Podcast appearances and mentions of Anthony Kennedy

An anti-abortion legal activist starts using the federal courts to chip away at campaign finance restrictions, setting his sights on the Supreme Court. Indiana lawyer James Bopp Jr. engineers the Citizens United case and hand-tailors it for Justice Anthony Kennedy's storied swing vote — setting him up for an explosive 5-4 ruling that would devastate campaign finance law.Get Master Plan episodes early and ad-free by becoming a paid subscriber. Enjoy bonus episodes, exclusive content, and support this show. Visit masterplanpodcast.com. Master Plan Special: 50% off a Lever subscription! Access bonus episodes, articles, and more. Support independent journalism at LeverNews.com/50.

In 2003, in a ruling that bordered on poetic, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Lawrence v. Texas that sexual behavior between consenting adults was protected under the constitutional right to privacy. This was a landmark case in the course of LGBTQ+ rights in the Untied States, laying the groundwork for cases like 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges. Yet, this case did not emerge out of nowhere.  In Before Lawrence v. Texas: The Making of a Queer Social Movement (U Texas Press, 2023), University of North Texas history professor Wesley Phelps argues that behind each successful court case stands a litany of failures, challenges, and individual human stories, each of which laid the groundwork for these landmark successes. By tracking the long history of queer activism in Texas during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, Phelps shows how the long road toward greater LGBTQ+ civil rights was paved with hard work by hundreds of activists, lawyers, and allies. No movement exists in a vacuum, and Before Lawrence v. Texas provides a roadmap showing how historical change really occurs.  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

In 2003, in a ruling that bordered on poetic, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Lawrence v. Texas that sexual behavior between consenting adults was protected under the constitutional right to privacy. This was a landmark case in the course of LGBTQ+ rights in the Untied States, laying the groundwork for cases like 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges. Yet, this case did not emerge out of nowhere.  In Before Lawrence v. Texas: The Making of a Queer Social Movement (U Texas Press, 2023), University of North Texas history professor Wesley Phelps argues that behind each successful court case stands a litany of failures, challenges, and individual human stories, each of which laid the groundwork for these landmark successes. By tracking the long history of queer activism in Texas during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, Phelps shows how the long road toward greater LGBTQ+ civil rights was paved with hard work by hundreds of activists, lawyers, and allies. No movement exists in a vacuum, and Before Lawrence v. Texas provides a roadmap showing how historical change really occurs.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

In 2003, in a ruling that bordered on poetic, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Lawrence v. Texas that sexual behavior between consenting adults was protected under the constitutional right to privacy. This was a landmark case in the course of LGBTQ+ rights in the Untied States, laying the groundwork for cases like 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges. Yet, this case did not emerge out of nowhere.  In Before Lawrence v. Texas: The Making of a Queer Social Movement (U Texas Press, 2023), University of North Texas history professor Wesley Phelps argues that behind each successful court case stands a litany of failures, challenges, and individual human stories, each of which laid the groundwork for these landmark successes. By tracking the long history of queer activism in Texas during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, Phelps shows how the long road toward greater LGBTQ+ civil rights was paved with hard work by hundreds of activists, lawyers, and allies. No movement exists in a vacuum, and Before Lawrence v. Texas provides a roadmap showing how historical change really occurs.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

In 2003, in a ruling that bordered on poetic, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Lawrence v. Texas that sexual behavior between consenting adults was protected under the constitutional right to privacy. This was a landmark case in the course of LGBTQ+ rights in the Untied States, laying the groundwork for cases like 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges. Yet, this case did not emerge out of nowhere.  In Before Lawrence v. Texas: The Making of a Queer Social Movement (U Texas Press, 2023), University of North Texas history professor Wesley Phelps argues that behind each successful court case stands a litany of failures, challenges, and individual human stories, each of which laid the groundwork for these landmark successes. By tracking the long history of queer activism in Texas during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, Phelps shows how the long road toward greater LGBTQ+ civil rights was paved with hard work by hundreds of activists, lawyers, and allies. No movement exists in a vacuum, and Before Lawrence v. Texas provides a roadmap showing how historical change really occurs.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In 2003, in a ruling that bordered on poetic, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Lawrence v. Texas that sexual behavior between consenting adults was protected under the constitutional right to privacy. This was a landmark case in the course of LGBTQ+ rights in the Untied States, laying the groundwork for cases like 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges. Yet, this case did not emerge out of nowhere.  In Before Lawrence v. Texas: The Making of a Queer Social Movement (U Texas Press, 2023), University of North Texas history professor Wesley Phelps argues that behind each successful court case stands a litany of failures, challenges, and individual human stories, each of which laid the groundwork for these landmark successes. By tracking the long history of queer activism in Texas during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, Phelps shows how the long road toward greater LGBTQ+ civil rights was paved with hard work by hundreds of activists, lawyers, and allies. No movement exists in a vacuum, and Before Lawrence v. Texas provides a roadmap showing how historical change really occurs.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/lgbtq-studies

In 2003, in a ruling that bordered on poetic, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Lawrence v. Texas that sexual behavior between consenting adults was protected under the constitutional right to privacy. This was a landmark case in the course of LGBTQ+ rights in the Untied States, laying the groundwork for cases like 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges. Yet, this case did not emerge out of nowhere.  In Before Lawrence v. Texas: The Making of a Queer Social Movement (U Texas Press, 2023), University of North Texas history professor Wesley Phelps argues that behind each successful court case stands a litany of failures, challenges, and individual human stories, each of which laid the groundwork for these landmark successes. By tracking the long history of queer activism in Texas during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, Phelps shows how the long road toward greater LGBTQ+ civil rights was paved with hard work by hundreds of activists, lawyers, and allies. No movement exists in a vacuum, and Before Lawrence v. Texas provides a roadmap showing how historical change really occurs.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-west

In 2003, in a ruling that bordered on poetic, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Lawrence v. Texas that sexual behavior between consenting adults was protected under the constitutional right to privacy. This was a landmark case in the course of LGBTQ+ rights in the Untied States, laying the groundwork for cases like 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges. Yet, this case did not emerge out of nowhere.  In Before Lawrence v. Texas: The Making of a Queer Social Movement (U Texas Press, 2023), University of North Texas history professor Wesley Phelps argues that behind each successful court case stands a litany of failures, challenges, and individual human stories, each of which laid the groundwork for these landmark successes. By tracking the long history of queer activism in Texas during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, Phelps shows how the long road toward greater LGBTQ+ civil rights was paved with hard work by hundreds of activists, lawyers, and allies. No movement exists in a vacuum, and Before Lawrence v. Texas provides a roadmap showing how historical change really occurs.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

In 2003, in a ruling that bordered on poetic, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Lawrence v. Texas that sexual behavior between consenting adults was protected under the constitutional right to privacy. This was a landmark case in the course of LGBTQ+ rights in the Untied States, laying the groundwork for cases like 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges. Yet, this case did not emerge out of nowhere.  In Before Lawrence v. Texas: The Making of a Queer Social Movement (U Texas Press, 2023), University of North Texas history professor Wesley Phelps argues that behind each successful court case stands a litany of failures, challenges, and individual human stories, each of which laid the groundwork for these landmark successes. By tracking the long history of queer activism in Texas during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, Phelps shows how the long road toward greater LGBTQ+ civil rights was paved with hard work by hundreds of activists, lawyers, and allies. No movement exists in a vacuum, and Before Lawrence v. Texas provides a roadmap showing how historical change really occurs.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2003, in a ruling that bordered on poetic, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Lawrence v. Texas that sexual behavior between consenting adults was protected under the constitutional right to privacy. This was a landmark case in the course of LGBTQ+ rights in the Untied States, laying the groundwork for cases like 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges. Yet, this case did not emerge out of nowhere.  In Before Lawrence v. Texas: The Making of a Queer Social Movement (U Texas Press, 2023), University of North Texas history professor Wesley Phelps argues that behind each successful court case stands a litany of failures, challenges, and individual human stories, each of which laid the groundwork for these landmark successes. By tracking the long history of queer activism in Texas during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, Phelps shows how the long road toward greater LGBTQ+ civil rights was paved with hard work by hundreds of activists, lawyers, and allies. No movement exists in a vacuum, and Before Lawrence v. Texas provides a roadmap showing how historical change really occurs.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Pivotal LGBTQ+ Rights DecisionsOn this day, June 26th, in legal history, two pivotal Supreme Court decisions significantly advanced the cause of marriage equality in the United States.On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in United States v. Windsor. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had defined marriage for federal purposes as the union between a man and a woman. Edith Windsor, the plaintiff, had been denied a spousal tax exemption after her same-sex spouse's death, prompting her to challenge the law. The Court held that DOMA's definition of marriage was unconstitutional as it violated the principles of due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. This landmark decision allowed same-sex couples to receive the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples, marking a significant step forward for LGBTQ+ rights and equality.Two years later, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued another historic ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. In another closely divided 5-4 decision, the Court declared that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment. The case consolidated several challenges from same-sex couples who had been denied the right to marry or have their marriages recognized by their home states. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, same-sex couples cannot be denied that right. This ruling effectively legalized same-sex marriage across the United States, ensuring that all states must perform and recognize marriages between individuals of the same sex.These decisions on June 26th were monumental in affirming the rights of same-sex couples and dismantling legal barriers to marriage equality, marking significant victories for the LGBTQ+ community and setting precedents for future civil rights advancements.Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently surprised defense attorneys with her unexpected votes against criminal defendants, despite her background as a former federal defender. In two cases decided at the end of the term, Jackson broke from her liberal colleagues. She joined the majority in a case broadening expert witness testimony and dissented in another that reinforced the right to a jury trial.President Joe Biden highlighted Jackson's unique experience as a public defender when nominating her in 2022. In Diaz v. United States, a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with prosecutors on expert witness testimony, allowing experts to discuss what most defendants generally know. Jackson joined Justice Clarence Thomas's majority opinion and wrote separately, suggesting the rule could benefit both prosecutors and defendants.In Erlinger v. United States, the Court ruled 6-3 to apply the Apprendi v. New Jersey precedent broadly, requiring juries to decide facts that could increase sentences. Jackson dissented, arguing that Apprendi limits legislative efforts to create fairer sentencing systems. She suggested overturning Apprendi, which surprised many in the defense community given its importance to defendants' rights.Some notable defense attorneys have expressed disappointment in her positions, though acknowledging that public defender views are not monolithic.Justice Jackson Takes Unexpected Positions in Criminal CasesA recent study by Georgetown University's Center on Education and Workforce revealed that law school graduates earn a median salary of $72,000 after debt payments four years into their careers. However, this figure varies significantly depending on the law school attended. Graduates from seven elite law schools, including Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard, have median earnings of over $200,000 after debt. In contrast, graduates from 33 lower-ranking law schools earn $55,000 or less.The report, titled "A Law Degree Is No Sure Thing: Some Law School Graduates Earn Top Dollar, but Many Do Not," shows that law graduates typically leave school with a median debt of $118,500. Columbia Law School offers the highest return on investment with net median earnings of $253,800 after four years, followed by other top-tier schools. These elite institutions account for about 20% of law students and tend to send over half their graduates to high-paying jobs at large law firms.Conversely, 20 law schools have graduates with median net earnings of $50,000 or less after debt payments, including Cooley Law School and Atlanta's John Marshall Law School. The study utilized data from various sources, such as the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Bar Association, to assess employment outcomes, salaries, bar passage rates, and debt.The report underscores a significant disparity in financial outcomes between graduates of top-ranked law schools and those from lower-ranked institutions.Law grads' median earnings of $72,000 after debt show 'vast gulf' in pay, study finds | ReutersLawmakers in the United States are pushing for the first major federal data privacy legislation, the American Privacy Rights Act, which has bipartisan support. The bill, sponsored by Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell and Republican Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, aims to establish a national data privacy standard. This would allow individuals to access, delete, and opt out of their data being used for targeted advertising, and would create a national data broker registry.The U.S. has lagged behind other regions like the European Union, which implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018. Industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and TechNet, argue that the bill lacks safeguards to prevent states from adding their own regulations, which could complicate compliance for businesses. They advocate for a unified national standard without additional state-level regulations.Privacy advocates, however, contend that the bill would hinder states from addressing new technological developments and responding to emerging privacy issues. They fear that federal pre-emption could stifle the progressive influence of states like California, which often leads in privacy regulations. Ashkan Soltani, from the California Privacy Protection Agency, warned against setting static regulations given the rapid pace of technological advancements.Democratic Representative Suzan DelBene supports the bill, citing the current "patchwork" of state laws as problematic for small businesses. The bill will undergo a markup hearing on Thursday, a crucial step before potentially advancing to a House vote.US lawmakers push for federal data privacy law; tech industry and critics are wary | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that Walt Disney Co. must face an antitrust class action lawsuit filed by 25 subscribers to YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream. The subscribers allege that Disney's agreements with rival streaming TV providers, which included access to ESPN content, restrained trade and led to higher prices. Judge Edward J. Davila of the US District Court for the Northern District of California found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged Disney's conduct harmed competition in the streaming live pay TV market (SLPTV).The lawsuit claims Disney's agreements prevented other streamers from offering lower-priced bundles excluding ESPN, thus raising subscription costs and protecting Disney-owned Hulu from competition. Despite partially dismissing the initial complaint, the judge allowed an amended complaint to proceed, alleging violations of the federal Sherman Act and state antitrust laws. While the court dismissed claims for damages under the Sherman Act, limiting potential relief to an injunction, it allowed most state antitrust claims to continue, except for those under the Illinois Antitrust Act and Tennessee Trade Practices Act.The decision follows the Justice Department's plans to review a proposed new streaming service by Disney, Fox Corp., and Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. for potential consumer harm. The case, Biddle et al v. Walt Disney Co., continues to highlight concerns over anticompetitive practices in the streaming industry.Disney Must Face Antitrust Class Suit by TV Streaming Consumers This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Merry Christmas GTCCers! G and Tom are back with a little festive bonus pod for you all to enjoy in the classic Christmas lull between the big day and New Year's Eve. Back at the start of December G spent some time with the charity Best Buddies and welcomed the founder of the charity, Anthony Kennedy Shriver, to the GTCC. Best Buddies is a nonprofit organisation dedicated to establishing a global volunteer movement that creates opportunities for one-to-one friendships, integrated employment and inclusive living for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Cam Wurf, Chris Froome, Magnus Sheffield and Tom Pidcock have all helped Best Buddies in the past and this year G was privileged to lend his own support to the charity. He spoke to Anthony about the charity's work and much more besides. We'll be back in early 2024 with some more brilliant guests on the GTCC. See you then. Music courtesy of BMG Music Production Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the marketing world, you have to evolve or get left behind. On this episode, Anthony Kennedy, CMO of ION, discusses how to stay ahead and digs into the importance of building a high-performing marketing team, and he emphasizes the need for continuous learning and development. And on the note of constant evolution, Anthony also shares insights on tailoring marketing strategies for diverse industries and the impact of AI on marketing. Tune in to learn:The importance of design in communicating a message (7:30)Creating an employee culture (11:45)Tailoring marketing strategies to meet the needs of various industries (14:45)Why simplicity leads to scale (16:00)Digging into the power of generative AI (18:10)Prioritizing metrics that matter (21:50)How to think about growing communities (29:20)Building with AI (42:00)Mentions:Knowledge Project podcastOgilvy on AdvertisingMarketing ProfsMini MBAMission.org is a media studio producing content for world-class clients. Learn more at http://www.mission.org.

The Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies is honored to announce that Judge James C. Ho of the Fifth Circuit will deliver our 16th Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture titled "Pressure Is a Privilege: Judges, Umpires, and Ignoring the Booing of the Crowd."The namesake of the lecture—the eminent jurist Joseph Story—became the youngest Associate Justice ever to serve on the United States Supreme Court when he was appointed by President Madison in 1812. Story made a significant mark on American law in his thirty-three years on the bench, but his greatest contribution to jurisprudence is his renowned Commentaries on the Constitution, in which he set forth a philosophy of judicial restraint. This lecture series celebrates his legacy.Previous Joseph Story Lectures have been delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Anthony Kennedy, then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Judge Robert Bork, Professor John Harrison, Judge A. Raymond Randolph, Judge Alice Batchelder, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, Judge Carlos Bea, Senator Orrin Hatch, Judge Edith Jones, Former Attorney General Ed Meese, and Judge William Pryor. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Do you know what I really like about the Old Testament? It's what a lot of people hate about it. But I think most people hate it because they don't read it with the four senses of scripture. Instead, they pluck out one-line and hold it up like a dead rat, and say, “Look what I found! Look at how awful this book is! Can you see this thing?” I liked doing this, too, when I was dead, before the change happened.But readers do this plucking of the rat without understanding the larger structure, because rats exist even in the most beautiful buildings. The Chrysler building surely has some rats in it, but we don't go to New York to see the rodents. What I like about the Old Testament is that the characters are not portrayed as perfect. They all sin. Every one of them. In fact, they are portrayed as human, very human. This is why I think so many people stumble while reading the Old Testament. They are expecting spotless heroes, just like we expect in our politicians now. In the growing honor/shame culture of America, we forgot how to read. We forgot nuance. We are like children who need one cowboy in a white hat and one in a black hat so we know who is good and bad in the Bible. But the Bible is more like Shakespeare than your average network TV drama. Grey's Anatomy and Chicago Fire have the depth of a baby pool, but the Bible goes down into the Mariana Trench in our souls. This is why I see professional wrestling everywhere today. Every news organization has its saints and villains, just as the WWE does with its characters, such as the clean-cut John Cena versus the greasy Undertaker. This is also why I think of pro wrestling as a more serious endeavor than modern news and politics. Because wrestling doesn't pretend to be what it's not. It doesn't pretend at any other motive than entertainment, and is a satire on our own prideful lust for power. Thus, it is pure. It's pure in its absurdity. It's ridiculous. I don't watch it regularly, but I find it more authentic than what our media and politicians are pretending at. Pro wrestling is the Days of Our Lives soap opera for boys, and some men. Like me. Maybe there is the fifth sense of reading scripture, in that you must read in terms of power. More specifically, you have to read it under the light of living in fear vs. living in trust. I'll use pro-wrestling here to describe what I mean, but you could use whatever sport you like. Use Battlebots or professional pickleball instead, if that's your thing. But when your last day arrives, there is as much at stake in the outcome of presidential politics as there was when the wrestler King Woods (my personal favorite) lost his crown to the evil Roman Reigns. I know this sounds extreme, but hear me out. Modern geopolitics is every bit as much smoke and mirrors as Monday Night Raw or Friday Night Smackdown. No. Correction: geopolitics must use far more smoke and mirrors, since wrestling's kingdom is in a patchwork of rented arenas around the country, and the TV broadcast uses very focused camera shots on small crowds assembled tightly so that it appears to be large. The illusion of importance is key.This is a modern sacrilege to say, because I don't venerate politicians. To say that politics is not that important will trigger people, because it is perhaps the most worshipped idol of the 21st century. But let me be the first in line to disrespect modernity's sacred cows. If there is a list to be on for sedition against the current ideologies, I'd like to have a row in that database. I don't worship politicians, celebrities, or movements that reject right worship and non-heretical faith in Christ. I may be many things, and have committed many sins, but I don't intend to take my last breath as an apostate to the one true King. When America goes the way of Sumeria and Rome and the Mayans and Imperial Spain, nothing will change in terms of who is the real power over us all, for there is only one. If the fifty states are balkanized and dis-united into fifty nations, the same King will remain. Division is ugly, but it will happen at some point, because we've already allowed the accuser and deceiver into our nations, cities, houses, and hearts. The spirit of a nation can obey God or reject God. Nations choose their course just like individual people choose their actions. Free-will is the gift God grants for us to choose our own ending. In either case, for a person or a nation, the choice to turn to God must be made, and of course it all starts on the personal level. The more citizens who turn away from God, the more a nation will turn away. Thus, whether it is President Biden or President Trump (or whoever), they will have my respect as the manager of America, because I learned long ago to give respect to rank rather than the person wearing the rank. But no president is the ultimate authority. I can render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but I don't care who Caesar is if he rejects God. If he or she leads us into temptation and delivers us unto evil, there we must part. A Caesar who thinks power is God or denies the existence of a living God cannot be followed when it comes to decision time, because the ultimate decision that we must make is not about this life, but eternal life. If our social managers turn away from God, then believers cannot play the game of “follow the leader” any longer, for there is only one leader of all earthly leaders, and that is God. Jesus said, “Follow me.” This implies a choice, not a forced march. This has been established as the way, as Jesus said we must follow him, and not earthly power. The Bible is full of examples on how to do this as well when the times comes. From the three stubborn boys that Nebuchadnezzar threw in the furnace, to the Maccabee brothers, to every Apostle and martyr in Church history. We have many examples to review and emulate in the martyrology of the Church. Most obviously, Jesus himself showed the way. Peter, too, even spells it out in Acts 5 when they were arrested for violating the speech codes and thoughtcrime of first century Jerusalem. You should immediately see parallels of this today, as we are once again instructed not to “teach in this name” of Jesus, as it is said to be a micro-aggression or colonialist or offensive. Peter says, “Sorry, not sorry. We have a higher authority than human resources or the online mob.” And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.” (Acts 5:27-32)Understanding where the real power lies is critical. It is not in pro wrestling. It is not in presidents. It's not even in the nation with the most naval destroyers and nuclear warheads. This is where a disconnect happens for people, in misunderstanding how to read the Bible. There is a disconnect between those who worship the government and those who worship God. How you rank power structures changes everything in how you view the world, and for everyone who preaches on “power differentials” today, they almost always have their ranking out of order, because God is never mentioned in their ranking, the absence of which makes their entire preaching moot and empty of meaning. This is why every ideology fails in the end when it tries to assume authority and dictate its version of morality: it has no authority, nothing solid as a foundation. Oddly, we cannot know God fully or comprehend the idea of God, and we can't fully know his ways, yet God still gives bedrock to our lives here in the material world. This is because we can know that he is infinitely greater than us and all his creation, yet we also know that he is wired right into our bodies and minds and souls. What the idea of God does for us is stop the nightmare of “infinite regress” where we keep asking, “What came before the earth? What came before the universe? What came before God?” It stops at God, the Creator. Interestingly, the band AC/DC had a pair of songs that I think illustrate this point. “Highway to Hell” and “Who Made Who?” are related, because as soon as you start to question the Creator of all things and who made you, then you will be on the highway to hell, which is just separation from God. I truly cannot stress enough how important the concept of God being the first thing is for your mental health. God created the world “out of nothing” (ex nihilo). If you've heard the saying, “fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” it's essential to know that fear in this context really refers to “wonder and awe,” which is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. If you lose that wonder and come to believe that chaos was first, then fear sets in, and everything else that comes along with it, like depression and lust and greed, well, you know - all the rest of the deadly sins. But most importantly for this series, is the need for power. In our world, we think of power as rank in society. You cannot make it through basic training in the military without coming to know what “respecting the rank” means. “Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar,” as Jesus said. This sums up the idea well. We have a duty to obey the law. Paying taxes is right and just, so long as the nation is right and just. For a nation to be worthy of obedience, however, this duty only applies if the nation doesn't violate the real law, the Commandments, or ask us to reject Jesus' command to “Follow me.” You can even distill this down to natural law if you're not inclined to religion, and plenty of atheists believe in natural law because it can be arrived at by reason. Natural laws should be the basis for national laws. But if national laws demand abandonment of natural law, which comes from God, the first thing, then we have an uncrossable chasm. At that point our loyalty must be unequivocally pointing toward God and not a President or any founding document, no matter how yellowed and venerable it looks. Within any nation, there is a battle going on, just as there is within every heart. And this war is a spiritual one. As for the concerns of the day (from the Covid tales about a bat, to “Who blew up the Nordstream pipeline?”, to how we should react to the Russia-Ukraine war) these are all secondary concerns to the kingdom of God. This sounds insensitive, but it's actually the most sensitive thing you can do. Because all of the news of the day is not seeking the City of God, it's seeking the City of Man. The kingdom of God is among us, we are told. But are we looking for it? Are we living in it? The kingdom of God is here, but not yet. That's a hard concept to grasp (maybe harder than ex nihilo). The kingdom will come, yet it's here. What?Clearly the worldly things impact bodies and souls, but still Christ says the kingdom is among us. That's because HE is the kingdom, the way, the path, the gate, living water, the bread, the priest, the prophet, the king. One of the strangest things is to realize that the promised Messiah would bring a kingdom to earth, here among us, and for those who look around and say, “He must not have been the Messiah? Where is this Kingdom?” But the kingdom is here. It is the Church. The Body of Christ exists. The Church is in all nations, as promised, and as promised, the violent and fearful try to topple it. In every generation, the Church is attacked, but it rebounds, retreats, reforms, repeats. Christ said the kingdom is under attack. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. (Mt 11:12) The presidents and prime ministers and Caesars and educators can all take a number. Get in line. This is the kingdom of the counter-culture, of Christ, because his kingdom is built on a different foundation from that of all other kings and clubs and governments. This is the kingdom where trust is greater than fear, because at the root of all power politics is fear. At the root all all pride is fear. The idea of fig leaves should ring a bell here. This is the way that Jesus intends for us to see the world, in trust rather than fear, and any worldly king that doesn't recognize the real king and source of earthly power must reject God in favor of his power, which requires fear to maintain. And who should our trust be in? Not in worldly power. Not in promises from people or serpents. Ultimate trust must be in one thing, and one thing only, and that the creator who made us for him and to be loved by him. When we understand that we are created, then we know that our needs will be met by God if we trust in him. This is why Jesus needs so little. He says, “Consider the lilies of the field” who are adorned greater than King Solomon (or King Woods). The beauty of creation far exceeds our human fashion and pomp and circumstance. He reminds us that we only need to request “our daily bread,” which is Christ himself, the Bread of Life. Furthermore, he says, “foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” Yet does Jesus sound concerned about his lack of money or shelter? No. This is radical. It's extreme. And he's right. It's stunning for us to hear such a thing, especially for those of us who grew up in a time of plenty, and learned about Abraham Maslow's pyramid of self-actualization, or Tony Robbins' will-to-power, or Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy's argument that we can shape the universe into our own image and likeness. Jesus says, “No” to all of them. Jesus says, “Stop trying to create the world and trust in God who already created it.” But it's worth noting that the fox still has to dig out its den, and a bird must create its nest. Abandonment to Divine Providence does not mean that you need not do anything. It doesn't mean you can lay around all day so that you can be spiritual all the time. Rather, it means fulfilling the duties to your station in life and letting all other worries be offered up to God. It means living for God, like a fox or a bird glorifies creation by doing what is proper for them. A fox or bird has total trust in the Creator, yet these animals must still perform their work. A nest doesn't build itself. A den won't dig itself. Thus, work is good, as are the created things themselves, so long as they are used rightly. We are no different. This is at the heart of the teaching of the Church, based on what Jesus said to his followers. Bodies are not bad. Work is not bad. We are fallen and compromised, but can be redeemed, and all of us, every human being, has sufficient grace on offer - an open-ended gift - that can be the ladder we use to climb to heaven. Fear is not what foxes and birds rely on, they live freely, like children, and trust in their Creator. Only humans fear and prepare to fight in a zero-sum game, because of the Fall. We can prove our fears by simply turning on the news, and see the fingerprints of Original Sin everywhere. Fear is why we build highways and bombs and smart phones, because we don't think God will provide for us. If we cling to our lives instead of God, then we begin to be fearful, and that is when power becomes the game, and it is a game of total obsession once it begins. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit whydidpetersink.substack.com

On this episode of The Open Door, panelists Jim Hanink, Mario Ramos-Reyes, and Valerie Niemeyer discuss “the prosperity Gospel” as the tip of an unholy alliance between individualism in theology and philosophy and capitalism in economics. This alliance reaches into the larger culture, including education, science, and the arts. We have a welcome and returning guest, Thomas Storck, to help us. He's the author of several books, most recently The Prosperity Gospel: How Greed and Bad Philosophy Distorted Christ's Teachings (TAN, 2023). Arouca Press published a revised edition of his Foundations of a Catholic Political Order last year. In addition, he recently translated and wrote a new forward for Louis Cardinal Billot's Liberalism: A Critique of Its Basic Principles and Various Forms (Arouca Press, 2019). Storck is a prolific contributor to the New Oxford Review. And, to top it off, he's associated with the American Solidarity Party. We'll be asking the following questions. Please feel free to suggest your own!Just what is “the prosperity Gospel,” and who are some of its current proponentsYou note that some central elements in our culture give rise to the prosperity Gospel. Just how do you define “culture”?What is a bourgeois culture? A consumerist culture?You draw on the work of Max Weber. Why is Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism of special significance?What happens to a culture that loses sight of teleology?6Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his opinion in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” What does this declaration imply?Why do you claim that technology is not neutral?Fewer and fewer students major in the humanities. What are the social consequences of this steep decline?Is there room in art for expressive individualism?What's your next book?

Last week, the Supreme Court handed down, as they usually do as the term comes to an end, a flurry of highly anticipated major decisions. Two of them made a lot of news: one effectively ended affirmative action in American higher education, and another ruled that a Colorado web designer could refuse to create a wedding website for a same-sex couple.  The mainstream media's prevailing sentiment over the last week has been that these are the sorry consequences of a conservative majority court. This court overturned Roe v. Wade last year in a major setback to women's rights; now they've undone decades of precedent that helped historically disadvantaged students have a chance at the American dream, and they've weakened gay rights.  When President Joe Biden was asked at a press conference last week whether or not this is a “rogue court,” Biden basically said yes. He muttered, “This isn't a normal court.”   Is that true? Is this court “not normal”? Or do these decisions actually reflect a legitimate reading of the Constitution?  To help separate signal from noise and fact from hyperbole, today we have three legal experts from different sides of the political aisle to hash it out. Harry Litman is an attorney who has clerked for two Supreme Court justices, Thurgood Marshall and Anthony Kennedy. He is also a host of the podcast Talking Feds. Jeannie Suk Gersen is a professor at Harvard Law School and writer for The New Yorker. She clerked for David Souter. And Sarah Isgur is a columnist for The Dispatch and an ABC News contributor. She clerked for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and served as the Justice Department spokeswoman during the Trump administration. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week is the anniversary of two dark and pivotal cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. In June 2013, the high court ruled in United States v. Windsor that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 violated Due Process. This essentially made the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges judgment, which redefined millennia of law on marriage, inevitable.  Justice Anthony Kennedy unwittingly defined our chaotic age in the majority opinion for Obergefell when he declared, “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”  This idea—that people can freely craft their identity independent from nature, science, and reality—is behind so much of the moral confusion of the last few years. But it has certainly not led to the “liberty” that Justice Kennedy promised. This is the opportunity for Christians to point not only to an abstract moral position, but to reality itself and to the God who made it. 

The Ride Home with John & Kathy! Buckle in for a Wednesday full! Like… Creation's integrity: what theologian Herman Bavinck called its "unfathomable interrelations"... GUEST Rutledge Ethridge ... Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies Geneva College ... author of “God Breathed: Connecting Through Scripture to God, Others, the Natural World, and Yourself” Amazon's ‘Shiny Happy People' Has Lessons to Teach, If We're Willing to Listen ... GUEST Alex Harris ... attorney and author ... the son of homeschool pioneers and brother of former pastor & author Josh Harris, Alex & his twin brother, Brett, created TheRebelution.com and wrote "Do Hard Things: A Teenage Rebellion Against Low Expectations" as teenagers ... A graduate of Harvard Law School, Alex worked as a law clerk for US Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Anthony Kennedy and was named to Forbes 30 Under 30 for law and policy Prayer is wild. A vast open silence I don't quite know how to fill ... GUEST Sarah Sanderson ... writes & speaks about faith, trauma recovery, & the beloved life ... her first book, "The Place We Make," is due out in August Caregiver support: why it's crucial to mental health... GUEST Lisa Anderson ... Director of Boundless & Young Adults at Focus on the Family, and host of the Boundless Show weekly podcast and radio show. Originally aired on 9/15/22 at 4:10 Thanks for riding with us on The Ride Home with Kathy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

CLICK HERE to listen to episode audio (5:35).Sections below are the following: Transcript of Audio Audio Notes and Acknowledgments ImagesExtra InformationSources Related Water Radio Episodes For Virginia Teachers (Relevant SOLs, etc.). Unless otherwise noted, all Web addresses mentioned were functional as of 5-29-23. TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO From the Cumberland Gap to the Atlantic Ocean, this is Virginia Water Radio for the weeks of June 26 and July 3, 2023. MUSIC – ~8 sec –lyrics: “Ah reflections in the window pane, fallin' in love, in the drivin' rain.” That's part of “Driving Rain,” by the Charlottesville- and Nelson County, Va.-based band, Chamomile and Whiskey.  The song's a love story, but its title and main phrase lead in to a legal water story—that is, how does rain, and any other water on the landscape, become water covered by the federal Clean Water Act, specifically by the Act's phrase, the “waters of the United States?”  On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote a new chapter in this story. Passed in 1972, the Clean Water Act's main goal is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.”  The Act states that it applies to “navigable waters,” defined as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,” and amendments in 1977 added wetlands that are adjacent to other covered waters.  All waters covered by the Act are known as “jurisdictional waters,” and any discharges into such waters require a federal permit.  Defining what waters—particularly what wetlands and small tributaries—are jurisdictional has enormous impact on the Act's environmental and economic reach. Many questions and legal challenges have been raised over the meaning of “waters of the United States,” its relation to the term “navigable waters,” and the Act's implementation by the U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers.  The Supreme Court has a long history of decisions on these questions.  Here are short accounts of five important Court decisions, including the most recent one, affecting the Act's jurisdiction. 1.  The 1870 Daniel Ball decision held that “navigable waters of the United States” are those that support commerce between states or with foreign countries.  Later Supreme Court cases expanded that test to include waters that formerly supported, or could support, such commerce. 2.  The 1985 Riverside Bayview decision affirmed that the Act covered wetlands adjacent to other “waters of the United States.” 3.  The 2001 SWANCC decision held that the Act did not cover wetlands solely on the basis of their use by migratory birds. 4.  In the complicated 2006 Rapanos decision, a plurality opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that the Act covers only relatively permanent water bodies that form recognizable geographical features, plus wetlands only if they have a “continuous surface connection” to other covered waters.  Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion held that wetlands were covered if they have a quote, “significant nexus,” unquote, to conditions in other covered waters. And 5.  The 2023 Sackett decision returned to the Scalia opinion of 2006, while dismissing Justice Kennedy's “significant nexus” test.  So the Court now holds that the Act covers only, quote, “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing water bodies, forming geographical features…described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes,” unquote;  plus wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to such water bodies.  This removes many previously regulated wetlands from the Act's jurisdiction.  While the Sackett decision focused particularly on wetlands, the new test articulated in the decision may have impacts as well for small streams that do not flow year-round. Through amendments, executive orders, agency actions, and litigation, defining the reach of the Clean Water Act has been a long, meandering story.  It's probably safe to say that more turns await. Thanks to Chamomile and Whiskey for permission to use “Driving Rain.”  We close with some more music, this time from Wake Up Robin, with musicians from California, New York, North Carolina, New York, and Washington.  The song's watery title recalls debates over what water bodies are, so to speak, enough like navigable waters to be covered by the Clean Water Act.  Here's about 20 seconds of “Like a River.” MUSIC – ~19 sec – instrumental. SHIP'S BELL Virginia Water Radio is produced by the Virginia Water Resources Research Center, part of Virginia Tech's College of Natural Resources and Environment.  For more Virginia water sounds, music, or information, visit us online at virginiawaterradio.org, or call the Water Center at (540) 231-5624.  Thanks to Stewart Scales for his banjo version of “Cripple Creek” to open and close this episode.  In Blacksburg, I'm Alan Raflo, thanking you for listening, and wishing you health, wisdom, and good water. AUDIO NOTES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS “Driving Rain,” from the 2012 album “The Barn Sessions,” is copyright by Chamomile and Whiskey and by County Wide Records, used with permission.  More information about Chamomile and Whiskey is available online at http://www.chamomileandwhiskey.com/.  This music was used previously by Virginia Water Radio most recently in Episode 650, 3-6-23. “Like a River,” from the 2018 album “Wake Up Robin,” on Great Bear Records, by the group of the same name, is used with permission of Andrew VanNorstrand.  More information about the album and band is available online at https://wakeuprobin.bandcamp.com, and at https://www.wakeuprobin.com/. Virginia Water Radio thanks Stephen Schoenholtz, Kevin McGuire, and Daniel McLaughlin, all of the Virginia Water Resources Research Center and the Virginia Tech Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, for their help with this episode. Click here if you'd like to hear the full version (1 min./11 sec.) of the “Cripple Creek” arrangement/performance by Stewart Scales that opens and closes this episode.  More information about Mr. Scales and the group New Standard, with which Mr. Scales plays, is available online at http://newstandardbluegrass.com.IMAGES (Photographs are by Virginia Water Radio.) What does the definition of “waters of the United States” say about the following areas? Marsh at Eyre Hall near Cheriton, Virginia (Northampton County), October 6, 2007.Bog near the community of Interior in Giles County, Virginia, October 3, 2009.Wetland-lake complex in the Loup River watershed near Valentine, Nebraska, July 14, 2011.Upper photo: Dry (at the time) seasonal floodplain pond in Heritage Park in Blacksburg, Virginia (Montgomery County), May 27, 2023; lower photo: the same pond in wet conditions three days later, on May 30, 2023. EXTRA INFORMATION ABOUT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE SACKETT v. EPA (2023) The following is quoted from the first page of the Supreme Court's syllabus of the Sackett v. EPA case, decided May 25, 2023; the information was accessed online (from a PDF) at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf, May 29, 2023. SACKETT ET UX . v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL . CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 21–454. Argued October 3, 2022—Decided May 25, 2023 Petitioners Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased property near Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare for building a home.  The Environmental Protection Agency informed the Sacketts that their property contained wetlands and that their backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7).  The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day.  The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts' lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake.  The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.” The District Court entered summary judgment for the EPA.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the CWA covers wetlands with an ecologically significant nexus to traditional navigable waters and that the Sacketts' wetlands satisfy that standard. Held: The CWA's use of “waters” in §1362(7) refers only to “geographic[al] features that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes' ” and to adjacent wetlands that are “indistinguishable” from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection.  Rapanos v. United States, 547 U. S. 715, 755, 742, 739 (plurality opinion).  To assert jurisdiction over an adjacent wetland under the CWA, a party must establish “first, that the adjacent [body of water constitutes] . . . ‘water[s] of the United States' (i.e., a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters); and second, that the wetland has a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the ‘water' ends and the ‘wetland' begins.”  Ibid. Pp. 6–28. SOURCES USED FOR AUDIO AND OFFERING MORE INFORMATION Justia Company, “U.S. Supreme Court/The Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. 557 (1870), online at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/77/557/. Justia Company, “U.S. Supreme Court/United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985), online at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/474/121/.Justia Company, “U.S. Supreme Court/Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001),” online at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/159/. Justia Company, “U.S. Supreme Court/Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006),” online at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/715/. Justia Company, “U.S. Supreme Court/Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. ___ (2023),” online at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/598/21-454/. John Krunzel and Andrew Chung, “US Supreme Court rules against EPA in wetlands regulation challenge,” Reuters, May 25, 2023. Adam Liptak, “Supreme Court Limits E.P.A.'s Power to Address Water Pollution,” New York Times, May 25, 2023. John Lowenthal, “Summary on Sackett v. US EPA,” Society of Wetland Scientists [McLean, Va.], e-mail message sent May 26, 2023. Supreme Court of the United States, No. 21-454, Michael Sackett, et ux., Petitioners, v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., May 25, 2023.  Cited as 598 U.S.__(2023).  The case was argued October 3, 2022.  The opinions (majority plus two concurring) are available online (as a PDF) at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf. Nina Totenberg, “The Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act.” NPR, May 25, 2023. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):“EPA and Army Finalize Rule Establishing Definition of WOTUS and Restoring Fundamental Water Protections,” December 30, 2022, news release.“Revising the Definition of ‘Waters of the United States': Final Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States',” online at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-def

McConnell Center welcomes Professor Jeffery Pojanowski to discuss Constitutional Interpretation and the Classical Legal Tradition. Jeff Pojanowski joined the faculty and community of Notre Dame Law School in 2010 and was promoted to full professor in 2015. He teaches and writes in the areas of administrative law, jurisprudence, legal interpretation, and torts. He has published work in the Georgetown Law Journal, Harvard Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal, among other publications. He serves as co-editor of The American Journal of Jurisprudence. Pojanowski earned his A.B. in Public Policy with highest honors from Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 2004, where he was Articles Co-Chair for the Harvard Law Review. After law school, he served as a law clerk to then-Judge John Roberts on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then to Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court of the United States. He then practiced law with Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C., where he specialized in appellate litigation and administrative-law matters. Important Links More about Jeff Pojanowski Stay Connected Visit us at McConnellcenter.org Subscribe to our newsletter  Facebook: @mcconnellcenter Instagram: @ulmcenter  Twitter: @ULmCenter This podcast is a production of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. Views expressed in this show are those of the participants and not necessarily those of the McConnell Center.  

Michael is a law professor and scholar of U.S. constitutional law. He is the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell Law School. In addition to constitutional law, Michael has taught courses in civil procedure and federal courts. He has written/co-written/edited six books, including Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights (co-written with his wife, Sherry Colb), as well as scores of law review articles about American constitutional law. He is also a columnist for Verdict. Michael is a former law clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Michael has appeared in American news media as a legal expert and has been interviewed by and/or quoted in, for example, The New York Times, CNN, National Public Radio and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (another suspected sentientist). In Sentientist Conversations we talk about the two most important questions: “what's real?” & “who matters?” Sentientism is "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings." The video of our conversation is here on YouTube. We discuss: 00:00 Welcome 02:02 Michael's Intro - Studying physics, then the law - Clerking then legal scholarship - Blogging @ Dorf On Law - #vegan since 2006 - Animal work in partnership with Mike's wife, Sherry Kolb "we agreed on nearly everything, but not quite everything" 04:44 What's Real? - Growing up in New York, raised #jewish "but mostly culturally" - "My father never went to synagogue unless it was somebody's wedding... he was not at all religious but he was the most ethical person I knew" - "Religion is not necessary and certainly... not sufficient to make someone an ethical person" - "That personal aspect... overshadowed anything I was being taught" - Dad's library: "the answers that the religious folks were giving to deep philosophical questions... barely scratched the surface... whereas if I went into my dad's study... Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy"... Lao Tse..." - Teaching: "what I really value is engagement with hard questions" - "The sorts of answers that religion gives stop asking the questions just when they become interesting... god made the world... god thus commanded it... it leaves lots of further questions unasked" - "Nearly all of the spiritual or supernatural beliefs I've encountered, whether religious or otherwise, strike me as ridiculous" - "If that happens [god appearing] then I'll adjust my views... but that will be in response to evidence... that itself would be a kind of naturalism." ...and much more. Full show notes at Sentientism.info. Sentientism is “Evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings.” More at Sentientism.info. Join our "I'm a Sentientist" wall via this simple form. Everyone, Sentientist or not, is welcome in our groups. The biggest so far is here on FaceBook. Come join us there!

Last week, I watched a particular ‘80s movie for the first time in years, and I had forgotten how much I felt it was largely underwhelming, even overrated, despite its standing as a niche favorite. Without naming the movie, I casually mentioned this in a group chat with a bunch of girlfriends, and they started guessing titles. Half an hour and dozens of guesses later, no one had landed on it, and being the curious goddess I am, I went to Twitter to see how fast it would take for someone to figure out.No one did. At least not initially.And it is a fascinating activity on perspective!For example, I didn't anticipate the sheer number of guessers who apparently believe that flicks like “Ferris Bueller's Day Off” and “The Princess Bride” have a niche fan base.(For those wholly unfamiliar with American Cinema, neither of these movies would ever be described as anything other than universally beloved.)Eventually, someone did guess the correct movie, but because I enjoy occasionally torturing the online masses with very low stakes nonsense like this, I decided to make it interesting.I could practically hear the groans, but much to my surprise, folks began responding in earnest, both donating to LPAC's non-profit research arm and making persuasive arguments for certain films and/or urgent moral pleadings to spare their own beloved ‘80s flick.The always charming Jon Cryer, beloved actor and ‘80s icon, among many other things, poked in to see if it's “Pretty in Pink” (1986). My friend Meredith Salenger—beloved writer, producer, and actress—had her own guess: “Dream a Little Dream” (1989).The brilliant Yvette Nicole Brown, unsatisfied with mere guessing, offered a loving warning that it better not be one of her faves.Amid the celebrity guesses were hundreds of responses that ranged from the patently absurd (“Purple Rain”? Who would ever describe that as less-than-great?) to the intriguing but ultimately incorrect (“Grease 2”).Over the past week, I've occasionally trotted out a range of clues, some of them intended to be helpful but most simply thrown out there for my own amusement at the expense of those playing. Because I am sometimes a cruel queen.Here are the list of clues, in order of my tweeting them over the past week:* ‘80s movie that probably has a niche fan base* I just don't think it's that good* theme: a young person confronting societal pressure * based in high school* Rotten Tomatoes score of more than 50% but less than 90%* one of the leads has been nominated for a Saturn Award for acting during their career* the entire cast was named TIME's Person of the Year in 2006* it was not directed or produced by Steven Spielberg* it was distributed by Paramount* one of the actors cast in this movie was also cast in “Jerry Maguire”* the year this film was released, the San Francisco 49ers made the playoffs (LOL)* released in theaters prior to former Justice Anthony Kennedy beginning his tenure on the Supreme Court* one of the actors who was cast in this movie is well-known for their exceptional voiceover work* released before Jon Bovi's signature hit “Livin' On a Prayer” reached #1 on the Billboard Hot 100* released before Ronald Reagan gave a nationally-televised address kinda sorta hinting at his role in the Iran-Contra scandal but ultimately denying any substantial wrongdoingSo, the clues quickly escalated from amusing to outlandish, and I will admit that I've quite enjoyed veering them between unhelpfully broad and tantalizingly specific.That said, incredibly, we've raised more than $5,000 for LPAC. We're already more than halfway there. I have written a review of the movie, which no one has yet seen, and once this dorky little fundraiser of mine for queer women in politics reaches $10k, I'll be sending it out to all of you.Anyone who donates at least $50 can email me the receipt (cmclymer@gmail.com), and I will follow you back on Twitter.Additionally, the first five people who guessed the movie correctly will receive a personal phone call from me congratulating them on their excellent deductive reasoning.Hey, it's for a good cause! I like seeing queer women get elected, and LPAC has done a phenomenal job of that. So, please make a donation, and in the meantime, I'll leave you with one final clue: this movie reveal and accompanying review are guaranteed to break a few hearts.Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Hi, I'm Charlotte Clymer, and this is Charlotte's Web Thoughts, my Substack. It's completely free to access and read, but it's also how my bills! So, please do kindly consider upgrading to a paid subscription: just $7/month or save money with the $70/annual sub. You can also go way above and beyond by becoming a Lifetime Member at $250. Get full access to Charlotte's Web Thoughts at charlotteclymer.substack.com/subscribe

Wednesday, November 30, 2022: Police have confirmed that live-in boyfriend Anthony Kennedy was arrested for the murder of Adrianna Taylor who was found buried in Pennsylvania. Plus, learn what we know about a body found decomposing in a Cleveland Heights basement, where to find the sentencing for Adarus Black for the murder of Na'Kia Crawford, what the daughter of killed Cleveland firefighter Johnny Tetrick asked the judge for in the arraignment of Leander Bissell today, hear 911 audio from a road rage incident where a man shot into a mother's pickup truck while she was driving with her two young children in the back, what the A Christmas Story house owner is saying today after continued criticism of his outburst with an actor from the movie, and more on 3News Daily with Stephanie Haney. Connect with Stephanie Haney here: http://twitter.com/_StephanieHaney http://instagram.com/_StephanieHaney http://facebook.com/thestephaniehaney Read more here: Arrest warrant issued for Cleveland man after girlfriend's body was found buried in Pennsylvania backyard https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/crime/cleveland-man-charged-murdering-girlfriend-body-found-pennsylvania/95-251a90bb-9506-41f8-928e-5979a7d7f7fd Body found in Cleveland Heights basement https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/cuyahoga-county/body-found-cleveland-heights-basement-noble-road/95-c437f640-8e5a-4806-ac42-1fc91edab787 Daughter of Cleveland firefighter Johnny Tetrick speaks in court during suspect's arraignment in deadly hit-and-run incident https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/crime/leander-bissell-court-hearing-cleveland-firefighter-johnny-tetrick-death/95-c2de4b68-d0f3-4802-9ae3-9f9c0dd1e54e 'I'm just trying to get home': 911 audio released after Lake County road rage incident https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/crime/911-audio-released-lake-county-road-rage-incident-i-90/95-b1f808f7-8d4c-4de5-ad38-8f59def85dc7 ‘Everyone is human': Read the post from 'A Christmas Story' House after video shows confrontation between owner Brian Jones and actor Yano Anaya https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/cleveland/a-christmas-story-house-confrontation-video-owner-brian-jones-actor-yano-anaya-grover-dill-cleveland-property-sale-tmz/95-c3040531-b712-435e-86ff-edc24bc8cc6e

The namesake of the lecture—the eminent jurist Joseph Story—became the youngest Associate Justice ever to serve on the United States Supreme Court when he was appointed by President Madison in 1812. Story made a significant mark on American law in his thirty-three years on the bench, but his greatest contribution to jurisprudence is his renowned Commentaries on the Constitution, in which he set forth a philosophy of judicial restraint. This lecture series celebrates his legacy.Previous Joseph Story Lectures have been delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Anthony Kennedy, then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Judge Robert Bork, Professor John Harrison, Judge A. Raymond Randolph, Judge Alice Batchelder, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, Judge Carlos Bea, Senator Orrin Hatch, Judge Edith Jones, Former Attorney General Ed Meese, and Judge William Pryor. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, the Reality Czars are joined by the great Captain Anthony Kennedy! He is one of my favorite follows on IG, always interesting and thought-provoking. Anthony is a retired army captain, a social worker, and therapist. He has devoted his life to working with veterans suffering from PTSD and to the study of UFO's. We go deep into UFO phenomena, orbs, and what Anthony decribes as the return of the devine feminine. We discuss Native American beliefs, the Bledsoe family, the connections with ancient and current religions, and so much more! You're not going to want to miss this one! https://linktr.ee/AnthonyRossKennedy https://altmediaunited.com/reality-czars/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/realityczars/support

Regular listeners to the weekly Breakpoint This Week podcast know that my co-host Maria and I are fans of the reality competition show Alone. Ten wilderness experts are dropped in the middle of nowhere, usually a place that is cold and full of bears, forced to fend for themselves. Whoever stays the longest wins.   In the latest season, a military veteran with strong survival skills and extensive experience overseas seemed poised to win. Instead, he called it quits just a few weeks in. In an interview afterwards, he explained, “When I was in the military and separated from family, I didn't have a choice. Out here... I had that opportunity to get on the radio or the phone and say, ‘Hey, I'm going to go back to where I'm comfortable.'” In other words, having the choice to go home made staying much harder.  According to conventional wisdom, at least the kind accepted in this cultural moment, the opposite should have been true. More control and more choices are supposed to bring easier and more satisfying lives.  That misconception is, in fact, a feature of life since modernism. For most of human history, humans held no illusions of being masters of their own fate. Writing back in 1976, American sociologist Peter Berger identified what changed, especially for Westerners. Because of the dramatic progress brought by science and technology, humans in the modern period began to believe that the world would eventually be fully understood. And if understood, it could also be mastered, as well.  “What previously was experienced as fate now becomes an arena of choices,” Berger wrote. “In principle, there is the assumption that all human problems can be converted into technical problems… the world becomes ever more ‘makeable.'”  A mark of our late postmodern era is the obsession with having choices. The higher the stakes, the more acute is the illusion of freedom. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy described this impulse in his now overturned Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, when he wrote that “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” In his view, the “freedom of choice” extends to even choosing what is real. Is it any wonder that people now believe that choice extends beyond sexual behavior to sexual identity?  However, if happiness truly comes from the control made possible through infinite choices and the ability to “make the world,” why did the military officer competing on Alone find the opposite to be true? Why did his freedom of choice turn out to be too much of a burden? Why do so many studies show that we are less happy than ever?  The postmodern assertion that we can “make the world” exploits a weakness inherent to our fallen humanness and especially acute today. We struggle to delay gratification. We might fool ourselves into thinking that we can, in fact, define our existence or choose our gender. We may think our decision about whether to stay married or whether to bring an unborn child to birth is based on deep reflections. However, because we can, we tend to choose comfort now at the expense of flourishing later. If we have the option, we call the producers and tap out.   Justice Kennedy was wrong. No matter how many choices we have, we cannot remake the world. Everywhere we turn, we butt up against the limits of creation. According to a Christian worldview, this is actually good news. God created the world with limits: physical and moral laws, bodies, certain geographic locations and times in history, and not other ones. He gives us specific parents and siblings and children, whose specific needs constantly impose limits on our choices.   Even if, in modernity and postmodernity, such limits are anathema, to be resisted and fought against with all the science and technology we can muster, true freedom is found by recognizing and resting in God's good limits, both physical and moral. If God is good, then the limits He imposes are not burdens. They're blessings.

New York State Bar Association General Counsel David Miranda hosts a lively roundtable with political strategist Liz Benjamin and constitutional law professor Vin Bonventre. They discuss the swing to the right of the US Supreme Court through its rulings handed down in the Spring of 2022.  Rulings on reproductive rights, gun rights and religious rights were just three of several issued the court decided this term. Liz Benjamin says no one should be surprised that the court moved to the political right. "They have been chomping at the bit for years to do this. This is exactly what conservatives, I will say in their brilliance, have always played the long game. The conservatives have been playing chess while the democrats or liberals play checkers." Professor Bonventre says a Justices may change over time and it's a move we have seen before.  "The same thing that happened to Sandra Day O'Conner and Anthony Kennedy has already happened with the Chief Justice pushing him over to the left. I think the same thing's going to happen to Kavanaugh, maybe also to Amy Coney Barrett." Join us for this lively discussion each month on Miranda Warnings: Roundtable.  

In the 2015 majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, a decision that overruled laws in dozens of states and imposed same sex “marriage” on the United States, Justice Anthony Kennedy rightly described marriage as an institution that is fundamental to society, that protects and ensures the well-being of children, and that is essential for a flourishing society. To withhold this institution from same-sex couples, Kennedy then wrongly concluded, would be to violate their dignity and disrespect their autonomy, especially the autonomy reflected in their intimate unions. What went missing in this opinion was a definition of what marriage is, and therefore why it is such an irreplaceable institution.  In the end, Kennedy's decision failed in the same way that Matt Walsh's new documentary What Is a Woman? reveals that transgender ideology fails. Repeatedly, advocates Walsh interviewed echoed the same refrain, that a woman is “anyone who identifies as a woman.” However, when pressed further and asked, “but what are they identifying as?” they had no answer. In the same way, under Kennedy's reasoning, any relational arrangement we identify as marriage is marriage and warrants being included in the institution, even if it lacks the necessary ingredients that make marriage what it is. It is like saying, “The Rockefellers are rich, so I'm going to change my name to Rockefeller so I can be rich.”   Of course, this is not how reality works. Instead, Kennedy resorts to identifying marriage as an ever-evolving institution. In other words, marriage is not baked into reality like gravity. Instead, it is more like a speed limit, a social construct that changes as society changes.  If marriage is indeed just a product of abstract progress, untethered from any created intent or design, it suffers the same moral quandary as naturalistic evolution. There is no way to control what creature comes next, or to know, as Justice Kennedy assured us, that what followed would be better than what came before (or even if it will be good). There is no guarantee that marriage will remain an institution fundamental to society, that protects and ensures the well-being of children and contributes to human flourishing.  In fact, since Obergefell was decided, the rights of children to know their mom and dad, and to have their minds, bodies, futures, and most important relationships protected, have been replaced by the rights of adults to pursue their own desires and happiness. Justice Kennedy, it seems, has gotten his wish. Marriage has indeed evolved, or at least our conception of it has, but not for the better. Throughout human history, marriage was understood, including in law, to be a sexually complementary union, ordered toward procreation. No-fault divorce and now more fully same-sex “marriage” redefined it as an institution ordered only toward the vagaries of adult happiness.  Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives proposed the wrongly named “Respect for Marriage Act.” If it passes the Senate, this bill will result in a further stage of the legal evolution of marriage. When Obergefell was decided, the “T” had not yet taken over the ever-growing acronym of sexual identity preferences. The Respect for Marriage Act would not only encode Obergefell, but it would also further the reinvention of marriage in law. In effect, marriage would evolve into a genderless institution, not only unbound from its essential connection to children and sexual difference but to any embodied realities whatsoever. In other words, there would be no legal obstacle to extending marriage beyond couples to relationships consisting of multiple partners.   Even worse, redefining marriage not only redefines the definition of “spouse” but also “parent.” Parenting should be a sacrificial investment in future generations, but redefining marriage in this way has made it a self-determined right of getting “what we want.” Children have always borne the brunt of the worst ideas of the sexual revolution, especially when combined with new reproductive technologies. Rather than the fruit of a loving union, children are now increasingly treated as products of casually partnered consumers.  Further, if the Respect for Marriage Act becomes law, the worst parts of the Obergefell decision would be established in law in a way that abortion was not under Roe v. Wade. Like Roe, Obergefell was an act of judicial overreach. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent, “[T]his Court is not a legislature…. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be…. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as constitutional law…. The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment.”   In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy claimed that the decision would not affect people of conscience, especially “religious institutions and people.” That has proven to be flatly wrong. The Respect for Marriage Act contains no conscience protections.  Despite their party platform which claims a commitment to Constitutional originalism and religious freedom, this bill could find support from 10 Republican Senators. If it does, it will pass the Senate and become law. Please, if you live in a state with a Republican Senator who has not indicated he or she will oppose this bill, contact them today and tell them to do so. 

27 de junio | Nueva YorkLeer esta newsletter te llevará 12 minutos y 54 segundos.📬 Mantente informado con nuestras columnas de actualidad diarias. Tienes un ejemplo en este boletín que enviamos el pasado miércoles sobre la victoria de Gustavo Petro en Colombia. Puedes suscribirte a través de este enlace:No todas nadan bien. Bienvenido a La Wikly.⚖️ Una amenaza realLo importante: el Tribunal Supremo estadounidense puso fin este pasado viernes al derecho constitucional al aborto al anular un par de sentencias previas de la Corte, sacudiendo a millones de estadounidenses que creen que este es solo el primero de más retrocesos.La decisión Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health amenaza con poner peligro otros derechos reconocidos por el tribunal, incluidos aquellos que protegen las libertades que la comunidad LGBTQ ha conquistado en las últimas décadas.Contexto: el Tribunal Supremo está ahora mismo formado por seis jueces conservadores y tres progresistas, lo que desequilibra la balanza de forma trascendental y abre la veda a que la mayoría conservadora atente contra derechos que se creían asegurados.La composición actual de la Corte es algo en lo que el movimiento judicial conservador de Estados Unidos lleva luchando desde hace décadas. Emilio repasó la historia de ese proceso en un artículo para Newtral.Explícamelo: la base argumentativa de la sentencia que el Supremo publicó este viernes se puede leer en decisiones judiciales del Supremo que se remontan a mediados del siglo XX. Si ha caído el aborto, otros derechos fijados por la Corte hace años podrían estar ahora en peligro.En esta newsletter, explicamos cuál es la base argumentativa que reconoció el derecho al aborto, por qué es controvertida y qué implica que la mayoría conservadora actual del tribunal haya arremetido contra ella de forma tan contundente.📜 El quid constitucionalLa sentencia Roe v. Wade de 1973 es parte de una serie de decisiones del Supremo que interpretaban la Constitución de una forma desconocida en los primeros 100 años de historia de Estados Unidos. Y todo tiene que ver con un extracto de la Sección Primera de la Decimocuarta Enmienda de su Constitución:“Ningún estado podrá […] privar a una persona de su vida, libertad o propiedad, sin un debido proceso legal”.La Decimocuarta Enmienda es una de llamadas Enmiendas de la Reconstrucción aprobadas tras el final de la Guerra Civil que enfrentó a los Estados Confederados que defendían la Esclavitud contra la Unión que encabezaba el gobierno federal.El objetivo de la Enmienda era proteger los derechos de los antiguos esclavos. Tanto su ratificación como la interpretación que los tribunales han hecho de sus cláusulas ha sido motivo de debates constitucionales profundamente controvertidos.En particular, la llamada Cláusula del Debido Proceso que hemos detallado arriba se ha litigado de forma constante en el último siglo de historia. Y todo tiene que ver con los derechos que la cláusula garantiza en todos los estados del país, según un análisis del Constitution Center:Protecciones procesales. Por ejemplo, requieren que el estado notifique acordemente a un ciudadano si va a dejar de percibir un seguro médico público y que facilite una audiencia en la que ese ciudadano pueda argumentar por qué debe seguir recibiendo ese seguro.Derechos individuales listados en la Carta de Derechos como la libertad de expresión, la libertad de religión o la libertad de prensa.Derechos fundamentales que no están específicamente enumerados en otras partes de la Constitución, incluidos el derecho al matrimonio, el derecho al uso de anticonceptivos o, hasta este pasado viernes, el derecho al aborto.La Quinta Enmienda ya protegía esos derechos, pero solo aplicaba contra el gobierno federal, con lo que los estados podían seguir vulnerándolos tal y como ocurría con la Esclavitud. La Decimocuarta incorporaba esos derechos contra los estados.Eso incluía los derechos protegidos bajo el debido proceso sustantivo, la categoría en la que se enmarcan los derechos no enumerados en la Constitución.Y cabe señalar que la Novena Enmienda sugiere que los derechos enumerados en la Constitución no niegan “otros retenidos por el pueblo”.La base de la controversia de ese debido proceso sustantivo es que los jueces de la Corte pueden concluir que un derecho emana de la Constitución pese a que no esté específicamente mencionado en el texto. Es de ahí que algunas de las decisiones más polémica del Supremo basen parte de su argumentación en ello:En Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), la Corte anuló las prohibiciones al uso de anticonceptivos en los estados porque entendía que estaban vulnerando el derecho a la privacidad de las parejas.El Supremo determinó que ese derecho no estaba explícitamente mencionado en la Constitución, pero que podía inferirse de otros derechos como el de reunión, protegido en la Primera Enmienda; el de acuartelar soldados en tiempos de paz, protegido por la Tercera; y el de ser libre de registros irrazonables del hogar, protegido por la Cuarta.En las décadas posteriores, el Supremo también usó en parte el debido proceso sustantivo para proteger el derecho al matrimonio entre parejas interraciales (1967), el derecho a que personas no casadas usaran métodos anticonceptivos (1972), el derecho al aborto (1973), el derecho a mantener conductas sexuales íntimas (2003) y el derecho al matrimonio para parejas del mismo sexo (2015).🏛 Una corte conservadoraEl reciente fallo de Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health no solo deja de reconocer el aborto como un derecho constitucional, sino que también abre la puerta a cambios en la forma en que la Corte Suprema venía interpretando la Cláusula del Debido Proceso de la Decimocuarta Enmienda.Hasta ahora, el debido proceso sustantivo era interpretado como la garantía de protección constitucional a derechos que no necesariamente están explícitos en la Constitución o que son estrictamente procesales.En la opinión mayoritaria de la Corte, el juez Samuel Alito escribe que “nada en esta opinión debe entenderse como que pone en duda los precedentes que no tienen que ver con el aborto”. Sin embargo, el razonamiento legal que esgrime la mayoría para revocar Roe v. Wade y Planned Parenthood v. Casey podría aplicarse a otros fallos.El principal argumento de Alito es que no existe una protección constitucional explícita para el derecho al aborto, y que cualquier derecho no enumerado explícitamente en la Constitución debe estar “profundamente arraigado en la historia y tradición de esta nación” y estar “implícito en el concepto de libertad ordenada” para poder acogerse al amparo constitucional.Los requisitos de este método, que a menudo se conoce como la prueba Glucksberg por el fallo Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), impiden inferir la constitucionalidad del derecho al aborto.Ante este razonamiento, el juez Clarence Thomas advirtió en una opinión concurrente del fallo que, bajo ese razonamiento, el derecho al aborto no es el único que ha sido mal protegido. Fallos como Lawrence v. Texas (2003), que ampara constitucionalmente la libertad de personas del mismo sexo a mantener relaciones sexuales consentidas, serían susceptibles de revocación.“En casos futuros, debemos reconsiderar todos los precedentes sustantivos del debido proceso de este Tribunal, incluidos Griswold, Lawrence y Obergefell. Debido a que cualquier decisión enmarcada en el debido proceso sustantivo es “evidentemente errónea”, tenemos el deber de “corregir el error” establecido en esos precedentes”, dice un pasaje de la concurrencia de Thomas.Aunque el razonamiento del juez Thomas es mucho más extremo que el de la mayoría de los jueces, su lógica muestra que es difícil marcar el límite en los derechos que revierte este fallo cuando estos se encuentran conectados por la misma lógica de interpretación. Este es, a la vez, uno de los argumentos que esgrime la minoría liberal de la Corte, disidente del fallo.“No fue hasta Roe, argumenta la mayoría, que la gente pensó que el aborto estaba dentro de la garantía de libertad de la Constitución. Sin embargo, lo mismo podría decirse de la mayoría de los derechos que la mayoría afirma que no está manipulando. La mayoría podría escribir una opinión igual de larga mostrando, por ejemplo, que hasta mediados del siglo XX, “no había apoyo en la ley estadounidense para un derecho constitucional a obtener [anticonceptivos]”. Así que una de las dos cosas debe ser cierta. O bien la mayoría no cree realmente en su propio razonamiento. O si lo hace, todos los derechos que no tienen una historia que se remonta a mediados del siglo XIX son inseguros. O la mayor parte de la opinión de la mayoría es hipocresía, o los derechos constitucionales adicionales están bajo amenaza”, declaran en conjunto los jueces progresistas Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer y Sonia Sotomayor.🧑‍⚖️ Base de arenaDurante muchos años, el juez Anthony Kennedy fue la figura fundamental en la lucha legal por la igualdad de los homosexuales. En Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) y United States v. Windsor (2013), la Corte sostuvo que el gobierno federal debe reconocer los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo.Ambas fueron decisiones 5-4 escritas por Kennedy, como resultado de su incómoda alianza con los cuatro jueces liberales.En ese tipo de casos, cuando las opiniones están muy divididas, a menudo se asigna la redacción de la sentencia mayoritaria al juez más indeciso. Sigue la teoría de que es poco probable que dicho juez cambie su voto si puede adaptar la opinión de la mayoría a sus propios puntos de vista.El resultado es que las argumentaciones que esgrimió Kennedy para la defensa de estos derechos no son muy sólidas. Ignoran doctrinas que podrían haber fundamentado una prohibición de discriminación por motivos de orientación sexual y se centran en defender que son derechos constitucionales no enumerados amparados por la doctrina del debido proceso sustantivo.Algo que, como vimos con Roe v. Wade, deja al fallo más vulnerable a ser anulado por una mayoría conservadora dedicada.El fallo Dobbs de Alito y su confianza exclusiva en el marco de Glucksberg para determinar qué derechos no enumerados están protegidos por la Constitución puede interpretarse como una estrategia del juez a largo plazo. Es decir, podría estar usando una terminología jurídica que pueda usarse para justificar otra victoria conservadora en el futuro.A esto se suma que Alito protagonizó una de las opiniones contrarias al fallo de Obergefell que reconocía el derecho al matrimonio homosexual.Con aquella argumentación, demostró su nivel de desdén por los derechos LGBTIQ+ con una elección retórica que lo apartó incluso de varios de sus compañeros jueces conservadores.La decisión de Obergefell “se utilizará para vilipendiar a los estadounidenses” que creen que las parejas del mismo sexo no merecen los mismos derechos y las personas que expresan puntos de vista anti-LGBTQ “correrán el riesgo de ser etiquetadas como intolerantes”, sostuvo Alito.¿Entiendes ahora el miedo de la comunidad LGBTQ+ a perder derechos?¿Desea saber más? Los artículos del Constitution Center sobre la Decimocuarta Enmienda son muy esclarecedores. Y los análisis judiciales de SCOTUSblog sobre las sentencias del Supremo son al mismo tiempo profundas pero fáciles de leer para no-expertos.🎬 Una recomendaciónCon la colaboración de FilminBy Emilio Doménech120 pulsaciones por minuto es una película francesa de 2017 dirigida por Robin Campillo. Cuenta la historia de un grupo de activistas galos a primeros de los 90 en su lucha por reivindicar los derechos LGBTQ en el contexto de la epidemia del SIDA.La película ganó el Gran Premio del Jurado y el premios FIPRESCI de la crítica en el Festival de Cannes de su año. Acabaría arrasando en los Premios César franceses con seis galardones entre los que se incluyeron Mejor Película, Mejor Actor de Reparto y Mejor Guion Original.Campillo logra una pieza que se siente a la vez informativa, pedagógica y profundamente emocional. Porque pese a retratar el día a día del activismo, con reuniones y debates ideológicos que a priori pueden resultar poco atractivos para el espectador, en realidad el filme hace un trabajo fantástico equilibrando dosis de intensidad dramática con episodios de exploración temática que inspiran por su lucidez.Cero sorpresas con que Campillo se llevara el premio al Mejor Montaje en los César, pues la labor de edición es el logro más incontestable del filme.Campillo era editor antes de ser director. Y también fue el guionista de una película con la que 120 pulsaciones por minuto comparte esa facilidad para convertir conversaciones con sustancia informativa, histórica y discursiva en diálogos que también tienen peso dramático: la extraordinaria La clase, de Laurent Cantet, ganadora de la Palma de Oro en Cannes en 2008.En una era en la que la comunidad LGBTQ+ en países como Estados Unidos teme por sufrir un retroceso en materia de derechos, largometrajes como el de Campillo ilustran lo difícil que fue luchar por conseguirlos.Y en la historia de los personajes de 120 pulsaciones por minuto están también la de otras tantas miles de personas que reivindicaron su igualdad en tiempos bastante más oscuros, pues la película muestra los coletazos más duros del SIDA.120 pulsaciones por minuto está disponible en Filmin.🥊 Otro récord de IbaiBy Marina EnrichLo importante: Ibai organizó este pasado sábado La velada del año 2, una noche dedicada al boxeo y a la música en el Palau Olímpic de Badalona (Barcelona) en la que varios streamers combatieron entre sí. Ah, y David Bustamante, también.La clave. Ibai logró el récord histórico de 3,3 millones de espectadores simultáneos en el stream (2,4 millones de media). El récord anterior lo tenía TheGrefg, otro streamer español, con un pico de 2,5 millones de espectadores cuando presentó su skin de Fortnite (un ‘look’ que había diseñado para el juego online).Ten en mente que el minuto de oro en la televisión española el pasado viernes se lo llevó Pasapalabra con 2,7 millones de espectadores, mientra que la Voz Kids congregó una media de 1,3 millones de espectadores durante la noche.Los highlights.Ibai anunciando dos días antes la escaleta del evento vía Twitch usando Paint. Ni comunicados de prensa, ni publicaciones estándares para sus seguidores. Lo que nos gusta.Las actuaciones de Bizarrap, Nicki Nicole, Duki o Rels B. Puedes verlas aquí.La asistencia de AuronPlay o ElRubius, sobre todo porque nunca suelen ir a este tipo de eventos.

In this episode, hear from special guest Anthony Kennedy Shriver, Founder and Chairman of Best Buddies International, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that strives to end the social, physical, and economic isolation of the millions of people around the world with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Listen as he discusses his personal journey that led to […] The post Becoming Best Buddies – with Anthony Kennedy Shriver appeared first on PLAN of MA and RI.

In this episode, hear from special guest Anthony Kennedy Shriver, Founder and Chairman of Best Buddies International, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that strives to end the social, physical, and economic isolation of the millions of people around the world with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Listen as he discusses his personal journey that led to the founding of this wonderful organization! https://www.bestbuddies.org/   The post Becoming Best Buddies – with Anthony Kennedy Shriver appeared first on PLAN of MA and RI.

In this episode, hear from special guest Anthony Kennedy Shriver, Founder and Chairman of Best Buddies International, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that strives to end the social, physical, and economic […] The post Becoming Best Buddies – with Anthony Kennedy Shriver appeared first on PLAN of MA and RI.

In this Episode: Dave and Travis talk about how to deal with all of what happens in the world and how we need each other. “Thunder Monkey” and “And Another Thing with Dave” talk about: Russia, China, and India form an economic and military alliance. Saudi Arabia talks about the sale of Oil in the Yuan while Russia makes plans to make the Rubal the Gold Standard Currency. It's a heavy 1, 2, PUNCH to the Petro Dollar and the Global American Empire. All this and more! Brought to you straight from The Thunder Monkey and Another Thing with Dave! You're not gonna wanna miss this! America has been in decline since the 70's. Wages have been stagnant. Corporate profits have gone through the roof. C.E.O's pay has skyrocketed. America is unraveling. We don't hate this country, but there's lots of room for improvement, right? There is some new News coming down the pipeline. Kim Iversen of The Hill reported on how China, Russia, and India have announced that they are forming an alliance called "The Sides" • "The Sides" are forming a military and economic alliance and refusing to be pushed around by NATO and the US. o This sounds a lot like Casus Belli or Casus Foederis • China has started negotiations with Saudi Arabia regarding selling oil in the Yuan. Meanwhile Russia's economy has completely recovered and they are seeking to buy up as much precious metals as they can in hopes to soon become the new gold standard. o The only thing backing the US Dollar is your faith in it. The Supply Chain crisis is still going on, but is it manufactured? Dave and Economist Richard Wolf believe it is manufactured to artificially decrease the supply so that the demand price will be forced to rise. Travis takes a differing opinion and gives his account on how this is a crisis spiraling out of control and compounding on itself. With the supply chain fracturing to bits, why is the US not providing for itself? We are the largest importers of goods in the world. Russia and Ukraine are the world's largest exporter of fertilizer and wheat. We have the ability to store massive amounts of fresh farm food, that is I'm excess from an abundant crop yield to supplement low yielding years but doing so is a felony in the US. The government wants a fixed price on farm goods and controls the supply to fix a price on the demand. Dave and Travis also discuss how corporations can now donate an unlimited amount of money to political organizations thanks to Citizens United VS Federal Elections Commission o Anthony Kennedy wrote that "Independent Political Spending" from corporations and other groups violates the 1st amendment right to free speech. The justice who voted with the majority assumed that Independent Spending cannot be corrupt, and that spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect. Corporations are ruled as people and have the rights that people have but they don't live in a community. Corporations don't care about the good of the community like people do. This makes Globalization a bigger problem. People are limited in their giving to Political organizations but Corporations have no limits. "They want you to feel alone. Having dis-ease causes disease." -Dave Smith "What people really seem to not want is… The parts that unite us, the parts that really matter. This is the stuff that people really have to get behind… they don't want you to know there's other people like you. The more we can connect with one another and help each other out… we can start making changes. You have to take a stand and make changes." -Travis Bueche Sources used in this podcast: https://youtu.be/A-te4nwj9Z4 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/andanotherthingwithdave/message

On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Harold Shurtleff, deeming that the city of Boston discriminated against him because of his "religious viewpoint" for seeking to fly a Christian flag outside of City Hall. On this National Day of Prayer, Dr. Jim Denison discusses Justice Anthony Kennedy's flip on abortion, the way Christians sometimes make idols from prayers, and encourages believers to pray for Americans to know God.  Author: Dr. Jim Denison Narrator: Chris Elkins Subscribe: http://www.denisonforum.org/subscribe

In this episode the discussion centers around the California bill in process, AB2223 that some are now suggesting legalizes infanticide as it attempts to protect abortion rights. We fact check that and the ability for this law to even be considered leads back to Justice Anthony Kennedy. Lots to unpack so listen in… Ready to join The Rebellion? Become a patreon member and enjoy some great extras while supporting our efforts to speak the Truth into our culture. Learn more at patreon.com/dreverettpiper. Find more resources and info at dreverettpiper.com

Dave and Travis talk about how to deal with all of what happens in the world and how we need each other. In this Episode: “Thunder Monkey” and “And Another Thing with Dave” talk about: Russia, China, and India form an economic and military alliance. Saudi Arabia talks about the sale of Oil in the Yuan while Russia makes plans to make the Rubal the Gold Standard Currency. It's a heavy 1, 2, PUNCH to the Petro Dollar and the Global American Empire. All this and more! Brought to you straight from The Thunder Monkey and Another Thing with Dave! You're not gonna wanna miss this! America has been in decline since the 70's. Wages have been stagnant. Corporate profits have gone through the roof. C.E.O's pay has skyrocketed. America is unraveling. We don't hate this country, but there's lots of room for improvement, right? ○There is some new News coming down the pipeline. Kim Iversen of The Hill reported on how China, Russia, and India have announced that they are forming an alliance called "The Sides" • "The Sides" are forming a military and economic alliance and refusing to be pushed around by NATO and the US. o This sounds a lot like Casus Belli or Casus Foederis • China has started negotiations with Saudi Arabia regarding selling oil in the Yuan. Meanwhile Russia's economy has completely recovered and they are seeking to buy up as much precious metals as they can in hopes to soon become the new gold standard. o The only thing backing the US Dollar is your faith in it. The Supply Chain crisis is still going on, but is it manufactured? Dave and Economist Richard Wolf believe it is manufactured to artificially decrease the supply so that the demand price will be forced to rise. Travis takes a differing opinion and gives his account on how this is a crisis spiraling out of control and compounding on itself. With the supply chain fracturing to bits, why is the US not providing for itself? We are the largest importers of goods in the world. Russia and Ukraine are the world's largest exporter of fertilizer and wheat. We have the ability to store massive amounts of fresh farm food, that is I'm excess from an abundant crop yield to supplement low yielding years but doing so is a felony in the US. The government wants a fixed price on farm goods and controls the supply to fix a price on the demand. Dave and Travis also discuss how corporations can now donate an unlimited amount of money to political organizations thanks to Citizens United VS Federal Elections Commission o Anthony Kennedy wrote that "Independent Political Spending" from corporations and other groups violates the 1st amendment right to free speech. The justice who voted with the majority assumed that Independent Spending cannot be corrupt, and that spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect. Corporations are ruled as people and have the rights that people have but they don't live in a community. Corporations don't care about the good of the community like people do. This makes Globalization a bigger problem. People are limited in their giving to Political organizations but Corporations have no limits. "They want you to feel alone. Having dis-ease causes disease." -Dave Smith "What people really seem to not want is… The parts that unite us, the parts that really matter. This is the stuff that people really have to get behind… they don't want you to know there's other people like you. The more we can connect with one another and help each other out… we can start making changes. You have to take a stand and make changes." -Travis Bueche Sources used in this podcast: https://youtu.be/A-te4nwj9Z4 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/andanotherthingwithdave/message

Dave and Travis talk about how to deal with all of what happens in the world and how we need each other. In this Episode: “Thunder Monkey” and “And Another Thing with Dave” talk about: Russia, China, and India form an economic and military alliance. Saudi Arabia talks about the sale of Oil in the Yuan while Russia makes plans to make the Rubal the Gold Standard Currency. It's a heavy 1, 2, PUNCH to the Petro Dollar and the Global American Empire. All this and more! Brought to you straight from The Thunder Monkey and Another Thing with Dave! You're not gonna wanna miss this! America has been in decline since the 70's. Wages have been stagnant. Corporate profits have gone through the roof. C.E.O's pay has skyrocketed. America is unraveling. We don't hate this country, but there's lots of room for improvement, right? ○There is some new News coming down the pipeline. Kim Iversen of The Hill reported on how China, Russia, and India have announced that they are forming an alliance called "The Sides" • "The Sides" are forming a military and economic alliance and refusing to be pushed around by NATO and the US. o This sounds a lot like Casus Belli or Casus Foederis • China has started negotiations with Saudi Arabia regarding selling oil in the Yuan. Meanwhile Russia's economy has completely recovered and they are seeking to buy up as much precious metals as they can in hopes to soon become the new gold standard. o The only thing backing the US Dollar is your faith in it. The Supply Chain crisis is still going on, but is it manufactured? Dave and Economist Richard Wolf believe it is manufactured to artificially decrease the supply so that the demand price will be forced to rise. Travis takes a differing opinion and gives his account on how this is a crisis spiraling out of control and compounding on itself. With the supply chain fracturing to bits, why is the US not providing for itself? We are the largest importers of goods in the world. Russia and Ukraine are the world's largest exporter of fertilizer and wheat. We have the ability to store massive amounts of fresh farm food, that is I'm excess from an abundant crop yield to supplement low yielding years but doing so is a felony in the US. The government wants a fixed price on farm goods and controls the supply to fix a price on the demand. Dave and Travis also discuss how corporations can now donate an unlimited amount of money to political organizations thanks to Citizens United VS Federal Elections Commission o Anthony Kennedy wrote that "Independent Political Spending" from corporations and other groups violates the 1st amendment right to free speech. The justice who voted with the majority assumed that Independent Spending cannot be corrupt, and that spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect. Corporations are ruled as people and have the rights that people have but they don't live in a community. Corporations don't care about the good of the community like people do. This makes Globalization a bigger problem. People are limited in their giving to Political organizations but Corporations have no limits. "They want you to feel alone. Having dis-ease causes disease." -Dave Smith "What people really seem to not want is… The parts that unite us, the parts that really matter. This is the stuff that people really have to get behind… they don't want you to know there's other people like you. The more we can connect with one another and help each other out… we can start making changes. You have to take a stand and make changes." -Travis Bueche Sources used in this podcast: https://youtu.be/A-te4nwj9Z4 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/andanotherthingwithdave/message

Dave and Travis talk about how to deal with all of what happens in the world and how we need each other. In this Episode: “Thunder Monkey” and “And Another Thing with Dave” talk about: Russia, China, and India form an economic and military alliance. Saudi Arabia talks about the sale of Oil in the Yuan while Russia makes plans to make the Rubal the Gold Standard Currency. It's a heavy 1, 2, PUNCH to the Petro Dollar and the Global American Empire. All this and more! Brought to you straight from The Thunder Monkey and Another Thing with Dave! You're not gonna wanna miss this! America has been in decline since the 70's. Wages have been stagnant. Corporate profits have gone through the roof. C.E.O's pay has skyrocketed. America is unraveling. We don't hate this country, but there's lots of room for improvement, right? ○There is some new News coming down the pipeline. Kim Iversen of The Hill reported on how China, Russia, and India have announced that they are forming an alliance called "The Sides" • "The Sides" are forming a military and economic alliance and refusing to be pushed around by NATO and the US. o This sounds a lot like Casus Belli or Casus Foederis • China has started negotiations with Saudi Arabia regarding selling oil in the Yuan. Meanwhile Russia's economy has completely recovered and they are seeking to buy up as much precious metals as they can in hopes to soon become the new gold standard. o The only thing backing the US Dollar is your faith in it. The Supply Chain crisis is still going on, but is it manufactured? Dave and Economist Richard Wolf believe it is manufactured to artificially decrease the supply so that the demand price will be forced to rise. Travis takes a differing opinion and gives his account on how this is a crisis spiraling out of control and compounding on itself. With the supply chain fracturing to bits, why is the US not providing for itself? We are the largest importers of goods in the world. Russia and Ukraine are the world's largest exporter of fertilizer and wheat. We have the ability to store massive amounts of fresh farm food, that is I'm excess from an abundant crop yield to supplement low yielding years but doing so is a felony in the US. The government wants a fixed price on farm goods and controls the supply to fix a price on the demand. Dave and Travis also discuss how corporations can now donate an unlimited amount of money to political organizations thanks to Citizens United VS Federal Elections Commission o Anthony Kennedy wrote that "Independent Political Spending" from corporations and other groups violates the 1st amendment right to free speech. The justice who voted with the majority assumed that Independent Spending cannot be corrupt, and that spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect. Corporations are ruled as people and have the rights that people have but they don't live in a community. Corporations don't care about the good of the community like people do. This makes Globalization a bigger problem. People are limited in their giving to Political organizations but Corporations have no limits. "They want you to feel alone. Having dis-ease causes disease." -Dave Smith "What people really seem to not want is… The parts that unite us, the parts that really matter. This is the stuff that people really have to get behind… they don't want you to know there's other people like you. The more we can connect with one another and help each other out… we can start making changes. You have to take a stand and make changes." -Travis Bueche Sources used in this podcast: https://youtu.be/A-te4nwj9Z4 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/andanotherthingwithdave/message

25 de enero | San Juan, ArgentinaHola, maricoper. Este semana empecé a preparar exámenes finales de la universidad porque el título no va a sacarse solo. Recibo apoyo moral y recomendaciones de series de no más de dos temporadas para escapar de las responsabilidades estudiantiles. ¡Espero que estés bien!Bienvenido a La Wikly diaria, una columna de actualidad y dos titulares rápidos para pasar el resto del día bien informado. Si quieres comentar las noticias en nuestra comunidad privada de Discord, puedes entrar rellenando este formulario.Si te han mandado esta newsletter, suscríbete para recibir más entregas de La Wikly:Leer esta newsletter te llevará 6 minutos y 30 segundos.Si lo piensas, era bastante random. Bienvenido a La Wikly.

Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute and host of the Bible Answer Man broadcast, reflects on the continuing word crisis that threatens to undo western civilization. The word “insurrection” is plastered in the headlines today. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro laments the application of the word “insurrection” to the events of January 6, 2021. But Shapiro notes, “The events of Jan. 6…fail to meet the dictionary definition of insurrection, which Merriam-Webster defines as ‘an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government'….the word implies an ‘armed uprising.'” Shapiro contends that “a real insurrection would have required the armed forces to quell an armed resistance,” as in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. Shapiro concludes, “Those who violated the law inside the U.S. Capitol should be prosecuted and, if convicted, sentenced accordingly. But dramatizing a riot as an organized, racist, armed insurrection is false reporting and dangerous political gaslighting. The misuse of words, especially involving criminal accusations, can easily result in overreaching enforcement of the law and a chilling effect on free speech, all of which have already happened—and in this case, endanger the very system the rioters' accusers purport to protect.” Consider also, the word “marriage.” As Sean McDowell and John Stonestreet note, marriage has always been defined as “a relationship between men and women” because of “the dual, gender-distinct nature of humanity.” As such, the relationship “between marriage and procreation is more than just incidental.” All of this has been up for grabs as a result of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who not only redefined the word “marriage” but pontificated that the historical definition fosters ill will and animosity. What must surely have been self-evident to this supremely erudite arbiter of justice is that virtually every redefinition of marriage, including his own, excludes someone (siblings, the polygamous, those underage, etc.). But is this due to hate or to common sense? If marriage means everything, in the end it may well mean nothing at all. See Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, “Stop Calling Jan. 6 an ‘Insurrection,'” Wall Street Journal, January 5, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/stop-calling-jan-6-an-insurrection-capitol-riot-civil-disorder-insurgency-protest-first-amendment-11641417543. Sean McDowell and John Stonestreet, Same-Sex Marriage: A Thoughtful Approach to God's Design for Marriage (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2014). See Justice Anthony Kennedy, United States v. Windsor (2013). D. K. Matthews, “Seduced: The Crisis of Word and the Fragmentation of Civilization,” Christian Research Journal, vol. 43, no. 01 (2020), https://www.equip.org/article/seduced-the-crisis-of-word-and-the-fragmentation-of-civilization/.

The legislative maps that Wisconsin Republicans drew a decade ago are still standing. But an effort that started in a Milwaukee teahouse and snowballed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court very well could have changed the whole game of redistricting — in Wisconsin and nationwide.

Journalist and author Sasha Issenberg recently released his new book, The Engagement: America's Quarter-Century Struggle Over Same-Sex Marriage. Sasha chronicles the path to progress on this issue from the early 90s when even most LGBT advocates didn't see marriage equality as an achievable goal..to the present with marriage equality cemented by the Supreme Court and over 70% of Americans (and rising) lining up behind these rights. In this conversation, Sasha talks the core thesis of his book, the strategic decisions that made a difference in the debate, the key political actors on both sides of the debate, and insight into the inner workings of the Obama White House as the positions of the President and VP evolved. A lot of smart stuff from Sasha to chew on as a primer for his authoritative book, The Engagement, on the seminal civil rights issue of the last thirty years(Please consider leaving a rating and review in your podcast app)IN THIS EPISODE…The conversations that led to Sasha sinking his teeth into this topic…Sasha explains why “civil unions” was a double-edged sword for the marriage equality movement…The problems gay marriage advocates had to solve to move from losing to winning at the ballot box…The “huge” breakthrough for the gay community in the '92 presidential campaign…The Republican who played a key role in moving Senate Democrats toward marriage equality…Which marriage equality opponent was the most effective?What explains the “backlash” in public opinion against marriage equality in the mid 90s and mid 2000s?Inside the Obama White House when VP Biden comes out for marriage equality before the President…Sasha talks the 5-4 Supreme Court Obergefell decision…One elected official Sasha believes showed a Profile in Courage on this issue…Sasha talks the importance of pop culture in driving progress…Two book recommendations Sasha used as models for The Engagement…AND…George Allen, PT Barnum, Elizabeth Birch, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Brides Magazine, James Comey, contact theory, Betsy DeVos, Mike Dukakis, the ERA ratification fight, Andrew Flores, Barney Frank, Freedom to Marry, going to war with Bolivia, Whoopi Goldberg, Lisa Grove, Hawaii's Future Today, Valerie Jarrett, Anthony Kennedy, Mark Kirk, the LDS Church, longitudinal connections, Claire McCaskill, Ken Mehlman, the movable middle, notebook factories, the NRCC, NYT wedding announcements, the Orlando Magic, the Portland Arch Diocese, the Reliance Doctrine, Rob Portman, Robin Roberts, Chuck Robb, Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, sending astronauts to Pluto, Amy Simon, the soil of South Carolina, Jon Tester, Third Way, The View, virtuous cycles, Dick Wirthlin, & MORE!

Assemblymember Ken Cooley shares stories on his favorite oversight memories, writing a comprehensive state legislative oversight handbook, and a special letter from Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The views expressed on Oversight Matters do not necessarily represent the views of Wayne State University or Wayne State Law School.

On today's Bible Answer Man broadcast from (07/24/20), Hank discusses the current edition of the Christian Research Journal. As the cover feature article Seduced? underscores, we are in the midst of a virulent linguistic crisis. Long after the COVID-19 crisis has receded from our memories, this battle will continue to ravage our futures. Carl F. H. Henry rightly defined this time of trouble as a “crisis of word.” A linguistic crisis that “has flowered into fragmentation, outrage and semantic terrorism.” Consider, for example, the redefinition of the word marriage. In their excellent book Same-Sex Marriage by Sean McDowell and John Stonestreet, the authors correctly forward the notion that “marriage has at all times and in all societies been a relationship between men and women.” That “marriage exists because of the dual, gender-distinct nature of humanity.” And that “the connection between marriage and procreation is more than just incidental.” But they note that in a contrary opinion, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy holds that marriage, as historically defined, fosters ill will and animosity. In Kennedy's considered opinion, anyone who embraces the historical definition of marriage — thus excluding same-sex couples — “does so out of hate and animus.” The redefinition of the word “marriage” is hardly a trifling matter. It is emblematic, as Henry laments, of “the twilight of a [once Logocentric and] great civilization.” Thus, says Hank, we can curse the darkness, or we can build a lighthouse in the midst of the gathering storm. Articles such as Seduced? along with other timely articles in this issue of the Christian Research Journal, do just that. As such, reading this issue cover to cover is bound to equip you with new heights of perspective and new depths of understanding. Hank closes with an exhortation to repentance and prayer—commit to praying the Lord's Prayer three times a day for 21 days; and pray, as did our Lord and Savior, for unity in the body of Christ.

Justice Anthony Kennedy steps down, and the world goes insane. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Justice Anthony Kennedy steps down, and the world goes insane. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Liberals go to DEFCON 1 over the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Kennedy. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comFollow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuckSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two items of interest from the U.S. Supreme Court: Justice Kennedy is retiring and the Court rules 5-4 in favor of public employees not being forced to pay union dues. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pulls off a stunning upset in NY. She is a socialist. Joe says this will not work. Melvin Carter III is pulling fireworks for the city of Saint Paul. Oh no!

Ben and super producer Travis discuss Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's sweeping primary victory, the announcement of Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement and recreating "Monsters, Inc." with detained migrant children. End the software struggle today. Go to http://softwareadvice.com/abe to get started. Thanks to Stamps.com for sponsoring this episode. Start your 4 week trial at http://stamps.com and enter promo code: TOPHAT Beach Bum, ZigZag, Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/