Podcast appearances and mentions of Antonin Scalia

Donald Trump apparently thinks the Constitution is inconvenient, getting in the way of his fervent desire to deport anyone and everyone he wants out of the United States.His latest unconstitutional scheme is to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus, which enables people being confined by Trump's executive branch to challenge the legality of their detention.Trump and his henchmen, guys like Stephen Miller, apparently think they can unilaterally suspend habeas corpus. The problem for them is the federal courts disagree, including Republican/conservative icon, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We continue our journey through the swirly twirly gumdrops of the Unitary Executive, our study of Justice Scalia's great dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and what it teaches us about Separation of Powers as established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Part 6, going through Roman numeral four (IV), entire. The Republican Professor is a pro-Separation-of-Powers-rightly-understood-executive-power-correctly-contemplated podcast. Therefore, welcome Justice Antonin Scalia to the podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. To support the podcast, support it. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Kannon Shanmugam is a partner at the law firm Paul Weiss and has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, representing clients such as Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil, Meta, Warner Music, Bank of America, Coinbase, and the NFL, among others. Kannon has also argued more than 150 appeals in courts across the country, including all 13 federal courts of appeals. A longtime Supreme Court reporter said that Kannon has “perhaps the most eloquent and elegant manner … that I've ever seen in my 40 years covering the Court." Legal 500 called Kannon "a brilliant lawyer and tactician, with impeccable judgment and an optimal moral compass." It added, “you won't find a more talented, sophisticated, compelling lawyer—and he matches that with his overall humility and kind nature.” Before entering private practice, Kannon served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice and as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Kannon earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard, was a Marshall Scholar at the University of Oxford, and then returned to Harvard for his Law degree. In this episode we discuss the following: As Judge Sack told Kannon, all you can do in a career is stand by the hoop and hope that somebody passes you the ball. There's no substitute for hard work. At the top levels, everyone has great credentials. But what differentiates the very best people is they put in the work, in a profession where there are no shortcuts. Surround yourself with great people, including great mentors. But not just older people. Kannon devoted a lot of time to finding the most talented young attorneys who were driven, smart, and enthusiastic. Enthusiasm is one of the most important things Kannon looks for when identifying talented people: enthusiasm to work, enthusiasm to grow, and enthusiasm to learn. If you love what you do, it's easy to get out of bed in the morning and keep doing it. Connect on Social Media: X: https://twitter.com/nate_meikle LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/natemeikle/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nate_meikle/ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@nate.meikle  

This Day in Legal History: Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.On April 18, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., a significant decision reinforcing the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The case arose after Congress enacted legislation requiring federal courts to reopen certain final judgments in securities fraud cases that had been dismissed under an earlier statute of limitations ruling. The plaintiffs, whose claims had already been dismissed with finality, sought to revive their lawsuits under this new provision.In a 7–2 decision, the Court struck down the law, holding that Congress cannot force Article III courts to reopen final judgments. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia stressed the importance of finality in judicial decisions and warned against legislative interference with core judicial functions. He argued that once a case is decided, it becomes law of the case and should not be revisited at Congress's whim.The ruling underscored the judiciary's independence from political pressure and reaffirmed that each branch of government must respect the constitutional boundaries of the others. Scalia noted that permitting Congress to override final court decisions would blur the lines between legislative and judicial authority, threatening the rule of law.This decision was not just a technical interpretation of procedural law; it was a firm statement about institutional integrity. Plaut became a cornerstone case for understanding the limits of congressional power over the courts. It continues to be cited in debates over judicial independence and the sanctity of final judgments.A federal appeals court rejected an emergency attempt by the Trump administration to block a judge's order requiring the government to aid in the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man deported to El Salvador despite a 2019 court ruling barring his removal. The court condemned the Justice Department's actions, with Judge Harvie Wilkinson calling them a violation of fundamental liberties and due process. He criticized the administration for acting as though it could abandon individuals in foreign prisons without legal recourse.The Supreme Court previously upheld a similar directive from District Judge Paula Xinis, requiring the administration to work toward bringing Abrego Garcia back from Salvadoran custody. The government claims Garcia is affiliated with the MS-13 gang and lacks the right to remain in the U.S., arguing that Xinis overstepped by involving herself in foreign affairs. However, Wilkinson stressed that due process rights apply regardless of alleged affiliations and warned that ignoring court orders could lead to broader abuses of power, including the potential deportation of U.S. citizens.Abrego Garcia, who has no criminal record in either country, was deported alongside 250 alleged gang members to El Salvador's high-security prison. His 2019 immigration court ruling protected him from deportation due to threats of gang-based extortion.Trump Loses Emergency Appeal to Halt Maryland Deportation CaseThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on May 15 regarding President Donald Trump's attempt to limit birthright citizenship, a constitutional principle rooted in the 14th Amendment. Although the case won't directly determine the legality of Trump's executive order, it will address whether lower court rulings that blocked the policy nationwide should be scaled back to apply only to specific plaintiffs or jurisdictions.Trump's order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to babies born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident. It directs federal agencies to withhold documents like Social Security cards and passports from newborns who don't meet that criterion. Critics argue this violates well-established legal interpretations of the 14th Amendment, which affirms citizenship for nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.The Justice Department argues that nationwide injunctions—orders that block policies across the country—exceed judicial authority and should be narrowed. The administration also questions whether the states and groups suing have legal standing. Despite these claims, lower courts have uniformly refused to allow the executive order to take effect.Opponents, including 22 Democratic-led states and immigration advocacy groups, argue that Trump's effort seeks to strip citizenship from thousands of children and overturn long-standing legal precedent. Trump maintains that birthright citizenship was originally intended only for formerly enslaved people, not for the children of non-citizens.US Birthright Citizenship: Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Case - BloombergUS Supreme Court to hear Trump bid to enforce birthright citizenship order | ReutersFifth Circuit Judge James Ho sharply criticized the power of trial-level judges in a recent opinion, focusing on what he sees as overreach in politically sensitive cases. Ho issued a writ of mandamus instructing a district judge in Louisiana to vacate her order reopening a death penalty case years after it had been dismissed. He was joined by fellow Trump appointee Judge Andrew Oldham, while Judge Catharina Haynes dissented, arguing the appellate process should proceed normally.In his concurring opinion, Ho warned against what he called the misuse of judicial power to obstruct democratic outcomes. He connected the Louisiana case to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that reversed a nationwide order from Chief Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., which had blocked the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. The Supreme Court said the Venezuelan plaintiffs should have filed their suit in Texas, where they were detained, effectively transferring jurisdiction and narrowing Boasberg's reach.Ho used that ruling to reinforce his argument that appellate courts must intervene swiftly when district judges exceed their authority. He accused some judges of rushing to block policies they oppose politically, calling it a threat to the electorate's choices and governmental efficiency. He argued that deferring to the standard appeals timeline enables what he called “district judge supremacy.”Judge Haynes pushed back in dissent, criticizing the majority's allegation that the district court manipulated legal processes, especially since neither party in the case had challenged the judge's integrity. She maintained the threshold for a mandamus was not met and objected to the majority's tone and assumptions.James Ho Knocks Trial Judge Who Blocked Venezuelan DeportationsThis week's closing theme is The Moldau by Bedřich Smetana, a defining work in Czech Romantic nationalism and one of the most evocative tone poems in classical music. Smetana, born in 1824 in what is now the Czech Republic, was a pioneering composer who sought to express the identity, history, and natural beauty of his homeland through music. A contemporary of Liszt and Wagner, he was deeply influenced by the idea of programmatic music—compositions that tell a story or paint a picture without the use of words.The Moldau (or Vltava, in Czech) is the second and most famous piece from Smetana's larger symphonic cycle Má vlast(My Homeland), composed between 1874 and 1879. The piece traces the course of the Vltava River from its source in the Bohemian forest, through the countryside, past villages and castles, and ultimately to its merger with the Elbe River. Through rich orchestration and shifting textures, Smetana portrays everything from bubbling springs and flowing currents to a peasant wedding and moonlit night dances by water nymphs.Composed while Smetana was going completely deaf, The Moldau is as much a feat of imagination as it is of musical skill. The main theme, introduced by the flutes and then carried through the orchestra, is one of the most recognizable and emotionally stirring in classical music. It serves not just as a musical depiction of a river but as a symbol of Czech identity, resilience, and natural beauty.Closing with The Moldau offers a moment to reflect on continuity, movement, and national spirit—fitting themes for a week shaped by legal currents and constitutional debate.Without further ado, The Moldau, by Bedřich Smetana – enjoy! 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

We continue our journey through the swirly twirly gumdrops of the Unitary Executive, our study of Justice Scalia's great dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and what it teaches us about Separation of Powers as established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Part 5, going through Roman numeral three, entire. The Republican Professor is a pro-Separation-of-Powers-rightly-understood-executive-power-correctly-contemplated podcast. Therefore, welcome Justice Antonin Scalia to the podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. To support the podcast, support it. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

This and all episodes at: https://aiandyou.net/ . The use of generative AI in legal practice has been in the news since lawyers filed briefs written by AI that contained completely fictional citations. But AI has moved past those faux pas to be of real benefit, used by some judges in writing their decisions. Here with his finger on that pulse is Adam Unikowsky, partner in the Appellate & Supreme Court practice group at Jenner & Block in Washington, DC.  He handles cases in numerous subject matter areas, including administrative law, and patent law.  He has argued 12 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as numerous cases in federal courts of appeals, federal district courts, and state supreme courts. He writes a newsletter on AI in law and other legal issues. Adam graduated from Harvard Law School and clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. We talk about how AI could litigate or even judge cases, and whether it should, how it can emulate specific judges, the current uptake, reliability, and reputation of AI in the legal profession, the best ways to use AI in litigation and what's driving its adoption, something AI can do that humans can't, how politics comes in, the future roles of litigators and AI's effects on the apprenticeship of lawyers, AI in the appellate system, and upcoming innovation in AI and the law.  All this plus our usual look at today's AI headlines. Transcript and URLs referenced at HumanCusp Blog.        

There are pleasantly surprising lessons about Second Amendment jurisprudence throughout this section as we continue our study of Justice Scalia's great dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and what it teaches us about Separation of Powers as established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Part 4, going through Roman numeral two, the second half. We'll finish Roman numeral two. Pay attention to the criticism of interest balancing tests in adjudicating Constitutionally vested powers and rights in this episode, connecting the issue in this case to the Second Amendment . The Republican Professor is a pro-Separation-of-Powers-rightly-understood-executive-power-correctly-contemplated podcast. Therefore, welcome Justice Antonin Scalia to the podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. To support the podcast, support it. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

  A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Grace Lee Boggs said, “History is not the past. It is the stories we tell about the past. How we tell these stories – triumphantly or self-critically, metaphysically or dialectally – has a lot to do with whether we cut short or advance our evolution as human beings.” In our current chaotic time, it feels like we are intentionally ignoring history. Our lack of awareness feels like a de-evolution, as our education department is gutting, books are banned, and so many American institutions are at risk, it feels as though a critical analysis of history is being ignored.  On Tonight's APEX Express, Host Miko Lee focuses on Wong Kim Ark and the importance of Birthright Citizenship. She speaks with historian David Lei, Reverend Deb Lee and lawyer/educator Annie Lee and activist Nick Gee. Discussed by Our Guests: What You Can Do To Protect Birthright Citizenship Our history is tied to the legacy of Wong Kim Ark and birthright citizenship, and it will take ongoing advocacy to protect this fundamental right. Here are four ways you can stay involved in the work ahead: Invite a friend to attend an event as part of Chinese for Affirmative Action's weeklong series commemorating Wong Kim Ark. Take action and oppose Trump's executive order banning birthright citizenship. Learn about Wong Kim Ark and Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. Sign up to join Stop AAPI Hate's Many Roots, One Home campaign to fight back against Trump's anti-immigrant agenda.   How you can get engaged to protect immigrants: https://www.im4humanintegrity.org/ https://www.bayresistance.org/ Bay Area Immigration: 24 Hour Hotlines San Francisco 415-200-1548 Alameda County 510-241-4011 Santa Clara County 408-290-1144 Marin County 415-991-4545 San Mateo County 203-666-4472   Know Your Rights (in various Asian languages) Thank you to our guests and Chinese for Affirmative Action for the clip from Wong Kim Ark's great grandson Norman Wong   Show Transcript: Wong Kim Ark Opening: [00:00:00] Apex Express Asian Pacific expression. Community and cultural coverage, music and calendar, new visions and voices, coming to you with an Asian Pacific Islander point of view. It's time to get on board the Apex Express.   Miko Lee: [00:00:35] Grace Lee Boggs said history is not the past. It is the stories we tell about the past, how we tell these stories. Triumphantly or self critically metaphysically or dialectically, has a lot to do with whether we cut short or advance our evolution as human beings. I. Well, in our current chaotic times, it feels like we are intentionally ignoring history. Our lack of awareness feels like a de-evolution. As our education department is gutted and books are banned, and so many of our American institutions are at risks, it feels as though a critical analysis of history is just being intentionally ignored. So welcome to Apex Express. I'm your host, Miko Lee, and tonight we're gonna delve back into a moment of history that is very much relevant in our contemporary world. Tonight's show is about long Kim Ark. There's a famous black and white photo of a Chinese American man. His hair is pulled back with a large forehead on display, wide open eyes with eyebrows slightly raised, looking at the camera with an air of confidence and innocence. He is wearing a simple mandarin collared shirt, one frog button straining at his neck, and then two more near his right shoulder. The date stamp is November 15th, 1894. His name is Wong Kim Ark. Tonight we hear more about his story, why it is important, what birthright citizenship means, and what you could do to get involved. So stay tuned. Welcome, David Lei, former social worker, community activist, lifelong San Franciscan, and amazing community storyteller. Welcome to Apex Express.    David Lei: [00:02:21] Thank you, Miko.    Miko Lee: [00:02:23] Can you first start with a personal question and tell me who are your people and what legacy do you carry with you?    David Lei: [00:02:31] I'm now on the board of Chinese Historical Society of America. Chinese American History is pretty important to me for my identity and the story of Chinese in America is American history, and that's where I'm at now.   Miko Lee: [00:02:50] And what legacy do you carry with you from your ancestors?    David Lei: [00:02:56] To pass on the wisdom they pass to me to future descendants. But I'm here in America, so I know after a few generations, my descendants won't look like me. Most likely they won't speak Chinese. They're going to be Americans. So. The lessons and values and wisdoms, my ancestors passed to me, I'm passing to America.   Miko Lee: [00:03:30] we are talking on this episode about Wong Kim Ark and as a community storyteller, I wonder if you can take me back to that time, take me back to Wong Kim Ark growing up in San Francisco, Chinatown, what was happening in San Francisco, Chinatown at that time    David Lei: [00:03:48] Okay, this is the end of the 19th century and we have the Exclusion Act in 1882 where Chinese were excluded from coming to America with few exceptions like merchants, diplomats, and scholars. So if you're Chinese and you're a laborer you just can't come. And there were concerns about. Going, even if you were here, there's a process for your return, the documents you will need. But even that was iffy. But for Chinese in general, there was birthright citizenship. So if you were born here, you have citizenship and that because of the 14th amendment. So many Chinese thought birthright citizenship was important 'cause you can vote, you have more rights, less chance that you will be deported. So the Chinese, born in America, right at 1895, formed a Chinese American Citizens Alliance. The concept of being a American citizen was in everybody's mind in Chinatown at that time. The Chinese been fighting for this birthright citizenship ever since the Exclusion Act. Before Wong Kim Ark, there was Look Tin Sing in the matter regarding Look Tin Sing was a CA federal Court of Appeal case. Look Tin Sing was born in Mendocino, so he's American born. He assumed he was a citizen. His parents sent him back to China before the Exclusion Act, and when he came back after the Exclusion Act, of course he didn't have the paperwork that were required , but he was born here. So to prove that he was a citizen. He had to have a lawyer and had to have white witness, and it went to the federal Court of Appeal, ninth Circuit, and the Chinese sixth company. The City Hall for Chinatown knew this was important for all Chinese, so gave him a lawyer, Thomas Den, and he won the case. Then in 1888, this happened again with a guy named Hong Yin Ming. He was held and he had to go to the Federal Court of Appeal to win again, then Wong Kim Ark 1895. He was stopped and. This time, the Chinese six company, which is a city hall for Chinatown they really went all out. They hired two of the best lawyers money could buy. The former deputy Attorney General for the United States, one of which was the co-founder of the American Bar Association. So these were very expensive, influential lawyers. And because Wong Kim Ark was a young man under 25, he was a cook, so he was poor, but the community backed him. And went to the Supreme Court and won because it was a Supreme Court case. It took precedent over the two prior cases that only went to the Court of Appeal.    Now you might think, here's a guy who has a Supreme Court case that says he's an American citizen. Well, a few years later in 1901, Wong Kim Ark went to Mexico to Juarez. When he came back to El Paso the immigration stopped him at El Paso and says, no you are just a cook. you're not allowed to come in because we have the 1882 Exclusion Act. Wong Kim Ark Says, I have a Supreme Court case saying I'm a US citizen, and the El Paso newspaper also had an article that very week saying they're holding a US citizen who has a Supreme Court case in his favor saying that he is a US citizen. However, immigration still held him for four months in El Paso. I think just to hassle. To make it difficult. Then by 1910, Wong Kim Ark had a few sons in China that he wants to bring to the us so he arranged for his first son to come to America in 1910. His first son was held at Angel Island. Interrogated did not pass, so they deported his firstborn son. So he says, wow, this is my real son, and he can't even get in. So this is dealing with immigration and the US laws and the racist laws is unending. Just because you win the Supreme Court case, that doesn't mean you're safe as we are seeing now. So it takes the community, takes a lot of effort. It takes money to hire the best lawyers. It takes strategizing. It takes someone to go to jail, habeas corpus case oftentimes to test the laws. And even when you win, it's not forever. It's constantly challenged. So I think that's the message in the community. Chinese community had push back on this and have pushed for Birthright citizenship from the very beginning of the Exclusion Act.    Miko Lee: [00:09:48] Thank you so much for that. David. Can we go back a little bit and explain for our audience what the Six Companies meant to Chinatown?    David Lei: [00:09:57] From the very beginning, there were a lot of laws racist laws that were anti-Chinese, and the Chinese always felt they needed representation. Many of the Chinese did not speak English, did not understand the laws, so they formed the Chinese Six Companies. Officially known as the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association. most Chinese come from just the six districts from Guangdong Province. They're like counties. However, in China, each counties most likely will have their own dialect. Unintelligible to the county next to them. They will have their own food ways, their own temples. almost like separate countries. So there were six major counties where the Chinese in America came from. So each county sent representatives to this central organization called the Chinese six companies, and they represented the Chinese in America initially in all of America. Then later on, different states set up their own Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, so they would tax their own membership or get their own membership to pay fees. They had in-house lawyers to negotiate with city government, state government, federal government, and they would raise the money. They were the GoFundMe of their days. Almost every month they were hiring lawyers to protect some Chinese, somewhere in America against unfair unjust laws. The Chinese six company was very important to the Chinese in America, and they were the first to really push back on the Chinese exclusion Act between 1882 and 1905. 105,000 Chinese in America after the exclusion Act sued a federal government more than 10,000 times. This is about 10% of the Chinese population in America, sued the federal government. I'm not including state government, counties nor municipalities. This is just the federal government. About 10% of the Chinese here sued and almost 30 of these went to the Federal Supreme Court, and it was the sixth company that organized many of these winning for all Americans and not just the Chinese right. To a public education. Even if you are an immigrant tape versus Hurley in 1885. Then we have the Yick Wo versus Hopkins case that gave equal protection under law for everyone. Now, the 14th Amendment does have this clause equal protection under law, but everybody thought that meant you had to write a law that was equal for everybody. But in the case of Yick Wo versus Hopkins, it was also important that the law is executed and administered equally for everyone. That's the first time where it was made very clear that equal protection under law also means the administration and the execution of the law. So that is the core of American Civil Rights and the Chinese won this case for all Americans. Of course, Wong Kim Ark.    The concept of political asylum, public law 29 was a Chinese case passed by Congress in 1921, and then we have Miranda Act. If you look into the Miranda Act, it was based on a Chinese case, 1924 Ziang Sun Wan versus the US two Chinese were accused of murder in Washington DC They were tortured, denied sleep. Denied food, denied attorneys, so they confessed. But when it came to trial. They said we didn't do it, we confessed 'cause we were tortured and they won in the Supreme Court, but it was a Washington DC case only applicable to federal jurisdictions. So when Miranda came up, the Supreme Court said, well, we decided this in 1924, but now we'll just make it applicable to state, county and municipality. And then of course, as recently as 1974 Chinese for affirmative action helped bring the Lao versus Nichols case. Where now is required to have bilingual education for immigrant students, if there are enough of them to form a class where they can be taught math, science, history in their original language. These and many more. The Chinese brought and won these cases for all Americans, but few people know this and we just don't talk about it.    Miko Lee: [00:15:35] David, thank you so much for dropping all this knowledge on us. I did not know that the Miranda rights comes from Asian Americans. That's powerful. Yes. And so many other cases. I'm wondering, you said that Chinese Americans and the six companies sued, did you say 10,000 times?    David Lei: [00:15:53] We have 10,000 individual cases. In many of these cases, the Chinese six company helped provide a lawyer or a vice.    Miko Lee: [00:16:03] And where did that come from? Where did that impetus, how did utilizing the legal system become so imbued in their organizing process?   David Lei: [00:16:14] Well, because it worked even with the exclusion act, during the exclusion period most Chinese. Got a lawyer to represent them, got in something like 80%. In many of the years, 80% of the Chinese that hire a lawyer to help them with the immigration process were omitted. So the Chinese knew the courts acted differently from politics. The Chinese did not have a vote. So had no power in the executive branch nor the legislative branch. But they knew if they hire good lawyers, they have power in the court. So regardless of whether their fellow Americans like them or not legally the Chinese had certain rights, and they made sure they received those rights. By organizing, hiring the best lawyers, and this was a strategy. suing slowed down after 1905 because the Chinese lost a important case called Ju Toy versus the us. The Supreme Court decided that since the Chinese sue so much, their courts of appeal were tied up with all these cases. So the Supreme Court says from now on, the Supreme Court will give up his rights to oversight on the executive branch when it comes to immigration because the Chinese sue too much. And that's why today the executive branch. Has so much power when it comes to immigration, cause the court gave up the oversight rights in this ju toy versus the US in 1905. So if we go to the history of the law a lot of the legal policies we live in today, were. Pushback and push for by the Chinese, because the Chinese were the first group that were excluded denied these rights. but the Chinese were very organized one of the most organized group and push back. And that's why we have all these laws that the Chinese won.    Miko Lee: [00:18:30] And in your deep knowledge of all this history of these many cases, what do you think about what is happening right now with all the conversations around birthright citizenship? Can you put that into a historical perspective?    David Lei: [00:18:44] So being an American. We always have to be on the guard for our rights. Who would've thought Roe v. Wade would be overturned? So all these things can be challenged. America's attitude change. Civil disobedience, the Chinese are actually, we have on record the largest number of people practicing civil disobedience over a long period of time. In 1892, when the Exclusion Act, Chinese Exclusion Act had to be renewed, they added this. New requirement that every Chinese must carry a certificate of residency with their photo on it. Well, this is like a internal passport. No one had to have this internal passport, but they made the Chinese do it. So the Chinese six company. Says, no, this is not right. Only dogs need to carry a license around to identify. Itself and only criminals needs to register with a state. And we Chinese are not dogs and we're not criminals, so we're not going to do it 'cause no one else needs to do it. So the six company told all the Chinese 105,000 Chinese not to register. 97% refuse to register. In the meantime, the six companies sued the federal government again. Saying the Federal Go government cannot do this. The Chinese lost this case in the Supreme Court and everybody then had to register, but they didn't register until two years later, 1894. So they held. Held out for two years.   Miko Lee: [00:20:31] How many people was that?    David Lei: [00:20:32] About a hundred thousand. 97% of the 105,000 Chinese refused to do this. So if you look at these certificate of residencies that the Chinese were forced to carry. They were supposed to register in 1892. Almost all of them are 1894. Some of them in fact many of them are May, 1894, the last second that you can register before they start deporting you. So the Chinese. Also practiced civil disobedience and the largest incidents, a hundred thousand people for two years.    Miko Lee: [00:21:15] How did they communicate with each other about that?   David Lei: [00:21:18] The Chinese were very well connected through the six companies, their district association, their surname association oftentimes because of. The racism segregation, the Chinese were forced to live in Chinatowns or relied on their own network. To support each other. So there, there's a lot of letter writing and a lot of institutions, and they kept in touch.That network was very powerful. In fact, the network to interpret a law for everybody interpret uh, any rules of business, and. Just how to conduct themselves in America. They have a lot of institutions doing that. We still have them in the 24 square blocks we call Chinatown. We have almost 300 organizations helping the immigrants. Chinese there with language, with how to do your taxes tutoring for their kids. Advice on schools paying their bills and so on. We have surnames associations, we have district associations, we have gills, we have fraternal organizations, and we certainly have a lot of nonprofits. So it's very, very supportive community. And that's always been the case.    Miko Lee: [00:22:42] I'm wondering what you feel like we can learn from those organizers today. A hundred thousand for civil disobedience. And we're often portrayed as the model minority people just follow along. That's a lot of people during that time. And what do you think we can learn today from those folks that organize for civil disobedience and the Chinese Exclusion Act?    David Lei: [00:23:03] It takes a community. One person can't do it. You have to organize. You have to contribute. You have to hire the best lawyers, the very best. In fact, with the Yik Wo versus Hopkins case, the equal protection under law, the Chinese immediately raised 20,000 equivalent to half a million. It takes collective action. It takes money. You just have to support this to keep our rights.    Miko Lee: [00:23:29] And lastly, what would you like our audience to understand about Wong Kim Ark?    David Lei: [00:23:35] Well, Wong Kim Ark, he was just an average person, a working person that the immigration department made life miserable for him. Is very difficult to be an immigrant anytime, but today is even worse. We have to have some empathy. He was the test case, but there were so many others. I mentioned Look Tin Sing, whose adult name is Look Tin Eli. We know a lot about Look Tin Eli and then this other Hong Yin Ming in 1888 before Wong Kim Ark and so generations of generations of immigrants. Have had a hard time with our immigration department. It's just not a friendly thing we do here. And you know, we're all descendants of immigrants unless you're a Native American. Like I mentioned Look Tin Sing, who was the first case that I could find. For birthright citizenship. His mother was Native American, but Native American didn't even get to be citizens until 1924. You know, that's kind of really strange. But that was the case.    Miko Lee: [00:24:50] That's very absurd in our world.    David Lei: [00:24:52] Yes, Chinatown is where it is today because of Look Tin Sing, his adult name, Look Tin Eli. He saved Chinatown after the earthquake. He's the one that organized all the business people to rebuild Chinatown like a fantasy Chinese land Epcot center with all the pagoda roofs, and he's the one that saved Chinatown. Without him and his Native American mother, we would've been moved to Hunter's Point after the earthquake. He later on became president of the China Bank and also president of the China Mayo Steamship Line. So he was an important figure in Chinese American history, but he had to deal with immigration.   Miko Lee: [00:25:39] David Lei, thank you so much for sharing your wisdom with us. I appreciate hearing this story and folks can find out when you are part of a panel discussion for Wong Kim Ark week, right?    David Lei: [00:25:50] Yes.    Miko Lee: [00:25:51] Great. We will be able to see you there. Thank you so much for being on Apex Express. Annie Lee, managing director of Policy at Chinese for affirmative action. Welcome to Apex Express.    Annie Lee: [00:26:01] Thank you so much for having me Miko.    Miko Lee: [00:26:02] I wanna just start with this, a personal question, which is, who are your people and what legacy do you carry with you?    Annie Lee: [00:26:10] I am the daughter of monolingual working class Chinese immigrants. And so I would say my people hail from Southern China and were able to come to the United States where I was born and was allowed to thrive and call this place home. I do this work at Chinese for Affirmative Action on their behalf and for other folks like them.    Miko Lee: [00:26:31] Thanks Annie, Today we're recording on March 17th, and I'm noting this because as we know, things are changing so quickly in this chaotic administration. By the time this airs on Thursday, things might change. So today's March 17th. Can you as both an educator and a lawyer, give me a little bit of update on where birthright citizenship, where does it stand legally right now?    Annie Lee: [00:26:55] As an educator and a lawyer, I wanna situate us in where birthright citizenship lives in the law, which is in the 14th Amendment. So the 14th Amendment has a birthright citizenship clause, which is very clear, and it states that people who were born in the United States, in subject to the laws thereof are United States citizens. The reason. This clause was explicitly added into the 14th Amendment, was because of chattel slavery in the United States and how this country did not recognize the citizenship of enslaved African Americans for generations. And so after the Civil War and the Union winning that war and the ends of slavery . We had to make African Americans citizens, they had to be full citizens in the eye of the law. And that is why we have the 14th Amendment. And that clause of the 14th Amendment was later litigated all the way to the Supreme Court by Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco, like me, two Chinese immigrant parents. When he left the United States, he went to China to visit his family. He tried to come back. They wouldn't let him in. and he said, I am a citizen because I was born in the United States and this clause in your 14th amendment, our 14th amendment says that I'm a citizen. It went all the way to Supreme Court and the Supreme Court agreed with Wong Kim Ark. Does not matter your parents' citizenship status. Everyone born in the United States is a US citizen, except for a very, very narrow set of exceptions for the kids of foreign diplomats that really is not worth getting into. Everyone is born. Everyone who's born in the United States is a citizen. Okay? So then you all know from Trump's executive order on day one of his second presidency that he is attempting to upends this very consistent piece of law, and he is using these fringe, outlandish legal arguments that we have never heard before and has never merited any discussion because it is just. Facially incorrect based on the law and all of the interpretation of the 14th amendment after that amendment was ratified. So he is using that to try to upend birthright citizenship. There have been a number of lawsuits. Over 10 lawsuits from impacted parties, from states and there have been three federal judges in Maryland, Washington State, and New Hampshire, who have issued nationwide injunctions to stop the executive order from taking effect. That means that despite what Trump says in his executive order. The birthright citizenship clause remains as it is. So any child born today in the United States is still a citizen. The problem we have is that despite what three judges now issuing a nationwide injunction, the Trump's government has now sought assistance from the Supreme Court to consider his request to lift the nationwide pause on his executive order. So the justices, have requested filings from parties by early April, to determine whether or not a nationwide injunction is appropriate. This is extraordinary. This is not the way litigation works in the United States. Usually you let the cases proceed. In the normal process, which goes from a district court to an appeals court, and then eventually to the Supreme Court if it gets appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. This is very different from the normal course of action and I think very troubling.    Miko Lee: [00:30:36] So can you talk a little bit about that? I know we constantly say in this administration it's unprecedented, but talk about how there's three different states that have actually filed this injunction. , how typical is that for then it or it to then go to the Supreme Court?    Annie Lee: [00:30:53] Just to clarify, it's not three different states. It's judges in three different states. In fact, more than many, many states, 18 more than 18 states. There have been two lawsuits related, brought by states one that California was a part of that had multiple states over 18 states as well as San Francisco and District of Columbia. Then there was another lawsuit brought by another set of states. and so many states are opposed to this, for different reasons. I find their complaints to be very, very compelling. Before I get into the fact that multiple judges have ruled against the Trump administration, I did want to explain that the reason states care about this is because birthright citizenship is not an immigration issue. Birthright citizenship is just a fundamental issue of impacting everyone, and I really want people to understand this. If you are white and born in the United States, you are a birthright citizen. If you are black and born in the United States, you are a birthright citizen. It is a fallacy to believe that birthright citizenship only impacts immigrants. That is not true. I am a mother and I gave birth to my second child last year, so I've been through this process. Every person who gives birth in the United States. You go to the hospital primarily, they talk to you after your child is born about how to get a social security card for your child. All you have to do is have your child's birth certificate. That is how every state in this country processes citizenship and how the federal government processes citizenship. It is through a birth certificate, and that is all you need. So you go to your health department in your city, you get the birth certificate, you tell, then you get your social security card. That is how everyone does it. If you change this process, it will impact every state in this country and it will be very, very cumbersome. Which is why all of these states, attorneys general, are up in arms about changing birthright citizenship. It is just the way we function. That again applies to re regardless of your parents' immigration status. This is an issue that impacts every single American. Now, to your question as to what does it mean if multiple judges in different states, in different federal district courts have all ruled against. Donald Trump, I think it really means that the law is clear. You have judges who ha are Reagan appointees saying that the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment is crystal clear. It has, it is clear in terms of the text. If you are a textualist and you read exactly what the text says, if you believe in the context of, The 14th Amendment. If you look at the judicial history and just how this clause has been interpreted since ratification, like everything is consistent, this is not an area of law that has any gray area. And you see that because different judges in different district courts in Maryland, in Washington, in New Hampshire all have cited against Donald Trump.    Miko Lee: [00:33:54] So what is the intention of going to the Supreme Court?    Annie Lee: [00:33:59] I mean, he is trying to forum shop. He's trying to get a court that he believes will favor his interpretation and that is why the right has spent the last half century stacking federal courts. And that is why Mitch McConnell did not let Barack Obama replace Antonin Scalia. The composition of the Supreme Court is. So, so important, and you can see it at times like this.    Miko Lee: [00:34:28] But so many of the conservatives always talk about being constitutionalists, like really standing for the Constitution. So how do those things line up?   Annie Lee: [00:34:38] Oh, Miko, that's a great question. Indeed, yes, if they were the textualist that they say they are, this is a pretty clear case, but, Law is not as cut and dry as people think it is. It is obviously motivated by politics and that means law is subject to interpretation.   Miko Lee: [00:34:59] Annie, thank you so much for this breakdown. Are there any things that you would ask? Are people that are listening to this, how can they get involved? What can they do?    Annie Lee: [00:35:09] I would recommend folks check out StopAAPIHate. We are having monthly town halls as well as weekly videos to help break down what is happening. There's so much news and misinformation out there but we are trying to explain everything to everyone because these anti-immigration. Policies that are coming out be, this is anti-Asian hate and people should know that. You can also check out resources through Chinese for affirmative action. Our website has local resources for those of you who are in the Bay Area, including the rapid response lines for bay Area counties if you need any services, if you. See ICE. , if you want to know where their ICE is in any particular location, please call your rapid response line and ask them for that verifiable information. Thank you.    Miko Lee: [00:36:00] Thank you so much, Annie Lee for joining us today on Apex.    Ayame Keane-Lee: [00:36:04] You are listening to 94.1 KPFA and 89.3 KPFB in Berkeley, 88.1 KFCF in Fresno, 97.5 K248BR in Santa Cruz, 94.3 K232FZ in Monterey, and online worldwide at kpfa.org.   Miko Lee: [00:36:23] Welcome, Nicholas Gee from Chinese for affirmative action. Welcome to Apex Express.    Nicholas Gee: [00:36:29] Thanks so much, Miko. Glad to be here.    Miko Lee: [00:36:31] I'm so glad that you could join us on the fly. I wanted to first just start by asking you a personal question, which is for you to tell me who you are,, who are your people and what legacy do you carry with you.   Nicholas Gee: [00:36:46] I'll start off by saying Miko, thanks so much for having me. My name is Nicholas Gee and I am a third and or fourth generation Chinese American, born and raised in Houston, Texas. And for me, what that means is, is that my great-great-grandparents and great-grandparents migrated from Southern China, fleeing war and famine and looking for opportunity in the middle of the early, like 19 hundreds. And they wanted to start an opportunity here for future generations like me. My people are my family who migrated here over a hundred years ago. who were settling to start a new life. My people are also the people that I advocate with, the Language Access network of San Francisco, the Immigrant Parent Voting Collaborative, my colleagues at Chinese for affirmative action and stop AAPI hate. I think about my people as the people that I'm advocating with on the ground day to day asking and demanding for change.   Miko Lee: [00:37:41] Thank you. And what legacy do you carry with you?    Nicholas Gee: [00:37:45] I carry the legacy of my elders, particularly my grandparents who immigrated here in around the 1940s or so. And when I think about their legacy, I think a lot about the legacy of immigration, what it means to be here, what it means to belong, and the fight for advocacy and the work that I do today.    Miko Lee: [00:38:05] Thanks so much, Nick, and we're here doing this show all about Wong Kim Ark, and I know Chinese for affirmative action has planned this whole week-long celebration to bring up as we're talking about legacy, the legacy of Wong Kim Ark. Can you talk about how this one week celebration came to be and what folks can expect?    Nicholas Gee: [00:38:26] Yeah. As folks may know we are in the midst of many executive orders that have been in place and one of them being the executive order to end birthright citizenship. And Wong Kim Ark was actually born and raised in San Francisco's Chinatown, particularly on seven. 51 Sacramento Street. In the heart of the community and local partners here in this city, we're really trying to figure out how do we advocate and protect birthright citizenship? How do we bring momentum to tell the story of Wong Kim Ark in a moment when birthright citizenship is, in the process of being removed And so we really wanted to create some momentum around the storytelling, around the legacy of Wong Kim Ark, but also the legal implications and what it means for us to advocate and protect for birthright citizenship. And so I joined a couple of our local partners and particularly our team at Chinese for affirmative action to develop and create the first ever Wong Kim Ark Week. Officially known as born in the USA and the Fight for Citizenship, a week long series of events, specifically to honor the 127th anniversary of the Landmark Supreme Court case, US versus Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for all in the United States.    Miko Lee: [00:39:44] What will happen during this week-long celebration?   Nicholas Gee: [00:39:48] We have several scheduled events to raise awareness, mobilize the community, and really to stand up for the rights of all immigrants and their families. One is an incredible book Talk in conversation with author and activist Bianca Boutte. Louie, who recently authored a book called Unassimilable. And she tells a personal narrative and provides a sharp analysis for us to think about race and belonging and solidarity in America, particularly through an Asian American lens. This event is hosted by the Chinese Historical Society of America. Following. We have a live in-person community symposium on Wong Kim Ark legacy and the struggle for citizenship. There'll be a powerful community conversation with legal advocates, storytellers, movement builders, to have a dynamic conversation on the impact of birthright citizenship. Who is Wong Kim Ark? What is his enduring legacy and how people can join us for the ongoing struggle for justice? And you know, we actually have a special guest, Norman Wong, who is the great grandson of Wong Kim Ark. He'll be joining us for this special event. We have a couple of more events. One is a Chinatown History and Art Tour hosted by Chinese Culture Center, this is a small group experience where community members can explore Chinatown's vibrant history, art, and activism, and particularly we'll learn about the legacy of Wong Kim Ark and then lastly, we have a in-person press conference that's happening on Friday, which is we're gonna conclude the whole week of, Wong Kim Ark with a birthright, citizenship resolution and a Wong Kim Ark dedication. And so we'll be celebrating his enduring impact on Birthright citizenship and really these ongoing efforts to protect, our fundamental right. and the San Francisco Public Library is actually hosting an Asian American and Pacific Islander book display at the North Beach campus and they'll be highlighting various books and authors and titles inspired by themes of migration, community, and resilience. So those are our scheduled, events We're welcoming folks to join and folks can register, and check out more information at casf.org/WongKimArk    Miko Lee: [00:42:04] Thanks so much and we will post a link to that in our show notes. I'm wondering how many of those are in Chinese as well as English?    Nicholas Gee: [00:42:13] That is a fantastic question, Miko. We currently have the community symposium on Wong Kim Ark legacy in the struggle for citizenship. This event will have live interpretation in both Mandarin and Cantonese.    Miko Lee: [00:42:46] What would you like folks to walk away with? An understanding of what.    Nicholas Gee: [00:42:30] We really want people to continue to learn about the legacy of birthright citizenship and to become an advocate with us. We also have some information on our website, around what you can do to protect birthright citizenship. As an advocate, we are always thinking about how do we get people involved, to think about civic engagement intentional education and to tie that back to our advocacy. And so we have a couple of ways that we're inviting people to take action with us. One is to invite a friend to consider attending one of our events. If you're based here in the San Francisco Bay area or if you're online, join us for the book Talk with Bianca. , two, we're inviting folks to take action and oppose the executive order to ban birthright citizenship. Chinese for affirmative action has. A call to action where we can actually send a letter to petition , to oppose this executive order to send a message directly to our congressman or woman. and lastly, you know, we're asking people to learn about Wong Kim Ark as a whole, and to learn about the impacts of birthright citizenship. My hope is that folks walk away with more of an understanding of what does it mean here to be an advocate? What does it mean to take action across the community and really to communicate this is what resilience will look like in our community    Miko Lee: [00:43:44] Nick Gee, thank you so much for joining me on Apex Express. It was great to hear how people can get involved in the Wong Kim Ark week and learn more about actions and how they can get involved. We appreciate the work you're doing.    Nicholas Gee: [00:43:56] Thanks so much Miko, and I'm excited to launch this.   Miko Lee: [00:43:58] Welcome, Reverend Deb Lee, executive Director of Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity and part of the Network on Religion and justice. Thank you so much for coming on Apex Express.    Rev. Deb Lee: [00:44:09] Great to be here. Miko.    Miko Lee: [00:44:11] I would love you just personally to tell me who are your people and what legacy do you carry with you?   Rev. Deb Lee: [00:44:17] Wow. Well, my people are people in the Chinese diaspora. My family's been in diaspora for seven generations, from southern China to southeast to Asia. and then eventually to the United States. What I carry with me is just a huge sense of resistance and this idea of like, we can survive anywhere and we take our love and our family and our ancestor we gotta carry it with us. We don't always have land or a place to put it down into the ground, and so we carry those things with us. , that sense of resistance and resilience.    Miko Lee: [00:44:56] Thank you so much. I relate to that so much as a fifth generation Chinese American. To me, it's really that sense of resilience is so deep and powerful, and I'm wondering as a person from the faith community, if you could share about the relevance of Wong Kim Ark and Birthright citizenship.   Rev. Deb Lee: [00:45:12] Yeah, Wong Kim Ark is critical because he was somebody who really fought back against racist laws and really asserted his right to be part of this country, his right to have the Constitution apply to him too. I'm just so grateful for him and so many of the other Chinese Americans who fought back legally and resisted against in that huge wave of period of Chinese exclusion to create some of the really important immigration laws that we have today. I wouldn't be a citizen without birthright citizenship myself. Wong Kim Ark really established that every person who is born on this soil has a right to constitutional protection, has a right to be a citizen. And in fact, the Constitution in the 14th Amendment also applies to let equal treatment for everyone here, everyone who is here. You don't even have to be a citizen for the constitutional rights. And the Fourth Amendment, the fifth Amendment, the first amendment to apply to you. And those things are so under attack right now. It's so important to establish the equality. Of every person and the right for people here in this country to have safety and belonging, that everyone here deserves safety and belonging.    Miko Lee: [00:46:24] Thank you so much for lifting up that activist history. as, a person who was raised in a theological setting at a seminary, I was really raised around this ethos of love as an active tool and a way of fighting for civil rights, fighting for things that we believe in. And I'm wondering if you could talk about how you see that playing out in today. And especially as you know, this Trump regime has had such incredible impacts on immigrants and on so much of our activist history. I'm wondering if you have thoughts on that?    Rev. Deb Lee: [00:47:00] Well, so much of the civil rights history in this country, you know, going back to like the activism of Chinese Americans to establish some of those civil rights. You know, it goes back to this idea of like, who is fully human, who can be fully human, whose humanity will be fully recognized? And so I think that's what's connects back to my faith and connects back to faith values of the sacredness of every person, the full humanity, the full participation, the dignity. And so I think, Wong Kim Ark and the other, like Chinese American activists, they were fighting for like, you know, we don't wanna just be, we're gonna just gonna be laborers. We're not just going to be people who you can, Bring in and kick out whenever you want, but like, we want to be fully human and in this context of this nation state, that means being fully citizens.And so I think that that struggle and that striving to say we want that full humanity to be recognized, that is a fundamental kind of belief for many faith traditions, which, you know, speak to the radical equality of all people and the radical dignity of all people, that can't be taken away, but that has to really be recognized. What's under attack right now is. So much dehumanization, stigmatization of people, you know, based on race, based on class, based on gender, based on what country people were born in, what papers they carry, you know, if they ever had contact, prior contact with the law, like all these things. You know, are immediately being used to disregard someone's humanity. And so I think those of us who come from a faith tradition or who just share that kind of sense of, value and, deep humanism in other people, that's where we have to root ourselves in this time in history and really being, you know, we are going to defend one another's humanity and dignity, at all costs.   Miko Lee: [00:48:55] Thank you for that. I'm wondering if there are other lessons that we can learn from Wong Kim Ark, I mean, the time when he fought back against, this was so early in 1894, as you mentioned, the Chinese exclusion acts and I'm wondering if there are other lessons that we can learn from him in, in our time when we are seeing so many of our rights being eroded.   Rev. Deb Lee: [00:49:17] I think that there's so many ways, that we think about how did people organize then like, you know, it's challenging to organize now, but if you can imagine organizing then, and I'm thinking, you know, when Chinese people were required to carry identification papers and you know, on mass they refused to do that and they. Practice, like a form of civil disobedience. And I think we're at this time now, like the Trump administration's telling anybody here who's unauthorized to come forward and to register well, I think people need to think twice about that. And people are, there are many other things that they're trying to impose on the immigrant community and I think one like lesson is like, how do people survive through a period of exclusion and we are today in a period of exclusion. That really goes back to the mid 1980s, when there was, last, a significant immigration reform that created a pathway to citizenship. Only for about 3 million people. But after that, since that time in the mid 1980s, there has been no other pathways to citizenship, no other forms of amnesty, no other ways for people to fix their status.So in fact, we are already in another 40 year period of exclusion again. And so one of those lessons is how do people survive this period? Like right, and left. They're taking away all the laws and protections that we had in our immigration system. They were very narrow already. Now even those are being eliminated and any form of compassion or discretion or leniency or understanding has been removed. So I think people are in a period of. Survival. How do we survive and get through? And a lot of the work that we're doing on sanctuary right now we have a sanctuary people campaign, a sanctuary congregations campaign is how do we walk alongside immigrants to whom there is no path. There is no right way. there is no opening right now. But walk with them and help support them because right now they're trying to squeeze people so badly that they will self deport. And leave on their own. This is part of a process of mass expulsion but if people really believe that they want to stay and be here, how do we help support people to get through this period of exclusion until there will be another opening? And I believe there will be like our, our history kind of spirals in and out, and sometimes there are these openings and that's something I take from the faith communities. If you look at Chinese American history in this country, the role that faith communities played in walking with the immigrant community and in supporting them, and there's many stories that help people get through that period of exclusion as well.   Miko Lee: [00:51:52] Deb, I'm wondering what you would say to folks. I'm hearing from so many people [say] I can't read the news. It's too overwhelming. I don't wanna get involved. I just have to take care of myself. And so I'm just waiting. And even James Carville, the political opponent, say we gotta play dead for a few years. What are your thoughts on this?    Rev. Deb Lee: [00:52:11] Well, we can't play totally dead. I wish the Democrats wouldn't be playing dead, but I think that a person of faith, we have to stay present we don't really have the option to check out and we actually have to be in tune with the suffering. I think it would be irresponsible for us to. You know, turn a blind eye to the suffering. And I wanna encourage people that actually opportunities to walk with people who are being impacted and suffering can actually be deeply, fulfilling and can help give hope and give meaning. And there are people who are looking for solidarity right now. We are getting a lot of calls every week for someone who just wants them, wants someone to go to their court or go to the ice, check-in with them, and literally just like walk three blocks down there with them and wait for them. To make sure they come out. And if they don't come out to call the rapid response hotline, it doesn't take much. But it's a huge act like this is actually what some of the immigrant communities are asking for, who are millions of people who are under surveillance right now and have to report in. So those small acts of kindness can be deeply rewarding in this. Sea of overwhelming cruelty. And I think we have an obligation to find something that we can do. , find a way, find a person, find someone that we can connect to support and be in solidarity with and think about people in our past. Who have accompanied us or accompanied our people and our people's journey. And when those acts of kindness and those acts of neighbors and acts of friendship have meant so much I know like my family, they still tell those stories of like, this one person, you know, in Ohio who welcome them and said hello. We don't even know their names. Those acts can be etched in people's hearts and souls. And right now people need us.    Miko Lee: [00:53:59] Oh, I love that. I've talked with many survivors of the Japanese American concentration camps, and so many of them talk about the people of conscience, meaning the people that were able to step up and help support them during, before and after that time. Lastly, I'm wondering, you're naming some really specific ways that people can get engaged, and I know you're deeply involved in the sanctuary movement. Can you provide us with ways that people can find out more? More ways to get involved in some of the work that you are doing.    Rev. Deb Lee: [00:54:29] I'll put a plug in for our website. It's www dot I am number four, human integrity.org. So it's, iam4humanintegrity.org. We work with families that are impacted facing deportation, looking for all kinds of ways to get the community to rally around folks and support and we work with faith communities who are thinking about how to become sanctuary congregations and how to be an important resource in your local community. The other organizations, I would say sign up for Bay Resistance. They're organizing a lot of volunteers that we call on all the time we're working with. We're, you know, working with many organizations, the Bay Area, to make sure that a new ice detention facility does not get built. They are looking at the potential site of Dublin. We've worked really hard the last decade to get all the detention centers out of Northern California. We don't want them to open up a new one here.   Miko Lee: [00:55:27] Deb Lee, thank you so much for joining us on Apex Express and folks can actually see Deb on Tuesday night in Wong Kim Ark Week as one of the speakers. Thank you so much for joining us.    Rev. Deb Lee: [00:55:38] Thank you, Miko.    Miko Lee: [00:55:39] Thank you so much for joining us on Apex Express. We're gonna close this episode with words from Norman Wong, the great grandson of Wong Kim Ark.   Norman Wong: [00:55:49] So let's fight back. Threats to birthright citizenship will only divide us, and right now we need to come together to continue the impact of my great grandfather's. This is my family's legacy, and now it's part of yours too. Thank you    Miko Lee: [00:56:11] Please check out our website, kpfa.org to find out more about our show tonight. We think all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating and sharing your visions with the world because your voices are important. Apex Express is created by Miko Lee, Jalena Keane-Lee, Preti Mangala-Shekar, Swati Rayasam, Aisa Villarosa, Estella Owoimaha-Church, Gabriel Tanglao, Cheryl Truong and Ayame Keane-Lee.    The post APEX Express – 3.20.25- Wong Kim Ark appeared first on KPFA.

We continue our study of Justice Scalia's great dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and what it teaches us about Separation of Powers as established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Part 3, going through Roman numeral two, the first half. We'll finish Roman numeral two next time. Pay attention to the criticism of interest balancing tests in adjudicating Constitutionally vested powers and rights in this episode, connecting the issue in this case to the Second Amendment . The Republican Professor is a pro-Separation-of-Powers-rightly-understood-executive-power-correctly-contemplated podcast. Therefore, welcome Justice Antonin Scalia to the podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. To support the podcast, support it. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

We continue our study of Justice Scalia's great dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and what it teaches us about Separation of Powers as established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Part 2, going through Roman numeral one. Next time, we get to Roman numeral two and beyond. The Republican Professor is a pro-Separation-of-Powers-rightly-understood-executive-power-correctly-contemplated podcast. Therefore, welcome Justice Antonin Scalia to the podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. To support the podcast, support it. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

We begin our study of Justice Scalia's great dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and what it teaches us about Separation of Powers as established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Part 1. Next time, we get to Roman numeral one and beyond. The Republican Professor is a pro-Separation-of-Powers-rightly-understood-executive-power-correctly-contemplated podcast. Therefore, welcome Justice Antonin Scalia to the podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. To support the podcast, support it. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Ten years ago, political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern took an extraordinary data set compiled by Gilens and a small army of researchers and set out to determine whether America could still credibly call itself a democracy. They used case studies 1,800 policy proposals over 30 years, tracking how they made their way through the political system and whose interests were served by outcomes. For small D democrats, the results were devastating. Political outcomes overwhelmingly favored very wealthy people, corporations, and business groups. The influence of ordinary citizens, meanwhile, was at a “non-significant, near-zero level.” America, they concluded, was not a democracy at all, but a functional oligarchy.  Fast forward to 2024 and a presidential campaign that saw record support by billionaires for both candidates, but most conspicuously for Republican candidate Donald Trump from Tesla and Starlink owner Elon Musk, the world's richest man. That prompted outgoing President Joe Biden, in his farewell address, to warn Americans about impending oligarchy—something Gilens and Page said was already a fait accompli ten years before. And as if on cue, the new president put billionaire tech bro supporters like Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg front and center at his inauguration and has given Musk previously unimaginable power to dismantle and reshape the federal government through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. So what does it mean that American oligarchy is now so brazenly out in the open?  Joining host Ralph Ranalli are Harvard Kennedy School Professor Archon Fung and Harvard Law School Professor Larry Lessig, who say it could an inflection point that will force Americans to finally confront the country's trend toward rule by the wealthy, but that it's by no means certain that that direction can be changed anytime soon. Archon Fung is a democratic theorist and faculty director of the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at HKS. Larry Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School and a 2016 presidential candidate whose central campaign theme was ridding politics of the corrupting influence of money. Archon Fung's Policy Recommendations:Involve the U.S. Office of Government Ethics in monitoring executive orders and changes to the federal government being made by President Trump, Elon Musk, and other Trump proxies.Demand transparency from Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency about their actions in federal agencies, what changes and modifications they are making to systems, and an accounting of what information they have access to.Lawrence Lessig's Policy Recommendations:Build support for a test court case to overturn the legality of Super PACs, which are allowed to raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates.Experiment with alternative campaign funding mechanisms, such as a voucher program that would give individuals public money that they could pledge to political candidates.Urge Democratic Party leaders to lead by example and outlaw Super PAC participation in Democratic primaries.Episode Notes:Archon Fung is the Winthrop Laflin McCormack Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government and director of the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Kennedy School. at the Harvard Kennedy School. His research explores policies, practices, and institutional designs that deepen the quality of democratic governance. He focuses upon public participation, deliberation, and transparency. His books include “Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency” (Cambridge University Press, with Mary Graham and David Weil) and “Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy” (Princeton University Press). He has authored five books, four edited collections, and over fifty articles appearing in professional journals. He holds two S.B.s — in philosophy and physics — and a Ph.D. in political science from MIT.Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School. Prior to returning to Harvard, he taught at Stanford Law School, where he founded the Center for Internet and Society, and at the University of Chicago. He clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. Lessig is the founder of Equal Citizens and a founding board member of Creative Commons, and serves on the Scientific Board of AXA Research Fund. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society, he was once cited by The New Yorker as “the most important thinker on intellectual property in the Internet era,” Lessig has turned his focus from law and technology to institutional corruption and the corrupting influence of money on democracy, which led to his entering the 2016 Democratic primary for president. He has written 11 books, including “They Don't Represent Us: Reclaiming Our Democracy” in 2019. He holds a BA in economics and a BS in management from the University of Pennsylvania, an MA in philosophy from Cambridge University, and a JD from Yale.Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an BA in political science from UCLA and a master's in journalism from Columbia University.Scheduling and logistical support for PolicyCast is provided by Lillian Wainaina.Design and graphics support is provided by Laura King and the OCPA Design Team. Web design and social media promotion support is provided by Catherine Santrock and Natalie Montaner of the OCPA Digital Team. Editorial support is provided by Nora Delaney and Robert O'Neill of the OCPA Editorial Team.  

Dr. Lawrence Lessig, Prof. of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, formerly professor at Stanford Law School, former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia and author of numerous books and articles on democracy and its accelerating decline, spoke with Ruth and occasional co-host James Moore on money's corrupting influence over our democracy and what we as individuals and as a nation can do about it.

... and he might actually be right! Listen in and hear why. OA1105 - Harvard Law professor and anti-corruption advocate Lawrence Lessig is almost certainly the only person on Earth to have had a personal relationship with both visionary hacker Aaron Swartz and former Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia. We warmly welcome Professor Lessig back to OA to share--among many other things--his experiences with each of these very different people, why he remains optimistic about campaign finance reform going into the second Trump administration, and the originalist argument against Super PACs. “Why They Mattered: Aaron Swartz,” Lawrence Lessig, Politico (12/22/2013) They Don't Represent Us: Reclaiming Our Democracy, Lawrence Lessig (2024) Republic Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It, Lawrence Lessig (2011) Support End Super Pacs Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Join the Anchoring Truths Podcast for both a look back and a look ahead for originalism. Our guest, Steven Calabresi, is the co-author of a new intellectual history “The Meese Revolution” that describes the rise of originalism, which necessitates telling the story of Ed Meese, without whom it surely does not happen. Calabresi, who was part of that history working closely with Meese, threads a story through virtually all important legal and policy events of the 1980s, many of which continue to shape the world of the twenty-first century. And as we come to the end of our discussion, I think you'll agree that in many respects we are still living through the Meese Revolution. Professor Calabresi is the Clayton J. & Henry R. Barber Professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, as well as a visiting professor at Yale Law School. Calabresi clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia and Judges Robert H. Bork and Ralph K. Winter. He was a Special Assistant to Attorney General Meese from 1985 to 1987 and worked with Ken Cribb as his deputy in 1987 on the second floor of the West Wing of the Reagan White House. Calabresi has written books on presidential power and comparative constitutional law and the origins of judicial review. He and co-author of The Meese Revolution Gary Lawson are also the co-editors of a casebook on U.S. Constitutional Law, and Calabresi is also the co-editor of a casebook on comparative constitutional law. He has written over seventy law review articles since 1990. "The Meese Revolution" may be purchased here.

Seth discusses Producer David Doll's sartorial choices. Manslaughter charges have been dismissed in Daniel Penny's trial in New York City, former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's comments on the Constitution and what makes America great, and former President Obama's first remarks since President Trump's re-election victory in November. David wants an RV for Christmas.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

THIS IS NOT WHAT RECESS APPOINTMENTS ARE FOR When I heard yesterday that Trump wanted the Senate to come to order and then recess so he could make recess appointments for his Cabinet, especially with Matt Gaetz, I got mad. This is NOT what recess appointment power is supposed to be used for. Obama got his hand slapped by the Supreme Court when he appointed a bunch of people to the National Labor Relations Board in this fashion and the more conservative justices all joined an opinion by the late great Antonin Scalia in which he said: As Scalia explained in a lengthy statement from the bench that followed Breyer's summary of the Court's decision, he and his three colleagues would have held that the president's recess appointments power is substantially more limited than the Court ruled today. For example, they would have ruled that the president can only make recess appointments during inter-session recesses, and only then to fill vacancies that are created during that recess. And the majority did not escape Scalia's trademark incisive remarks, as he criticized it for relying on an “adverse-possession theory of executive authority: “Presidents have long claimed the powers in question, and the Senate has not disputed those claims with sufficient vigor, so the Court should not ‘upset the compromises and working arrangements that the elected branches of Government themselves have reached.'”Three of the justices who joined this opinion are still on the bench and have been joined by even more conservative justices so I would expect Trump to have his nominations invalidated too. By the way, Gaetz already resigned from Congress. None of the other appointees have. You know why he resigned? Because the House Ethics investigation was due to release their findings,which now won't happen because he isn't a member of Congress. How convenient. I've got Daily Caller News Foundation reporter Katelynn Richardson on at 2:30 to discuss.

Episode replay from the first season. Today's guest is Fr. Paul Scalia, the Vicar General of the Diocese of Arlington. Fr. Scalia shares his testimony and a bit about growing up with his father, Antonin Scalia. He talks about his calling into the priesthood and what it's like to be a priest for such a young diocese. We discuss the state of men today and how in today's society, men have been deprived of heroes and the role of providing and protecting. Additionally, we talk about the need for fraternity, specifically in seminaries and the priesthood, and for fatherhood in the family and the Church.   Subscribe/Rate Never miss out on an episode by subscribing to the podcast on whatever platform you are listening on. Help other people find the show by sharing this episode on your social media. Thanks!   Connect with Brett: Website: https://brettpowell.org Twitter/X: @BrettPowellorg https://twitter.com/BrettPowellorg Coaching: https://buildmylifecompass.com/coaching   Music "Southern Gothic" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/   Editing by ForteCatholic (https://www.fortecatholic.com)

Frank starts the third hour talking about twins having language bonds and young people not wanting to see sex in movies. He also discusses a dismembered dolphin being found washed up. He also gives the Conspiracy of the Day on the death of former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Frank starts the show joined by nationally-syndicated talk show host Dominic Carter to discuss the election and Allan Lichtman and his keys being wrong about the election. Frank is later joined by Jeffrey Lichtman, a veteran criminal defense attorney and the host of Beyond the Legal Limit. They discuss the election of Trump, the future of Israel, the Mets and more. Frank talks about a horrid murder-suicide near a daycare in the Bronx. He later gives his NFL picks for the week and discusses the effects of the election. He also gives the UFO Report on claims that nuclear sites are being frequently visited by UFOs. Frank starts the third hour talking about twins having language bonds and young people not wanting to see sex in movies. He also discusses a dismembered dolphin being found washed up. He also gives the Conspiracy of the Day on the death of former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Frank wraps up the show talking about if educators have ruined education. He is also joined by Noam Laden for News You Can Use and radio host Brian Kilmeade to discuss news of the day. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, we explore various topics, starting with clips from Justice Antonin Scalia on strict interpretation and self-governance. They then tackle misleading statistics used by organizations like “Find the Children” to instill fear, highlighting the importance of critical thinking. The episode also delves into the significance of legislative elections in shaping criminal justice and […]

This Day in Legal History: William Rehnquist BornOn October 1, 1924, William Hubbs Rehnquist, the 16th Chief Justice of the United States, was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Appointed to the Supreme Court in 1972 by President Nixon, Rehnquist became a polarizing figure, known for his staunch conservatism and originalist approach to the Constitution. His judicial philosophy often focused on restricting federal authority and bolstering states' rights, positions that critics argued rolled back civil rights protections and hindered federal progress on social justice issues. In 1986, President Reagan elevated Rehnquist to Chief Justice, a decision that pushed the Court further right. At his swearing-in, Reagan hailed him as a defender of constitutional values, but opponents viewed his appointment as the solidification of an increasingly reactionary judiciary. The same ceremony saw Antonin Scalia, another conservative, sworn in, signaling a shift that would influence rulings on affirmative action, voting rights, and church-state separation.Rehnquist's tenure included controversial rulings, notably his role in Bush v. Gore (2000), which critics argue undermined democratic principles by halting the Florida recount and effectively deciding a presidential election. His leadership on the Court was also marked by decisions that curtailed congressional power under the Commerce Clause, weakening federal authority in areas like civil rights and environmental regulation. While his supporters celebrated him as a guardian of limited government, his legacy remains contentious, with lasting impacts on the Court's direction and the balance between federal and state power.A fun Rehnquist fact is that you'll see in any official pictures or portraits of him as Chief Justice, his sleeves have yellow arm bands. Rehnquist insisted on adding four gold stripes on each sleeve to distinguish himself from the associate justices. He was inspired by the costume of the Lord Chancellor in a production of the Gilbert and Sullivan opera Iolanthe. Rehnquist's addition of the stripes was an unusual departure from the traditional plain black robes worn by justices, and it became a symbol of his unique approach to the role.New York Mayor Eric Adams has brought on three high-profile litigators as he faces federal criminal charges. William Burck, a former George W. Bush White House lawyer and current Fox Corp. board member, is one of the lawyers advising Adams. Burck, known for representing figures like Stephen Bannon and Don McGahn, joins Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan partners John Bash III and Avi Perry on Adams' defense team. Alex Spiro, a partner at Quinn Emanuel with experience defending high-profile clients like Elon Musk, is leading the defense. The charges involve allegations that Adams accepted lavish travel perks and had improper ties to the Turkish government. Adams has denied wrongdoing and vowed to continue as mayor while fighting the charges. His legal team has requested the case's dismissal.Meanwhile, a legal defense fund for Adams has paid over $877,000 to law firm WilmerHale, and several staffers have left his administration amid ongoing investigations. Additionally, Theresa Hassler was recently appointed general counsel for the Mayor's Fund to Advance New York City, a nonprofit under scrutiny for its fundraising practices.Ex-Bannon Lawyer With Fox News Ties Joins NYC Mayor Defense TeamToday, on October 1, 2024, a Georgia judge will hear a challenge from Democrats against new election rules introduced by the Republican-led Georgia Election Board. These rules, approved in August, allow county officials to investigate discrepancies in vote counts and scrutinize election-related documents before certifying results. Democrats argue that these changes, which came just before the November 5 election, are designed to erode trust in the process and could delay certification. The rules were backed by three board members who are allies of Donald Trump, who continues to challenge his 2020 loss in Georgia. Trump has praised these board members for their efforts to increase election security, though critics, including Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, say the changes could undermine voter confidence and strain election workers.A separate lawsuit was also filed to block a new requirement for a hand count of ballots. Democrats contend that these rules create confusion and provide too much leeway for local officials to investigate alleged fraud, potentially delaying results. The trial in Fulton County Superior Court is part of a broader national focus on battleground states like Georgia, where both Republicans and Democrats are intensely focused ahead of the upcoming presidential election.Challenge by US Democrats to Georgia election rules goes to trial | ReutersAs artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform industries, more U.S. law firms are appointing executives to lead AI initiatives. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and McDermott Will & Emery both announced new AI leadership hires, with Akin appointing Jeff Westcott as director of practice technology and AI innovation, and McDermott hiring Christopher Cyrus as director of AI innovation. These moves reflect the growing belief that AI will have a permanent role in the legal profession, particularly in areas like research, drafting legal documents, and reducing administrative tasks.Law firms are responding to client expectations and the surge in AI technologies, which have expanded dramatically in the past two years. Other firms, such as Covington & Burling, Latham & Watkins, and Reed Smith, have similarly created AI and data science roles since the rise of tools like ChatGPT. Westcott will focus on how Akin Gump can strategically invest in AI technology, assessing whether to develop tools in-house, purchase products, or partner with vendors.Additionally, legal AI startup Harvey's chief strategy officer, Gordon Moodie, transitioned to Debevoise & Plimpton as a partner specializing in mergers and acquisitions. These developments underscore the legal industry's growing focus on AI integration as firms aim to remain competitive and adapt to technological advances.More US law firms turn to executives for AI leadership roles | Reuters 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

Jill Barton spent the first decade of her career working as a journalist, with the Associated Press Stylebook always at hand to determine word usage and punctuation choices. But when she became an attorney, she says, she realized that there was no single equivalent style guide when it came to legal writing—and she had to adjust to using the Oxford comma. As a professor of legal writing at the University of Miami, she also began to notice a contrast between the classic 19th and 20th century court opinions her students were being given to read and the style of writing coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 21st century. Standards were changing at the highest court of the land, but the wider legal community wasn't necessarily aware of it. Barton spent five years analyzing more than 10,000 pages from Supreme Court opinions, and The Supreme Guide to Writing is the result. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Barton and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss her findings, and what some of the bigger surprises were. One of her biggest takeaways is that the justices are not a conservative bunch when it comes to writing style. For example, during most of Justice Antonin Scalia's tenure on the court, he was a strident opponent of contractions—can't, don't, shouldn't were always cannot, do not, should not. But in his final years, Scalia did sprinkle in a few contractions, and his replacement, Justice Neil Gorsuch, is “King of the Contractions,” Barton says. The justices were willing to depart from grammar rules if adhering to them caused stilted writing, Barton found. Chief Justice John Roberts uses commas based on cadence rather than simply following strict English grammar guidance. All the justices showed a marked preference for active verbs and shorter, simpler phrases. They have adapted to using pronouns that match litigants' gender identities, and to using the singular “they” rather than “he or she.”  The Supreme Guide to Writing notes when the court shows unanimity in a usage rule, and when there is disagreement. While each justice shows internal consistency with how they show a possessive when a singular noun ends in “s,” there is no group consensus on apostrophe-s versus a single apostrophe. Barton discusses her research process, offers more insight into the way legal language is evolving, and shares how practitioners can use her book to modernize their own writing.

Jill Barton spent the first decade of her career working as a journalist, with the Associated Press Stylebook always at hand to determine word usage and punctuation choices. But when she became an attorney, she says, she realized that there was no single equivalent style guide when it came to legal writing—and she had to adjust to using the Oxford comma. As a professor of legal writing at the University of Miami, she also began to notice a contrast between the classic 19th and 20th century court opinions her students were being given to read and the style of writing coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 21st century. Standards were changing at the highest court of the land, but the wider legal community wasn't necessarily aware of it. Barton spent five years analyzing more than 10,000 pages from Supreme Court opinions, and The Supreme Guide to Writing is the result. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Barton and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss her findings, and what some of the bigger surprises were. One of her biggest takeaways is that the justices are not a conservative bunch when it comes to writing style. For example, during most of Justice Antonin Scalia's tenure on the court, he was a strident opponent of contractions—can't, don't, shouldn't were always cannot, do not, should not. But in his final years, Scalia did sprinkle in a few contractions, and his replacement, Justice Neil Gorsuch, is “King of the Contractions,” Barton says. The justices were willing to depart from grammar rules if adhering to them caused stilted writing, Barton found. Chief Justice John Roberts uses commas based on cadence rather than simply following strict English grammar guidance. All the justices showed a marked preference for active verbs and shorter, simpler phrases. They have adapted to using pronouns that match litigants' gender identities, and to using the singular “they” rather than “he or she.”  The Supreme Guide to Writing notes when the court shows unanimity in a usage rule, and when there is disagreement. While each justice shows internal consistency with how they show a possessive when a singular noun ends in “s,” there is no group consensus on apostrophe-s versus a single apostrophe. Barton discusses her research process, offers more insight into the way legal language is evolving, and shares how practitioners can use her book to modernize their own writing.

Jill Barton spent the first decade of her career working as a journalist, with the Associated Press Stylebook always at hand to determine word usage and punctuation choices. But when she became an attorney, she says, she realized that there was no single equivalent style guide when it came to legal writing—and she had to adjust to using the Oxford comma. As a professor of legal writing at the University of Miami, she also began to notice a contrast between the classic 19th and 20th century court opinions her students were being given to read and the style of writing coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 21st century. Standards were changing at the highest court of the land, but the wider legal community wasn't necessarily aware of it. Barton spent five years analyzing more than 10,000 pages from Supreme Court opinions, and The Supreme Guide to Writing is the result. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Barton and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss her findings, and what some of the bigger surprises were. One of her biggest takeaways is that the justices are not a conservative bunch when it comes to writing style. For example, during most of Justice Antonin Scalia's tenure on the court, he was a strident opponent of contractions—can't, don't, shouldn't were always cannot, do not, should not. But in his final years, Scalia did sprinkle in a few contractions, and his replacement, Justice Neil Gorsuch, is “King of the Contractions,” Barton says. The justices were willing to depart from grammar rules if adhering to them caused stilted writing, Barton found. Chief Justice John Roberts uses commas based on cadence rather than simply following strict English grammar guidance. All the justices showed a marked preference for active verbs and shorter, simpler phrases. They have adapted to using pronouns that match litigants' gender identities, and to using the singular “they” rather than “he or she.”  The Supreme Guide to Writing notes when the court shows unanimity in a usage rule, and when there is disagreement. While each justice shows internal consistency with how they show a possessive when a singular noun ends in “s,” there is no group consensus on apostrophe-s versus a single apostrophe. Barton discusses her research process, offers more insight into the way legal language is evolving, and shares how practitioners can use her book to modernize their own writing.

Send us a textOn today's episode of the Cops and Writers Podcast, we are going into the courtroom with Attorney and Author Mark Bruce. California native Mark Bruce attended Humboldt State University, where he graduated Magna Cum Laude with a degree in Journalism. He then attended UC Berkeley Law School, where he graduated with his jurist doctorate. While attending UC Berkeley, he was a finalist in an oral advocacy competition where he appeared before Justice Scalia, who told him. “I like you because you're not a wimp.”Attorney Bruce has been a lawyer for 38 years, 18 as a public defender. Presently, he works for Estelle & Kennedy doing criminal and family law.In 2018, he won the Black Orchid Novella Award and has appeared four times in Alfred Hitchcock Mystery Magazine, including the May 2023 Cover Short Story. In today's episode, we discuss:·      His education in journalism and his shift to attend UC Berkeley law School. ·      His encounter with Supreme Court Justice Scalia as a law student.·      38 years as an attorney, 18 as a public defender. ·      Why is he a defense attorney?·      One of his most memorable cases as a defense attorney and what it meant to him personally.·      Winning the 2018 Black Orchid Novella Award and appearing 4 times in the Alfred Hitchcock Mystery Magazine, including the May 2023 Cover Short Story.·      Why Perry Mason was a terrible lawyer.·      Has he ever refused to defend a client? Why?·      How he explains the fact that he defends guilty criminals.Visit Mark at his website to learn more about him and his work.Check out the new Cops and Writers YouTube channel!Check out my newest book, The Good Collar (Michael Quinn Vigilante Justice Series Book 1)!!!!!Enjoy the Cops and Writers book series.Please visit the Cops and Writers website. Support the show

[6:24] We delve into the debate over the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, focusing on originalism versus a more dynamic, evolving approach. Larry introduces a classic clip from Justice Antonin Scalia, who argues that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was written over 200 years ago. The conversation explores how this viewpoint influences judicial […]

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.Here's a trivia question for devotees of Original Jurisdiction: excluding Supreme Court justices and Judge Aileen Cannon, who has been most frequently recognized in these pages as Judge of the Week? It's a tie between a pair of four-time honorees: Judge James Ho (5th Cir.), whom I've previously interviewed, and Judge Kevin Newsom (11th Cir.)—my latest guest on the Original Jurisdiction podcast.This month marks the seventh anniversary of Judge Newsom's appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. And although seven years is not a long time by the standards of judicial service, Judge Newsom has already developed a national reputation as one of the sharpest thinkers and writers on the federal bench.How has he put himself on the map? Many of history's most celebrated jurists have done so through dazzling dissents, such as Justice John Marshall Harlan, often called “The Great Dissenter,” and Justice Antonin Scalia.But Judge Newsom has done so through a more unusual vehicle: the concurrence (including the occasional self-concurrence, i.e., a concurrence to his own majority opinion). In a series of thoughtful and scholarly concurrences, he has tackled some of the messiest doctrinal areas and knottiest problems in American law, including standing, nondelegation, complex First and Second Amendment issues, the burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas v. Green, and jurisdiction under Bell v. Hood.Judge Newsom and I discuss why he writes these concurrences—plus Justice Elena Kagan's critique of superfluous concurrences, how to hire great law clerks (and feed them to the Supreme Court), and the potential utility of AI for originalism—in the latest episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast.Show Notes:* Judge Kevin C. Newsom bio, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit* Remarks of Judge Kevin C. Newsom, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy* Interview of Judge Kevin Newsom, by David Oscar Markus for For the DefensePrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

Professor Adrian Vermeule, an administrative and constitutional law expert, argued during an October 2022 panel discussion at Harvard Law School that the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia began his career on the bench as a proponent of the administrative state and only later evolved into its most fearsome foe. His remarks were followed by responses by Andrew Oldham, a judge who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and fellow Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig.

What happens when a cornerstone of democracy begins to show cracks? On this episode of After America as we scrutinize the U.S. Supreme Court's transformation and its far-reaching impacts on American democracy. We trace key moments from Justice Antonin Scalia's death to the rapid confirmation of conservative justices under President Trump. This episode unpacks the historical roots of the judiciary, its intended role as an independent arbiter of justice, and the seismic shifts that have led to a 6-3 conservative supermajority.We confront the controversies marring the Supreme Court's image, from contentious nomination processes to ethical dilemmas involving Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. We also explore how these controversies are eroding public trust and threatening the judiciary's credibility.  Landmark cases like Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization underscore the judiciary's evolving influence on societal values and individual liberties, and alert us to the grave consequences of increasing partisan divides in judicial appointments.Is American democracy at risk? We discuss how the judiciary might bolster or dismantle democratic values amid these challenges. From the strategic delays in confirming justices to the potential chaos of a future Trump presidency, this episode offers a sobering look at the judiciary's pivotal role in safeguarding—or undermining—democratic principles. Guests: Dr. Sara Benesh, Dr. Tara Grove, Dr. David Faris, Dr. Tom Ginsburg, and Stephen Marche Credits:Infados - Kevin MacLeodDark Tales: Music by Rahul Bhardwaj from Pixabay-------------------------Follow Deep Dive:InstagramYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

Today, the Two Mikes spoke with Sheriff Richard Mack, who was a constitutional sheriff in GrahamCounty in southwestern Arizona. He also is the founder and the president of an association named theConstitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA, https://cspoa.org) which is holding itsannual conference in Orlando, Florida on 7 September 2024. The CSPOA's membership includes about athousand of the republic's constitutional sheriffs – one-third of the country's total number -- many oftheir subordinates, and it is open for membership to all American citizens interested in its non-violenteffort to restore constitutional government to all of the United States, with a special emphasis on fullyrestoring the Bill of Rights. Sheriff Mack noted that the constitutional sheriffs swear an oath ofallegiance to the U.S. Constitution and so can act in protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit ofhappiness – the latter refers to the accumulation of personal property – and, for example, can block gunseizures, protect churches and businesses from mandated closings, as in the case of Covid, and preventthe outrageous denials of liberty we have seen against Amish farmers in Pennsylvania and other farmersaround the country. In essence, Sheriff Mack said, the maintenance of the peoples' liberty is theconstitutional sheriffs' sole responsibility. It also should be noted that Sheriff Mack managed to achievethe almost impossible when he launched a personal law suit that made its way to the Supreme Court –and he won! In the case of Mack-Vs-United States (1995), Mack challenged the legality of “The BradyHandgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required ‘local chief law enforcement officers. (CLEOs) toperform background-checks on prospective handgun purchasers, until such time as the AttorneyGeneral establishes a federal system for this purpose.”(1)--the Supreme Court constructed its opinion on the old principle that state legislatures are notsubject to federal direction. The Court explained that while Congress may require the federalgovernment to regulate commerce directly, in this case by performing background-checks onapplicants for handgun ownership, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not empower it tocompel state CLEOs to fulfill its federal tasks for it - even temporarily. (2)Sheriff Mack's argument not only won the case, but, in its decision, the Supreme Court also stuck a blowin favor of state's rights by reasserting the constitutional fact that state legislatures are not vassals ofthe federal government. Indeed, the Founders intended the states to be a check and balance against thesteady expansion of federal power. That undesirable and Constitution-wrecking expansion is now a factand it appears that constitutional law enforcement officers may well be our last, best chance to preventthe federal government from solidifying itself as a vast concentration of dictatorial power.The text of the majority decision – written by Justice Antonin Scalia -- in Mack-vs-United States (1995) isavailable in a pamphlet at https://www.cspoa.com, as well as elsewhere on the internet.Subscribe to Freedom First Network on Rumble to watch all of our shows LIVE: https://freedomfirst.tvElevate your meals with Freedom First Beef… even if you find yourself in the middle of the apocalypse! Use code TWOMIKES for 15% off and enjoy high-quality beef whenever you crave it – today or tomorrow! https://freedomfirstbeef.comBe ready for anything life throws your way with The Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit. Order today using code TWOMIKES for a 10% discount at https://twc.health/ffn.Protect your financial future with precious metals! Get your FREE Gold and Silver Guide from Genesis Gold today and take control of your financial destiny! https://pickaxgold.comUnleash the spirit of liberty in every cup with Freedom First Coffee's Founders Blend. Order now using code TWOMIKES and savor the unparalleled taste of freedom in every patriotic sip. https://freedomfirstcoffee.com

Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett is the author of A Life for Liberty: The Making of an American Originalist, a new memoir about his remarkable legal career. He joins Jeffrey Rosen to discuss his role in the evolution of originalism from a philosophy of judicial restraint to one of constitutional conservatism dedicated to restoring “the lost Constitution.” Resources: Randy Barnett, A Life for Liberty: The Making of an American Originalist (2024)  Randy Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2014)  Randy Barnett, “Two Conceptions of the Ninth Amendment,” (1989)   Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (1978)  Antonin Scalia, “Originalism: The Lesser Evil,” (1989)   National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)  “Originalism: A Matter of Interpretation,” NCC America's Town Hall Program (2022)  Stay Connected and Learn More: Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. Donate

Today's guest is Fr. Paul Scalia, the Vicar General of the Diocese of Arlington. Fr. Scalia shares his testimony and a bit about growing up with his father, Antonin Scalia. He talks about his calling into the priesthood and what it's like to be a priest for such a young diocese. We discuss the state of men today and how in today's society, men have been deprived of heroes and the role of providing and protecting. Additionally, we talk about the need for fraternity, specifically in seminaries and the priesthood, and for fatherhood in the family and the Church.   Subscribe/Rate Never miss out on an episode by subscribing to the podcast on whatever platform you are listening on. Help other people find the show by sharing this episode on your social media. Thanks!   Connect with Brett: Website: https://brettpowell.org Twitter/X: @BrettPowellorg https://twitter.com/BrettPowellorg   Music "Southern Gothic" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/   Editing by ForteCatholic (https://www.fortecatholic.com)

Newsmax Chief White House Correspondent James Rosen joins Victoria with a fun and enlightening conversation about life in the White House briefing room, what it's like to be the de facto arch-nemesis of Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and his career as an author, namely his multi-volume biography of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, as well as his research into the facts beyond the conspiracy theories relating to the Watergate Scandal. BUY JAMES ROSEN'S BOOKS ON AMAZON: https://www.amazon.com/stores/James-Rosen/author/B001JRYIKG?tag=victoriataft-20 --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/victoria-taft/support

Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record.  In The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, Dennie traces the roots of originalism as a legal theory back to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, though the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the 1954 case. Its adherents argue the meaning of the Constitution must solely be determined by “the original public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was drafted,” and that there is a discernible correct answer to what that meaning would have been. The theory gained popularity in the 1980s, with the late Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia as two influential proponents. Scalia famously said the Constitution is “not a living document. It's dead, dead, dead.” Today, originalism has formed the basis for decisions such as Justice Samuel Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. “Despite originalism's reputation as a serious intellectual theory, it's more like dream logic: It seems reasonable at first, but when you wake up, you can recognize it as nonsense,” Dennie writes. “Originalism deliberately overemphasizes a particular version of history that treats the civil-rights gains won over time as categorically suspect. The consequences of its embrace have been intentionally catastrophic for practically anyone who isn't a wealthy white man, aka the class of people with exclusive possession of political power at the time the Constitution's drafters originally put pen to paper (or quill to parchment).” In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Dennie and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how conservative originalists prioritize the time period of the Founding Fathers over the Reconstruction Era that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “We can't fulfill the Reconstruction Amendments' radical vision of full equality and freedom if we can't be attentive to the ways in which we have been made unequal and unfree,” Dennie writes in The Originalism Trap. While Dennie believes there are portions of the historical record that support broad civil liberty protections, she says she does not think originalism is a useful tool for progressives to use as a legal framework.  In place of originalism, Dennie has a bold proposal: inclusive constitutionalism. “Inclusive constitutionalism means what it says: the Constitution includes everyone, so our legal interpretation must serve to make the promise of inclusive democracy real. When the judiciary is called upon to resolve a legal ambiguity or when there are broad principles at issue, the application of which must be made specific, it is proper for courts to consider how cases may relate to systemic injustices and how different legal analyses would impact marginalized people's ability to participate in the country's political, economic and social life.”  Rawles and Dennie also discuss how lawyers and judges can push back against originalism; the legal rights and protections achieved by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and the LGBTQ+ community; why she dropped Jurassic Park references into the book; and how she keeps an optimistic outlook on the expansion of civil liberties. “Justice for all may not be a deeply rooted tradition,” Dennie writes, “but fighting for it is.”

Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record.  In The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, Dennie traces the roots of originalism as a legal theory back to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, though the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the 1954 case. Its adherents argue the meaning of the Constitution must solely be determined by “the original public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was drafted,” and that there is a discernible correct answer to what that meaning would have been. The theory gained popularity in the 1980s, with the late Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia as two influential proponents. Scalia famously said the Constitution is “not a living document. It's dead, dead, dead.” Today, originalism has formed the basis for decisions such as Justice Samuel Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. “Despite originalism's reputation as a serious intellectual theory, it's more like dream logic: It seems reasonable at first, but when you wake up, you can recognize it as nonsense,” Dennie writes. “Originalism deliberately overemphasizes a particular version of history that treats the civil-rights gains won over time as categorically suspect. The consequences of its embrace have been intentionally catastrophic for practically anyone who isn't a wealthy white man, aka the class of people with exclusive possession of political power at the time the Constitution's drafters originally put pen to paper (or quill to parchment).” In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Dennie and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how conservative originalists prioritize the time period of the Founding Fathers over the Reconstruction Era that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “We can't fulfill the Reconstruction Amendments' radical vision of full equality and freedom if we can't be attentive to the ways in which we have been made unequal and unfree,” Dennie writes in The Originalism Trap. While Dennie believes there are portions of the historical record that support broad civil liberty protections, she says she does not think originalism is a useful tool for progressives to use as a legal framework.  In place of originalism, Dennie has a bold proposal: inclusive constitutionalism. “Inclusive constitutionalism means what it says: the Constitution includes everyone, so our legal interpretation must serve to make the promise of inclusive democracy real. When the judiciary is called upon to resolve a legal ambiguity or when there are broad principles at issue, the application of which must be made specific, it is proper for courts to consider how cases may relate to systemic injustices and how different legal analyses would impact marginalized people's ability to participate in the country's political, economic and social life.”  Rawles and Dennie also discuss how lawyers and judges can push back against originalism; the legal rights and protections achieved by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and the LGBTQ+ community; why she dropped Jurassic Park references into the book; and how she keeps an optimistic outlook on the expansion of civil liberties. “Justice for all may not be a deeply rooted tradition,” Dennie writes, “but fighting for it is.”

Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record.  In The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, Dennie traces the roots of originalism as a legal theory back to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, though the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the 1954 case. Its adherents argue the meaning of the Constitution must solely be determined by “the original public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was drafted,” and that there is a discernible correct answer to what that meaning would have been. The theory gained popularity in the 1980s, with the late Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia as two influential proponents. Scalia famously said the Constitution is “not a living document. It's dead, dead, dead.” Today, originalism has formed the basis for decisions such as Justice Samuel Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. “Despite originalism's reputation as a serious intellectual theory, it's more like dream logic: It seems reasonable at first, but when you wake up, you can recognize it as nonsense,” Dennie writes. “Originalism deliberately overemphasizes a particular version of history that treats the civil-rights gains won over time as categorically suspect. The consequences of its embrace have been intentionally catastrophic for practically anyone who isn't a wealthy white man, aka the class of people with exclusive possession of political power at the time the Constitution's drafters originally put pen to paper (or quill to parchment).” In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Dennie and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how conservative originalists prioritize the time period of the Founding Fathers over the Reconstruction Era that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “We can't fulfill the Reconstruction Amendments' radical vision of full equality and freedom if we can't be attentive to the ways in which we have been made unequal and unfree,” Dennie writes in The Originalism Trap. While Dennie believes there are portions of the historical record that support broad civil liberty protections, she says she does not think originalism is a useful tool for progressives to use as a legal framework.  In place of originalism, Dennie has a bold proposal: inclusive constitutionalism. “Inclusive constitutionalism means what it says: the Constitution includes everyone, so our legal interpretation must serve to make the promise of inclusive democracy real. When the judiciary is called upon to resolve a legal ambiguity or when there are broad principles at issue, the application of which must be made specific, it is proper for courts to consider how cases may relate to systemic injustices and how different legal analyses would impact marginalized people's ability to participate in the country's political, economic and social life.”  Rawles and Dennie also discuss how lawyers and judges can push back against originalism; the legal rights and protections achieved by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and the LGBTQ+ community; why she dropped Jurassic Park references into the book; and how she keeps an optimistic outlook on the expansion of civil liberties. “Justice for all may not be a deeply rooted tradition,” Dennie writes, “but fighting for it is.”

Fani Willis signals she'll defy any calls to testify before a GOP-led Senate committee looking to investigate her. Georgia's dumped 300,000 kids off health insurance and a Georgia State Supreme Court candidate - John Barrow - is suing to be able to campaign on issues. He joined me today to discuss why he knows he's the right to discuss women's reproductive choice - and he has the words of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to back him.

It's Hump Day! Sam speaks with Tyler Vasseur, letter carrier and shop steward in the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), Branch 9, to discuss his recent piece in Labor Notes entitled "Momentum for Open Bargaining Grows in the Letter Carriers." Then, Sam speaks with David Dayen, executive editor at the American Prospect, to discuss his recent piece outlining the new FTC rule regarding non-compete clauses, co-authored with Luke Goldstein. First, Sam runs through updates on escalating violence by police and Zionists against anti-war protesters, Netanyahu's imminent invasion of Rafah, the Federal Reserve, Biden drug policy, state abortion bans, New York's special election for Congress, Johnson and Johnson's talc settlement, and labor rights, before watching Mike Johnson and Marjorie Taylor Greene trade shots ahead of a potential motion to vacate the Speakership. Tyler Vasseur then joined, first outlining NALC's union structure and role as one of four postal unions, before exploring the progressive division between the unions – including the desynchronization of their contracts –  under the US' shift into neoliberalism at the end of the 20th Century. Expanding on this, Vasseur explores the concept of “open bargaining,” and what it would mean in terms of activating and mobilizing NALC's base of workers, as well as creating a much more transparent negotiating process. After walking through the major forces driving NALC members' attempt at reform, and touching on the major roles of the US pre-funding mandate for the USPS and the 2008 Financial crisis in crippling industry wages, Tyler wraps up with the inspiring factor of the ongoing union renaissance in the US, and how this project has already begun to reshape organizing efforts within NALC. David Dayen and Sam then look to the absurd evolution of the “non-compete” contract clause, first popularized as a tool to prevent the spread of company secrets among executives, and now used to constrain some 30 million workers in industries from dog grooming to fast food. After expanding on the expansive chunk of our economy crippled by non-compete clauses, David walks us through the ongoing legal battle to overturn the bipartisan ban, how the legacy of Antonin Scalia looms large over this topic, and why the Supreme Court's bogus “Major Questions” Doctrine is central to these arguments. After expanding on the likely evolution of this court battle, Dayen wraps up with a brief update on Live Nation's attempt to court DC insiders with some help from the free (but evidently not priceless) press. And in the Fun Half: Sam parses through yesterday's mass escalation of violence against anti-war student protesters on college campuses across the US, with the NYPD sending a SWAT team to infiltrate the Student occupation of Harold Hall, and police in LA allowing a pro-Israel violent mob assault UCLA protesters, also expanding on the absurd and constant attempts to completely misrepresent these campus protests and the student activists behind them. Jose from Houston calls in with some updates on union business in the transport industry, Marcus from Huntington Beach explores the MAGA takeover of his local government and how to push back, Charlie Kirk shames Zionists for not thinking their grand Jewish conspiracy would come back around to hurt them, and Cory from Florida shares his experiences with the constraints of non-compete clauses. Dave Rubin floats his theory on the jihadists behind public health, and Paul Bet David admonishes a Columbia Student for not knowing NYU's investment portfolio, in his leadup to platforming George Soros conspiracy, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Tyler's piece here: https://labornotes.org/blogs/2024/04/momentum-open-bargaining-grows-letter-carriers Check out the Zoom registration link for the next "Build a Fighting NALC" meeting on Sunday, June 2 at Noon central (10:00 am Pacific, 1:00 pm Eastern): https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZcvceCtqzkqH9zau2xxvNmzfBcO62V-4FfM#/registration Check out all of David's work at the Prospect here: https://prospect.org/topics/david-dayen/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Check out Seder's Seeds here!: https://www.sedersseeds.com/ ALSO, if you have pictures of your Seder's Seeds, send them here!: hello@sedersseeds.com Check out this GoFundMe in support of Mohammed Nasrallah, whose family is trying to leave Gaza for Egypt: https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-mohammed-nasserallah-and-family-go-to-egypt Check out this GoFundMe in support of Mohammad Aldaghma's niece in Gaza, who has Down Syndrome: http://tinyurl.com/7zb4hujt Check out the "Repair Gaza" campaign courtesy of the Glia Project here: https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/rebuild_gaza_help_repair_and_rebuild_the_lives_and_work_of_our_glia_team#!/ Get emails on the IRS pilot program for tax filing here!: https://service.govdelivery.com/accounts/USIRS/subscriber/new Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Nuts.com: Right now, https://Nuts.com is offering new customers a free gift with purchase and free shipping on orders of $29 or more at https://Nuts.com/majority. So, go check out all of the delicious options at https://Nuts.com/majority. You'll receive a free gift and free shipping when you spend $29 or more!  That's https://Nuts.com/majority. Express VPN: Protect your online activity TODAY with the VPN rated #1 by CNET and Mashable. Visit my exclusive link https://ExpressVPN.com/majority and you can get an extra 3 months FREE on a one-year package. That's https://ExpressVPN.com/majority to learn more. Aura Frames: Right now, Aura has a great deal for Mother's Day. Listeners can save on the perfect gift by visiting https://AuraFrames.com/MAJORITY to get $30-off plus free shipping on their best-selling frame. That's https://AuraFrames.com/MAJORITY. Use code MAJORITY  at checkout to save. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

This Day in Legal History: First Union FormedOn May 1, 1794, a pivotal development in labor rights history occurred in Philadelphia with the formation of the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers. This organization, consisting of skilled shoemakers, marks the establishment of the first trade union in the United States. The union was created as a response to the increasingly difficult economic conditions that tradesmen faced, including low wages and long working hours.The Cordwainers, recognizing the strength in numbers, aimed to leverage their collective bargaining power to negotiate better wages and working conditions. This was a significant step forward in the labor movement, as it introduced the concept of organized labor in America. The formation of this union was not just about improving pay; it was also about dignifying the labor force and providing workers a platform to voice their concerns.Philadelphia, being a hub of commerce and trade in the late 18th century, provided the perfect setting for such an organization. The city's workshops and bustling markets meant that there was a significant demand for skilled labor, which the Cordwainers could supply. However, with industrialization beginning to take root, these skilled workers found themselves under threat from cheaper, mass-produced goods.The Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers set a precedent that would be followed by other trades across the country. Their actions led to the establishment of similar societies and unions, which eventually contributed to the broader national labor movement. The Cordwainers themselves faced legal challenges, particularly in 1806, when they were involved in a landmark legal case concerning the rights of workers to organize, known as Commonwealth v. Pullis. In this case, the court ruled against the union, marking one of the first legal battles over the legitimacy of trade union activities in the United States.Despite the legal setbacks, the resilience and pioneering spirit of the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers inspired subsequent generations of workers to fight for their rights. Their legacy is a testament to the enduring struggle for fair labor practices and workers' rights. This day in legal history not only marks the formation of America's first trade union but also celebrates the long journey towards justice and equity in the workplace.The US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) recently proposed a rule that would require pharmaceutical companies to submit unredacted settlement agreements involving patent challenges to a new repository. This rule is aimed to assist the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in detecting antitrust violations. The proposal arose from concerns that these settlements, often reached in administrative tribunals like the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), could be used to delay cheaper biosimilar drugs from entering the market.Evan Diamond, special counsel, noted that the PTO has not clearly defined "good cause" for accessing these agreements, which might increase third-party access and create confidentiality concerns. The fear is that the database could enable federal agencies to easily assess the frequency of potentially anticompetitive pay-for-delay settlements—a practice scrutinized under the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in FTC v. Actavis, which ruled such deals could be illegal.The proposal aligns with an executive order from President Joe Biden encouraging interagency cooperation to prevent practices that unjustifiably delay generic and biosimilar competition. This move has heightened the pharmaceutical industry's fears of increased antitrust enforcement, particularly as the FTC has been actively challenging questionable patent listings that could hinder the approval of generic drugs.Agencies like the FTC and DOJ already have certain reporting requirements under the Medicare Modernization Act for pharmaceutical companies, but the PTO's rule could capture additional agreements that do not meet existing criteria. This has sparked debate over the necessity and potential overlap of the new rule.The pharmaceutical industry, represented by major lobbyist groups like Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, has expressed strong opposition, citing concerns over the scope of PTO's authority and the ambiguity around the "good cause" criterion.This development highlights a broader regulatory push against anti-competitive practices not only in pharmaceuticals but also in other sectors like technology, where companies like Apple and Google are frequently involved in patent litigation.In summary, the PTO's proposed rule could significantly impact how pharmaceutical settlements are handled, potentially exposing companies to greater antitrust scrutiny. This measure reflects a governmental shift towards stricter oversight of patent practices to foster competition and reduce drug prices.Drug Makers Exposed to Antitrust Probes if Patent Cache AdoptedThis term, Jones Day had the highest number of attorneys—five in total—arguing cases at the U.S. Supreme Court, more than any other firm. Among them, John Gore and C. Kevin Marshall presented for the first time at the high court. Other experienced attorneys like former U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, and partners Hashim Mooppan and Traci Lovitt also argued cases, contributing to the firm's visibility.In comparison, other leading law firms such as Gibson Dunn, Hogan Lovells, and Williams & Connolly had slightly fewer representatives. Gibson Dunn introduced three new attorneys to the Supreme Court lectern, including Theane Evangelis, D. Nick Harper, and Eugene Scalia, who is a son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Hogan Lovells' Jessica Ellsworth argued for the first time, including in a significant case regarding the abortion drug mifepristone. Williams & Connolly had Lisa Blatt argue all four of their cases, marking her 50th Supreme Court appearance.Overall, the season saw a mix of seasoned veterans and newcomers. Of the total 152 arguments made, over half were by attorneys who had appeared at least five times before, while a quarter were by first-time arguers. This highlights both the depth of experience and the ongoing introduction of new talent in the legal field's highest echelons.Jones Day Leads in Supreme Court Arguments With New FacesJohnson & Johnson (J&J) is currently seeking approval for an $11 billion settlement to resolve ongoing litigation concerning its talc-based baby powder, which has been alleged to cause ovarian cancer. This amount is a significant increase from a previous offer of $8.9 billion. J&J's strategy involves a third attempt at a bankruptcy filing, specifically a pre-packaged bankruptcy, which allows for faster processing if they secure enough creditor support—in this case, needing the approval of 75% of the talc plaintiffs.The company proposes to pay $6.48 billion over 25 years to settle ovarian cancer claims, but it has not specified how funds will be divided between existing and future claims. Additionally, J&J has nearly settled all claims regarding mesothelioma believed to be caused by asbestos in the powder. This settlement approach follows multiple failed attempts to use Chapter 11 to manage these lawsuits, which now number almost 60,000.These lawsuits have been a significant factor depressing J&J's stock price, according to analysts. Despite the legal challenges, J&J maintains that its talc products do not cause cancer and asserts that it has marketed its baby powder responsibly for over a century. A recent verdict, however, led to a $45 million payout to a family, implicating J&J and its spinoff Kenvue in the ongoing litigation.The company's persistence in seeking a bankruptcy-based settlement reflects its strategic approach to managing a complex legal challenge that impacts thousands of plaintiffs and could potentially set a precedent in how large corporations handle mass tort liabilities through bankruptcy court.J&J Seeks Backing for $11 Billion Baby Powder Cancer SettlementIn President Joe Biden's Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Proposal, a notable change is the suggestion to tax unrealized gains—value increases in assets not yet converted into cash through a sale. This marks a significant shift from traditional tax frameworks, which typically avoid taxing unrealized gains due to their complexity, potential liquidity issues, and difficulties in implementation.The rationale behind this proposal is to ensure tax fairness by capturing increases in wealth that currently escape taxation. For example, if a billionaire's stock appreciates significantly without being sold, they realize no taxable gain. However, if they borrow against these increased values, they effectively use this appreciation as a means to generate wealth without incurring tax liabilities. This situation presents a loophole where wealth can grow and be leveraged without contributing to the tax base.The FY2025 budget aims to address these disparities by proposing a tax on unrealized gains for very high-net-worth individuals and entities that have not been subject to a tax event in the last 90 years. This approach seeks to broaden the tax base without raising rates, aiming to increase tax revenue from the wealthy without additional burdens on middle and lower-income individuals.This policy shift acknowledges the need to adapt tax strategies to a changing economic environment where traditional taxation methods no longer capture all forms of wealth accumulation. The proposal suggests that a more equitable tax system requires taxing wealth as it grows, even if it is not realized through a sale. By proposing to tax unrealized gains, the administration intends to correct imbalances allowing substantial wealth to accumulate tax-free, signaling a significant potential change in how wealth is taxed in the U.S.Unrealized Gain Tax—A Coming Sea Change in FY2025 Budget Proposal? Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Happy Friday! Today we once again open the show by diving into Tara Bull's Top 10 News list. This leads into my first topic, revisiting the SCOTUS hearing over Presidential immunity. I wanted to play a short exchange between Neil Gorsuch and the attorney representing the views of Special Counsel Jack Smith, Michael Dreeben. Gorsuch concludes what I brought to you yesterday – this case is not about Donald Trump. It's about the future of the US Presidency, regardless of political party. To show you lawfare isn't just being waged on Donald Trump, I then dive into the case of Dexter Taylor, a self-made gunsmith who became fascinated with learning how to make and build his own firearms. The problem? He chose to do this in New York. This is the case where I mentioned, yesterday, the judge said the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist in her courtroom. Judge Abena Darkeh even went instructed the jury they had to convict the defendant. Did you hear about the near coup to get rid of White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre? Did you also hear that it came from within the White House? Yeah, even they know how terrible she is at her job. But, when you embrace DEI, you cannot afford to fire someone who was hired that way. A high school athletic director is in trouble for using AI to fake the voice of the principal of the high school. Looks like someone was mad he was caught misappropriating funds and decided to pull a Jussie Smollet. He released the fake audio and got the principal suspended and the community was in turmoil. Thankfully, when due process was followed, the truth came to light and Dazhon Darien has been arrested and charged with a host of crimes. Axios has a story about a change in how Biden will now walk across the White House lawn. With his aged gait being mocked around the world, he will now have several staffers surround him to hide his walk from the cameras. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) became the first governor to tell the country his state will not comply with Biden's revised Title IX provisions. He is taking a stand to protect women and girls and will not let Biden's wokism erase then and subject them to harm. And we wrap with a short sound bit of former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia discussing freedom in the US, what secures it and what will destroy it. You may realize he's describing what the Biden regime has put in place over the last four years. Take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR and TRUTH Social by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. You can also support the show by visiting my Patreon page!

On this episode of Our American Stories, author James Rosen tells the story of Antonin Scalia's unlikely but inevitable rise to the U.S. Supreme Court. His family, his faith, and his immigrant roots were the drivers. Support the show (https://www.ouramericanstories.com/donate)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David and Christina talk to one of the country's leading lights in the area of American constitutional law and dean of Berkeley Law, about the various interpretations of the First Amendment's two religion clauses; freedom of speech in the age of artificial intelligence and political deep-fakes; staying positive and vigilant even as an overreaching Supreme Court undermines the constitution it is sworn to uphold; judicial term limits and expansion of the Court; the electoral college, even where Chemerinsky and Antonin Scalia find common ground.Thanks for listening! Now follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and Threads. And please consider becoming a Patreon supporter at www.patreon.com/podcastunreasonable. It's a small price to pay to help keep America from becoming a theocracy, dontchya think?

SERIES 2 EPISODE 120: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SPECIAL COMMENT: OK which atrocity do you want to get enraged about first? The fact that yesterday I began by saying “today we begin to find out if we still have a Constitution” and turns out, sorry, I guess we don't – and the three liberal justices are complicit in that? Or, the fact that a partisan hack appointed by Trump managed to turn his nothing-burger investigation of Biden and the returned documents into Christmas-For-The-Fascists by inserting unwarranted, unjustifiable, indefensible opinions about the president's memory into it and THAT'S the headline and oh by the way where is the goddamned Attorney General on this? William Rehnquist's former clerk, Rod Rosenstein's former deputy, and a contributor to The Federalist has enough nerve finding nothing to prosecute but throwing into his report what sounds like a medical opinion about the President's memory but which is really just another Conservative law-breaker whipping out his schlong and putting it on the political scale. But how does the Attorney General let that document leave his department without demanding that irrelevant, unprofessional, indefensible section not be removed? Fire Merrick Garland. Now. Between this and his negligence in waiting two years to appoint a special prosecutor of Trump, he will bear the second most blame if Trump again seizes power. Meanwhile at the Supreme Court, disaster as Elena Kagan posits that enforcing the 14th Amendment gives one state the right to decide who the president will be, and Ketanji Brown Jackson falls for the "President is not really an OFFICER" fabrication. The analyst Elie Mystal thinks the vote could be 9-0 for Trump, in which case Kagan, Brown, and Sonia Sotomayor need to resign from the court. B-Block (23:17) IN SPORTS: Ex-coach Tommy Tuberville blasts Biden's memory and says he needs cues from reporters and 30 seconds later he can't remember the names of the teams and players in Sunday's Super Bowl and needs cues from a reporter. And the Oakland/Las Vegas A's saga worsens, while invoking the Oakland/Denver A's saga of 1977-80. (27:20) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Sarah Palin is back! And can now see Russian propaganda from her house. If every GOP accusation is actually a confession, Charlie Kirk and Marjorie Taylor Greene's theory of anti-impeachment GOP'ers being blackmailed with pedophilia is SOME confession. And of all the idiotic takes on the Robert Hur investigation of Biden, THE dumbest is by Mr. Astead W. Herndon of The New York Bothsidesist Times and CN-Bothesidesist-N. C-Block (34:32) FRIDAYS WITH THURBER: Since this podcast is one of five nominees for the best politics podcast at the upcoming iHeart Podcast Awards, it's fitting to read Thurber's great story of what happened when a rookie went on radio: "How To Relax While Broadcasting."See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

SERIES 2 EPISODE 114: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SURPRISE! A decade ago, conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia issued a Supreme Court opinion in which he declared - and reiterated to two stunned conservative attorneys - that the President of the United States IS an OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES. Thus the man who Trump called one of "the greatest Americans to ever live" has already destroyed Trump's only argument that he cannot be disqualified for the presidency under the 14th Amendment because the president is NOT an officer of the United States. Unearthed by Roger Parloff of Lawfire - how, as the cliche goes, is this not the lead story everywhere in the nation? The Scalia ruling and letter (which may itself have been agreed with by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, and Justice Thomas) destroys Trump's only argument for why the 14th Amendment Disqualification Clause does NOT apply to him and can't be used to kick him off the ballot. Trump insists the president is NOT an "officer." Yet four years ago Trump proposed a garden dedicated to the 30 greatest Americans who ever lived - and Scalia was one of them! Historians have also found a Senate argument confirming that body agreed that the disqualification clause applied to Presidents, and that it was self-enforcing, and that it was acknowledged as such by everybody from Jefferson Davis to President Andrew Johnson. Also, the Illinois Election Board was to meet today to address the bid there to enforce the 14th. Also: Trump has now enabled Biden to run on the Bipartisan Border Enforcement and Great Economy platform, while his House lackeys have made DHS Secretary Mayorkas look like the border hardliner of the bunch. On Day 15 of his mental health crisis Trump's mind continues to corrode, and damn but Nikki Haley isn't letting up, and more importantly seems to be having a gas calling Trump unhinged and in decline EVERY SINGLE DAY. B-Block (22:32) IN SPORTS: The Clay Travis Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce/Super Bowl/Joe Biden conspiracy theory has now been disproved. It has been replaced by the Vivek Ramaswamy Taylor Swift/Travis Kelce/Super Bowl/Joe Biden conspiracy theory. And why Bill Belichick going to do TV football could be the greatest move since John Madden did it. (29:36) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Charlie Kirk defames one of the Central Park Five while trying to dig himself out from having already defamed him; Elise Stefanik scrubs her website; South Dakota Governor (former South Dakota Snow Queen) Kristi Noem thinks the Constitution is a treaty signed between the 13 Colonies and Texas. C-Block (36:51) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: In memory of the late Red Sox, Astros, and Blue Jays' manager Jimy Williams, the saga of the day I was thrown off the field at Fenway Park and directed to sit next to Yankee owner George Steinbrenner who promptly joined me on the Fox game broadcast and accused Williams of trying to instigate a riot during the game.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Chevron doctrine. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, two challenges to the so-called Chevron doctrine (or Chevron deference). The conservative-leaning court seems poised to limit or strike Chevron deference down, reversing 40 years of judicial precedent that was once championed by conservative icon and former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. You can read today's podcast ⁠⁠here⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story here, and today's “Have a nice day” story here. You can also check out our latest YouTube video about misinformation and fake news that has spread like wildfire in the three months since Hamas's attack on Israel and the subsequent fighting in Gaza here. Today's clickables: A few notes (0:44), Quick hits (2:58), Today's story (5:34), Right's take (10:05), Interview with Jacob Sullum (13:09), Left's take (26:50), Interview with Thomas Wolf (30:01), Isaac's take (40:09), Listener question (44:48), Under the Radar (48:05), Numbers (49:01), Have a nice day (50:03) You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.  Are you a student interested in journalism, politics, and media? Know someone who is? We've opened applications for Tangle's college ambassador program and are looking for engaged, enthusiastic college students to represent Tangle on their campuses. Applications will be open from January 23-February 4, and the program will run through the spring semester. If you or someone you know is interested, we are accepting applications here. Email Will Kaback at will@readtangle.com with any questions! Take the poll. How do you think the Supreme Court should rule on Chevron deference? Let us know! Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.  Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message

Air Date 1/13/2024 The Supreme Court began to lose its legitimacy in the eyes of many when President Obama wasn't allowed to fill the open seat left by the death of Antonin Scalia but, in truth, the scandal and manipulation of the nation's highest court go back much, much farther than that. However, in a bygone age, scandal was handled much differently than today, putting our current state of disfunction and hyper-partisanship into sharp focus. Be part of the show! Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Transcript BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Members Get Bonus Clips and Shows + No Ads!) Join our Discord community! OUR AFFILIATE LINKS: ExpressVPN.com/BestOfTheLeft GET INTERNET PRIVACY WITH EXPRESS VPN! BestOfTheLeft.com/Libro SUPPORT INDIE BOOKSHOPS, GET YOUR AUDIOBOOK FROM LIBRO! SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: Ralph explains the need for resignations and reform on the Supreme Court - Ralph Nader Radio Hour - Air Date 12-30-23 I think they are reaching a point—the six-justice majority— of getting a huge backlash… I don't call for the impeachment of Justices very easily. In case after case these Justices come down on the side of artificial entities called corporations Ch. 2: Astonishing Corruption at The Supreme Court? - LegalEagle - Air Date 5-6-23 Ethics? Never heard of it Ch. 3: Supreme Court's Corrupt Financial Ties To Billionaire Exposed During Senate Hearing - The Majority Report - Air Date 5-3-23 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) used a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Supreme Court ethics on Tuesday to discuss the financial ties between Justice Clarence Thomas and conservative billionaire Harlan Crow. Ch. 4: EXPOSED: Supreme Court Corruption CAUGHT Red Handed - The Kyle Kulinski Show - Air Date 4-27-23 Looking at Neil Gorsuch's questionable property sale and Clarence Thomas' refusal to answer to congress Ch. 5: Clarence Thomas Grifting - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 12-19-23 They shift to another bombshell report about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's taking advantage of his position to enrich his lifestyle. Ch. 6: New Supreme Court ethics code 'does very little' to hold justices accountable, expert says - PBS NewsHour - Air Date 11-13-23 The nine Supreme Court justices handed down a surprise unanimous decision binding themselves to a new code of ethics. It comes after criticism over undisclosed perks for some of the justices. Ch. 7: How to Fix a Broken Supreme Court - Robert Reich - Air Date 7-18-23 Justice Roberts refused to testify in a hearing on SCOTUS ethics. Thomas and Alito accepted luxury vacations from GOP megadonors. Gorsuch sold property to the CEO of a law firm that argues cases before the Court. MEMBERS-ONLY BONUS CLIP(S) Ch. 8: Bombshell new report on the Supreme Court's abortion leak - All In with Chris Hayes - Air Date 12-15-23 New York Times investigative reporter Jodi Kantor joins Chris Hayes to discuss her behind-the-scenes look into the dismantling of Roe Ch. 9: Supreme Court Scandals: A Story of Justice - Now & Then - Air Date 4-26-23 Samuel Chase's impeachment over his pronounced Federalist leanings, Stephen J. Field's 1880s relationships with railroad magnates, and Abe Fortas' 1969 resignation following the revelation of his acceptance of consulting fees from a felonious financier FINAL COMMENTS Ch. 10: Final comments on John Roberts' year-end report and the slide away from the possibility of accountability Article: Chief Justice John Roberts' AI Report Reads Like an Old Robot Wrote It MUSIC (Blue Dot Sessions) SHOW IMAGE: Description: A close-up photograph of the entrance of the U.S. Supreme Court building. White stone columns partly lit by sun slightly obscure the dark wooden entryway door at the center in shadow. Credit: "Supreme Court of the United States Facade" by Leandro Paes Leme, Pexels | License | Changes: Cropped   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com

In this episode, we welcome W. Mark Lanier to the show. He is an attorney, author, teacher, and pastor. He founded the Lanier Law Firm and is a recipient of the American Association of Justice's Lifetime Achievement Award. Additionally, he was named as one of the U.S. News and World Report's Best Lawyers in America for nine consecutive years and was inducted into the National Trial Lawyers' Hall of Fame. He used his legal prowess to delve into the world of religion to write a trilogy of books to help people understand why Christianity stands above all of the other worldviews: Christianity on Trial, Atheism on Trial, and Religions on Trial. In this interview, we discuss why he was drawn to the world of law, how being a Christian did not hinder his ability to be a good attorney, why he decided to put different religions “on trial” in his books, how Hinduism is the most postmodern of all the major religions, how Buddhism's core tenet of avoiding suffering is not livable or realistic, his personal friendship with the late, great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, why it's important to distinguish between “extremist” Islam and “fundamentalist” Islam, how it's even possible that Mormonism is still in existence, and much more. Let's get into it…  Go to www.getsecurity.tech for your free IT and Data Security assessment from LMS Tech. Let them help you with network installation, server setup, cloud data storage, email security, anti-virus management, tech compliance, and more. Episode notes and links HERE. Donate to support our mission of equipping men to push back darkness. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Are you ready for this? Partners at Williams and Connolly Lisa Blatt and Sarah Harris share what it was like to argue before Justice Antonin Scalia, the pros and cons of careerism, the hunger for victory, the dangers of wearing cowboy boots in court, and why life is just a never-ending series of tradeoffs. Also: -Texas Sarah vs Tennessee Sarah -Justice Ginsburg's tip for arguing before the Supreme Court -Different forms of originalism -Miffy's (mifepristone) -Arguing with Justice Alito -Women in law -Poor David -Don't follow your passions Show notes: -Lisa Blatt's page at Williams and Connolly -Sarah Harris' page at Williams and Connolly Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices