POPULARITY
53 episodes with Amy Howe
3 episodes with Amy Howe
3 episodes with Amy Howe
4 episodes with Amy Howe
3 episodes with Amy Howe
2 episodes with Amy Howe
2 episodes with Amy Howe
3 episodes with Amy Howe
3 episodes with Amy Howe
Any possible optimism that lawmakers would reach a deal this weekend to end the longest government shutdown on record has faded. The Senate held its first Saturday session since the shutdown began, but no votes were scheduled. John Yang speaks with former FAA administrator Randy Babbitt and Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe about two widespread effects of the shutdown: air travel and SNAP benefits. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
Any possible optimism that lawmakers would reach a deal this weekend to end the longest government shutdown on record has faded. The Senate held its first Saturday session since the shutdown began, but no votes were scheduled. John Yang speaks with former FAA administrator Randy Babbitt and Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe about two widespread effects of the shutdown: air travel and SNAP benefits. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
Any possible optimism that lawmakers would reach a deal this weekend to end the longest government shutdown on record has faded. The Senate held its first Saturday session since the shutdown began, but no votes were scheduled. John Yang speaks with former FAA administrator Randy Babbitt and Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe about two widespread effects of the shutdown: air travel and SNAP benefits. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
Following the Supreme Court oral arguments in President Donald Trump's tariff case, Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, Sarah Isgur is joined by David French, David Lat, and Latham & Watkins LLP partner Roman Martinez to explain where the legal battle will go from here. SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe also joins from the steps of the Supreme Court to relay her observations from inside the courtroom. Watch the livestream here. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
President Trump's sweeping tariff plan may be on shaky ground after a Supreme Court hearing focused on his authority to impose the measures. Several justices on the court questioned the legality of the tariffs and how much power the president has to broadly enact his agenda. Amna Nawaz discussed more with PBS News Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog co-founder Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
President Trump's sweeping tariff plan may be on shaky ground after a Supreme Court hearing focused on his authority to impose the measures. Several justices on the court questioned the legality of the tariffs and how much power the president has to broadly enact his agenda. Amna Nawaz discussed more with PBS News Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog co-founder Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
President Trump's sweeping tariff plan may be on shaky ground after a Supreme Court hearing focused on his authority to impose the measures. Several justices on the court questioned the legality of the tariffs and how much power the president has to broadly enact his agenda. Amna Nawaz discussed more with PBS News Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog co-founder Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
[This blog will always be free to read, but it's also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: cmclymer@gmail.com. And if this is too big of a commitment, I'm always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]On Friday, the Supreme Court, in a private conference, will consider whether to take up a challenge to Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States. The great Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog contextualizes for us:As a general practice, the court does not grant review without considering a case at at least two consecutive conferences; this is the first conference in which Davis' challenge will be considered. If the justices deny review, however, that announcement could come as soon as Monday, Nov. 10.I would be lying if I said I'm not pessimistic about this. I believe the Court will grant review, and they will eventually overturn Obergefell. I don't think the votes are there to stop it. I hope I'm wrong. If the Court does decline review in the coming weeks, I will be relieved and celebrating. But I don't think I'm wrong.It will be a tragic setback for LGBTQ rights—both here and globally—but fortunately, due to the leadership and foresight of Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and President Biden, the damage of that eventual overturning will be significantly mitigated.Back in 2022, Senator Baldwin cobbled together a bipartisan majority in the Senate—which included twelve of her Republican colleagues—to overcome the filibuster and pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which was then signed by President Biden.Among other things, it provided federally-enforced reciprocity between the states on the validity of same-sex marriage licenses. Basically, if and when Obergefell is overturned, the Respect for Marriage Act guarantees that marriage licenses issued in states where it's legal are still valid in states where issuing them would be illegal.So, if I get married to another woman in Massachusetts, that marriage license would still be valid in, say, my home state of Texas, where it would be illegal to issue them when Obergefell is overturned.Obviously, this is a very imperfect protection because many same-sex couples living in states where it would be illegal to get married can't afford to travel to a state where it would be legal. Imagine, alone, the implications of that in a medical emergency. Or in having parental rights. Not great.Regardless, it's a crucial backstop that will protect millions of LGBTQ families in our country, and I'm deeply grateful to Senator Baldwin and President Biden for getting it across the finish line. It's hard to believe there were twelve Republican senators who went along with it just three years ago.We're in this sad situation—on the precipice of witnessing one of the most important advances in LGBTQ rights dissolved—because of Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses in the wake of the Obergefell ruling.A lawsuit was filed against her by same-sex couples who were denied, which she lost in district court and eventually at the Supreme Court, and after she continued refusing to issue licenses, she was jailed for contempt.Following her release from jail after five days and a promise not to interfere with the work of her deputy clerks, Ms. Davis had alternate forms created which removed her name and she refused to add her signature to marriage licenses. Although the legality of these licenses were recognized by the state, some wondered if they could still be challenged in other contexts (out-of-state) for lack of a clerk's signature.There's an entanglement of lawsuits here I won't get into, but the most germane here is that a same-sex couple—David Ermold and David Moore—originally denied a license by Ms. Davis sued her to recoup their legal fees, which was eventually upheld in federal court and ordered to be paid by the State of Kentucky. But the state refused to pay them and said that burden should fall on Ms. Davis. Mr. Ermold and Mr. Moore also sued Ms. Davis for $100k in emotional damages, and a jury found in their favor in 2023.So, that's why we're here and wondering if Obergefell will be overturned. Because in order for that to happen, someone would have to convince the Supreme Court that an unconstitutional burden has been placed on them by the legalization of same-sex marriages.But there'd be no constitutional burden if Ms. Davis had carried out her duties as a county clerk because same-sex marriages don't place a burden on anyone outside of those marriages.We're in this incredibly frustrating situation because Ms. Davis can lay claim to being the only person in America whom can, in theory, assert that she's been burdened by Obergefell because of the legal fees she's been ordered to pay (along with the jail time, emotional burden, etc).All of this even though Ms. Davis brought it upon herself by neglecting her oath as a county clerk in favor of her religious views despite swearing to uphold the laws in a country guided by a constitution that guarantees freedom from religion. She used her public office to force others to abide by her religious views and she got heavily penalized for it, and thus, she has a (ridiculous) argument for legal standing because of damages she incurred. Ms. Davis has a curious relationship with her faith. As a Christian myself, I recognize all of us who follow Christ are vastly imperfect, but Ms. Davis is particularly dubious when it comes to Christ's teachings.She's been divorced three times. Her second failed marriage included an affair she had with the man who would become her third husband and the father of twins she birthed during that second failed marriage. She later divorced that third husband and remarried the second one. Four marriages, three divorces.I'm not here to judge Ms. Davis for her track record on shattered nuptials and broken commitments before God. That's not my place, and it never will be. I have always maintained that whatever consenting adults want to do is none of my business. People should have sex with whom they want and marry whom they want and divorce whom they want, and at no point should my opinion on any of that be taken into consideration, let alone be the basis for any law. My religious views are for my personal life alone, and I should mind my own business.Ms. Davis does not feel that way. She dismisses critics who point out her own imperfect journey, claiming her sins have been washed away by God's salvation, liberating her to stand in punitive judgment of anyone she believes to be imperfect in the eyes of God. I do not believe this is because Ms. Davis has an enduring faith in God. Quite the opposite. Her actions reflect a deep insecurity over her own faith and a relentless need to have her religious views validated by everyone around her in order to assuage that insecurity. Kim Davis is the kind of Christian whom requires the irritation of her doubts to be calamine'd not by the perfect love and understanding of God but by the unyielding resignation of strangers' personal lives to her religious purity, and while she does so, her own religious impurity should be met only with endless grace.Grace for me but not for thee.Ms. Davis is not someone with strong faith, but moreover, she is clearly not a happy person, and it is somehow the obligation of everyone else to sacrifice themselves for her spiritual validation and personal happiness. I genuinely feel bad for her. I can't imagine spending my life in the constant pursuit of ensuring every other adult is miserable so that my wobbly faith can be duck-taped together with the unnecessary pain of strangers. I pray she finds peace somewhere because it's abundantly clear she's not seeking it from God.Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Charlotte's Web Thoughts at charlotteclymer.substack.com/subscribe
As the Supreme Court begins a new term, we can't ignore what else is going on in our country – attacks on the rule of law, weaponization of the Department of Justice, the militarization of American cities, disruptive and chaotic immigration enforcement, and a government shutdown. Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman are back for a new season of Respecting Religion to bring thoughtful conversations to these issues and more at the intersection of religion and the law. In the season 7 premiere, they focus on the current Supreme Court term, including a case with an egregious violation of a person's religious freedom rights that brought together unlikely allies. SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): Welcome back to season 7 BJC (Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty) is also the home of Christians Against Christian Nationalism. Amanda's book is titled How to End Christian Nationalism, and it is available wherever you get your books.: Video of our episodes are now on YouTube! Click here for the season 7 playlist. Do you want to receive special emails about the show? Click here to sign up for our email list! Segment 2 (starting at 07:26): A disturbing case on religious freedom coming to the Court Read about the three cases from last term in this article from BJC's magazine, Report from the Capital: Supreme Court issues decisions on religious charter school, exemptions and opt-out rights Amanda and Holly mentioned Steve Vladeck's One First newsletter. BJC joined a friend-of-the-court brief in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections. Click here to read the brief and see the groups that came together across other ideological lines. Read more about the case in this article on our website. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Landor on November 10. Here's another preview piece, by Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog: Court to decide whether government officials can be held personally liable for violating inmate's religious liberty Segment 3 (starting at 26:42): What else can we expect from the Court? Read more about Chiles v. Salazar in this article by Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: Majority of court appears skeptical of Colorado's “conversion therapy” ban You're invited! Join us in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, Oct. 21-23 for a special event focussed on the Sanctuary movement. We're honored to welcome Dr. Sergio González, historian, author, and co-creator of the podcast Sanctuary: On the Border Between Church and State, to explore the history, challenges, and future of the movement. Visit BJConline.org/ShurdenLectures for more details and links to sign up. Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority signaled it could upend a central pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The question at the heart of arguments is whether lawmakers can use race as a factor when drawing congressional districts. Ali Rogin discussed the case's potential to reshape electoral maps with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe and David Wasserman. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority signaled it could upend a central pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The question at the heart of arguments is whether lawmakers can use race as a factor when drawing congressional districts. Ali Rogin discussed the case's potential to reshape electoral maps with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe and David Wasserman. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority signaled it could upend a central pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The question at the heart of arguments is whether lawmakers can use race as a factor when drawing congressional districts. Ali Rogin discussed the case's potential to reshape electoral maps with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe and David Wasserman. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could strike down bans on so-called conversion therapy for children. Conversion therapy broadly refers to attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity and is banned in 23 states and the District of Columbia. Geoff Bennett discussed Tuesday's arguments with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could strike down bans on so-called conversion therapy for children. Conversion therapy broadly refers to attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity and is banned in 23 states and the District of Columbia. Geoff Bennett discussed Tuesday's arguments with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
The Supreme Court begins a new term on Monday following a summer-long recess shaped by legal battles over the Trump administration’s agenda. William Brangham discussed the high-profile cases with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog cofounder Amy Howe, and Stephen Vladeck, constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
The Supreme Court begins a new term on Monday following a summer-long recess shaped by legal battles over the Trump administration’s agenda. William Brangham discussed the high-profile cases with News Hour Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSBlog cofounder Amy Howe, and Stephen Vladeck, constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
The Supreme Court has handled a flood of appeals from the Trump administration on its emergency docket, also known as the shadow docket. In the first six months of Trump’s term, the conservatives on the court have sided with him on several key policies, but the decisions have come with little to no explanation for their rationale. Geoff Bennett discussed more with Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
The Supreme Court has handled a flood of appeals from the Trump administration on its emergency docket, also known as the shadow docket. In the first six months of Trump’s term, the conservatives on the court have sided with him on several key policies, but the decisions have come with little to no explanation for their rationale. Geoff Bennett discussed more with Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
The Supreme Court has handled a flood of appeals from the Trump administration on its emergency docket, also known as the shadow docket. In the first six months of Trump’s term, the conservatives on the court have sided with him on several key policies, but the decisions have come with little to no explanation for their rationale. Geoff Bennett discussed more with Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
The Supreme Court delivered a major decision Friday that limits federal judges’ power to block the president’s agenda nationwide. Stemming from a case over Trump’s order on birthright citizenship, the ruling says that individual judges cannot grant nationwide injunctions against presidential policies. Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe and law professor Amanda Frost join Geoff Bennett to discuss. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
The Supreme Court delivered a major decision Friday that limits federal judges’ power to block the president’s agenda nationwide. Stemming from a case over Trump’s order on birthright citizenship, the ruling says that individual judges cannot grant nationwide injunctions against presidential policies. Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe and law professor Amanda Frost join Geoff Bennett to discuss. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
The Supreme Court delivered a major decision Friday that limits federal judges’ power to block the president’s agenda nationwide. Stemming from a case over Trump’s order on birthright citizenship, the ruling says that individual judges cannot grant nationwide injunctions against presidential policies. Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe and law professor Amanda Frost join Geoff Bennett to discuss. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
The Supreme Court is upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care for transgender minors. The challenge to the law came from three transgender teens, their parents and a physician. PBS News Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe, co-founder of SCOTUS blog, and Lindsey Dawson, director of LGBTQ health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation, join John Yang to discuss. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
The Supreme Court is upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care for transgender minors. The challenge to the law came from three transgender teens, their parents and a physician. PBS News Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe, co-founder of SCOTUS blog, and Lindsey Dawson, director of LGBTQ health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation, join John Yang to discuss. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
A case with a thin record is raising plenty of questions at the Supreme Court. In this episode, Amanda and Holly examine the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, which involves parents who want to opt their children out of public school curriculum they say conflicts with their religious beliefs. But, what's the difference between expected exposure and unconstitutional coercion? Does age matter? What happens when opt-out options become too burdensome and overwhelming to accommodate? Amanda and Holly examine the issues in this case as well as the challenges for the school district and for the parents. They also share what the oral arguments revealed about the justices' interest in the books and discussions outside of the courtroom. SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 01:50): Remembering Justice David Souter Amanda and Holly released a live mini-episode on Tuesday, May 27, to review the Supreme Court decision in the religious charter school case, the voucher proposal in the budget reconciliation bill, and a court decision halting the dismantling of the Department of Education. Hear the episode at this link or in your podcast feed, or watch it on YouTube. Amanda and Holly mention the other two church-state cases this term addressed in previous episodes: Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin in Ep. 12: Back to SCOTUS: Regular business in disturbing times Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, et al. v. Drummond in Ep. 14: The blockbuster SCOTUS case over religious charter schools BJC Executive Director Emeritus J. Brent Walker wrote a reflection piece on Justice David Souter when the justice retired in 2009: Walker reflects on Souter's Supreme Court tenure Amy Howe wrote a piece on Justice Souter for SCOTUSblog: David Souter, retired Supreme Court justice, dies at 85 Segment 2 (starting at 06:58): The facts (that we know) in the case and what's at stake BJC has a post on our website describing Mahmoud v. Taylor: In oral argument, U.S. Supreme Court wrestles with the limits of public school parents' opt-out rights The U.S. Supreme Court has a transcript of oral arguments and the audio recording of oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor available on its website. Segment 3 (starting 25:54): The two big substantive points from the oral argument We played two clips from the oral argument in this segment: Justice Elena Kagan and Eric Baxter, who argued on behalf of the group of parents (the petitioners) Justice Samuel Alito and Eric Baxter Amanda and Holly talked about the Texas Bible curriculum in episode 2 of this season: Oklahoma and Texas try to force Bible teaching in public schools Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.
In a special live Advisory Opinions x SCOTUSblog crossover event, Sarah Isgur was joined by David French, David Lat, Zachary Shemtob, and Amy Howe (live from the Supreme Court), to react to the oral argument in Trump v. CASA, Inc. The question: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district court's nationwide preliminary injunction on the Trump administration's executive order ending birthright citizenship. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Supreme Court heard arguments in one of the most consequential cases of the year. It involves the ability for President Trump to carry out his executive order ending birthright citizenship and the power allowing a federal judge to issue a nationwide block on those orders. Geoff Bennett discussed the arguments with law professor Amanda Frost and News Hour Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
The Supreme Court heard arguments in one of the most consequential cases of the year. It involves the ability for President Trump to carry out his executive order ending birthright citizenship and the power allowing a federal judge to issue a nationwide block on those orders. Geoff Bennett discussed the arguments with law professor Amanda Frost and News Hour Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
The Supreme Court heard arguments in one of the most consequential cases of the year. It involves the ability for President Trump to carry out his executive order ending birthright citizenship and the power allowing a federal judge to issue a nationwide block on those orders. Geoff Bennett discussed the arguments with law professor Amanda Frost and News Hour Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
The Advisory Opinions extended universe kicks off as SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe and David Lat join Sarah Isgur to discuss the St. Isidore of Seville religious charter school case and the debate over school choice. The Agenda:—A ‘public' public school or a ‘private' public school?—Justice Amy Coney Barrett's recusal—Will Chief Justice John Roberts be the swing vote?—Will birthright citizenship end?—May 15: Mark it on your calendar Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On this special livestreamed conversation, Steve Hayes and Sarah Isgur discussed our recent acquisition of SCOTUSblog and chatted with the newest Dispatcher, Amy Howe, about our plans to build out an extended universe of legal coverage and all things Supreme Court. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sarah Isgur and David French are joined by Amy Howe and David Lat, of The Dispatch's extended legal universe, to debate whether the Supreme Court should be more transparent. Sarah and David then separate fact from the fiction in the arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan. (Also: should there be cameras in the Supreme Court?) The Agenda:—Cameras at SCOTUS?—SCOTUS oral argument goes off the rails—Calling other lawyers the “L” word—The arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan—Immunity doctrine is a mess—Louis Vuitton and criminal contempt—Old Whig No. 5—Trump admin and disparate impact—Harvard Law Review's DEI Show Notes:—Apply to work at SCOTUSblog!—Judge helps criminal escape in 2018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Amy Howe, the voice of SCOTUSblog, joins Sarah Isgur and David French to discuss the news of The Dispatch's acquisition of SCOTUSblog. Also: What's the equity in equity dockets? The Agenda: —SCOTUSblog joins The Dispatch —Puppies (and pride?) —Harvard fights back —Equity dockets, revisited Show Notes: —Read more on the acquisition Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Supreme Court heard the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act. At issue is the constitutionality of a task force that recommends what preventive care treatments should be covered by private insurance at no cost. It could have impacts on everything from cancer screening to HIV-prevention medicine to counseling for expectant mothers. Amna Nawaz discussed more with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
The Supreme Court heard the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act. At issue is the constitutionality of a task force that recommends what preventive care treatments should be covered by private insurance at no cost. It could have impacts on everything from cancer screening to HIV-prevention medicine to counseling for expectant mothers. Amna Nawaz discussed more with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
In an unusual late-night order, the Supreme Court temporarily barred the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants being held in Texas using an 18th century law called the Alien Enemies Act. The order came in response to an emergency petition filed by the ACLU, with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting. John Yang speaks with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog for more. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
In an unusual late-night order, the Supreme Court temporarily barred the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants being held in Texas using an 18th century law called the Alien Enemies Act. The order came in response to an emergency petition filed by the ACLU, with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting. John Yang speaks with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog for more. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
In an unusual late-night order, the Supreme Court temporarily barred the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants being held in Texas using an 18th century law called the Alien Enemies Act. The order came in response to an emergency petition filed by the ACLU, with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting. John Yang speaks with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog for more. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a key redistricting case that could reshape how states draw districts by race. A group of voters identifying as "non-African American" argues Louisiana's congressional map, which created two majority-Black districts after a federal court found the previous one discriminatory, is biased toward Black voters. Geoff Bennett speaks with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a key redistricting case that could reshape how states draw districts by race. A group of voters identifying as "non-African American" argues Louisiana's congressional map, which created two majority-Black districts after a federal court found the previous one discriminatory, is biased toward Black voters. Geoff Bennett speaks with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
As Americans increasingly depend upon their phones, computers, and internet resources, their actions are less private than they believe. Data is routinely sold and shared with companies who want to sell something, political actors who want to analyze behavior, and law enforcement who seek to monitor and limit actions. In The Private is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism (NYU Press, 2025), law professor Ray Brescia explores the failure of existing legal systems and institutions to protect people's online presence and identities. Examining the ways in which the digital space is under threat from both governments and private actors, Brescia reveals how the rise of private surveillance prevents individuals from organizing with others who might help to catalyze change in their lives. Brescia argues that we are not far from a world where surveillance chills not just our speech, but our very identities. Surveillance, he suggests, will ultimately stifle our ability to live full lives, realize democracy, and shape the laws that affect our privacy itself. Brescia writes that “The search for identity and communion with others who share it has never been easier in all of human history. At the same time, our individual and collective identity is also under threat by a surveillance state like none that has ever existed before. This surveillance can be weaponized, not just for profit but also to promote political ends, and undermine efforts to achieve individual and collective self-determination” The book identifies the harms to individuals from privacy violations, provides an expansive definition of political privacy, and identifies the ‘integrity of identity' as a central feature of democracy. The Private is Political lays out the features of Surveillance Capitalism and provides a roadmap for “muscular disclosure”: a comprehensive privacy regime to empower consumers to collectively safeguard privacy rights. Professor Ray Brescia is the Associate Dean for Research & Intellectual Life and the Hon. Harold R. Tyler Professor in Law & Technology at Albany Law School. He is the author of many scholarly works including Lawyer Nation: The Past, Present, and Future of the American Legal Profession (from NYU Press) and The Future of Change: How Technology Shapes Social Revolutions (from Cornell UP). He is also the author of public facing work, most recently “Elon Musk's DOGE is executing a historically dangerous data breach” on MSNBC. He started his legal career at the Legal Aid Society of New York where he was a Skadden Fellow, and then served as the Associate Director at the Urban Justice Center, also in New York City, where he represented grassroots groups like tenant associations and low-wage worker groups. Ray's blog is “The Future of Change” and you can find him on LinkedIn. Mentioned: Shoshana Zuboff on surveillance capitalism Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, Amy Howe, SCOTUSBLOG Kevin Peter He on “data voodoo dolls” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
As Americans increasingly depend upon their phones, computers, and internet resources, their actions are less private than they believe. Data is routinely sold and shared with companies who want to sell something, political actors who want to analyze behavior, and law enforcement who seek to monitor and limit actions. In The Private is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism (NYU Press, 2025), law professor Ray Brescia explores the failure of existing legal systems and institutions to protect people's online presence and identities. Examining the ways in which the digital space is under threat from both governments and private actors, Brescia reveals how the rise of private surveillance prevents individuals from organizing with others who might help to catalyze change in their lives. Brescia argues that we are not far from a world where surveillance chills not just our speech, but our very identities. Surveillance, he suggests, will ultimately stifle our ability to live full lives, realize democracy, and shape the laws that affect our privacy itself. Brescia writes that “The search for identity and communion with others who share it has never been easier in all of human history. At the same time, our individual and collective identity is also under threat by a surveillance state like none that has ever existed before. This surveillance can be weaponized, not just for profit but also to promote political ends, and undermine efforts to achieve individual and collective self-determination” The book identifies the harms to individuals from privacy violations, provides an expansive definition of political privacy, and identifies the ‘integrity of identity' as a central feature of democracy. The Private is Political lays out the features of Surveillance Capitalism and provides a roadmap for “muscular disclosure”: a comprehensive privacy regime to empower consumers to collectively safeguard privacy rights. Professor Ray Brescia is the Associate Dean for Research & Intellectual Life and the Hon. Harold R. Tyler Professor in Law & Technology at Albany Law School. He is the author of many scholarly works including Lawyer Nation: The Past, Present, and Future of the American Legal Profession (from NYU Press) and The Future of Change: How Technology Shapes Social Revolutions (from Cornell UP). He is also the author of public facing work, most recently “Elon Musk's DOGE is executing a historically dangerous data breach” on MSNBC. He started his legal career at the Legal Aid Society of New York where he was a Skadden Fellow, and then served as the Associate Director at the Urban Justice Center, also in New York City, where he represented grassroots groups like tenant associations and low-wage worker groups. Ray's blog is “The Future of Change” and you can find him on LinkedIn. Mentioned: Shoshana Zuboff on surveillance capitalism Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, Amy Howe, SCOTUSBLOG Kevin Peter He on “data voodoo dolls” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science
As Americans increasingly depend upon their phones, computers, and internet resources, their actions are less private than they believe. Data is routinely sold and shared with companies who want to sell something, political actors who want to analyze behavior, and law enforcement who seek to monitor and limit actions. In The Private is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism (NYU Press, 2025), law professor Ray Brescia explores the failure of existing legal systems and institutions to protect people's online presence and identities. Examining the ways in which the digital space is under threat from both governments and private actors, Brescia reveals how the rise of private surveillance prevents individuals from organizing with others who might help to catalyze change in their lives. Brescia argues that we are not far from a world where surveillance chills not just our speech, but our very identities. Surveillance, he suggests, will ultimately stifle our ability to live full lives, realize democracy, and shape the laws that affect our privacy itself. Brescia writes that “The search for identity and communion with others who share it has never been easier in all of human history. At the same time, our individual and collective identity is also under threat by a surveillance state like none that has ever existed before. This surveillance can be weaponized, not just for profit but also to promote political ends, and undermine efforts to achieve individual and collective self-determination” The book identifies the harms to individuals from privacy violations, provides an expansive definition of political privacy, and identifies the ‘integrity of identity' as a central feature of democracy. The Private is Political lays out the features of Surveillance Capitalism and provides a roadmap for “muscular disclosure”: a comprehensive privacy regime to empower consumers to collectively safeguard privacy rights. Professor Ray Brescia is the Associate Dean for Research & Intellectual Life and the Hon. Harold R. Tyler Professor in Law & Technology at Albany Law School. He is the author of many scholarly works including Lawyer Nation: The Past, Present, and Future of the American Legal Profession (from NYU Press) and The Future of Change: How Technology Shapes Social Revolutions (from Cornell UP). He is also the author of public facing work, most recently “Elon Musk's DOGE is executing a historically dangerous data breach” on MSNBC. He started his legal career at the Legal Aid Society of New York where he was a Skadden Fellow, and then served as the Associate Director at the Urban Justice Center, also in New York City, where he represented grassroots groups like tenant associations and low-wage worker groups. Ray's blog is “The Future of Change” and you can find him on LinkedIn. Mentioned: Shoshana Zuboff on surveillance capitalism Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, Amy Howe, SCOTUSBLOG Kevin Peter He on “data voodoo dolls” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy
As Americans increasingly depend upon their phones, computers, and internet resources, their actions are less private than they believe. Data is routinely sold and shared with companies who want to sell something, political actors who want to analyze behavior, and law enforcement who seek to monitor and limit actions. In The Private is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism (NYU Press, 2025), law professor Ray Brescia explores the failure of existing legal systems and institutions to protect people's online presence and identities. Examining the ways in which the digital space is under threat from both governments and private actors, Brescia reveals how the rise of private surveillance prevents individuals from organizing with others who might help to catalyze change in their lives. Brescia argues that we are not far from a world where surveillance chills not just our speech, but our very identities. Surveillance, he suggests, will ultimately stifle our ability to live full lives, realize democracy, and shape the laws that affect our privacy itself. Brescia writes that “The search for identity and communion with others who share it has never been easier in all of human history. At the same time, our individual and collective identity is also under threat by a surveillance state like none that has ever existed before. This surveillance can be weaponized, not just for profit but also to promote political ends, and undermine efforts to achieve individual and collective self-determination” The book identifies the harms to individuals from privacy violations, provides an expansive definition of political privacy, and identifies the ‘integrity of identity' as a central feature of democracy. The Private is Political lays out the features of Surveillance Capitalism and provides a roadmap for “muscular disclosure”: a comprehensive privacy regime to empower consumers to collectively safeguard privacy rights. Professor Ray Brescia is the Associate Dean for Research & Intellectual Life and the Hon. Harold R. Tyler Professor in Law & Technology at Albany Law School. He is the author of many scholarly works including Lawyer Nation: The Past, Present, and Future of the American Legal Profession (from NYU Press) and The Future of Change: How Technology Shapes Social Revolutions (from Cornell UP). He is also the author of public facing work, most recently “Elon Musk's DOGE is executing a historically dangerous data breach” on MSNBC. He started his legal career at the Legal Aid Society of New York where he was a Skadden Fellow, and then served as the Associate Director at the Urban Justice Center, also in New York City, where he represented grassroots groups like tenant associations and low-wage worker groups. Ray's blog is “The Future of Change” and you can find him on LinkedIn. Mentioned: Shoshana Zuboff on surveillance capitalism Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, Amy Howe, SCOTUSBLOG Kevin Peter He on “data voodoo dolls” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications
As Americans increasingly depend upon their phones, computers, and internet resources, their actions are less private than they believe. Data is routinely sold and shared with companies who want to sell something, political actors who want to analyze behavior, and law enforcement who seek to monitor and limit actions. In The Private is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism (NYU Press, 2025), law professor Ray Brescia explores the failure of existing legal systems and institutions to protect people's online presence and identities. Examining the ways in which the digital space is under threat from both governments and private actors, Brescia reveals how the rise of private surveillance prevents individuals from organizing with others who might help to catalyze change in their lives. Brescia argues that we are not far from a world where surveillance chills not just our speech, but our very identities. Surveillance, he suggests, will ultimately stifle our ability to live full lives, realize democracy, and shape the laws that affect our privacy itself. Brescia writes that “The search for identity and communion with others who share it has never been easier in all of human history. At the same time, our individual and collective identity is also under threat by a surveillance state like none that has ever existed before. This surveillance can be weaponized, not just for profit but also to promote political ends, and undermine efforts to achieve individual and collective self-determination” The book identifies the harms to individuals from privacy violations, provides an expansive definition of political privacy, and identifies the ‘integrity of identity' as a central feature of democracy. The Private is Political lays out the features of Surveillance Capitalism and provides a roadmap for “muscular disclosure”: a comprehensive privacy regime to empower consumers to collectively safeguard privacy rights. Professor Ray Brescia is the Associate Dean for Research & Intellectual Life and the Hon. Harold R. Tyler Professor in Law & Technology at Albany Law School. He is the author of many scholarly works including Lawyer Nation: The Past, Present, and Future of the American Legal Profession (from NYU Press) and The Future of Change: How Technology Shapes Social Revolutions (from Cornell UP). He is also the author of public facing work, most recently “Elon Musk's DOGE is executing a historically dangerous data breach” on MSNBC. He started his legal career at the Legal Aid Society of New York where he was a Skadden Fellow, and then served as the Associate Director at the Urban Justice Center, also in New York City, where he represented grassroots groups like tenant associations and low-wage worker groups. Ray's blog is “The Future of Change” and you can find him on LinkedIn. Mentioned: Shoshana Zuboff on surveillance capitalism Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, Amy Howe, SCOTUSBLOG Kevin Peter He on “data voodoo dolls” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society
As Americans increasingly depend upon their phones, computers, and internet resources, their actions are less private than they believe. Data is routinely sold and shared with companies who want to sell something, political actors who want to analyze behavior, and law enforcement who seek to monitor and limit actions. In The Private is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism (NYU Press, 2025), law professor Ray Brescia explores the failure of existing legal systems and institutions to protect people's online presence and identities. Examining the ways in which the digital space is under threat from both governments and private actors, Brescia reveals how the rise of private surveillance prevents individuals from organizing with others who might help to catalyze change in their lives. Brescia argues that we are not far from a world where surveillance chills not just our speech, but our very identities. Surveillance, he suggests, will ultimately stifle our ability to live full lives, realize democracy, and shape the laws that affect our privacy itself. Brescia writes that “The search for identity and communion with others who share it has never been easier in all of human history. At the same time, our individual and collective identity is also under threat by a surveillance state like none that has ever existed before. This surveillance can be weaponized, not just for profit but also to promote political ends, and undermine efforts to achieve individual and collective self-determination” The book identifies the harms to individuals from privacy violations, provides an expansive definition of political privacy, and identifies the ‘integrity of identity' as a central feature of democracy. The Private is Political lays out the features of Surveillance Capitalism and provides a roadmap for “muscular disclosure”: a comprehensive privacy regime to empower consumers to collectively safeguard privacy rights. Professor Ray Brescia is the Associate Dean for Research & Intellectual Life and the Hon. Harold R. Tyler Professor in Law & Technology at Albany Law School. He is the author of many scholarly works including Lawyer Nation: The Past, Present, and Future of the American Legal Profession (from NYU Press) and The Future of Change: How Technology Shapes Social Revolutions (from Cornell UP). He is also the author of public facing work, most recently “Elon Musk's DOGE is executing a historically dangerous data breach” on MSNBC. He started his legal career at the Legal Aid Society of New York where he was a Skadden Fellow, and then served as the Associate Director at the Urban Justice Center, also in New York City, where he represented grassroots groups like tenant associations and low-wage worker groups. Ray's blog is “The Future of Change” and you can find him on LinkedIn. Mentioned: Shoshana Zuboff on surveillance capitalism Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, Amy Howe, SCOTUSBLOG Kevin Peter He on “data voodoo dolls” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law
Amy Howe: The Reality of Homelessness | The Hopeaholics PodcastAmy Howe knows what it's like to feel invisible. She spent years homeless, digging through dumpsters just to survive, while the world around her pretended she didn't exist. In this raw and emotional episode of The Hopeaholics Podcast, Amy takes us through the darkest moments of her life—being trapped in an abusive marriage, battling addiction, and struggling to find a way out. She opens up about the night her husband nearly killed her, the trauma that followed, and the strength it took to finally walk away.Her addiction took her to places she never imagined, but recovery wasn't an easy road. Forced into detox by her probation officer, Amy didn't think sobriety was for her. She resisted, convinced that she could manage on her own. But something changed. Through the 12 steps, the support of people who refused to give up on her, and a newfound faith, she began to rebuild her life. Five years later, she's not just sober—she's thriving.Amy doesn't shy away from the hard conversations. She speaks openly about the judgment she's faced in religious and recovery communities, calling out the hypocrisy of those who preach faith but refuse to offer grace. She challenges the stigma surrounding addiction and highlights the importance of true accountability. Her honesty is refreshing, her perspective eye-opening, and her message is clear—healing is possible, but it takes work.Amy's story isn't just about survival; it's about transformation. It's proof that no matter how far gone you think you are, there's always a way back. Her journey will make you think, challenge your perceptions, and most of all, give you hope.Follow us on all our social media platforms down belowINSTAGRAM : https://www.instagram.com/thehopeaholics/?igshid=Mzc1MmZhNjY%3DSPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/4diCrlmIyqrkE2e22mFgU1?si=2df7f5920f944098FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/thehopeaholicspodcast/TREATMENT : https://www.hopebythesea.com
In this episode, Kate and Ben discuss the Supreme Court taking on the TikTok legal case. This case is the "ban" that was enacted by Congress on the basis of national security concerns. This episode includes a quick update after the Supreme Court releases their opinion.Research/Resources:“Supreme Court skeptical of ban on TikTok” by Amy Howe. Published in SCOTUSblog website January 10, 2025 and available on https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-skeptical-of-ban-on-tiktok/ Supreme Court of the United State Calendars and Lists https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/calendarsandlists.aspx“Frank McCourt and Kevin O'Leary formally offer to buy TikTok after securing investors, debt financing, and a go-ahead from the White House” by Paolo Confino. Published in Fortune website January 10, 2025 and available on https://fortune.com/2025/01/10/frank-mccourt-kevin-oleary-tiktok-offer-investors-debt-financing-trump-biden-approval/“'Shark Tank's' Kevin O'Leary and billionaire Frank McCourt want to buy TikTok. One problem: It's not for Sale” by Clare Duffy. Published in CNN Business website January 9, 2025 and available on https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/09/tech/tiktok-ban-buy-frank-mccourt-kevin-oleary-bytedance/index.html “TikTok challenges its U.S. ban at the Supreme Court. Here's what to know” by Bobby Allyn. Published in NPR website January 10, 2025 and available on https://www.npr.org/2025/01/10/nx-s1-5254236/tiktok-supreme-court-what-to-know“Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban” by Amy Howe. Published in SCOTUSBlog website January 17, 2025 and available on https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-upholds-tiktok-ban/Check out our website at http://artofdiscussing.buzzsprout.com, on Facebook at Art of Discussing and on Instagram @artofdiscussing.Got a topic that you'd like to see discussed? Interested in being a guest on our show? Just want to reach out to share an opinion, experience, or resource? Leave us a comment below or contact us at info@artofdiscussing.com!! We'd love to hear from you! Keep Discussing!Music found on Pixabay. Song name: "Clear Your Mind" by Caffeine Creek Band"
This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the Supreme Court's busy week on government speech and immigration authority; Donald Trump's bond issue and words problem; and COVID learning loss. Join us for Political Gabfest Live in Washington, D.C. on March 27! Tickets are on sale now; get ‘em before they're gone. Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: Court sympathetic to NRA's free speech claim and Supreme Court skeptical of restricting government communications with social media companies Lindsay Whitehurst for AP: Supreme Court appears receptive to NRA free-speech lawsuit against a former New York state officia Hogan Gore for the Austin American-Statesman: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals leaves SB 4 on hold after dueling orders on Texas immigration law Ben Protess, Maggie Haberman, and Kate Christobek for The New York Times: Trump Spurned by 30 Companies as He Seeks Bond in $454 Million Judgment Ruth Marcus for The Washington Post: Fair's fair: Trump should be able to appeal the judgment against him and Catherine Rampell:Trump can't find anyone to spot him $424 million. Would you? Sarah Mervosh, Claire Cain Miller, and Francesca Paris for The New York Times: What the Data Says About Pandemic School Closures, Four Years Later Slate Political Gabfest: The “Stop Counting Now” Edition Weakley County, TN Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Small Game: A Novel by Blair Braverman and Small Game: A Novel at the DC Public Library John: Ramishah Maruf for CNN: MacKenzie Scott donates $640 million after open call for nonprofits and Ahjané Forbes for USA Today: Ticketless passenger found in Delta flight's lavatory, forcing plane to turn around David: Sarah Zhang for The Atlantic: DNA Tests Are Uncovering The True Prevalence Of Incest and City Cast: Work with us. Listener chatter from Joshua Weaver in Austin, Texas: Matthew Brown for AP: Montana man used animal tissue and testicles to breed ‘giant' sheep for sale to hunting preserves For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, David, John, and Emily talk about The Mysterious Case of The Reappearing Princess. See Karla Adam for The Washington Post: Will Princess Kate video put an end to royal communications mess? and Mark Landler for The New York Times: The Royals Tried to Control Their Image Online. The Internet Had Other Ideas. In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with Tana French about her book, The Hunter: A Novel. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Cheyna Roth Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the Supreme Court's busy week on government speech and immigration authority; Donald Trump's bond issue and words problem; and COVID learning loss. Join us for Political Gabfest Live in Washington, D.C. on March 27! Tickets are on sale now; get ‘em before they're gone. Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: Court sympathetic to NRA's free speech claim and Supreme Court skeptical of restricting government communications with social media companies Lindsay Whitehurst for AP: Supreme Court appears receptive to NRA free-speech lawsuit against a former New York state officia Hogan Gore for the Austin American-Statesman: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals leaves SB 4 on hold after dueling orders on Texas immigration law Ben Protess, Maggie Haberman, and Kate Christobek for The New York Times: Trump Spurned by 30 Companies as He Seeks Bond in $454 Million Judgment Ruth Marcus for The Washington Post: Fair's fair: Trump should be able to appeal the judgment against him and Catherine Rampell:Trump can't find anyone to spot him $424 million. Would you? Sarah Mervosh, Claire Cain Miller, and Francesca Paris for The New York Times: What the Data Says About Pandemic School Closures, Four Years Later Slate Political Gabfest: The “Stop Counting Now” Edition Weakley County, TN Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Small Game: A Novel by Blair Braverman and Small Game: A Novel at the DC Public Library John: Ramishah Maruf for CNN: MacKenzie Scott donates $640 million after open call for nonprofits and Ahjané Forbes for USA Today: Ticketless passenger found in Delta flight's lavatory, forcing plane to turn around David: Sarah Zhang for The Atlantic: DNA Tests Are Uncovering The True Prevalence Of Incest and City Cast: Work with us. Listener chatter from Joshua Weaver in Austin, Texas: Matthew Brown for AP: Montana man used animal tissue and testicles to breed ‘giant' sheep for sale to hunting preserves For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, David, John, and Emily talk about The Mysterious Case of The Reappearing Princess. See Karla Adam for The Washington Post: Will Princess Kate video put an end to royal communications mess? and Mark Landler for The New York Times: The Royals Tried to Control Their Image Online. The Internet Had Other Ideas. In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with Tana French about her book, The Hunter: A Novel. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Cheyna Roth Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
