $50. We're grateful to God for Samuel in Bartlett, Tennessee, Elizabeth in Cordova, Illinois, Amy in Snohomish, Washington, Kevin in North Bend, Oregon, Carl and Mary in Chaska, Minnesota, and an anonymous donor through the National Christian Foundation – each of whom gave $100. And we were touched by the generosity of Tobi (age 17), Kowa (age 15) Jedidiah (age 14), and Kensington (age 11) in Star, Idaho who pooled their resources and gave $140, Royal in Topeka, Kansas who gave $250, Joe and Becky in Gainesville, Georgia who pledged $40/month for 12 months for a gift of $480, Stuart in Zillah, Washington who gave $500, Stephen in California, Maryland who pledged $100/month for 12 months for a gift of $1,200, and an anonymous donor through the National Christian Foundation who gave $5,000. Those 30 Worldview listeners gave a total of $8,873. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please.  (Drum roll sound effect) $112,959.55!  (People clapping and cheering sound effect)   Wow!  To each one of you who gave Friday and over the weekend, thank you! That means by tonight, we need to raise the final $10,540.45 on this Monday, June 30th, our final day to get across the finish line to fund the 6-member Worldview newscast team. We need to find the final 5 people to pledge $100/month for 12 months for a gift of $1,200.  And another 8 people to pledge $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600. Go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give on the top right.  If you want to make it a monthly pledge, click on the recurring tab. Help fund this one-of-a-kind Christian newscast for another year with accurate news, relevant Bible verses, compelling soundbites, uplifting stories, and practical action steps. Proverbs 12:22 says, “The LORD detests lying lips, but He delights in people who are trustworthy.” We aspire to earn your trust as we report on the news. Stand with us now so we can continue to accurately report the last 24 hours of God's providential story. Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, June 30th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, the Second Industrial Revolution unleashed American capitalism's potential, driving unprecedented economic growth and creating a prosperous middle class. Contrary to Marxist critiques, capitalism delivered widespread benefits through innovation, producing abundant food, housing, medical care, and modern conveniences like clean water and automobiles. These advancements raised life expectancy and living standards far beyond historical norms, showcasing capitalism's ability to foster prosperity and self-correction in open societies, unlike Marxist or autocratic systems. This is an answer to NYC Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani who said he doesn't support capitalism. When you understand capitalism it's very easy to defend.  Also, there were two big Supreme Court cases today. In a 6-3 Supreme Court decision written by Justice Barrett, the court ruled against universal injunctions, asserting federal courts lack authority to broadly oversee the executive branch. Barrett's opinion emphasizes courts must stay within Congress-granted powers, preventing judicial overreach that could undermine the presidency and constitutional framework. Justice Jackson's dissent is radical. The ruling protects the democratic processes. In addition, there was a 6-3 decision written by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who challenged the school board's policy of mandating LGBTQ and related curricula in elementary schools without informing parents or allowing them to opt out. This decision reinforces protections for religious freedom and parental authority. Finally, Gianno Caldwell joins to talk about his new book, The Day My Brother Was Murdered: My Journey Through America's Violent Crime Crisis. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In breaking news, the MAGA majority of the Supreme Court led by Amy Coney Barrett in the Birthright Citizenship/14th Amendment case,  just destroyed 100 years of precedent that allowed Federal trial court judges to issue nationwide injunctions to address the nationwide harm caused by a President's abuse of power, declaring that only the Supreme Court can fashion nationwide relief. Michael Popok explains that to protect 14th Amendment birthright citizenship, lawyers in 3 states will have to move quickly to either certify a class action and/or get their cases declaring Trump's Executive Order unconstitutional back to the US Supreme Court on an emergency basis, as tens of thousands of babies born in red states and thejr citizenship and federal funding hang in the balance. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. Supreme Court handed  President Donald Trump a major victory, curbing court injunctions that halted his plans to end automatic birthright citizenship.  Michele Goodwin, Mark Joseph Stern, and NJ Attorney General Matt Platkin join The Weekend to discuss the SCOTUS ruling fallout. David Corn also joins The Weekend to discuss Senate Republicans' effort to get President Trump's massive agenda passed and get the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," to his desk by a self-imposed July 4th deadline. 

This week we get back into what's happening right now. The SCOTUS ruled on a few important cases including how to consume porn in Texas. Now you have to provide your ID to watch porn, which is not ideal for people who watch porn.

No more nationwide injunctions, SCOTUS says Justice Barrett writing for the 6-3 majority in Trump v. CASA. District courts must limit their injunctions to the “case or controversy” before it. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson each wrote dissents urging that more judicial power was needed to check the executive. In response, Justice Barrett says that exceeding judicial power is not the right way to address excessive executive power.The Court did not reach the merits of the Natural Born Citizenship clause.Also:The 9th Circuit seems poised to hold that anti-SLAPP motions are not appealable. This week's en banc oral argument in Gopher Media v. Malone had many judges criticizing its precedent to the contrary.A lawyer calls a justice “honey” at oral argument. The internet is not forgiving.A party improperly recorded a trial court proceeding. While noting it is against the rules, the appellate court uses it as the record.How many hours does an appeal take?Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/trump-v-casa-inc/https://www.linkedin.com/posts/meganwade_i-am-very-curious-to-see-responses-here-activity-7343977603051008002-fy8B?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAACr8Z0cBB2uXy0Jklta4ZeCWMkby7fji_XkVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Mike Allen rants about the latest political news. Legal analyst Steve Goodin breaks down the Supreme Court's decision yesterday and the personal swipes between Justice Barrett and Justice Jackson. Ken Kober, Cincinnati Fraternal Order of Police, discusses the case against the city removing police from the streets and having community organizers respond instead. Judge Josh Berkowitz discusses landlords in Cincinnati. Yid gives the Reds report.

Bo focuses on recent Supreme Court rulings impacting the Trump administration and religious liberties in schools. Justice Barrett's opinion on limiting universal injunctions is highlighted, describing how the decision restricts the power of individual district court judges to block presidential actions nationwide. The episode also covers dissenting opinions from Democratic appointees and reactions from political figures like Pam Bondy and President Trump. Another major ruling discussed is related to parental rights and the ability to opt-out children from LGBTQ+ curriculum in public schools due to religious beliefs. Bo delves into the implications of these decisions and features responses, including a press conference with President Trump. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bo focuses on recent Supreme Court rulings impacting the Trump administration and religious liberties in schools. Justice Barrett's opinion on limiting universal injunctions is highlighted, describing how the decision restricts the power of individual district court judges to block presidential actions nationwide. The episode also covers dissenting opinions from Democratic appointees and reactions from political figures like Pam Bondy and President Trump. Another major ruling discussed is related to parental rights and the ability to opt-out children from LGBTQ+ curriculum in public schools due to religious beliefs. Bo delves into the implications of these decisions and features responses, including a press conference with President Trump. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Chief Justice John Roberts contorted logic to find a path for Tennessee to enforce its anti-trans law, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett left breadcrumbs for conservatives to lodge future attacks on trans rights. In this week's episode, Imani and Jess break down this devastating decision and more.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here. 

Chief Justice John Roberts contorted logic to find a path for Tennessee to enforce its anti-trans law, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett left breadcrumbs for conservatives to lodge future attacks on trans rights. In this week's episode, Imani and Jess break down this devastating decision and more.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here. 

When Trump appointed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in 2020, he thought she was an easy right-wing vote. An analysis shows she's “showing signs of leftward drift.” For the first time, LA restaurants have earned three Michelin stars. Somni, in West Hollywood, and Providence, on Melrose, both now have the highest honor a restaurant can receive. Three spicy condiments that are easy to make, easy to eat, and don't require canning are candied jalpeños, shatta, and Korean soy sauce pickles. Critics review the latest film releases: “F1,” “M3GAN 2.0,” “Sorry, Baby,” and “Familiar Touch.”

Jacqueline, now 63 and living in Cape Town, South Africa, was born in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1962, following a relationship between her English-born biological mother, a professional actress on contract to a theatre company in Nairobi, and her Welsh and Irish biological father, a radio announcer in Nairobi. Following Jacqueline's birth, and the abandonment of her and her biological mother by her biological father, her biological mother followed him to Zimbabwe, but he refused involvement or responsibility. At Jacqueline's biological mother's father's "pleading" with her to "keep the baby", she returned to her acting career, subjecting Jacqueline to 16 months of severe abuse and neglect, which resulted in her being adopted at 16 months in Zimbabwe. While her physical needs were very well met within her adoptive family, her emotional needs were neglected, her manifest trauma being strictly discouraged, and the emotional abuse was perpetuated. Following a lifetime of fear/anxiety, specifically relationship-related, and recurring severe despair/depression, Jacqueline's belief, and message to fellow adoptees and healthcare professionals working with adoption-related and general childhood trauma, is this: sometimes the trauma is too early, too severe and too prolonged for healing to be possible, but the cycle of abuse can be broken. Jacqueline lives the proof that acceptance, compassion, and forgiveness are possible. She has broken the cycles of neglect and abuse, evident in her relationship with her daughter and son, with whom she has a relationship of deep love, mutual respect, and much joy and care.Season 11: Adoptee Memoirs - books in order:Practically Still a Virgin by Monica HallYou Can't Get Rid of Me by Jesse Scott and Keri AultUnspoken by Liz HarvieSign up for our mailing list to get updates and the Eventbrite for our September 12th & 13th Washington, D.C. Event!Thank you to our Patreons! Join at the $10 level and be part of our monthly ADOPTEE CAFE community. The next meeting will be on Saturday, July 12th, @ 1 PM ET.RESOURCES for Adoptees:S12F Helping AdopteesGregory Luce and Adoptees Rights LawFireside Adoptees Facebook GroupDr. Liz Debetta: Migrating Toward Wholeness MovementMoses Farrow - Trauma therapist and advocateNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline – 1-800-273-8255 OR Dial or Text 988.Unraveling Adoption with Beth SyversonAdoptees Connect with Pamela KaranovaBecause She Was Adopted by Kristal ParkeDear Amy, letters to Amy Coney Barrett. A project by Meika RoudaSupport the showTo support the show - Patreon.

Political scientist Adam Carrington offers insights into how Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett think as they handle cases before the Supreme Court.  He also addresses the court's Skrmetti decision that ruled states can restrict so-called youth gender treatments.  Then, along with reporting on when God shows up in the news, Billy Hallowell of CBN Faith Wire reflects on James 1 and our use of words.   Faith Radio podcasts are made possible by your support. Give now: Click here

GetReligion editor Terry Mattingly discusses “Amy Coney Barrett: The same radical Catholic the New York Times feared?”

I once believed that the worst thing that could happen to this country was to have a Conservative Supreme Court. That was supposed to be the end of everything. I would scream those words into the abyss all through 2016 to anyone who didn't want to vote for Hillary Clinton, “THE SUPREME COURT.”I grew up on the Left, after all, and nothing scared us more than Christianity in our schools, in our corporations, institutions, and in our courts. If Trump won, he would appoint Conservative Christians to the highest court in the land, and that would be the end of Roe v. Wade, the end of the feminist movement, and women's rights.Well, it turns out, we didn't need Conservative Christians to do that. The Left did it all on their own, leaving just one right in place, the right to terminate a pregnancy, or, if you prefer, kill our babies. We use soft language like “choice” and “terminate” as though that changes the reality.Now that the Left has been assured that the pace of abortion did not slow down and women can use abortion like reproductive bulimia - have fun now, deal with the problem later - they've moved on to more pressing matters.I don't think abortion should be illegal. But you know what should be? “Gender-affirming care” for minors. That is the most grotesque example of soft language ever invented by my former side. Call it what it is - sterilization. Top surgery is a double mastectomy. Bottom surgery is castration.In all the ways I feared religion and Christianity infiltrating our schools and institutions has now been left in the dust by a dangerous, fanatical, unstoppable cult that has left too many young men and women destroyed and mutilated in its wake.What a fool I was. Now, I am so grateful for Conservative Christians. I'm so grateful to Donald Trump, who put them on the court. I am glad we lost, even if I didn't know that in 2016. Now I do. Now I can see.Because Hillary Clinton lost, we did not get control of the court. And thank God for that. Because if we had, there is no way the bill from Tennessee to ban “gender affirming care” would have been upheld.Like everyone else on my former side, I was convinced Trump's win in 2016 would end everything we held dear, especially the Supreme Court. We'd been fighting with the Right for years to get control of it. We watched Merrick Garland's appointment obstructed, and we fumed.After Trump won, we became an unhinged, hysterical, angry mob of women who felt it was our right to convict Justice Kavanaugh of rape in the court of public opinion.And to demonize and depict Amy Coney Barrett as the Handmaid.But what I know now that I did not know back in 2016 was that when a society excuses and allows for the young to be sterilized, that's when the bottom drops out, whether it's Eugenics or “gender affirming care.” I didn't see the problem. I was comfortable with the soft language of the Left. We were the good people standing up for marginalized groups.It took me years to realize just how insane the Left had become. But it's one thing if it's just about cancel culture, destroying Hollywood, comedy, art, and book publishing. It's a whole other thing if we're allowing irreversible harm to be done to the minds and bodies of children.But thankfully, God invented Conservatives and they rose to do what we could not, just as they did back before the Civil War to end slavery and for the same reason — they believed it was morally wrong. Now, they are back to stop the Democrats from doing something morally wrong. It's the Christian Right yet again that is on the right side of history.I'm not a religious person, though I wish I could be. I imagine there is relief in that connection to something more powerful than yourself, and maybe that is what so many of these young people need, not “gender-affirming care.” This de-transitioner realized she was made in God's image, which helped her find her way out.I always believed religion was dangerous and destructive. But whatever I thought about religion, and whatever the Left thinks about it now, it can't touch what madness has been manifested by the Left. Look at what they've done.Christianity, we all believed, was the source of bigotry against gays and lesbians. We wanted no part of that. I still don't. But today, I am grateful that they have been fighting this fight because I do not think we could have done it without them.Matt Walsh has been relentless. He's not only reported on the horrors of “gender-affirming care” on his show but also appeared in town halls and government, and helped push the fight in Tennessee to ban the practice. He deserves much credit today.It's ironic, isn't it, that it has been left up to many Conservative Christians to state biological reality. Growing up, I was on that side, and they weren't. Now, the Left has pulled so far into madness that the Conservative Christians are the more pragmatic side.They lock arms with independent thinkers who function as the sane middle, like Colin Wright, Andrew Doyle, Gays Against Groomers, Christina Buttons, and Peter Boghossian:The forces that oppose them are powerful, as this statement by the American Psychological Association shows. But the resistance forces are stronger.The Democrats are collectively too stupid to understand that this is not the hill to die on.The Climate of Fear This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sashastone.substack.com/subscribe

Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota Peggy Flanagan joins Hysteria to share about the tragic shootings in her state and honor the legacy of her friend and colleague, State Representative Melissa Hortman. Erin and Alyssa also discuss the latest on RFK Jr.'s vaccine quakery, new (bad) discrimination rules in VA hospitals, and their skepticism of Amy Coney Barrett's drift to the left. They wrap up with a petty conversation about shopping cart etiquette and the atrocious styling in Ryan Murphy's latest adaptation. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com and include the name of the podcast. Southern Baptists move to end same-sex marriage in the US (BBC 6/11)‘Extremely disturbing and unethical': new rules allow VA doctors to refuse to treat Democrats, unmarried veterans (The Guardian 6/16)!RFK Jr. replaced everyone on the CDC's vaccine panel. Here's why that matters (NPR 6/13)Baby of Georgia woman who was kept on life support has been delivered: Report (USA Today (USA Today 6/17)A ‘formidable public servant.' Who was Melissa Hortman, the Minnesota state representative assassinated in her home? (CNN 6/14)The suspect in the shooting of 2 Minnesota lawmakers had a 'hit list' of 45 officials (NPR 6/16)How Amy Coney Barrett Is Confounding the Right and the Left (NYT 6/15)Supreme Court upholds Tennessee's youth transgender care ban (The Hill 6/18)

Terry Mattingly of Rational Sheep Rational Sheep Pop Goes Religion: Faith in Popular Culture GetReligion.org The post A New York Times Article, “Amy Coney Barrett Is Confounding the Right and the Left” – Terry Mattingly, 6/18/25 (1692) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

In Kousisis v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud--even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. It heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on May 22, 2025, issued a unanimous decision authored by Justice Barrett affirming the lower court's holding that the defendant could be convicted of federal fraud.Although the Court was unanimous, there are an array of opinions. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment, and Justice Sotomayor wrote to concur in judgment.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.Featuring:Brandon Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein

Sariah is a Chinese Adoptee adopted by a White American Mormon family and recently left the Mormon faith to find herself and to find her birth family. Trigger warning: This episode includes discussion of suicidal ideation, which may be distressing for some listeners.Season 11: Adoptee Memoirs - books in order:Practically Still a Virgin by Monica HallYou Can't Get Rid of Me by Jesse Scott and Keri AultUnspoken by Liz HarvieSign up for our mailing list to get updates and the Eventbrite for our September 12th & 13th Washington, D.C. Event!Thank you to our Patreons! Join at the $10 level and be part of our monthly ADOPTEE CAFE community. The next meeting will be on Saturday, July 12th, @ 1 PM ET.RESOURCES for Adoptees:S12F Helping AdopteesGregory Luce and Adoptees Rights LawFireside Adoptees Facebook GroupDr. Liz Debetta: Migrating Toward Wholeness MovementMoses Farrow - Trauma therapist and advocateNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline – 1-800-273-8255 OR Dial or Text 988.Unraveling Adoption with Beth SyversonAdoptees Connect with Pamela KaranovaBecause She Was Adopted by Kristal ParkeDear Amy, letters to Amy Coney Barrett. A project by Meika RoudaSupport the showTo support the show - Patreon.

Carol was born in Washington, DC, relinquished at birth in 1960, subsequently adopted in 1961 by a family who had adopted another daughter the year before.She began her reunion in 2017 by finding out she was the baby sister of 3 half sisters, 2 full sisters, and her father by DNA. Season 11: Adoptee Memoirs - books in order:Practically Still a Virgin by Monica HallYou Can't Get Rid of Me by Jesse Scott and Keri AultUnspoken by Liz HarvieSign up for our mailing list to get updates and the Eventbrite - (soon to be published) - for our September 12th & 13th Washington, D.C. Event!Thank you to our Patreons! Join at the $10 level and be part of our monthly ADOPTEE CAFE community. The next meeting will be on Saturday, July 12th, @ 1 PM ET.RESOURCES for Adoptees:S12F Helping AdopteesGregory Luce and Adoptees Rights LawFireside Adoptees Facebook GroupDr. Liz Debetta: Migrating Toward Wholeness MovementMoses Farrow - Trauma therapist and advocateNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline – 1-800-273-8255 OR Dial or Text 988.Unraveling Adoption with Beth SyversonAdoptees Connect with Pamela KaranovaBecause She Was Adopted by Kristal ParkeDear Amy, letters to Amy Coney Barrett. A project by Meika RoudaSupport the showTo support the show - Patreon.

This week, the Supreme Court cleared its slate of gun cases. It made three substantial moves along the way. First, it finally revealed what it would do with long-languishing cases against Rhode Island's magazine ban and Maryland's AR-15 ban. Then, it decided, unanimously, whether Mexico could sue Smith and Wesson over cartel violence. To break it all down, we have the new editor of one of the premier Supreme Court publications. Zach Shemtob of SCOTUSblog joins the show to give his perspective on what the Court decided and what it means for future cases. He said Justice Brett Kavanaugh's statement on the Court's decision to deny the AR case and his confident prediction it would take a different one up soon was less a signal that Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett agreed with him and more a message to them. Shemtob said Kavanaugh could be the fourth vote to take up a case at any time and may be trying to convince the two conservative holdouts to come around to his point of view, which clearly favors striking down such bans. He also said Justice Elana Kagan chooses her words carefully when writing opinions. So, including a line about the popularity of AR-15s in her Mexico opinion may signal a willingness to find they're protected arms. However, he ultimately argued the liberals on the Court are still unlikely to agree with their conservative colleagues on AR bans. Special Guest: Zach Shemtob.

Your favorite Buzzkills are BACK with a pod that is gonna knock your dang socks off. Lizz and Moji break down healthcare carpetbagger Dr. Oz's latest EMTALA bullshit. The Grifter-In-Chief's administration made it clear this week that they're coming full force for a 2022 guidance that mandated hospitals provide EMERGENCY abortions. It's giving “Make America Flatline Again.” PLUS: we dive into fresh, steaming hot pile of Texas trash as cops in the Drone Star State scoured over 80,000 license plates to track down ONE abortion patient. Spoiler alert: the story is fishmarket funky. OH, and shoutout to Illinois for delivering some GOOD abobo news this week! Ahh... an abortion win, we've missed you, old friend. GUEST ROLL CALL! The incredible Dr. Shelley Sella, OB-GYN and the first woman to openly provide abortions later in pregnancy, joins us to gab about her new book, Beyond Limits: Stories of Third-Trimester Abortion Care, and show some big love with us as we celebrate the legacy, humanity and contributions of her friend and colleague, Dr. George Tiller. Who's delivering the much-needed serotonin boost this week? Chanel Ali—comedian, actor, and writer, and former AAF staff writer is in the house! Chanel kikis with us about how she uses humor to make lemonade… even when life has handed you some particularly fucked up lemons. Plus, she may or may not be spilling the frijoles about her upcoming SOLO SHOW! Scared? Got Questions about the continued assault on your reproductive rights? THE FBK LINES ARE OPEN! Just call or text (201) 574-7402, leave your questions or concerns, and Lizz and Moji will pick a few to address on the pod! Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: Sign up for virtual 2025 OSA workshop on August 9th! You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to our past Operation Save Abortion pod series and Mifepristone Panel by clicking HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead IG: @LizzWinstead Bluesky: @LizzWinstead.bsky.socialMoji Alawode-El IG: @Mojilocks Bluesky: @Mojilocks.bsky.social SPECIAL GUESTS:Dr. Shelley Sella IG: @doctorshelleysella Bluesky: @doctorshelleysella.bsky.socialChanel Ali IG/TikTok: @ChanelAli GUEST LINKS:Dr. Shelley Sella's WebsiteDr. Shelley Sella's “Beyond Limits” Book: Upcoming EventsWATCH: “After Tiller”Chanel Ali's WebsiteSee Chanel Live NEWS DUMP:Democrats Set Out to Study Young Men. Here Are Their Findings.Far-Right Texas Lawyer Faces Detailed Sex Misconduct Allegations in New LawsuitKansans Challenge Constitutionality of State Law Nullifying End-Of-Life Choices of Pregnant WomenBill Ensuring Medication Abortion Access Amid Uncertainty With Trump's FDA Heads to PritzkerTrump Just Checked off Another Project 2025 Goal: Letting Pregnant People Die in ERsA Dystopian Surveillance Fear Has Become Reality in Texas EPISODE LINKS:What to Know About George Tiller, a Kansas Abortion Provider Assassinated by Anti-abortion ExtremistADOPT-A-CLINIC: Hope Clinic's Wishlist6 DEGREES: Adrien Brody Feels for the RatsSIGN UP 8/9: (VIRTUAL) Operation Save Abortion at Netroots 2025 BUY AAF MERCH!Operation Save AbortionSIGN: Repeal the Comstock ActEMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist SHOULD I BE SCARED? Text or call us with the abortion news that is scaring you: (201) 574-7402 FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK Podcast Instagram ~ @AbortionFrontBluesky ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFrontTALK TO THE CHARLEY BOT FOR ABOBO OPTIONS & RESOURCES HERE!PATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE!ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE!VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE!ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE!EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE!GET ABOBO PILLS FROM PLAN C PILLS HERE!When BS is poppin', we pop off!

Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month Shopify trial and start selling today at shopfiy.com/damagereport Elon Musk throws the Republicans in chaos after he slams Trump's big bill. Rand Paul pushes back on Trump after his attacks. Marjorie Greene admits she voted for a bill she didn't read. Trump is reviewing Biden's pardons. A DOGE official was fired after saying the government was already efficient. Trump is furious over Amy Coney Barrett. Steve Bannon wants Lindsey Graham imprisoned.  Host: Sharon Reed (@SharonReedLive) Co-Host: Viviana Vigil ***** SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE TIKTOK  ☞           https://www.tiktok.com/@thedamagereport INSTAGRAM  ☞   https://www.instagram.com/thedamagereport TWITTER  ☞         https://twitter.com/TheDamageReport FACEBOOK  ☞     https://www.facebook.com/TheDamageReportTYT

Cameron Lee Small, MS, LPCC, is a licensed clinical counselor, transracial adoptee, and mental health advocate based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He was born in Korea and was relinquished into foster care at age three. He was then adopted in 1984 by a family in the United States. His private practice, Therapy Redeemed, specializes in the mental health needs of adoptees and their families wherever they may be in their adoption journey. His work has been featured in Christianity Today, the National Council for Adoption, and the Center for Adoption Support and Education.To find Cameron Lee Small: Therapy RedeemedSeason 11: Adoptee Memoirs (begins on June 10th) - next books in order:Practically Still a Virgin by Monica HallYou Can't Get Rid of Me by Jesse Scott and Keri AultUnspoken by Liz HarvieSign up for our mailing list to get updates and the Eventbrite - (soon to be published) - for our September 12th & 13th Washington, D.C. Event!Thank you to our Patreons! Join at the $10 level and be part of our monthly ADOPTEE CAFE community. The next meeting will be on Saturday, June 7th, @ 1 PM ET.RESOURCES for Adoptees:S12F Helping AdopteesGregory Luce and Adoptees Rights LawFireside Adoptees Facebook GroupDr. Liz Debetta: Migrating Toward Wholeness MovementMoses Farrow - Trauma therapist and advocateNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline – 1-800-273-8255 OR Dial or Text 988.Unraveling Adoption with Beth SyversonAdoptees Connect with Pamela KaranovaBecause She Was Adopted by Kristal ParkeDear Amy, letters to Amy Coney Barrett. A project by Meika RoudaSupport the showTo support the show - Patreon.

First: President Trump is working the phones and his beloved Truth Social account, trying to persuade skeptical Senate Republicans to fall in line behind his mega bill to cut taxes and slash spending. But he's giving them a deadline that sounds almost impossible to meet.  Plus: Sources tell CNN that the president is complaining that the Supreme Court justices he nominated aren't fully supporting his agenda. We have new reporting on why much of the fury has zeroed in on Amy Coney Barrett.  And: How can Democrats persuade voters to trust them again with power? Jon Lovett of Pod Save America and Sarah Longwell of the Bulwark have a few ideas, and they're never shy about sharing them.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

 It's Friday, May 30th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Christian burials denied in Odisha State, India In mid-May, villagers in Odisha State, India opposed the burial of a deceased Christian, reports International Christian Concern. Their claim? A Christian funeral would defile the gods and the land of the village. Sadly, authorities were unable to convince villagers to allow the burial, and the body was taken to another location. Although Christian burials have long been denied in India, these denials are increasingly occurring as a method of persecuting Christians in Odisha State. Three independent investigations conducted in Odisha between March and April pointed to an alarming rise in the number of Christians denied burial rights. The investigations concluded that the absence of state laws allocating burial land for Christians has enabled the trend. FBI investigates leaked Dobbs Supreme Court ruling FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino announced Monday that he and FBI Director Kash Patel are going to “re-open” an investigation into the consequential 2022 leak of the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, reports Life News. On May 2, 2022, Politico published a draft of a Supreme Court opinion, authored in February by Justice Samuel Alito, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The official ruling was not released until June 24, 2022. The draft opinion made it evident that the Supreme Court was all but certain to rule in favor of the Mississippi pro-life law at the center of the case. A majority of justices on the Supreme Court were prepared to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision which had extended broad federal legal protections to the practice of abortion. Politico cited a “person familiar with the court's deliberations” to confirm that Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett had already voted in favor of Alito's opinion following oral arguments in December of 2021, yielding a five-justice majority to strike down Roe and Casey, as the pro-abortion precedents are known. Pro-abortion activists made clear that they intended to target pro-life pregnancy resource centers and Catholic parishes in response to the Dobbs leak. Indeed, more than 100 pro-life centers and churches were firebombed, smashed, ransacked, or vandalized with pro-abortion graffiti and threatening messages, reported Fox News.   Then, five weeks after the Dobbs leak, but before the official ruling was announced, a man flew from California to D.C. with the intention of going on a killing spree. His target? The pro-life Supreme Court justices. Nicholas Roske went to Kavanaugh's house first located in Montgomery County, Maryland. He was armed with a pistol and equipped with gear to break into the justice's house undetected. Appeals court paused block of Trump's retaliatory tariffs A federal appeals court granted the Trump administration's request to temporarily pause the Wednesday ruling of the  U.S. Court of International Trade which struck down most of President Donald Trump's tariffs, reports CNBC. The judges of the trade court had found that the 1970s-era law Trump had invoked to enact those tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, does not “confer such unbounded authority” to presidents. The nationwide, permanent block they imposed covered all of the retaliatory tariffs that Trump issued in early April as part of his sweeping “Liberation Day” plan to reshape international trade with the rest of the world. Without a doubt, the Wednesday ruling destabilized a pillar of Trump's economic agenda. Illinois House approves physician-assisted suicide bill And finally, on Thursday, the Illinois House narrowly passed a controversial physician-assisted suicide bill (SB 1950 Amendment 2) by a vote of 63 to 42, with two members cowardly voting “present,” reports the Illinois Family Institute. Oddly enough, 11 state representatives did not cast a vote on the legislation. David Smith, the Executive Director, prayed this prayer on a video which was shared with fellow Christians. SMITH: “I pray, Lord, that many of these lawmakers who are on the fence would choose to err on the side of life and not on death. Lord, I pray that your people would rise up throughout the state of Illinois. I pray that many church leaders would speak up and let their state lawmakers know that this is unacceptable. Illinois should never accept or normalize suicide!” At its April 2025 annual meeting, the Illinois State Medical Society overwhelmingly voted to oppose legalizing physician-assisted suicide. This decision reflects the stance of most Illinois doctors against prescribing lethal medications. They took an oath to do no harm and certainly not to provide the means for their patients to end their lives. If you live in Illinois, send an email to your State Senator here. Scripture tells us that every person is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and thus each life holds immeasurable value. Moreover, Exodus 20:13 records this command: "Thou shall not murder." Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, May 30th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Sandi Morgan Caesar is a transnational adoptee. She was born Cristina Rodriguez in Panamá to a 14-year-old girl who parented her for most of her 1st year. Ultimately, she was placed for adoption by her maternal grandmother without the knowledge or consent of her first mother. Sandi was adopted by a Black US Air Force family stationed in Panamá at the time. She was naturalized as a US citizen and then brought to the US at 3 years old. It was about this time that she asked her mom why they didn't have the same face. She grew up in Dayton, Ohio, with older siblings (biological to her adoptive father). Although she thought finding family in Panamá would be impossible, Sandi reunited with her birthmother and maternal family in 2004. Sandi holds a B.S. degree in Human Development from Howard University, an M.S.W. from Indiana University, and has worked in child welfare most of her career.Sign up for our mailing list to get updates and the Eventbrite - (soon to be published) - for our September 12th & 13th Washington, D.C. Event!Thank you to our Patreons! Join at the $10 level and be part of our monthly ADOPTEE CAFE community. The next meeting will be on Saturday, June 7th, @ 1 PM ET.RESOURCES for Adoptees:S12F Helping AdopteesGregory Luce and Adoptees Rights LawFireside Adoptees Facebook GroupDr. Liz Debetta: Migrating Toward Wholeness MovementMoses Farrow - Trauma therapist and advocateNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline – 1-800-273-8255 OR Dial or Text 988.Unraveling Adoption with Beth SyversonAdoptees Connect with Pamela KaranovaBecause She Was Adopted by Kristal ParkeDear Amy, letters to Amy Coney Barrett. A project by Meika RoudaSupport the showTo support the show - Patreon.

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, a terrorist executed two Israeli Embassy employees, Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky, outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Rodriguez said he acted for Palestine and for Gaza and was arrested on scene after discarding a 9mm handgun. He is a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. We have this fusion of Marxist and Islamist ideologies threatening the West and antisemitic incidents globally. Weak Western policies, foreign funding from Qatar and China, open borders, and ineffective legal systems are enabling this internal threat. This Marxist-Islamist alliance aims to undermine Western civilization from within, exploiting universities where ideological conformity stifles academic freedom, funded by taxpayers and parents. The ongoing internal war, evident in cities like London, Paris, and Washington, threatens national survival, with some political defenses and isolationist views exacerbating the crisis. Also, the Supreme Court, in a 4-4 split with Justice Barrett recusing herself, failed to rule on a case from Oklahoma, effectively blocking a proposed Catholic charter school due to Chief Justice John Roberts likely siding with the liberal justices. This upheld a lower federal court's decision against state funding for religious charter schools - such funding does not breach the Constitution's Establishment Clause. Later, Erin Molan calls in to discuss her horror and anger at the global rise of the Marxist Islamist movement, particularly in the U.S., Australia, and Europe. Molan condemns Qatar's role in funding terrorism and spreading harmful narratives.  Finally, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Michael Leiter calls in to explain that the terrorist in D.C is an evil nexus of Marxism and Islamism – the Red Green Alliance. This alliance is a dangerous, totalitarian fusion responsible for significant historical and ongoing violence, particularly Iran's role in promoting a death cult with nuclear ambitions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi. On today's episode, Katy, Cody, and Jonathan discuss the House's passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (that is its official name), the murder of two Israeli Embassy staff members in D.C., Amy Coney Barrett having a hint of integrity, and Trump doing a weird video book report in front of South Africa's president.PATREON: https://patreon.com/somemorenewsMERCH: https://shop.somemorenews.comYOUTUBE MEMBERSHIP: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvlj0IzjSnNoduQF0l3VGng/joinSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

George Conway joins Sarah Longwell to explain the latest legal messes in Trump World — from Judge Ho's cringe-worthy SCOTUS audition, to Kristi Noem's complete ignorance of basic constitutional rights, to the potential bribery scandal involving Paramount and a bogus Trump lawsuit. Plus: why Amy Coney Barrett is suddenly the right's new punching bag, and how the Supreme Court just exposed the administration's bad-faith games. It's all corruption, ambition, and chaos — and George has thoughts. Go to https://surfshark.com/askgeorge or use code ASKGEORGE at checkout to get 4 extra months of Surfshark VPN. Start your new morning ritual & get up to 43% off your @MUDWTR with code ASKGEORGE at mudwtr.com/ASKGEORGE ! #mudwtrpod 

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, the Supreme Court addressed a case involving President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. These national injunctions represent an unconstitutional overreach by federal district courts, lacking a historical or constitutional basis, and justices like Ketanji Brown Jackson are promoting a "deconstitutionalization" of government by justifying such injunctions as a means to force quick Supreme Court review.  The judiciary's actions, particularly from activist judges, are a dangerous expansion of power that undermines the Constitution and executive authority, especially in critical areas like national security. The 14th Amendment was solely intended to grant citizenship to children of former slaves, not to children of foreigners, and that the current practice of birthright citizenship is a constitutional fiction unsupported by historical evidence.  This case is fundamentally about power—specifically, who has the authority to make critical decisions. Activist federal district judges, backed by justices like Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett, are wielding negative power to overturn the last election and undermine the Constitution by endorsing these injunctions. Prediction: the Court, lacking courage, will likely uphold the status quo, citing long-standing executive branch practice and the potential burden on future children born in the U.S., thus perpetuating a misinterpretation of the Constitution that threatens American liberty. Later, Iran refuses to halt its centrifuge operations, which, if not destroyed, preserves its nuclear bomb program. Iran must never get a nuclear weapon. Over 200 Republicans agree and have called on President Trump to dismantle Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Damage Report host John Iadarola will be joined by Brett Erlich, TYT Commentator and Rebel HQ contributor to discuss today's top stories. A Republican accidentally admits their plan to cut medicaid. A report shows that foreign groups have stolen $1 trillion from the government and DOGE has done nothing. MAGA is outraged over a James Comey post. Conservatives are turning on Amy Coney Barrett over the birthright citizenship hearing. Trump posts a ridiculous message about Taylor Swift. Host: John Iadarola (@johniadarola) Co-Host: Brett Erlich (@bretterlich) ***** SUBSCRIBE on ⁠YOUTUBE⁠ ⁠TIKTOK⁠  ☞  ⁠ ⁠        ⁠⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@thedamagereport⁠⁠ ⁠INSTAGRAM⁠  ☞  ⁠ ⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/thedamagereport⁠⁠ ⁠TWITTER⁠  ☞        ⁠ ⁠https://twitter.com/TheDamageReport⁠⁠ ⁠FACEBOOK⁠  ☞    ⁠ ⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/TheDamageReportTYT⁠⁠