POPULARITY
51 episodes with argued
18 episodes with argued
19 episodes with argued
11 episodes with argued
13 episodes with argued
3 episodes with argued
3 episodes with argued
2 episodes with argued
2 episodes with argued
The state of Minnesota recently announced $1.3 million in grants for projects that it says will make the state a better place to live as an older person. This includes funding for accessible design, housing and health care access. One of the projects hinges on the complicated relationships, choices and disagreements that families navigate as loved ones age. Community Mediation Minnesota, a network of nonprofits that provide mediation services, is receiving $60,000 from the state to do more work with older people. Katie Arnold, the co-executive director of Community Mediation Minnesota, joined Minnesota Now to talk about the grant and how their work can make a difference in the lives of families with aging loved ones.
Episode 31: Libby v. FecteauLibby, et al. v. Fecteau, et al., argued before Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, Circuit Judge Seth Aframe, and District Judge Camille Vélez-Rivé in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on June 5, 2025. Argued by Taylor Meehan of Consovoy McCarthy PLLC (on behalf of Laurel Libby, et al.), Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights (for Amicus Curiae United States, supporting appellant), and Jonathan Bolton, Maine Assistant Attorney General (on behalf of Ryan M. Fecteau, et al.).Background of the case, from the Brief of Appellants:In February, Libby took to Facebook to call attention to Maine's [transgender athlete] policy, borne out at this year's high school track-and-field state championship. The championship was a public event; the names, schools, and podium photos of participants were widely broadcast and readily accessible online. Libby re-posted already-public, truthful information showing the first-place girls' pole vaulter previously competed in boys' pole vault. That first-place finish propelled the athlete's high school team to win the girls' state championship by one point.Libby's post put Maine's policy in the national spotlight, prompting federal investigations regarding Maine's noncompliance with federal law. Days later, the Maine House censured Libby along a party-line vote of 75 to 70. The censure resolution called on Libby to “publicly apologize” for bringing “national attention” to Maine. H.R. Res. 1, 132nd Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Me. 2025). It denounced Libby's “statement criticizing the participation of transgender students in high school sports” as “reprehensible” and “incompatible with her duty and responsibilities as a Member of this House.” And while the resolution faulted Libby for identifying a “student athlete by [first] name” and “showing the minor in an athletic uniform” without “consent,” id., the post merely copied public information, showing podium photos from widely publicized state championship events, contained no threats, and violated no law. The resolution omitted that the Speaker and others regularly show minors on their social media, without any indication of consent from the subjects.Dissenting House members criticized the resolution as “a mockery of the censure process,” “set[ting] a standard … that the majority party, when they're displeased with a social media post that upsets them, can censure a member of the minority party.” Other representatives raised free-speech concerns and sought clarification on whether members who re-posted Libby's post could “expect censures to come forth on them as well.” The Speaker disclaimed knowledge of “any other censures.”After the censure resolution passed, the Speaker summoned Libby to the well of the House chamber and demanded she apologize. When Libby refused to recant her views, the Speaker found her in violation of Maine House Rule 401(11), providing that a member “guilty of a breach of any of the rules and orders of the House … may not be allowed to vote or speak … until the member has made satisfaction.”Ever since, Libby's district has had no voice or vote on the House floor. The Speaker has stopped Libby from speaking on any bill, including even posing a question in a recent debate on an equal rights amendment proposed for the state constitution.Statement of the Issue, from Brief of Appellants:Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction on their claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Guarantee Clause [of “a Republican Form of Government].”The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
“Tell me how it's fixed. We're not continuing this conversation until you explain exactly how.”That's the challenge Skin throws down in this wildly entertaining episode of The Ben and Skin Show, where conspiracy theories, celebrity run-ins, and hilarious weekend recaps collide in a perfect storm of chaos and comedy.Ben Rogers, Jeff “Skin” Wade, Kevin “KT” Turner, and Krystina Ray are back on 97.1 The Eagle, and they're bringing the heat—and the laughs. From Skin's yacht rock weekend and KT's electric night with Saul Goodman's secretary (yes, really), to Krystina's storm-shortened but stellar performance at the Wildflower Festival, the crew dives into their weekends. But the real fireworks start when Ben recounts a birthday party conversation gone off the rails: two friends, a few drinks, and a full-blown belief that the NBA Draft is rigged. What follows is a masterclass in comedic frustration, as Ben and Skin try to reason with the unreasonable. The result? One of the funniest and most relatable sports rants you'll hear all year.Memorable Moments:
Episode 30: Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al.Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al., argued before Circuit Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Patrick J. Bumatay, and Gabriel P. Sanchez in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 15, 2025. Argued by Derek L. Shaffer (on behalf of Americans for Prosperity, et al.) and David Kolker (on behalf of Intervenor-Defendant Voters' Right to Know) and Eric Fraser (on behalf of Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission).Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech amicus brief:Proposition 211 imposes sweeping disclosure rules unlike anything seen before. On every metric, the law expands on its predecessors. It covers more people, more speech, for a longer time. Where other laws narrow, Proposition 211 widens.….Proposition 211 expands on other disclosure rules in virtually every way. It does not limit disclosure to speech about elections, to speech close in time to elections, or to speech by those engaged mainly in election advocacy. It does not limit disclosure to donors who intend to support election advocacy, or even donors who know their dollars might be used for election advocacy. By expanding every part of an ordinary disclosure rule, Proposition 211 “accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree.” See Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 583 (2012) (“NFIB”) (Roberts, C.J., op.). And that shift in kind turns a series of individually problematic provisions into a cataclysmic First Amendment violation.Statement of the Issues, from the Appellants' Opening Brief:Whether the district court erred in concluding that Proposition 211 is facially valid even though its disclosures are untethered to electoral activity, its burdens surpass the strength of the State's asserted interest, and its requirements are not narrowly tailored to the problems it purports to solve.Whether the district court erred in concluding that Proposition 211 is valid as applied to Appellants, even though Appellants alleged a reasonable probability that disclosure of their donors' names will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals.Whether the district court erred in concluding that Proposition 211 does not compel association even though its disclosure requirements tie organizations and their donors to candidates and causes irrespective of their actual beliefs.Resources:CourtListener docket page for Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al.Appellants' Opening BriefDefendant-Appellees' Answering BriefAnswering Brief of Appellee-Intervenor DefendantAppellants' Reply BriefInstitute for Free Speech amicus briefThe Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
Episode 29: Institute for Free Speech v. J.R. Johnson, et al. Institute for Free Speech v. J.R. Johnson, et al. argued before Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod and Judges Kurt D. Engelhardt and Greg Gerard Guidry in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 28, 2025. Argued by Del Kolde (on behalf of the Institute for Free Speech) and Cory R. Liu (on behalf of J.R. Johnson, et al.). Case Background, from the Institute for Free Speech website: Texas law prohibits corporations—including nonprofits—from making “in-kind contributions” to candidates and political committees. The Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) recently interpreted this ban to extend to pro bono litigation services, even when such services aim to challenge the constitutionality of state laws. The Institute for Free Speech (IFS) filed a federal lawsuit against the TEC commissioners and executive director over this ban on pro bono legal services. This law stops organizations like IFS from advocating for the civil rights of Texas candidates and political committees in court. It imposes stiff civil and criminal penalties for violations. The lawsuit argues that the TEC's interpretation of the Texas Elections Code violates IFS' First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The TEC's reading of the law prevents IFS from representing potential clients like Chris Woolsey, a city councilmember in Corsicana, and the Texas Anti-Communist League PAC, headed by Cary Cheshire, both of whom want to contest a state law that compels speech on political signs. Resources: Institute for Free Speech case page Institute for Free Speech press release Plaintiff-Appellant's Opening Brief Complaint The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
What now? What next? Insights into Australia's tertiary education sector
In this episode Claire gives a summary of the submissions to the Senate Committee's inquiry into the Quality of governance at Australian higher education providers.During the episode Claire references her interview in episode 123 with NTEU representatives Emily Foley and Tony Williams about their experiences working as casual academics in Australian universities.The submissions to the Senate Committee's inquiry can all be read and downloaded from the inquiry webpage: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/UniversityGovernance/SubmissionsThe SuperFriend data mentioned in the episode is at: https://www.superfriend.com.au/research/workplace-mental-health-statisticsAnd Claire forgot to include the submission number for Prof. Gavin Nicholson's submission - it's number 21.Contact Claire: Connect with me on LinkedIn: Claire Field Follow me on Bluesky: @clairefield.bsky.social Check out the news pages on my website: clairefield.com.au Email me at: admin@clairefield.com.au The ‘What now? What next?' podcast recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as Australia's traditional custodians. In the spirit of reconciliation we are proud to recommend John Briggs Consulting as a leader in Reconciliation and Indigenous engagement. To find out more go to www.johnbriggs.net.au
In the first hour, DVD discuss Cam Ward offically being a Tennessee Titans. Willy and Dmase arguing over whether the Titans should've traded away No. 1 to get more draft capital and more reaction.
Truth Be Told with Booker Scott – Conservative parents challenge government overreach as the Supreme Court weighs their right to withdraw children from LGBTQ+ or objectionable content in schools. From drag queen story hours to pandemic vaccine mandates, this landmark case could redefine parental authority, educational boundaries, and the balance between community standards and individual personal convictions.
Episode 28: Associated Press v. Taylor Budowich Associated Press v. Taylor Budowich, argued before a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on April 17, 2025. Argued by Eric D. McArthur (on behalf of Appellants Taylor Budowich, et al.) and Charles D. Tobin (on behalf of Appellee Associated Press). Lawyers for the Trump administration are seeking a stay on the DC District Court's preliminary injunction rescinding “the denial of the AP's access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other limited spaces based on the AP's viewpoint.” Case Background, from the Memorandum and Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: About two months ago, President Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The Associated Press did not follow suit. For that editorial choice, the White House sharply curtailed the AP's access to coveted, tightly controlled media events with the President. The AP now sues the White House chief of staff, her communications deputy, and the press secretary (collectively, “the Government”), seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the Government from excluding it because of its viewpoint. Today, the Court grants that relief. But this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views. No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less. Resources: District Court Memorandum and OrderCourt Listener Docket The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
Episode 27: Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO v. EdelblutLocal 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO v. Edelblut, argued before Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, Senior Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr., and Circuit Judge Seth Aframe in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 8, 2025. Argued by Charles G. Moerdler and Gilles R. Bissonnette (on behalf of Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO, et al.) and Mary A. Triick, Senior Assistant Attorney General (on behalf of Edelblut, et al.).Case Background, from the Brief for Plaintiffs—Appellees Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO:New Hampshire's “Banned Concepts Law” (or the “Law”) is unconstitutionally vague. Enacted in June 2021, the Law bans the teaching, instruction, advocacy, advancement, and training of—or compelling a student to express belief in or support for—four concepts in public schools and places of public employment. The four concepts implicate aspects of “age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion or national origin.”Statement of Issues Presented for Review, from the Brief for Plaintiffs—Appellees Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO:Did the district court correctly hold that the Law violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause on its face because its “prohibitions against teaching banned concepts are unconstitutionally vague,” and because the law contains “viewpoint-based restrictions on speech that do not provide either fair warning to educators of what they prohibit or sufficient standards for law enforcement to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement”?As an independent basis for affirmance, does the Law violate the First Amendment where it implicates the private, extracurricular speech of educators on matters of public concern?Resources:CourtListener case docket for Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO v. EdelblutNew Hampshire “Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education” lawBrief for Defendants—AppellantsBrief for Plaintiffs—AppelleesReply Brief for Defendants—AppellantsThe Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Tuesday March 25, 2025 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Tuesday March 25, 2025 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Tuesday March 25, 2025 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Tuesday March 25, 2025 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Episode 26: Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, et al.Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, argued before the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 19, 2025. Argued by Cameron Norris (on behalf of Parents Defending Education); Elliott Gaiser, Solicitor General of Ohio (on behalf of Ohio and 22 other states as amici curiae); and Jaime Santos (on behalf of the Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, et al.).Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech's second amicus brief (in support of reversal): While students may freely identify as having genders that do not correspond to their biological sex, other students enjoy the same right to credit their own perceptions of reality—and to speak their minds when addressing their classmates. Students cannot be compelled to speak in a manner that confesses, accommodates, and conforms to an ideology they reject—even if that ideology's adherents are offended by any refusal to agree with them or endorse their viewpoint. Yet that is what the Olentangy school district's speech code does.“Pronouns are political.” Dennis Baron, What's Your Pronoun? 39 (2020). History shows that people have long used pronouns to express messages about society and its structure—often in rebellion against the prevailing ideology. And the same is true today. Choosing to use “preferred” or “non-preferred” pronouns often “advance[s] a viewpoint on gender identity.” Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 509 (6th Cir. 2021). So mandating that students use “preferred” pronouns or none at all elevates one viewpoint while silencing the other. It compels students to adopt the district's ideology on gender identity while at school, and in doing so, “invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.” W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).Statement of the Issues, from the Brief of Appellant Parents Defending Education:The use of gender-specific pronouns is a “hot issue” that “has produced a passionate political and social debate” across the country. Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 508-09 (6th Cir. 2021). One side believes that gender is subjective and so people should use others' “preferred pronouns”; the other side believes that sex is immutable and so people should use pronouns that correspond with biological sex. Id. at 498. Like the general public, students have varying views on this important subject, and the Supreme Court has long recognized that students don't “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). Yet the Olentangy Local School District has adopted policies that punish speech expressed by one side of the debate—the use of pronouns that are contrary to another student's identity. The district court upheld the Policies as consistent with the First Amendment and denied PDE's preliminary-injunction motion.The issues presented in this appeal are:Whether the District's speech policies likely violate the First Amendment because they compel speech, discriminate based on viewpoint, prohibit speech based on content without evidence of a substantial disruption, or are overbroad.Whether, if PDE is likely to succeed on the merits, the remaining preliminary-injunction criteria favor issuing a preliminary injunction.Resources:CourtListener docket page for Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School Dist, et al.Brief for Appellant Parents Defending EducationBrief for Appellee Olentangy Local School Dist, et al.Supplemental En Banc Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Parents Defending EducationInstitute for Free Speech first amicus brief (in support of rehearing en banc)Institute for Free Speech second amicus brief (in support of reversal)
On a new TAGSPODCAST aka Talk About Gay Sex podcast, Host Stevie V and Co-hosts Lincoln and Kodi Maurice Doggette are in studio with all new hot LGBTQ topics, sex and relationship advice and more:Letter from CEO of Nasty Pig encouraging to live your best gay life now...Is Trump coming for our Poppers?PrEP coverage could be threatened ahead of it being heard on Supreme CourtThe Vivienne's cause of death is Ketamine...Best dating advice tips for success!Is using 'girl' not as common as we thing in the gay community?Explore Sexual Fantasy with Finn Deerhart and Stevie V in NYC on April 13Support TAGS and get extra special perks! New Bonus Episode for 2025 out now! Patreon.com/tagspodcastGrab a tier or get our Free Tier and get Behind the Scenes content plus you can now purchase individual content!Follow Steve V. on IG: @iam_stevevhttps://linktr.ee/kodimauricehttps://linktr.ee/kodimauriceFollow Kodi's Life Coaching on IG: @kmdcoachingFollow Kodi Maurice Doggette on IG: @mistahmauriceFollow Lincoln on IG: @madlincolnFollow Protein Bakery on IG: @proteinbakeryWanna drop a weekly or one time tip to TAGSPODCAST - Show your love for the show and support TAGS! Visit our website: tagspodcast.comNeeds some advice for a sex or relationship conundrum? Ask TAGS! DM US ON IG or https://www.talkaboutgaysex.com/contactFollow Of a Certain Age on IG: @ofacertainagepod
New details on what really happened in that reportedly explosive meeting with the Trump cabinet and Elon Musk. At least two cabinet members flat out accusing Musk of lying before President Trump reigned in some of Musk's powers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Episode 25: Powell, et al. v. United States Securities and Exchange CommissionPowell, et al. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, argued before Circuit Judges Sidney R. Thomas, Daniel A. Bress, and Ana de Alba in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 13, 2025. Argued by Margaret A. Little of the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) (on behalf of Powell, et al.) and Archith Ramkumar (on behalf of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission).Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech amicus brief:For more than fifty years, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has used the threat of debilitatingly expensive litigation to coerce defendants into accepting a lifetime ban on speech. The SEC's Gag Rule commands that, once defendants have settled, they can never publicly challenge—or even permit others to undermine—the truth of the SEC's factual allegations, even if those allegations are indisputably false.The SEC's Gag Rule is a ban not just on speech but a ban on true political speech. It imposes an eternal, viewpoint-discriminatory prior restraint on speech critical of the SEC's enforcement regime. For a country with “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials,” the unconstitutionality of this policy is clear. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). Nonetheless, the SEC refuses to initiate a rulemaking to amend its Gag Rule.Statement of Issues Presented, from the Petitioner's Opening Brief:Whether the Commission acted contrary to constitutional right by refusing to amend 17 C.F.R. § 202.5(e) because the rule violates First Amendment and due process rights and is against public policy.Whether the Commission acted in excess of statutory authority and without observance of procedure required by law by refusing to amend 17 C.F.R. § 202.5(e), which improperly binds individuals outside of SEC.Whether the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it failed to provide a reasoned explanation for denying the petition to amend 17 C.F.R. § 202.5(e).Resources:CourtListener docket page for Powell, et al. v. SECNCLA case pagePetitioners' Opening BriefBrief for RespondentPetitioners' Reply BriefInstitute for Free Speech amicus briefThe Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
Follow Dan on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/cotterdan Follow Pat on LinkedIn athttps://www.linkedin.com/in/donald-patrick-eckler-610290824/ Predictions Sure To Go Wrong: Piasa: Reverse Blanquart: Affirm Mazurkiewicz: Reverse Illinois Supreme Court, Piasa: https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/supreme-court/oral-argument-audio-and-video/ IL App: https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/appellate-court/oral-argument-audio/
Near-death experience guest 1251 is Laurie Curtin, who was given direction for her life by God during her NDE experience. Laurie's Website https://www.elev3n.com/ CONTACT: Email: jeff@jeffmarapodcast.com WEBSITE www.jeffmarapodcast.com SOCIALS: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeffmarapodcast/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jeffmarapodcast/ Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/jeffmaraP/ JeffMara does not endorse any of his guests' products or services. The opinions of the guests may or may not reflect the opinions of the host.
Episode 24: Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on January 15, 2025. Argued by Braden H. Boucek of the Southeastern Legal Foundation (on behalf of Brooke Henderson, et al.) and Tina Fowler (on behalf of the Board of Education of the Springfield R-12 School District, et al.). Background of the case, from Circuit Judge Colloton's Eighth Circuit panel opinion: In 2020, the Springfield R-12 School District required its employees to attend “equity training.” Two employees who attended the training sued the school district and several school officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs alleged that during the training, the defendants compelled them to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern, and engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment for the school district on the ground that the plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact and thus lacked standing to sue. The court also found that the lawsuit was frivolous and awarded attorney's fees to the school district. The plaintiffs appeal. Because we agree that the plaintiffs did not establish an injury in fact, we affirm the dismissal. We conclude, however, that the fee award was unwarranted and reverse that portion of the judgment. Statement of Issues Presented for Review, excerpted from the Brief of Appellants: Whether SPS [Springfield Public Schools] unconstitutionally compelled Plaintiffs to speak on matters of public concern and adopt its views in violation of the First Amendment. Whether SPS unconstitutionally discriminated against Plaintiffs' views when it adopted a position on current affairs and told Plaintiffs that their views were wrong. Whether SPS created an unconstitutional condition of employment when it compelled speech on matters of public concern and engaged in viewpoint discrimination. Whether the district court erred in finding Plaintiffs' claims frivolous. Whether the district court erred in awarding attorney fees in the amount of $312,869.50 and costs in the amount of $3,267.10 to Defendants. Whether reassignment to a different judge is appropriate on any remand. Resources: The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
Send us a textThis episode dives into an eclectic mix of subjects ranging from lighthearted banter to deeper reflections on societal norms and historical narratives. The hosts begin with a discussion about hair loss and confidence, exploring the practical and emotional impacts of embracing baldness versus pursuing treatments like hair transplants. The conversation shifts to weather preferences, with humorous takes on the struggle between cold-blooded individuals who thrive in winter and those who prefer sweltering heat.Childhood memories resurface as they reflect on past experiences in Cub Scouts and school, particularly moments that shaped their perspectives on self-expression and creativity. This segues into a broader conversation about parenting, emphasizing the importance of letting children explore their true interests without imposing adult expectations or societal norms.The hosts delve into history, discussing pivotal moments like Viking raids in Ireland, the Boston Tea Party, and the migration of Neanderthals and early humans. These reflections are framed with humor and a sense of curiosity about how history has been shaped, rewritten, and taught. The discussion also touches on the complexities of societal brainwashing, from historical narratives to modern national security issues, critiquing how the U.S. government uses terms like “terrorism” to control public perception.Cultural and genetic history becomes a central theme as they explore personal connections to Ireland, considering travel as a means of discovering identity and familial roots. The conversation incorporates reflections on how ancestry influences modern identity, with a humorous take on topics like Viking raids, Irish potato farming, and the genetic quirks of Neanderthals.Food nostalgia makes an appearance with a longing for discontinued treats like Butterfinger BBs, sparking a larger commentary on the emotional connections people form with comfort foods. There's also a whimsical exploration of social behaviors, from the excessive use of personal fans to the awkwardness of forced interactions, especially in nightlife or drug-induced settings.Animals and their intelligence are discussed, with the hosts highlighting how humans often dismiss the innate abilities of animals, particularly their advanced sensory perceptions and emotional intelligence. This leads to reflections on societal attitudes toward intelligence, drawing parallels between historical perceptions of Neanderthals and current biases against certain groups or ideas.The episode closes with heartfelt reflections on friendship, emphasizing the unique and irreplaceable bonds formed with close friends. The hosts consider how true friendship provides a sense of belonging and authenticity, contrasting it with superficial social interactions or fleeting acquaintances. This theme ties back to the idea of seekingSupport the showAs always you can write us at nowellpodcast@gmail.com or call us at (614) 721-5336 and tell us your Not Wells of the week InstagramTwitterBobby's Only FansHelp us continue to grow and create amazing content, like a live tour or just help fund some new headphones when needed. Any help is appreacited. https://www.buzzsprout.com/510487/subscribe#gaypodcast #podcast #gay #lgbtq #queerpodcast #lgbt #lgbtpodcast #lgbtqpodcast #gaypodcaster #queer#instagay #podcasts #podcasting #gaylife #pride #lesbian #bhfyp #gaycomedy #comedypodcast #comedy #nyc #614 #shesnotdoingsowell #wiltonmanor #notwell
Episode 23: Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 15, 2025. Argued by Derek L. Shaffer (on behalf of Free Speech Coalition, et al.), Brian H. Fletcher, Deputy Solicitor General of the United States (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae), and Aaron Nielson, Solicitor General of Texas (on behalf of Ken Paxton). Background on the case, excerpted from the introduction of the Brief for Petitioners: Texas House Bill (H.B.) 1181 imposes requirements on commercial websites “more than one-third of which” are “sexual material harmful to minors”—a term that includes all sexually suggestive content, as might be found in romance novels or R-rated movies. The law requires a covered website to verify the age of every user, typically via government-issued identification. Entities conducting such verification may not “retain” users' “identifying information,” but H.B. 1181 does not prohibit transfer of that information or impose any other protection against disclosure. And while Texas insists that forcing users to endure chilling online privacy and security risks is necessary to protect minors from harmful sexual content, H.B. 1181 exempts the search engines and social-media platforms that are principal gateways for minors' access to that very content. Confirming Texas's real aims, H.B. 1181 also requires covered websites to post stigmatizing, unscientific “[w]arnings” that condemn their content as harmful to health. The district court preliminarily enjoined H.B. 1181, finding that the law is subject to strict scrutiny and likely to fail it under this Court's governing precedent. In particular, the court explained that H.B. 1181's age verification requirement is materially identical to the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), 47 U.S.C. § 231, which this Court in Ashcroft held was subject to strict scrutiny and likely unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit agreed that H.B. 1181 is materially identical to COPA, but a divided panel held that it was not bound by Ashcroft because that decision contains what the majority termed “startling omissions.” The majority concluded that the proper level of scrutiny is instead rational-basis review, as applied in Ginsberg. To justify its departure from Ashcroft, the majority reasoned that this Court there applied strict scrutiny to COPA only because Attorney General Ashcroft, represented by Solicitor General Olson, erroneously accepted strict scrutiny rather than urging mere rational-basis review in defense of the statute. Question Presented: This Court has repeatedly held that States may rationally restrict minors' access to sexual materials, but such restrictions must withstand strict scrutiny if they burden adults' access to constitutionally protected speech. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 663 (2004). In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit applied rational-basis review—rather than strict scrutiny—to vacate a preliminary injunction of a provision of a Texas law that significantly burdens adults' access to protected speech, because the law's stated purpose is to protect minors. The question presented is: Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech, instead of strict scrutiny as this Court and other circuits have consistently done. Resources: Full Supreme Court case docket for Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton Brief for petitioners Brief in opposition The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
Episode 22: TikTok Inc. V. Merrick Garland TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 10, 2025. Argued by Noel Francisco (on behalf of TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Ltd.) and Jeffrey Fisher (on behalf of Creator Petitioners Brian Firebaugh, et al.), and Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (on behalf of Merrick Garland). Background on the case: Adam Feldman's “The Universe of TikTok v. Garland in a Nutshell” contains an excellent synopsis of relevant facts and procedural history. Question Presented: Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment. Resources: Full Supreme Court case docket for TikTok v. Garland Free Speech Arguments Podcast episode on D.C. Circuit version of TikTok v. Garland Brief for petitioners TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Ltd. Brief for petitioners Brian Firebaugh, et al. Brief for the respondent The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
Have you ever gotten into a fight with your significant other about something fictional? Like a movie plot or a dream? Jeff and Corey got into it over a couple in a movie fighting.2nd Date Update revolved around Chris and Mina. A squirrel invaded their date and they thought it was cute, they even both like mystery novels...but she ghosted.2025 will give us Gen Beta and they are already making fun of our clothes. We talked about what the future will be like...for example: no actual paper money.Marcus threw an impromptu power outage party last night. He was the only one with a generator. How generous is too generous? They provided food, power and alcoholic beverages...when is it time to go home, especially on a school night?
Qualities of a true friend. One thing Sam never argued with a spouse about. True crime and your brain.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Jodi's homemade pimento cheese recipe.What Sam never argued with any spouse about.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Does Ireland have an anti-Semitism problem?
The Mancave Caucus discusses all the hot topics of the week and more! *This episode is missing content due to technical difficulties*
Jodi's homemade pimento cheese recipe.What Sam never argued with any spouse about. Murphy doesn't whistle??See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
It turns out that singer Liam Payne of One Direction had a rocky relationship with his so-called friend and maybe manager, Roger Notes. In August, Liam reportedly pushed Notes out of his management team. As I piece together all the details, it's looking like some of the people who Liam trusted the most may have been the ones who betrayed him the most.#liampayne #latestnewsliampayne #onedirection #breakingnews #trending #truecrime #singersdeath #payne #argent #liampaynetribute #lianpaynenews#truecrime #idaho #moscowidaho #kayleegoncalves #madisonmogen #ethanchapin #xanakernodle #moscowstudentmurders #idahostudentmurders #moscowhomicides #truecrimeunsolved #truecrimeunsolvedSupport the show
"Death Penalty Decision: Court Weighs Bryan Kohberger's Fate" #Kohberger #DeathPenalty #IdahoMurders The Bryan Kohberger case has shaken the nation, and many are left wondering what's next for the accused murderer. As the investigation continues to unfold, one question remains on everyone's mind: is Bryan Kohberger facing the possibility of death row? In this video, we'll dive into the latest developments in the case and explore the potential consequences Kohberger may face if convicted.
Video Replay on Twitch! Video Replay on YouTube! Happy Monday! The courts are arguing over Net Neutrality again! The DA investigating Musk over $1 Million prices is getting death threats. Russian fines Google an IMPOSSIBLE amount of money. Microsoft stock is down after earnings call, they're delaying Recall again, and they're already set to abandon "CoPilot" branding to copy Apple. Tidal needs more marketing, so Jack Dorsey fired the marketing team. Intel is in ROUGH shape. NVIDIA might make an ARM chip. Apple is buying a popular photo editing app. And lets talk about those Snapdragon 8 Elite benchmarks... Let's get our tech week started right! Support Talking Tech with SomeGadgetGuy by contributing to their tip jar: https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/talking-tech-with-somegadgetgu Find out more at https://talking-tech-with-somegadgetgu.pinecast.co This podcast is powered by Pinecast. Try Pinecast for free, forever, no credit card required. If you decide to upgrade, use coupon code r-c117ce for 40% off for 4 months, and support Talking Tech with SomeGadgetGuy.
Happy Monday! The courts are arguing over Net Neutrality again! The DA investigating Musk over $1 Million prices is getting death threats. Russian fines Google an IMPOSSIBLE amount of money. Microsoft stock is down after earnings call, they’re delaying Recall again, and they’re already set to abandon “CoPilot” branding to copy Apple. Tidal needs more … Continue reading "#SGGQA 371: Snapdragon 8 Elite Runs HOT, Microsoft Fumbles AI Strategy, Net Neutrality Argued Before Judges, Apple Buys Pixelmator"
Episode 20: Moms for Liberty v. Wilson County Board of Education Moms for Liberty – Wilson County, TN, et al. v. Wilson County Board of Education, et al., argued before Circuit Judges Jane Branstetter Stranch, Amul R. Thapar, and Eric E. Murphy in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on October 29, 2024. Argued by Brett R. Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech (on behalf of Moms for Liberty – Wilson County, TN, et al.) and Christopher C. Hayden (on behalf of the Wilson County Board of Education, et al.). Statement of Issues, from the Opening Brief for the Appellants: 1. Whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Wilson County Board of Education's policy requiring that speakers announce their address during the Board's public-comment period violates the First Amendment. 2. Whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Wilson County Board of Education's policy prohibiting “abusive” speech during its public-comment period violates the First Amendment. 3. Whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Wilson County Board of Education's requirement that individuals who want to speak on non-agenda items during the public-comment period prove their comments are “in the public interest” violates the First Amendment. 4. Whether the Wilson County Board of Education's partial voluntary cessation moots Plaintiffs' challenges to the Board's policies. 5. Whether the Wilson County Board of Education's partial voluntary cessation prevents a finding of irreparable harm. 6. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the address rule, the abusive-speech rule, and the public-interest rule. Resources: Opening Brief for the Appellants Brief of Appellees Institute for Free Speech case page (includes additional case documents and information) The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
What is the dumbest argument that you got into with your significant other? Over the weekend Joe and his girlfriend got into a heated debate over something that is going down this weekend...
PREVIEW: SCHLIEFFEN: Conversation with Professor Lloyd regarding the long-argued explanations for the failure of the Schlieffen Plan to capture Paris and end the war in weeks. More later. 1899 THE KAISER AND VON SCHLIEFFEN, ARMY MANEUVERS
Episode 19: Central Maine Power Company, et al. v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al. Central Maine Power Company, et al. v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al., argued before Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, Senior Circuit Judge Jeffrey R. Howard, and Circuit Judge Seth Aframe in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on October 9, 2024. Argued by Jonathan Richard Bolton, Maine Assistant Attorney General (on behalf of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al.), Joshua D. Dunlap (on behalf of Central Maine Power Company, et al.), Paul McDonald (on behalf of Versant Power and ENMAX Corporation), and Timothy Woodcock (on behalf of individual voter plaintiffs). Statement of Issues Presented for Review, from the Brief of Plaintiff—Appellee Enmax Corporation and Versant Power: 1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by preliminarily enjoining enforcement of 21-A M.R.S. § 1064 (the “Act”), which bars all campaign spending of a domestic corporation if 5% or more of its stock is owned by certain foreign entities or such a foreign entity directly or indirectly participates in its campaign-spending decisions, on the grounds that the Act facially violates the corporation's First Amendment rights. 2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in determining that the Act is expressly preempted by federal law as applied to federal elections when the Act's plain text does not limit its application to state elections. 3. Whether the district court's decision enjoining the Act should be affirmed on two alternative grounds left unaddressed by the district court: (i) the Act violates the United States Constitution's “dormant foreign commerce clause,” Article I, Section 8, Clause 3; and (ii) the Act, as applied to Versant Power, violates its rights under the First Amendment. Resources: CourtListener case docket for Central Maine Power Company Institute for Free Speech amicus brief The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
What Sam never argued with any spouse about. Love at 1st sight. Moms have superpowers. What's yours?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
A word about boundaries with friends for Jr. High and High School kids!The 1 thing Sam never argued with his spouses about. Coke products that are going away!?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Episode 18: Little v. Llano County Little, et al. v. Llano County, et al., argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on September 24, 2024. Argued by Jonathan F. Mitchell (on behalf of Llano County, et al.), Henry Charles Whitaker (on behalf of Amici Curiae States supporting Llano County), and Matthew Borden (on behalf of Little, et al.). Statement of Issues Presented for Review, from the Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees: 1. Did the District Court clearly err in finding that Defendants removed 17 books from the public library because of their viewpoint and content, when the books did not meet the library's own criteria for “weeding” books, Defendants' internal communications referred to the books as “pornographic filth,” and Defendants offered demonstrably false testimony and pretextual explanations to justify their removal? 2. Did the District Court act within its discretion when it issued a preliminary injunction restoring the status quo by preventing Defendants from hiding the 17 books from library patrons until the merits of the case are decided? 3. Can Defendants moot the need for an injunction by having their lawyer buy the 17 books in question and place them in a non-public room in the library, where their presence is not listed in the library catalogue, is not advertised to patrons, and is not communicated by the library through the channels normally employed to tell library patrons that books are available? From the dissent by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan in the vacated panel opinion (citations omitted): The commission hanging in my office says “Judge,” not “Librarian.” Imagine my surprise, then, to learn that my two esteemed colleagues have appointed themselves co-chairs of every public library board across the Fifth Circuit. In that new role, they have issued “rules” for when librarians can remove books from the shelves and when they cannot. While I do not doubt my colleagues' good intentions, these “rules” are a disaster. They lack any basis in law or common sense. And applying them will be a nightmare. Look no further than today's decision. The two judges in the majority, while agreeing on the rules, cannot agree on how they apply to over half of the 17 books in this case. So, according to Judge Wiener, a library cannot remove It's Perfectly Normal, a sex-education book for 10-year-olds that has cartoons of people having sex and masturbating. But according to Judge Southwick, removing that book is “likely permissible,” at least “[a]t this stage of the case,” because it contains “sexually explicit material that [i]s not appropriate for children.” Evidently, both judges would not allow a librarian to remove racist books—unless they have a “poor circulation history.” They differ, however, on how the rules apply to a series of children's books about flatulence. And so we have a genuine first in the Federal Reporter: federal judges debating whether the First Amendment lets a library remove a book called (I kid you not) Larry the Farting Leprechaun. This journey into jurisprudential inanity should never have been launched. There is a simple answer to the question posed by this case: A public library's choice of some books for its collection, and its rejection of others, is government speech. I dissent. Resources: CourtListener case docket for Little v. Llano County En Banc Supplemental Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees Corrected Supplemental Brief of Defendants-Appellants “Discard [Library] Books … That Reflect Gender, Family, Ethnic, or Racial Bias” – analysis by Eugene Volokh (Reason / the Volokh Conspiracy) The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, argued before Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, and Senior Circuit Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 16, 2024. Argued by Andrew J. Pincus (TikTok petitioners), Jeffrey L. Fisher (TikTok creator petitioners), and Daniel Tenny (on behalf of Merrick Garland). Background on the case, excerpted from the Brief of the TikTok Petitioners (citations omitted): TikTok is an innovative online platform used by 170 million Americans. These Americans form part of a unique global community with more than 1 billion users worldwide, with whom they create, share, and view videos—“speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.” All that will end on January 19, 2025, when the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the “Act”) will ban TikTok throughout the country. The Act is unprecedented. Never before has Congress expressly singled out and shut down a specific speech forum. Never before has Congress silenced so much speech in a single act…. Congress provided no justification for banning TikTok by fiat, while creating substantive and procedural protections, as well as unexplained exclusions, for all other companies alleged to pose the same risks. Without findings, the Court is left with statements of individual Members and a single committee report. Many of those Members criticized cherry-picked content on TikTok, merely reinforcing the Act's unconstitutionality. The report invoked national security, pointing to the speculative possibility that TikTok could be misused in the future. But a claim of national security does not override the Constitution…. The First Amendment requires this Court to examine such an extraordinary speech restriction with the utmost care and most exacting scrutiny…. Issues Presented, also from the Brief of Petitioners: Whether the Act violates the First Amendment. Whether the Act violates equal protection. Whether the Act is a Bill of Attainder. Whether the Act effects an unconstitutional taking. Resources: Public Redacted Brief for Respondent CourtListener case docket for TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland Background on United States v. O'Brien The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
oday we argue all the NBA debates you've been looking for across the internet. Check out the TD3 merch: https://the-deep-3-shop.fourthwall.com/ Join the TD3 discord!: https://discord.gg/RUkjpMPp7E Listen on Spotify!: https://open.spotify.com/show/3elbbqVumwqz8wlIdknsLW Listen on Apple Podcasts!: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-deep-3-podcast/id1657940794 Follow us on TikTok!: https://www.tiktok.com/@thedeepthree Follow us on Instagram!: https://www.instagram.com/thedeep3podcast/ Isaac's twitter: https://twitter.com/byisaacg Muhamed's twitter: https://twitter.com/Mojo99_ Donnavan's twitter: https://twitter.com/Dsmoot3D Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
#TexasValuesReport with special guest David Covey, Texas Leader, and host Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney, Texas Values Breaking! Supreme Court Will Decide if Biden Administration Can Sex-change Kids, Constitutionality of Texas' SB 14 Argued https://txvalues.org/breaking-supreme-court-will-decide-if-biden-administration-can-sex-change-kids-constitutionality-of-texas-sb-14-argued/ Breaking! TX Children's Hospital & Biden DOJ In Medicaid Fraud Scandal on Child Gender Trans Issue https://txvalues.org/breaking-tx-childrens-hospital-biden-doj-in-medicaid-fraud-scandal-on-child-gender-trans-issue/ Register for Texas Values 7th Annual Faith, Family, & Freedom Forum Sept. 13-14! https://register.txvalues.org/policyforum2024 Texas Values University. Graduate to an advanced level of citizenship. Stay up to date on our launch! https://txvalues.org/texas-values-university/ Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org $200,000 matching grant in place, now through June 30 donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues
This week's topics:Florida University Lessons argued in courtJuneteenth not a State Holiday in FloridaDemocrats work to win more seats in NovemberHow is "Lawfare" used by politicians?With guests:Jason Garcia, Publisher, "Seeking Rents" Newsletter & PodcastAdriana Novoa, Professor of Latin American History, University of South FloridaTrimmel Gomes, Journalist, President, Gomes Media StrategiesDarryl Paulson, Emeritus Professor of Govt. & Politics, USF-St. Petersburg
A group of families and professionals affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and the Johns Hopkins Medical Institution in Baltimore created the False Memory Syndrome Foundation in 1992 because they saw a need for an organization that could document and study the problem of families that were being shattered when adult children suddenly […] The post False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) was created by CIA (1992) to deny the existence of cult mind control and child abuse. FMSF argued in court that satanic ritual abuse (SRA) and multiple personality disorder (MPD) don't exist. appeared first on Psychopath In Your Life.
In the early morning hours of January 29th, 2022 the body of Boston police officer John O'Keefe was found in the snow outside of a suburban home, now his girlfriend of over two years prepares to stand trial for his murder. Prosecutors allege Karen Read backed her SUV into O'Keefe after a night of drinking and then left him to die in the snow. Defense attorneys claim that O'Keefe was beaten inside of the home and tossed outside in the snow and that Karen Read is the scapegoat in an elaborate cover-up. Earlier this week both sides were back in court to argue a series of motions, including a motion to dismiss the indictment against Karen Read. On this week's Court TV Podcast you'll hear the latest hearing in full as she prepares to stand trial. For more on the case against Karen Read, Click Here.
PREVIEW: #SCOTUS: Excerpt from a conversation with Professor Richard Epstein of Hoover re the Fischer vs US case -- turning on the obstruction charge against intruders on January 6 -- to be argued before the court in April -- that could influence the Smith prosecution of former President Trump before the Election. It's complicated -- and more of this later. 1886 SCOTUS
PREVIEW: #SCOTUS: #TRUMP: #COLORADO: From a conversation with Professor Richard Epstein about the decision to be argued before SCOTUS on February 8 that Colorado may or may not remove Trump from its ballot. More tonight. 1904 SCOTUS Old Chambers
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
