Podcast appearances and mentions of amy coney barrett

Mike Maughan was serving in a YSA bishopric when he heard Blake Roney, now the president of the Provo City Center Temple say, "We are not the gatekeepers, we are the welcoming committee." That single statement changed the way Mike has lived in the years since and it changed the culture of the YSA ward in which he was serving. On this week's episode, Mike discusses the transformative nature of that experience. 2:26- Freed From the Burden of Judgment 7:53- Take Them By the Hand 18:52- Application 26:01- Changing the Tune, Not the Lyrics 31:38- Never Burn a Bridge and Always Be Kind 35:37- The Power of Experience 44:08- Committing Completely 51:52- What Does It Mean To Be All In the Gospel of Jesus Christ? "Life is long and the world is small." Links: Annette Dennis- "We are commanded to love others, not to judge them. Let's lay down that heavy burden; it isn't ours to carry. Instead, we can pick up the Savior's yoke of love and compassion." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ftsoy/2022/11/18-dennis?lang=eng "Nothing is so much calculated to lead people to forsake sin as to take them by the hand, and watch over them with tenderness. When persons manifest the least kindness and love to me, O what power it has over my mind, while the opposite course has a tendency to harrow up all the harsh feelings and depress the human mind" (History of the Church, 5:23–24). Elder Kearon's general conference talk mentioned- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/04/45kearon?lang=eng Elder S. Mark Palmer general conference talk mentioned- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2017/04/then-jesus-beholding-him-loved-him?lang=eng Amy Coney Barrett's Book, "Listening to the Law"- https://www.amazon.com/Listening-Law-Reflections-Court-Constitution/dp/0593421868

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer 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@nexfirm.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 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.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.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@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.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@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and 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 an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.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@nexfirm.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@substack.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.substack.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, November 26. 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

In breaking news, there are not 4 votes on the US Supreme Court to overturn the Constitutional right for people to marry who they choose and same sex marriage, as the Supreme Court refuses to hear on appeal the case of Kim Davis, the clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same sex couples on religious grounds. Michael Popok explains how Davis, the stalking horse of the MAGA right-wing religious zealots who sought to have the Court follow Justice Thomas' call to have same sex marriage as a constitutional right protected from State attack, overturned, and how even MAGA justices like Amy Coney Barrett and Alito think that's going too far. Lola Blankets: Get 40% off your entire order at https://lolablankets.com by using code LEGALAF at checkout. Experience the world's #1 blanket with Lola Blankets. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy Podcast for our especially special Daily Special, Metro Shrimp & Grits Thursdays is now available on the Spreaker Player!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, the Supreme Court's decision about whether Trump's trillion dollar Tariff scheme is unconstitutional or illegal, all comes down to which way Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett flip.Then, on the rest of the menu, a Senate committee hearing devolved into a “stalking” shouting match after a Republican member admitted to tracking Democratic Senator's cars and spying on them; a Republican-appointed federal judge blasted ICE's “fictional” attempt to jail an innocent man to twenty years over their own goon's self-inflicted injury; and, eleven states sued the Trump administration over “unlawful terms” placed on FEMA grants.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where the United States arrested five men in California at Germany's request in an international probe of online fraud involving German payment providers; and, dozens of swastikas painted in human blood were smeared on dozens of cars, hundreds of mailboxes and scores of building facades in the central German town of Hanau, infamous for the racist mass killing of immigrants in 2020.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!The Netroots Radio Live Player​Keep Your Resistance Radio Beaming 24/7/365!“Everyone in this good city enjoys the full right to pursue their own inclinations in all reasonable and, unreasonable ways.” -- The Daily Picayune, New Orleans, March 5, 1851Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/west-coast-cookbook-speakeasy--2802999/support.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett is playing the long game. In this week's “Interesting Times,” she walks us through the current court's most controversial rulings, why she believes that her originalist interpretations are resistant to ideological pressures and why she's not comfortable thinking of herself as a cultural icon.02:19 - Balancing the personal and the professional11:45 - The theory and practice of originalism18:00 - Why was Roe. v. Wade overruled?27:19 - Stare Decisis and Overruling Decisions35:29 - “Judges are human and judges are fallible.”42:49 - The Supreme Court is taking the long view53:20 - The Court's relationship with the executive branch(A full transcript of this episode is available on the Times website.)Thoughts? Email us at interestingtimes@nytimes.com. Please subscribe to our YouTube Channel, Interesting Times with Ross Douthat. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

It's fall, it's October and the US Supreme Court is back in session. On today's episode, we have a special guest from the AFJ Justice team. We are joined by our colleague Jamal Lockings. With Jamall we will cover the big cases to be heard by the court. Then we will talk about how nonprofits can get involved with supreme court advocacy, nominees, and more while staying nonpartisan and being mindful of lobbying limits.    Attorneys for this Episode  Brittany Hacker  Susan Finkle Sourlis  Jamaal Lockings     Intro to Justice Program  Our justice team works on both federal and state judicial appointments and elections and runs numerous invaluable resources including our judicial vacancy tracker and helps keep us and the public informed about nominees. This includes the decisions they make after they've been confirmed, and how cases in federal courts – especially the supreme court – are impacting our civil rights and democracy.     Today, we are thrilled to be joined on the pod by our friend and colleague Jamaal Lockings. Jamaal is a fellow attorney who serves as a Dorot Fellow on the Federal Courts team.   Today we want to talk about the upcoming cases in this supreme court term, what we should be keeping an eye on, the potential impacts for our c3 partners, and what nonprofits can do during this term and future terms to advocate.     Cases to watch out for this term  Voting Rights and Money In Politics  Louisiana v. Callais  Issue: Whether a states efforts to comply with the VRA is, in itself, a form of racial discrimination   (1) Rehearing from last term (2) The Court is playing politics (3) the VRA is on the chopping block   Consequences: A final blow to the VRA, and increased difficulty for minority voters to participate in free and fair elections   National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC  Issue: Whether to maintain the federal limits on political party coordination w/ candidates in campaign advertising.   (1) Could render campaign contribution limits meaningless, increasing the already outsized influence of money in politics (2) These cases on elections and voting rights can't be observed in a vacuum     LGBTQ+   Chiles v. Salazar   Issue: Whether Colorado's ban on “conversion therapy” for minors violates First Amendment protections of free speech and religious exercise   (1) Religious litigants have been notoriously successful in this court (2) free speech and religious exercise have been used not to ensure equity or equality but to prop up Christian nationalist ideology.   West Virginia v. B.P.J.   Issue: Title IX and barring Trans athletes   (1) This court continues to wade into culture wars (2) It's ruling in Skrmetti and Justice Barrett's assertion that Trans isn't a protected states (3) Embolden lawmakers to continue to write oppressive laws against trans individuals    Executive Power & Civil Liberties   Trump v. Slaughter   Issue: whether statutory removal protections for members of the FTC – and agencies like it – “violate” the separation of powers.    (1) The Court's emergency orders this summer (2) growing belief in the unitary executive theory (3) Likely to overrule Humphrey's executor  Consequences: Collapse of independent agencies and with it, governing stability.     What c3s can do:  Supreme court advocacy is nonpartisan—you are free to stand for or against cases before any court or get involved in the cases.   Litigation at the supreme court: c3s are often the best voice and represent groups who otherwise would not be heard or could not bring such large scale cases  Amicus briefs   Educating the public about cases and impacts of opinions  As you know c3 public charities may engage in lobbying and there are ways through lobbying that can affect the courts at the federal or maybe the state level  Nominee advocacy—Advocate for or against nominees to supreme court (lobbying)  Remember the lower district courts and circuit courts as well  Remember the lobbying rules if you are a c3: must track and report your lobbying the IRS and stay within your lobbying limits. Great place for c4s to get involved because they can lobbying in an unlimited amount.  Ethics advocacy—ask congress for more oversight or ethics rules (Lobbying if it will require a legislative vote).   Resources  Alliance for Justice, Being a Player  Alliance for Justice, Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices  Alliance for Justice, Judicial Nominee Tracker  Alliance for Justice, Supreme Court Reform 

The Justice Department continues to be a sh*tshow, with the indictment of James Comey already hitting the skids. Whodathunk that putting Trump's personal insurance lawyer in charges of criminal prosecutions would work out badly! Justice Amy Coney Barrett heads to Fox News to flog her book and express her disappointment that we are all being so mean about the shadow docket. Please do not let up! And Trump's efforts to flood the streets of blue states with troops makes its way through the courts.   Links:   US v. Kevontae Stewart https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71380817/united-states-v-stewart/   Alex Jones SCOTUS Docket https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-268.html   Justice Barrett Fox Interview https://www.foxnews.com/video/6382650913112   Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,' Fault Supreme Court's Emergency Orders https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/us/politics/judicial-crisis-supreme-court-trump.html   Illinois v. Trump [District Court] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71559895/state-of-illinois-v-trump   Illinois v. Trump [Seventh Circuit] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71608106/state-of-illinois-v-donald-j-trump/   Oregon v. Trump https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71481149/state-of-oregon-v-trump/?order_by=desc   US v. Comey https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459120/united-states-v-comey/?order_by=desc   Illinois v. FEMA (D. R.I.) [docket via CourtListener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.59597/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Join the Anchoring Truths Podcast for an in-depth dive into the career and jurisprudential mind of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The occasion for doing so is the publication in September of Justice Barrett's new book, Listening to the Law. Anchoring Truths featured an exclusive review of the book by Michael A. Fragoso. Fragoso joins the podcast to discuss his review. Fragoso was not only a student of the justice while in law school at Notre Dame, but also one of the Senate staffers most responsible for her confirmation to the Supreme Court. He brings a fascinating and unique perspective to the path the justice has taken to the Court and the approach to judging she details in the book.Fragoso is currently Partner at Torridon LLC, the boutique law firm founded by former AG Bill Barr. Before joining Torridon, he was chief counsel to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Fragoso was the Leader's primary legal advisor and managed the “last mile” of any legislation touching on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also repeatedly represented Leader McConnell as counsel of record at the Supreme Court. Leader McConnell said of Fragoso that he's “equally at home in the high-minded philosophical discourse of the legal community and the urgent pragmatism of Congressional dealmaking,” and that he “maintains a firm grasp on the realm of the possible” but “knows which screws to twist.” He observed that Mike “is so exceptionally competent that he often produces from his desk the work that would normally require, literally, teams of outside counsel.”Fragoso previously was chief counsel for nominations and constitutional law for the Senate Judiciary Committee under Ranking Member Chuck Grassley and Chairman Lindsey Graham. During this time, he advised the Senators on two presidential impeachments, ran multiple policy hearings, and managed the confirmation process for over 80 federal judges, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Chairman Graham described Fragoso as “a force of nature.” He frequently comments on public affairs, and his writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.Fragoso has also served as a law clerk to Judge Diane Sykes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He is a graduate of Notre Dame Law School and Princeton University.

Episode 211Bonkers - 14Did you know that living in Iran is preferable to living in America if you're black? Or that cotton plant decorations are racist? On this episode of the Removing Barriers podcast, we are continuing our Bonkers series, were we pick out news headlines and discuss how they demonstrate that this world has gone bonkers. Some headlines are serious, some frivolous, but they all prove this fact. In this episode, in addition to Whoopi and Serena's shenanigans, we discuss supreme court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's objectively awful dissenting opinion on nationwide injunctions and justice Amy Coney Barrett's "spirited" response, as well as PETA's continued efforts to police speech in the name of worshipping created animals. Terrible things are happening in our world and Bonkers doesn't even begin to cover them, but no matter whether the headlines are silly or serious, we can rest in the fact that our God is still on the throne.Listen to the Removing Barriers Podcast here:Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://cutt.ly/Ega8YeI⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Apple Podcast: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://cutt.ly/Vga2SVd⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Edifi: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://cutt.ly/Meec7nsv⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://cutt.ly/mga8A77⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Podnews: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podnews.net/podcast/i4jxo⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠See all our platforms: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://removingbarriers.net⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Contact us:Email us: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://removingbarriers.net/contact⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Financially support the show: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://removingbarriers.net/donate⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Affiliates:Book Shop: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bookshop.org/shop/removingbarriers⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Christian Books . com: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/home?event=AFF&p=1236574⁠⁠⁠See all our affiliates: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://removingbarriers.net/affiliates⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Notes:Whoopi's View: https://x.com/i/status/1935405405846278229Serena upset over cotton plant: https://people.com/serena-williams-speaks-out-after-finding-cotton-plant-decoration-nyc-hotel-11817567Amy Coney Barrett v. Ketanji Brown Jackson: https://nypost.com/2025/06/27/us-news/amy-coney-barrett-rips-ketanji-brown-jackson-over-dissent-in-birthright-citizenship-case/Women chug Tylenol: https://www.newsweek.com/pregnant-women-tylenol-videos-trump-10478949Man Shoots at Mormon Ladies: https://x.com/i/status/1949674817361244341PETA is against Speciesism: https://www.peta2.com/learn/stop-using-speciesist-language/

George Will laughably calls Abraham Lincoln an origianlist. Why? Because we have to understand Amy Coney Barrett. Seriously.https://mcclanahanacademy.comhttps://patreon.com/thebrionmcclanahanshowhttps://brionmcclanahan.com/supporthttp://learntruehistory.com

In this episode, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett joins National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a special Constitution Day conversation to discuss her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution. Justice Barrett reflects on her journey to the Court and offers a glimpse into her role (and daily life) as a justice, including her deliberative process and how she approaches interpreting the Constitution. This program was recorded live in Philadelphia on September 17, 2025.  Stay Connected and Learn More  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr  Explore the⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠ or watch recordings on⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube

Unity Without Compromise with Dr. Steven LaTulippe – Justice Amy Coney Barrett defends the Dobbs decision, but her words spark outrage for twisting truth against science, the Constitution, and God. Comparing her stance to Pontius Pilate, critics argue she sidesteps morality, deceives the public, and undermines life's sanctity. This reflection calls Christians, conservatives, and patriots to confront deception and boldly stand for truth...

Unity Without Compromise with Dr. Steven LaTulippe – Justice Amy Coney Barrett defends the Dobbs decision, but her words spark outrage for twisting truth against science, the Constitution, and God. Comparing her stance to Pontius Pilate, critics argue she sidesteps morality, deceives the public, and undermines life's sanctity. This reflection calls Christians, conservatives, and patriots to confront deception and boldly stand for truth...

On September 17, 2025, the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, joined Jeffrey Rosen for an America's Town Hall program in celebration of Constitution Day 2025 and the release of her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution. Justice Barrett reflects on her journey to the Court and offers a glimpse into her role (and daily life) as a justice, including her deliberative process and approach to constitutional interpretation.     Resources  Amy Coney Barrett, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution, (2025)  National Constitution Center: America at 250 Civic Toolkit  National Constitution Center: Constitution Daily  Stay Connected and Learn More  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr  Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube

9/19/25 - Jim and Father Imbarrato take a deep dive into Justice Amy Coney Barrett's new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution. With sharp Catholic insight, they unpack what Barrett reveals - and what she leaves unsaid - about the sanctity of life, constitutional interpretation, and the future of the pro-life movement. Drawing on past public clips and speeches, we'll compare Barrett's earlier statements to her current writings, asking whether her messaging has shifted since joining the Supreme Court. Does her book provide real hope for ending abortion in America, or does it reflect the cautious language of judicial restraint?

Compare and contrast as ACB and Sotomayor ride (media) circuit. ----- Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor are both hitting the talk shows and it's highlighting how awkward the nation's relationship with the Supreme Court really is. Barrett went on Fox and accurately stated that the Constitution prohibits Trump running for a third term. Then the host offered a "wink wink" prompt and she started backpedaling. Meanwhile, Sotomayor went on Colbert and bent over backward to give her conservative colleagues the benefit of the doubt, requiring Colbert to step in and remind us of the fire in Sotomayor's dissent. Two very different media hits, but a consistent reminder that the justices just aren't willing to forge a genuine connection with the public over media. Also, Ropes & Gray maintains a single-tier partnership (for now) and Megan Thee Stallion case introduces the world to process servers taking things up a notch.

Compare and contrast as ACB and Sotomayor ride (media) circuit. ----- Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor are both hitting the talk shows and it's highlighting how awkward the nation's relationship with the Supreme Court really is. Barrett went on Fox and accurately stated that the Constitution prohibits Trump running for a third term. Then the host offered a "wink wink" prompt and she started backpedaling. Meanwhile, Sotomayor went on Colbert and bent over backward to give her conservative colleagues the benefit of the doubt, requiring Colbert to step in and remind us of the fire in Sotomayor's dissent. Two very different media hits, but a consistent reminder that the justices just aren't willing to forge a genuine connection with the public over media. Also, Ropes & Gray maintains a single-tier partnership (for now) and Megan Thee Stallion case introduces the world to process servers taking things up a notch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our fearless hosts continue to slog through this sh*tty shadow docket summer, covering an order from the Court okaying racial profiling by ICE officers, some ominous administrative stays, Amy Coney Barrett's ongoing press tour through right wing media, and the lower courts' continuing frustrations with this Supreme Court. Then, Leah and Kate speak with special guest Symone Sanders Townsend, co-host of MSNBC's The Weeknight, about how the Supreme Court is carrying out key parts of Project 2025, and enabling and facilitating other parts of the government to do the same. Hosts' favorite things:Leah: The Guatemalan Children's Case and the Judicial Learning Curve, Anna Bower (Lawfare); What Should a Lower Federal Court Judge Do When SCOTUS Plays Calvinball? By Michael Dorf (Dorf on Law). Kate: Bonus 177: A Closer Look at Justice Kavanaugh's ICE Raids Opinion, Steve Vladeck (One First); Zohran Mamdani's ‘Stop Sending Us Money” TikTokMelissa: “Trump's Treasury Secretary Threatens to Punch Housing Official in the Face,” Maggie Haberman and Shawn McCreesh (Washington Post) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Unspeakable horror struck on the campus of Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah yesterday. Charlie Kirk, the founder of TurningPoint USA, was murdered by an assassin's rifle shot while he was speaking to a crowd of thousands. Charlie's talent, credibility, intelligence, authenticity, patience, and courage were on display for all to see to the very end of his life. He was a champion of liberty and a tireless patriot whose love of country was deep and heart-felt. More than that, Charlie was a devoted Christian and a loving father and husband. At the age of just 31, he left a legacy greater than many public figures twice his age.The assassination of Charlie Kirk was an act of evil. It was also undoubtedly a political act spawned out of the dark heart of modern leftism. We live in a country in which prominent media outlets suggested Charlie brought his public slaying upon himself. In today's media and political environment, anyone who vigorously differs from leftist ideology and Democratic Party talking points is painted as a fascist, a threat to democracy, a domestic terrorist -- or, as President Biden once put it -- a threat to "the very soul of this nation." This is the political environment in which the killing of Charlie Kirk occurred.In just the past 13 months, radicals have attempted two assassinations on President Trump and killed one of his most-prominent and successful advocates. Earlier than that, an avowed Marxist gunned down a health insurance CEO and was celebrated for it by many on the left. Radical leftists got very close to pulling off assassinations of Supreme Court justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. And let's not forget the radical left Bernie Bro who tried to murder a baseball field full of Republicans just a few years ago.This must stop. And it starts with the Democratic Party putting an end to its eliminationist rhetoric, expelling from its party and offices anyone who encourages or excuses violence, and leading the march back to respectful debate. For a start, they can do away with the "both sides" lie. And they can also stop saying that every election and policy debate they lose is not the dawn of fascism.On Episode #510 of The Heartland Institute's In the Tank Podcast, we will talk about the life and legacy of Charlie Kirk, mourn his loss together, and try to give each other hope that America's tolerance for this madness is soon coming to an end. In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!

Feminist Buzzkills is officially BACK! WHEEEEE! Lizz is still out meeting with activists and speaking at screenings of the AAF documentary, “No One Asked You,” at The Colombia International Human Rights Festival (dopeness alert). And HUZZAH—joining Moji is AAF's inimitable Head Writer, Alyssa “Dooks” Al-Dookhi to guest co-host! They're diving into abortion providers handling IUD insertion pain like pros, the rollercoaster of Planned Parenthood's Medicaid funding, and fake clinics sneaking into telehealth. GUEST ROLL CALL!Moji and Dooks chat with real-life clinic superstar, Ali Kliegman, Co-Founder and Executive Director of Care for All Clinic, a brand-spanking-new nonprofit abortion clinic in the heart of Milwaukee. Ali spills the tea about going from concept to real-ass clinic in basically one year, the violence and harassment Care for All has already faced, and how their community model can be a blueprint for healthcare clinics! PLUS! Get your serotonin boost courtesy of comedian, matchmaker, and lawyer Yasmin Elhady! She yaps with us about her dating reality show on Hulu, “Muslim Matchmaker,” figuring out she's funny AF, and the deets on diversity in the Muslim Ummah. She's bringing it ALL. 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: WE DID A THING IN AUGUST! The Feminist Buzzkills took some big patriarchy-smashing heat to The Big Easy and recorded a live workshop that'll train you in coming for anti-abobo lawmakers, spotting and fighting against fake clinics, AND gears you up on how to help someone in a banned state access abortion. 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:Moji Alawode-El @MojiLocksAlyssa Al-Dookhi @TheDookness SPECIAL GUESTS:Ali Kliegman IG: @careforallwiYasmin Elhady IG: @yasminelhahahady TikTok: @yasmin_elhady GUEST LINKS:Care for All WebsiteVOLUNTEER: Care for AllDONATE: Care for AllName Care for All's New Aspiration MachineYasmin's WebsiteYasmin's Youtube Find Love, Muslim Matchmaking Website NEWS DUMP:Amy Coney Barrett: Reports of a Constitutional Crisis Have Been Greatly ExaggeratedJudge: Planned Parenthood Clinics Can Remain Medicaid Providers While Lawsuit ContinuesUPDATE: Planned Parenthood's Medicaid Funding Can Be Blocked for Now, Appeals Court RulesTrump Loses Bid to Overturn $83.3m E. Jean Carroll Defamation JudgmentDigital Deception: Beware the Rise of Fake Telehealth Abortion ClinicsWant an IUD, but You're Afraid of the Pain? Try an Abortion Provider. EPISODE LINKS:Plan C PillsI Need an AAbortion FinderExpose Fake Clinics ADOPT-A-CLINIC: Care for All Community Clinic Amazon WishlistBUY AAF MERCH!SIGN UP 8/9: Operation Save AbortionEMAIL 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 ~ @AbortionAccessFront TALK 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! 

Law school is more expensive than it used to be... but barely more expensive! ----- Federal judges have had to deal with more and more threats from conservatives whipped into up by the Trump administration rhetoric blasting judges blocking illegal executive orders, only to be unceremoniously overruled by the Supreme Court. Last week, multiple judges called out the Republican justices for issuing unexplained opinions refusing to challenge -- indeed, passively encouraging -- Trump's attacks. So much for Chief Justice Roberts sanctimoniously declaring that the threats are just a product of the public not understanding the opinions. Law school tuition has skyrocketed in real terms for decades, but based on the last 10 years, the fever may finally have broken. Meanwhile, Amy Coney Barrett has some books to sell! And she's going to do it by playing up her image as the tortured, yet principled conservative who strips Americans of long enshrined freedoms, but just because she has no other choice. And, as she made clear in Dobbs, women and choice just don't mix!

Law school is more expensive than it used to be... but barely more expensive! ----- Federal judges have had to deal with more and more threats from conservatives whipped into up by the Trump administration rhetoric blasting judges blocking illegal executive orders, only to be unceremoniously overruled by the Supreme Court. Last week, multiple judges called out the Republican justices for issuing unexplained opinions refusing to challenge -- indeed, passively encouraging -- Trump's attacks. So much for Chief Justice Roberts sanctimoniously declaring that the threats are just a product of the public not understanding the opinions. Law school tuition has skyrocketed in real terms for decades, but based on the last 10 years, the fever may finally have broken. Meanwhile, Amy Coney Barrett has some books to sell! And she's going to do it by playing up her image as the tortured, yet principled conservative who strips Americans of long enshrined freedoms, but just because she has no other choice. And, as she made clear in Dobbs, women and choice just don't mix! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at https://betterhelp.com/damagereport and get on your way to being your best self. Trump is on the defense after the gross birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein was released. MAGA pushes a conspiracy on the Epstein letter. SCOTUS gives Trump two big wins as Amy Coney Barrett defends the court. The Trump administration is preparing to invade Chicago. Bill Gates has been financially supporting deportation flights.  Host: Yasmin Kahn (@YazzieK) Co-Host: Jackson White ***** 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

The Marc Cox Morning Show opens with Marc and Dan discussing Lara Trump's speech at the Missouri Right to Life banquet before 1,100 attendees, focused on fundraising to overturn Amendment 3 and the debate over initiative petition reform. They also cover Missouri abortion laws, the Charlotte murder of Iryna Serhutska, and a Supreme Court ruling upholding ICE enforcement. Hour 2 features Hans von Spakovsky on constitutional interpretation, Supreme Court rulings on immigration, and commentary on justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. John Lamping joins to talk Missouri politics, Amendment 3, and initiative petition reform. Political commentary includes Chuck Schumer's economic criticism and Democratic policies, plus local stories like the Miss America pageant and a stolen St. Louis food truck. Hour 3 begins with Todd Piro's humorous take on New York tax hikes, tax migration, and lifestyle differences between New York, Florida, and Missouri. Then Marc and Dan host 2A Tuesday with Luis Valdes of Gun Owners of America, covering constitutional carry, teachers carrying in schools, Florida's gun and ammo tax holiday, and the repeal of discriminatory gun laws. The hour closes with a Buck Don't Give a ____ segment on RFK Jr.'s claims about healthcare incentives and pharmaceutical influence. Hour 4 brings in Eben Brown of Fox News Radio on the Supreme Court's 6–3 ruling lifting restrictions on immigration raids in Los Angeles and the federal trial of Ryan Wesley Routh, accused of attempting to assassinate Donald Trump. Ryan Wiggins joins the conversation to weigh in on government subsidies, rising health insurance premiums, and the broader impact of government intervention in healthcare, education, and housing.

Marc and Dan talk with Hans von Spakovsky about constitutional interpretation, Supreme Court rulings on immigration, and the role of justices like Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. They also discuss ICE enforcement in Los Angeles, RFK Jr.'s push to investigate pharmaceutical companies, Lara Trump's speech at the Missouri Right to Life fundraiser, and a new IP reform bill.

President Is Not Just Talking About It He Is Doing Something, Amy Coney Barrett Sits Down With Bret Baier For A Great Interview, It Is All About Amy And Her New Book Listen To The Law And There Is AN Important Story We Will Be Talking About Moving Forward

When Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the Supreme Court, she was in some ways an unlikely choice. She was living in South Bend, Indiana, not New York or D.C. She went to Notre Dame Law School, making her the only justice that didn't go to Harvard or Yale. She's the mother of seven kids. And, at the time of her appointment, she'd largely spent her career as a professor, with just under three years on a federal appeals court. To put it bluntly, Amy Coney Barrett was an outsider. But people close to President Donald Trump saw something: She was an originalist. A former clerk for Antonin Scalia. A devout Catholic with real intellectual bona fides. And a rising star in the conservative legal movement. In short, she was the ideal jurist to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. After her 2020 nomination, the left called her inexperienced and a religious zealot. They said her confirmation hearing was rushed, and that she would undermine trust in the Supreme Court. But with a 52–48 vote, just six weeks before the 2020 presidential election, Barrett was confirmed—without one Democratic vote. She took her seat at the highest court at just 48 years old, and became only the fifth woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court. Considering how our nation's most powerful people stick around into their 80s, she'll likely have a major impact on American law and life for decades to come. We're now five years into her time on the bench. And in a turn of events, CNN ran a piece last year titled “The Last Best Hope for Supreme Court Liberals: Amy Coney Barrett.” Newsweek ran “Amy Coney Barrett Is Liberal Justices' ‘Best Chance': SCOTUS Analyst ” and The New York Times ran “How Amy Coney Barrett Is Confounding the Right and the Left.” How did we get from “dangerous, religious zealot” to “last best hope”? On one hand, Barrett has done what one would expect of a Republican appointee: voting to overrule Roe v. Wade; voting to outlaw affirmative action; and voting against the administrative state. At the same time, she has voted with liberal justices in some of the most pivotal cases—and in Trump-related cases, she is the member of the conservative supermajority who has sided in Trump's favor the least.  In short, Barrett surprises. She just wrote a new book called Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution, where she makes the simple but salient points: Her job is not to like all of her decisions, nor is it  to please the media or a president. It's to follow the text of the Constitution, full stop.  On Thursday night Bari sat down for a rare conversation with Justice Barrett at Lincoln Center's Alice Tully Hall in New York City.  Bari also asks her about key cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the birthright citizenship case, nationwide injunctions, the shadow docket, transgender minors getting medical treatment, her willingness to dissent with liberal justices, her response to people who call her an “evil DEI hire,” and so much more. This show is proudly sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). FIRE believes free speech makes free people. Make your tax-deductible donation today at www.thefire.org/honestly New episodes of The Isabel Brown Show can be viewed on DailyWire+ here: www.dailywire.com/show/the-isabel-brown-showFollow Isabel on X: www.x.com/theisabelbFollow Isabel on Instagram: www.instagram.com/theisabelbrown Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kate, Leah, and Melissa break down how the lower courts are challenging the Trump administration and expressing their frustration with SCOTUS. Then, they check in with two members of the supermajority: Brett Kavanaugh, who's touting a shiny new shadow docket rebrand, and Amy Coney Barrett as she commences her cursèd book tour. Finally, the hosts speak with Yale Law professor Justin Driver about his book, The Fall of Affirmative Action: Race, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Higher Education.Hosts' and guests' favorite things:Kate: Apologies: You Have Reached the End of Your Free-Trial Period of America! By Alexandra Petri (The Atlantic); Bonus 176: Law, Lawlessness, and Doomerism, Steve Vladeck (One First); How a Top Secret SEAL Team 6 Mission Into North Korea Fell Apart, Dave Philipps and Matthew Cole (NYT)Leah: The DC Circuit's Realpolitik Orders in the Foreign Aid Funding Case, Chris Geidner; 174. Justice Gorsuch's Attack on Lower Courts & Bonus 174: Playing the Justices for Fools, Steve Vladeck (One First); The Supreme Court Is Backing Trump's Power Grab, Kate Shaw & Ezra Klein (NYT).Melissa: RFK's Senate Finance Committee hearing; Hijacking the Kennedys, Reeves Waldman (New York Magazine); Nancy Mace: Everything You Didn't Know About Her Sh*tty Past (Crooked's Hysteria); These Summer Storms, Sarah MacLean; Gwyneth: The Biography, Amy OdellJustin: The Creative Act: A Way of Being, Rick Rubin; Martin Luther King's Constitution: A Legal History of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Randall Kennedy (Yale Law Journal) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Hend Ayoub - Growing up Palestinian in Israel, and her one-woman show. News...Time to shut down the government since we'd be finding a wannabe dictator? Massive protest in DC, Garcia is now being deported to Eswatini, Beyond the boos at the US Open, there's more. It's pretty astounding when a SCOTUS judge "can't answer" if Trump has any accountability. It looks like an assisted coup.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

MAJOR UPDATE: Justice Barrett Fires Back on Constitutional Crisis.

Craig Collins sits in for Dana. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett gives her first interview since announcing a memoir wherein she defends striking down Roe v. Wade. The Justice Department posts a statement that's a screenshot from a 30% battery iPhone in airplane mode that begins with, "I met a woman named Skylar on Hinge" following a bombshell report from James O'Keefe. Trump responds to the August job numbers that came in lower than expected. Trump asks the Supreme Court to let him fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers tried to replace the word "mother" with "inseminated person" in state law. The Justice Department is deliberating banning guns for trans people over mental health concerns. Craig recaps RFK Jr.'s Congressional hearing. The new Home Secretary of the UK claims Islam is the most important thing in her life. Jasmine Crockett makes a joke about Trump's hand falling off. New emails obtained by NYP reveal Biden didn't even review the list of clemency recipients that his autopen signed.Thank you for supporting our sponsors that make The Dana Show possible…Fast Growing Treeshttps://Fast-Growing-Trees.comGet up to 50% off select plants and an extra 15% off your first purchase with code DANA at Fast Growing Trees. Offer valid for a limited time, terms apply.Relief Factorhttps://ReliefFactor.com OR CALL 1-800-4-RELIEFTurn the clock back on pain with Relief Factor. Get their 3-week Relief Factor Quick Start for only $19.95 today! Byrnahttps://Byrna.com/danaGet your hands on the new compact Byrna CL. Visit Byrna.com/Dana receive 10% off Patriot Mobilehttps://PatriotMobile.com/DanaDana's personal cell phone provider is Patriot Mobile. Get a FREE MONTH of service using code DANA.HumanNhttps://HumanN.comSupport your cholesterol health with SuperBerine and the #1 bestselling SuperBeets Heart Chews—both on sale for $5 off at Sam's Club. Boost your metabolic health and save!Keltechttps://KelTecWeapons.comSee the third generation of the iconic SUB2000 and the NEW PS57 - Keltec Innovation & Performance at its best.All Family Pharmacyhttps://AllFamilyPharmacy.com/Dana Start today and take your health back with All Family Pharmacy. Use code DANA10 for savings and enjoy your health, your choice, no more waiting, no more “no's.”

VR6 - For today's Vapid Response Wednesday, Thomas, Lydia, and Matt review two examples from a newly-popular genre of lazy right wing op-eds: insecure white guys complaining about Supreme Court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. What is with these losers who are so obsessed with trying to prove that one of the most qualified nominees to the high court in our lifetimes isn't fit for the job? We take dark-money sugar baby Josh Hammer up on the joke to compare his life achievements to someone who began her SCOTUS career with four times as much courtroom experience as John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett combined--before moving on to trying to even understand what Federalist weirdo Shawn Fleetwood thinks he is saying. “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is an Insult to the Supreme Court,” Josh Hammer, Newsweek (7/1/2025) “KBJ Could Learn a Few Lessons in ‘Professionalism' From Justice Barrett,” Shawn Fleetwood, The Federalist (8/20/2025) Ketanji Brown Jackson's career timeline from the Southern Poverty Law Center (4/7/22) Watch on YouTube!

Follow along with slideshow visuals HERE. ENCORE ALERT! The Feminist Buzzkills are out on a summer break! But, no need to fear – we're leaving y'all with some extra brain juice to keep you company while we're offline. We're dropping an ENCORE POD EPISODE of when we collabed with the iconic “Boom! Lawyered” hosts Imani Gandy and Jess Pieklo IN DC and broke down SCOTUS' Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic arguments back in April. It went a little something like this… ATTENTION BUZZKILLAHSSSSS! WE DID A LIVE THING – in DC! Yep. Your “Feminist Buzzkills” joined forces with the “Boom! Lawyered” pod for an epic live show! After getting word that SCOTUS was hearing a case that could result in eliminating any healthcare provider from Medicaid payments if they provide abortion, we geared up for battle for one super-sized show with the amazing “Boom! Lawyered” hosts Imani Gandy (Rewire Editor-at-Large) and Jess Pieklo (Rewire Senior Vice President, Executive Editor.) We break down what this case means, and fill you in on all the outrageous tricks clown lawmakers across the country are playing trying to destroy access to reproductive care. It was a packed show full of rage and shenanigans and the DC crowd LOVED IT!  This episode unpacks the arguments in Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a case that could upend Medicaid beneficiaries ability to enforce their rights under the public benefit program all because conservatives hate abortion. We get into the history of efforts to kick Planned Parenthood out of the Medicaid program, the bad faith arguments made by conservatives to the Court as they try to do so again, and how a bad decision in the case could impact way more than access to abortion. Recorded LIVE at the Black Cat in DC, we gotta give a huge shout out and special thanks to the Black Cat crew for making the space for our loud asses AND for everyone who showed up! Tune in for the legal brilliance, the laughs, the knowledge, and some actions you can take to be the change you wanna see in this world.  Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  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! OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: WE DID A THING EARLIER THIS MONTH! The Feminist Buzzkills took some big patriarchy-smashing heat to The Big Easy and recorded a live workshop that'll train you in coming for anti-abobo lawmakers, spotting and fighting against fake clinics, AND gears you up on how to support abortion patients and providers. We turned it into a podcast episode so you can listen to it HERE. P.S. 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 CO-HOSTS:Imani Gandy IG: @angryblacklady / Bluesky: @angryblacklady.bsky.socialJessica Pieklo IG: @hegemommy / Bluesky: @hegemommy.bsky.social CO-HOST LINKS:Rewire News Group IG: @rewirenewsgroup / Bluesky: @rewirenewsgroup.comBoom! Lawyered NEWS DUMP:The Supreme Court Struggles With Whether to Wound Medicaid to Spite Planned ParenthoodAAF Pays Dr. Chuck Schumer a Visit AAF Pays Dr. Michelle Fischbach a VisitSeventeen States Attack HIPAA and Reproductive Health Privacy5 Takeaways From Tuesday's Elections, Including Bad News for Elon MuskWisconsin Voters Approve Constitutional Amendment to Enshrine Voter ID Law EPISODE LINKS:Operation Save AbortionOSA WORKSHOP: Start at 30:15 for the workshopExpose Fake ClinicsBUY AAF MERCH!EMAIL 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 PodcastInstagram ~ @AbortionFrontBluesky ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFront TALK 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!

Advanced Cellular Support + Hydration: https://fortifystore.com/awk/ ——— Protect your investments with And We Know http://andweknow.com/gold Or call 720-605-3900, Tell them “LT” sent you. ------ AT sea with LT. 2026. Caribbean: https://www.inspirationtravel.com/event/lt-caribbean-cruise-2026 ————————— *Our AWK Website: https://www.andweknow.com/ ➜ AWK Shirts and gifts: https://shop.andweknow.com/ ------- The ruling was 5-4. Amy Coney BARRETT, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch side with Trump. https://x.com/its_The_Dr/status/1958673610132136224 President Trump praised federal agents and National Guard soldiers, https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958660308882661803 Secretary Sean Duffy says Washington shouldn't have licensed the commercial truck driver who got a non-domiciled license in California. He'll check states and take action. https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958638509876756725 Tulsi Gabbard says the Deep State has been in our government and intelligence agencies for a long time, before Obama and Clinton. Under the President's leadership, they are working to remove these bad actors. https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958636152124256412 "I don't care what your political party is. We've got to take America's streets back for the American people." https://x.com/theblaze/status/1958593909547835694 An illegal alien who killed three people with a semi-truck was seen boarding a plane to be extradited to Florida. Governor Ron DeSantis said he'll face severe consequences. https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958588370973577419 ——  *DONATIONS SITE: https://bit.ly/2Lgdrh5 *Mail your gift to: And We Know 30650 Rancho California Rd STE D406-123 (or D406-126) Temecula, CA 92591 ➜ AWK Shirts and gifts: https://shop.andweknow.com/ ➜ Audio Bible https://www.biblegateway.com/audio/mclean/kjv/1John.3.16 Connect with us in the following ways: + DISCORD Fellows: https://discord.gg/kMt8R2FC4z

Simon Njoroge is an adopted person from Kenya. He has been involved in the child care reform agenda in Kenya in various capacities for more than a decade, including coordinating an adopted persons support group.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 showTo support the show - Patreon.

Leah and guest co-host Mark Joseph Stern of Slate and the Amicus podcast run through what's been happening in the courts this week, including disturbing attacks on judges, the confirmation of the extremely unsavory Emile Bove, and Amy Coney Barrett's upcoming appearance with Bari Weiss. Then, Kate and Melissa speak with Jessica Calarco, sociologist and professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, about her book, Holding It Together: How Women Became America's Safety Net.Hosts' favorite things:Mark: The Subway, Chappell Roan; Uncle Bobby's Wedding, Sarah S. Brannen & Lucia SotoLeah: Life Is a Lazy Susan of Sh*t Sandwiches, Jennifer Welch and Angie Sullivan; The Chrysalis Option, Eric Coulson; DOJ's (Ridiculous) Misconduct Complaint Against Chief Judge Boasberg, Steve Vladeck (One First); Dept. Q (Netflix); NY Times Pitchbot on SCOTUS Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Alan Rozenshtein, Senior Editor at Lawfare and Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, speaks with Noah Feldman, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, about the Supreme Court's recent decision to greatly limit the practice of universal injunctions. The ruling came in a case involving a Trump administration executive order on birthright citizenship, and while many commentators have viewed the decision as a dangerous loss for the rule of law, Noah argues that the Court might be playing a strategic "long game."Alan and Noah discuss Noah's central thesis: that the Supreme Court's primary job in the Trump era is to protect the rule of law by avoiding a direct constitutional crisis with the executive branch that the judiciary is likely to lose. From this perspective, eliminating universal injunctions—a tool that allows a single district judge to start a major fight—is a way for the Court to control when and where it confronts the administration. They also address the legal merits of Justice Barrett's majority opinion, which Noah argues was a flawed use of originalism that misinterpreted the flexible, problem-solving nature of equity. Finally, they explore the legal avenues for relief that remain, such as class actions, and consider what it means for the judiciary to truly "win" or "lose" a confrontation with a president who is undeterred by political norms.Note that this discussion was recorded in early July, before a lower court certified a class action in the birthright citizenship litigation and before the Supreme Court's recent unsigned opinion allowing the Trump administration to begin mass firings at the Department of Education, which Noah has since criticized.Mentioned in this episode:"The Supreme Court's Majority Is Playing the Long Game,” by Noah Feldman in Bloomberg Opinion"The Supreme Court's Silent Opinions Undermine Its Legitimacy,” by Noah Feldman in Bloomberg OpinionTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Katherine Allen McNally is an adoptee and a licensed therapist who specializes in working with adoptees and their adoptive families. She transitioned from a career in graphic design and advertising to pursue this path, driven by a deep personal commitment to supporting this unique population. Over the course of her work, she has encountered a wide spectrum of adoption narratives, including various forms of conception, gestation, birth, relinquishment, adoption, and survival. These experiences led her, along with a colleague, to develop a trauma healing model known as The TAG Method for Trauma Reprocessing and Integration.At the heart of The TAG Method lies the adoption experience. Katherine is passionate about sharing this model and its insights with broader audiences. She believes that adoption represents a significant and often overlooked trauma—one that is visible yet rarely acknowledged. In her work, she explores how adoptees navigate attachment loss, the silent fear of being “not chosen” again, and the emotional impact often referred to as "the cloud." She also discusses the "three As" and how these themes influence the adoptee experience.Katherine shares how clients access these deep-seated pains and begin the process of healing, ultimately freeing themselves from a trauma they never asked to carry. She also offers personal reflections from her own healing journey, enriching her professional insights with lived experience.To find Katherine: http://www.ktherapy.com/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 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.

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

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

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

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..

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

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