Podcasts about article ii

In one of the biggest cases of the Supreme Court term, the justices are weighing President Trump's sweeping global tariffs and the future of presidential power in trade policy.At issue is whether Trump can continue relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs without congressional approval. The core constitutional question: Are tariffs a “tax,” which fall under Congress' Article I powers — or, as a key foreign policy tool, are they best left to the President under Article II of the U.S. Constitution? The Court's answer will determine not only the fate of Trump's tariff policies but also the boundaries of presidential power for years to come. 

Political Scientists Jack Greenberg (Yale University) and John Dearborn (Vanderbilt University) have a new book that focuses on the idea of presidential self-restraint and the ways in which the U.S. Congress has tried to design Executive positions with an eye towards making real this dimension of presidential norms. The concept of presidential self-restraint is a component of how the president uses his/her executive powers: that the president has a certain expanse of power and chooses, based on a variety of reasons or outcomes, to husband some of that power, or restrain its use. Because presidential self-restraint is particularly hard to divine, especially in how presidents think about the execution of their powers, Greenberg and Dearborn turned to congressional considerations that essentially take into account this idea. Congress has spent quite a lot of time over the past fifty years (since Watergate) in designing appointed positions within the Executive branch in such a way as to flesh out a kind of restraint on the president's part. In so doing, Congress has attempted different means to insulate individuals/positions from potential abuse by a president. Congressional Expectations of Presidential Self-Restraint integrates a number of case studies of congressional action on presidential appointments to examine this push and pull between the legislative and executive branches. As the issue of self-restraint has become more pressing, Greenberg and Dearborn sketch out three foundational shifts that provides the framework for the way that Congress has tried to insulate executive positions, and the ways in which Congress has acknowledged the tension around depending on presidential self-restraint. The issues of political polarization, especially as demonstrated by congressional co-partisans with the president, the Supreme Court's growing commitment to constitutional formalism and unilateralism in the Executive, and Congress's unwillingness to defend its own powers and assert those powers all contribute to this conundrum of a reliance on presidential self-restraint that is often caught up in an expansion of the use of executive powers. The case studies provided demonstrate this conundrum and help us to see just how Congress tried to structure self-restraint into a number of different appointments and how presidents have tried to work around those constraints, some more successfully than others. This is a brief but complex analysis of the current dynamic between the president and Article II powers, the U.S. Congress's evaporating powers, and the Supreme Court's complicit role in fortifying an expansive understanding of presidential power. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022) and The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Political Scientists Jack Greenberg (Yale University) and John Dearborn (Vanderbilt University) have a new book that focuses on the idea of presidential self-restraint and the ways in which the U.S. Congress has tried to design Executive positions with an eye towards making real this dimension of presidential norms. The concept of presidential self-restraint is a component of how the president uses his/her executive powers: that the president has a certain expanse of power and chooses, based on a variety of reasons or outcomes, to husband some of that power, or restrain its use. Because presidential self-restraint is particularly hard to divine, especially in how presidents think about the execution of their powers, Greenberg and Dearborn turned to congressional considerations that essentially take into account this idea. Congress has spent quite a lot of time over the past fifty years (since Watergate) in designing appointed positions within the Executive branch in such a way as to flesh out a kind of restraint on the president's part. In so doing, Congress has attempted different means to insulate individuals/positions from potential abuse by a president. Congressional Expectations of Presidential Self-Restraint integrates a number of case studies of congressional action on presidential appointments to examine this push and pull between the legislative and executive branches. As the issue of self-restraint has become more pressing, Greenberg and Dearborn sketch out three foundational shifts that provides the framework for the way that Congress has tried to insulate executive positions, and the ways in which Congress has acknowledged the tension around depending on presidential self-restraint. The issues of political polarization, especially as demonstrated by congressional co-partisans with the president, the Supreme Court's growing commitment to constitutional formalism and unilateralism in the Executive, and Congress's unwillingness to defend its own powers and assert those powers all contribute to this conundrum of a reliance on presidential self-restraint that is often caught up in an expansion of the use of executive powers. The case studies provided demonstrate this conundrum and help us to see just how Congress tried to structure self-restraint into a number of different appointments and how presidents have tried to work around those constraints, some more successfully than others. This is a brief but complex analysis of the current dynamic between the president and Article II powers, the U.S. Congress's evaporating powers, and the Supreme Court's complicit role in fortifying an expansive understanding of presidential power. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022) and The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Political Scientists Jack Greenberg (Yale University) and John Dearborn (Vanderbilt University) have a new book that focuses on the idea of presidential self-restraint and the ways in which the U.S. Congress has tried to design Executive positions with an eye towards making real this dimension of presidential norms. The concept of presidential self-restraint is a component of how the president uses his/her executive powers: that the president has a certain expanse of power and chooses, based on a variety of reasons or outcomes, to husband some of that power, or restrain its use. Because presidential self-restraint is particularly hard to divine, especially in how presidents think about the execution of their powers, Greenberg and Dearborn turned to congressional considerations that essentially take into account this idea. Congress has spent quite a lot of time over the past fifty years (since Watergate) in designing appointed positions within the Executive branch in such a way as to flesh out a kind of restraint on the president's part. In so doing, Congress has attempted different means to insulate individuals/positions from potential abuse by a president. Congressional Expectations of Presidential Self-Restraint integrates a number of case studies of congressional action on presidential appointments to examine this push and pull between the legislative and executive branches. As the issue of self-restraint has become more pressing, Greenberg and Dearborn sketch out three foundational shifts that provides the framework for the way that Congress has tried to insulate executive positions, and the ways in which Congress has acknowledged the tension around depending on presidential self-restraint. The issues of political polarization, especially as demonstrated by congressional co-partisans with the president, the Supreme Court's growing commitment to constitutional formalism and unilateralism in the Executive, and Congress's unwillingness to defend its own powers and assert those powers all contribute to this conundrum of a reliance on presidential self-restraint that is often caught up in an expansion of the use of executive powers. The case studies provided demonstrate this conundrum and help us to see just how Congress tried to structure self-restraint into a number of different appointments and how presidents have tried to work around those constraints, some more successfully than others. This is a brief but complex analysis of the current dynamic between the president and Article II powers, the U.S. Congress's evaporating powers, and the Supreme Court's complicit role in fortifying an expansive understanding of presidential power. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022) and The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Political Scientists Jack Greenberg (Yale University) and John Dearborn (Vanderbilt University) have a new book that focuses on the idea of presidential self-restraint and the ways in which the U.S. Congress has tried to design Executive positions with an eye towards making real this dimension of presidential norms. The concept of presidential self-restraint is a component of how the president uses his/her executive powers: that the president has a certain expanse of power and chooses, based on a variety of reasons or outcomes, to husband some of that power, or restrain its use. Because presidential self-restraint is particularly hard to divine, especially in how presidents think about the execution of their powers, Greenberg and Dearborn turned to congressional considerations that essentially take into account this idea. Congress has spent quite a lot of time over the past fifty years (since Watergate) in designing appointed positions within the Executive branch in such a way as to flesh out a kind of restraint on the president's part. In so doing, Congress has attempted different means to insulate individuals/positions from potential abuse by a president. Congressional Expectations of Presidential Self-Restraint integrates a number of case studies of congressional action on presidential appointments to examine this push and pull between the legislative and executive branches. As the issue of self-restraint has become more pressing, Greenberg and Dearborn sketch out three foundational shifts that provides the framework for the way that Congress has tried to insulate executive positions, and the ways in which Congress has acknowledged the tension around depending on presidential self-restraint. The issues of political polarization, especially as demonstrated by congressional co-partisans with the president, the Supreme Court's growing commitment to constitutional formalism and unilateralism in the Executive, and Congress's unwillingness to defend its own powers and assert those powers all contribute to this conundrum of a reliance on presidential self-restraint that is often caught up in an expansion of the use of executive powers. The case studies provided demonstrate this conundrum and help us to see just how Congress tried to structure self-restraint into a number of different appointments and how presidents have tried to work around those constraints, some more successfully than others. This is a brief but complex analysis of the current dynamic between the president and Article II powers, the U.S. Congress's evaporating powers, and the Supreme Court's complicit role in fortifying an expansive understanding of presidential power. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022) and The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social

Political Scientists Jack Greenberg (Yale University) and John Dearborn (Vanderbilt University) have a new book that focuses on the idea of presidential self-restraint and the ways in which the U.S. Congress has tried to design Executive positions with an eye towards making real this dimension of presidential norms. The concept of presidential self-restraint is a component of how the president uses his/her executive powers: that the president has a certain expanse of power and chooses, based on a variety of reasons or outcomes, to husband some of that power, or restrain its use. Because presidential self-restraint is particularly hard to divine, especially in how presidents think about the execution of their powers, Greenberg and Dearborn turned to congressional considerations that essentially take into account this idea. Congress has spent quite a lot of time over the past fifty years (since Watergate) in designing appointed positions within the Executive branch in such a way as to flesh out a kind of restraint on the president's part. In so doing, Congress has attempted different means to insulate individuals/positions from potential abuse by a president. Congressional Expectations of Presidential Self-Restraint integrates a number of case studies of congressional action on presidential appointments to examine this push and pull between the legislative and executive branches. As the issue of self-restraint has become more pressing, Greenberg and Dearborn sketch out three foundational shifts that provides the framework for the way that Congress has tried to insulate executive positions, and the ways in which Congress has acknowledged the tension around depending on presidential self-restraint. The issues of political polarization, especially as demonstrated by congressional co-partisans with the president, the Supreme Court's growing commitment to constitutional formalism and unilateralism in the Executive, and Congress's unwillingness to defend its own powers and assert those powers all contribute to this conundrum of a reliance on presidential self-restraint that is often caught up in an expansion of the use of executive powers. The case studies provided demonstrate this conundrum and help us to see just how Congress tried to structure self-restraint into a number of different appointments and how presidents have tried to work around those constraints, some more successfully than others. This is a brief but complex analysis of the current dynamic between the president and Article II powers, the U.S. Congress's evaporating powers, and the Supreme Court's complicit role in fortifying an expansive understanding of presidential power. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022) and The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Oregon-based Federal Judge Karen Immelgut, already ruled against once by her 9th Circuit Court of Appeals superiors, has once again ruled after a three day kangaroo court “trial,” that it is she, an unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior district court judge who has the constitutional authority to determine whether calling out the National Guard to defend federal personnel and property is warranted—rather than the US President, to whom Article II of the Constitution assigns the entirety of the Commander in Chief authority, and the Congress, which has delegated its own Article I Militia Powers to the President for precisely these purposes. Even as these National Guard cases from the 7th Circuit (Chicago) and 9th Circuit (Oregon) are being considered by the US Supreme Court, these insurrectionist unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior district trial court judges afflicted with rabid Trump Derangement Syndrome continue to act in “Bad behavior” in violation of their Article III obligations for employment on the federal bench.  In addition, their repeated partisan rulings are more than sufficient grounds for impeachment by the House—which should be happening TODAY—as well as the threat of conviction and removal by the Senate. 

Today's sponsor is Piedmont Master Gardeners: Now accepting applications for their 2026 training class. Apply by December 1, 2025No study of American history or macroeconomics would leave out the impact played by the Great Crash of the New York Stock Exchange of 1929 which culminated on Black Tuesday, 96 years ago today. Stock prices had continued to increase throughout the Roaring Twenties but would generally decline until 1932, marking the era of the Great Depression. This edition of Charlottesville Community Engagement does not have the time or resources to delve into the causes of a financial panic that transformed the United States. I'm Sean Tubbs, and I think people should look back on their own time.In this edition:* Earlier this year, President Trump asked officials in Texas to redraw the Congressional maps to give the Republican Party an advantage in the 2026 midterms* Other states with Democratic majorities such as California have countered with redistricting proposals of their own* This week, the Virginia General Assembly is meeting in a special session to take a first step to amend the state's constitution to allow for a mid-Census redistricting* The podcast version features an audio version of yesterday's story on 530 East Main Street (read the story)Charlottesville Community Engagement is the work of one person and that one person sometimes neglects the marketing. You can help fill the gap by sharing with friends!First-shout: The new WTJU mobile app is here!WTJU is pleased to announce our brand new mobile app! You can download a version from either the Apple App Store or Google Play Store. Here are the links to both:* iPhone version* Android versionThe WTJU app is the place to tune in and listen live to WTJU, WXTJ, and Charlottesville Classical. Aside from the live stream, listen to archived shows, view recent songs, playlists, and program schedules, check out videos of live performances, stay up-to-date on WTJU's most recent news and articles, and more!Live chat with your favorite hosts, share stories with your friends, and tune into your community all in the palm of your hand.Virginia General Assembly takes up redistricting amendment during special sessionThe second presidency of Donald Trump has introduced many novel approaches to governance in the United States, including pressure on legislators in Texas to break from precedent to redraw Congressional districts in advance of the 2026 mid-term elections.Traditionally redistricting happens every ten years as mandated in Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. States can determine the method of how they draw districts but for many years Southern states were required to submit boundaries for review to ensure compliance with civil rights legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.The Republican Party currently holds a narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives with 219 members to 213 Democrats with three vacancies. One of those vacancies has been filled in a special election in Arizona won on September 23 by Democrat Adelita Grijalva but Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has so far refused to swear her in until he calls the full House of Representatives back into session.According to the Texas Tribune, redistricting in Texas is expected to create five additional safe seats for Republicans. The state's delegation of 38 Representatives consists of 25 Republicans, 12 Democrats, and one vacancy. Governor Greg Abbott signed the new Congressional map on August 29 with no need for voters to approve the measure.In response, California Governor Gavin Newsome, a Democrat, suggested legislation called the “Election Rigging Response Act” in direct response to the new maps in Texas, and a voter initiative to redraw maps in the nation's largest state mentions efforts underway by Republicans to redistrict in Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nebraska, and South Carolina. Proposition 50 is on the ballot on November 4.Last week, the Virginia Political Newsletter reported that Democrats who control a narrow majority in the General Assembly are seeking to follow California's lead. On Monday, the House of Delegates agreed to take up House Joint Resolution 6007 which would amend the Virginia Constitution to allow the General Assembly to make a one-time adjustment.The General Assembly is able to meet because a special session from 2024 was never technically adjourned. To allow consideration of the Constitutional amendment, the joint resolution that sets the rules for the special session had to be changed and agreed to by both the House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate.One adopted on February 22 of this year lists six items of acceptable business including memorials and resolutions commending people or businesses. A seventh was added to House Joint Resolution 6006 which was introduced by Delegate Charniele Herring (D-4) on October 24. This would allow a “joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia related to reapportionment or redistricting.”Both the House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate convened on Monday, October 27.As the debate in the House of Delegates began, Delegate Bobby Orrock (R-66) made a parliamentary inquiry.“My first inquiry would be given that special sessions have by their very nature only occurred for specific reasons. Ergo, we have resolutions controlling what can be considered during them. And subsequently, to my knowledge and experience here, they've never extended for more than a one year period.”Orrock said the 2024 Special Session was continued to allow progress toward adopting a budget that year. He said that had taken place and the stated reason for the special session was moot.The amendment itself was not made available until Tuesday afternoon. More on that later.Delegate Jay Leftwich (R-90) read from §30-13 of the Virginia Code which lays out what steps the Clerk of the House of Delegates has to take when publishing proposed amendments to the Constitution.“It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the House of Delegates shall have published all proposed amendments to the constitution for the distribution from his office and to the clerk of the circuit court of each county and the city two copies of the proposed amendments, one of which shall be posted at the front door of the courthouse and the other shall be made available for public inspection,” Leftwich said.Delegate Herring countered that that section of code predates the Virginia Constitution of 1971 which does not have those requirements. Leftwich continued to press on this note but Speaker of the House Don Scott ruled that his questions were not germane to the procedural issue.Delegate Lee Ware (R-72) said the move across the United States to redraw districts mid-Census to gain partisan advantage was a bad idea no matter what party was proposing it.“Just because a bad idea was proposed and even taken up by a few of our sister states such as North Carolina or California, is not a reason for Virginia to follow suit,” Ware said. “ For nearly two and a half centuries, the states have redistricted following the decennial census, responding to the population shifts both in our country and in the states.”A motion to amend HJ6006 passed 50 to 42.The House of Delegates currently only has 99 members due to the resignation of Todd Gilbert. Gilbert had been named as the U.S. Attorney for Western Virginia but lasted for less than a month. Former Albemarle Commonwealth's Attorney Robert Tracci was appointed to the position on an interim basis.Charlottesville Community Engagement is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Second-shout out: Cville Village seeks volunteersCan you drive a neighbor to a doctor's appointment? Change an overhead lightbulb, plant a flower, walk a dog for someone who is sick, visit someone who is lonely? If so, Cville Village needs you!Cville Village is a local 501c3 nonprofit organization loosely affiliated with a national network of Villages whose goals are to help seniors stay in their own homes as long as possible, and to build connections among them that diminish social isolation. Volunteers do small chores for, and have gatherings of, professors and schoolteachers, nurses and lawyers, aides and housekeepers. Time and chance come to all – a fall, an order not to drive, failing eyesight, a sudden stroke. They assist folks continue living at home, with a little help from their friends.Cville Village volunteers consult software that shows them who has requested a service and where they are located. Volunteers accept only the requests that fit their schedule and their skills.Volunteering for Cville Village can expand your circle of friends and shower you with thanks.To learn more, visit cvillevillage.org or attend one of their monthly Village “meet-ups” and see for yourself. To find out where and when the next meetup is, or to get more information and a volunteer application, email us at info@cvillevillage.org, or call them at (434) 218-3727.Virginia Senators pre-debate the amendment on TuesdayThe Virginia Senate took up the matter on Monday as well. Democrats have a 21 to 19 majority and were unable that day to suspend the rules to immediately consider an amendment to HJ6006. They had a second reading on Tuesday.The initial discussion of the Constitutional amendment took place during a portion of the meeting where Senators got to speak on matters of personal privilege. As with the House of Delegates, many inquiries from Republican legislators happened because the document itself was not yet available for review.Senator Bill Stanley (R–20) rose to remind his colleagues that the General Assembly passed a bipartisan Constitutional amendment to require that redistricting be conducted by a nonpartisan committee.“We listened to Virginians who were tired of the gerrymandering,” Stanley said. “In 2019, polls showed 70 percent of Virginians supported redistricting reform. Not 51 percent, not 55 percent, [but] 70 percent. The Mason Dixon poll showed 72% support. And crucially, over 60 percent of Republicans and Democrats alike supported this amendment. Equally when it came to a vote in the Commonwealth. This was not partisan.”Senator Mamie Locke (D-2) served on the bipartisan redistricting committee and reminded her colleagues that the process broke down in October 2021, as I reported at the time. The Virginia Supreme Court ended up appointing two special masters to draw the current boundaries.“There was constant gridlock and partisan roadblocks,” Locke said. “[Those] Were the reasons why the Supreme Court ended up drawing the lines because the commission ended up discussing things as tedious as which university could be trusted to provide unbiased data.”Locke said the proposal in Virginia would still have a bipartisan commission draw new maps after the 2030 Census and that voters in Virginia would still have to approve the amendment.Senator Scott Surovell (D-34) said the amendment is intended to step in when other branches of government are not exercising their Constitutional authority to provide checks and balances. He echoed Locke's comment that the redistricting commission would continue to exist.“There's no maps that have been drawn,” Surovell said. “There's no repeal of the constitutional amendment. The only thing that's on the table or will be on the table later this week is giving the General assembly the option to take further action in January to then give Virginia voters the option of protecting our country.”Senator Richard Stuart (R-25) said he thinks President Trump is doing a job of bringing manufacturing back to the country and dismissed Surovell's notion that democracy is at threat.“I'm not seeing any threat to democracy,” Stuart said. “I heard the word king, and I would remind the Senator that if he was a king, he would be beheaded for what he just said. But in this country, we enjoy free speech. We get to say what we want to say, and that is a valued right and privilege.”Senator Barbara Favola (D-40) said many of her constituents are concerned about cuts to federal programs due to the recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill including threats to Medicaid. She explained why she supports her Democratic colleagues in Congress in the current state of things.“We are in a shutdown situation because the Democrats are standing up and saying we must extend the tax credits that are available on the health marketplace so individuals can afford their insurance,” Favola said. “Health insurance. This is not going unnoticed by the Virginians we represent.”Senator Mark Peake (R-22) said Republicans were entitled to govern how they want because they are in control of the federal government.“The current president won an overwhelming majority in the Electoral College and he won the popular vote by over 4 million or 5 million votes,” Peake said. “That is called democracy. That is what we have. And the Republicans won the Senate and they won the House of Congress. We will have another election next year and it will be time for the citizens to vote. But we are going under a democracy right now, and that's where we stand.”The points of personal privilege continued. Senator Schuyler VanValkenburg (D-72) said elections are a chance for citizens to weigh in on a presidency that started the process of mid-Census redistricting.“The key point is this,” VanValkenburg said. “The president's ideas are unpopular. He knows it. He's going to his ideological friends, he's asking them to carve up maps, and now the other side is upset because they're going to get called on it in elections.”The Senate adjourned soon afterward and will take up a third reading of HJ6006 today.Democrats file Constitutional Amendment for first referenceEarly discussions about a potential constitutional amendment in the House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate this week did not include a lot of details about how a mid-Census Congressional redistricting would take place.House Joint Resolution 6007 was filed with the Virginia Legislative Information System on Tuesday, October 28. As of this publication it is in the House Privileges and Elections Committee because the Senate has not yet given itself permission to take up the matter.The amendment would amend Article II, Section 6, of the Virginia Constitution to insert language into the second paragraph.Here is the full text, with italicized words indicating new language.The Commonwealth shall be reapportioned into electoral districts in accordance with this section and Section 6-A in the year 2021 and every ten years thereafter, except that the General Assembly shall be authorized to modify one or more congressional districts at any point following the adoption of a decennial reapportionment law, but prior to the next decennial census, in the event that any State of the United States of America conducts a redistricting of such state's congressional districts at any point following that state's adoption of a decennial reapportionment law for any purpose other than (i) the completion of the state's decennial redistricting in response to a federal census and reapportionment mandated by the Constitution of the United States and established in federal law or (ii) as ordered by any state or federal court to remedy an unlawful or unconstitutional district map.Take a look at the whole text here. I'll continue to provide updates. Stories you might also read for October 29, 2025* Charlottesville Ale Trail brings people to craft beverage makers, Jackson Shock, October 27, 2025* U.Va. leaders defend Justice Department deal in letter to Charlottesville legislators, Cecilia Mould and Ford McCracken, Cavalier Daily, October 28, 2025* Council agrees to purchase $6.2 million office building for low-barrier shelter, Sean Tubbs, C-Ville Weekly, October 29, 2025* Republican legislators slam Virginia redistricting proposal, Colby Johnson, WDBJ-7, October 27, 2025* Democrat Abigail Spanberger backs Virginia legislature's redistricting push, Steve People and Olivia Diaz, Associated Press, October 27, 2025* Va. Democrats roll out redistricting amendment to counter GOP map changes in other states, Markus Schmidt, October 28, 2025* Virginia Republicans Sue to Block Democratic Redistricting Push, Jen Rice, Democracy Docket, October 28, 2025* Redistricting session to resume Wednesday, WWBT, October 29, 2025Back to local again shortly after #947This is a unique version based on me wanting to go through the General Assembly recordings myself. I have a lot of local stories to get back to in the near future and I'm working extra this week to make sure I get back to them.They include:* Coverage of the discussion of 204 7th Street at the October 21, 2025 Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review* Coverage of last night's Albemarle Planning Commission public hearing on Attain on Fifth Street* Coverage of two discussions at last night's Greene County Board of SupervisorsAs expected, I work longer hours when I'm out of town on family business because I don't have the usual places to go. This is okay. Summer is over and it's time to hunker down and get to work. Today's end video is The Streets: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Nixon Vetoes War Powers ResolutionOn October 24, 1973, President Richard Nixon vetoed the War Powers Resolution (H.J. Res. 542), a landmark piece of legislation passed by Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over decisions to deploy U.S. armed forces abroad. The resolution came in the wake of growing public and congressional frustration over the Vietnam War and secret military actions in Southeast Asia. The law required the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and prohibited armed forces from remaining in conflict for more than 60 days without congressional authorization. Nixon, in a written veto message, declared the measure “unconstitutional and dangerous,” arguing that it infringed on the President's Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief.Despite Nixon's objections, Congress overrode the veto on November 7, 1973, with bipartisan support, thereby enacting the War Powers Resolution into law. This override marked a rare and forceful assertion of legislative authority over foreign military engagements. The resolution aimed to correct what many in Congress saw as decades of executive overreach in matters of war and peace. However, its constitutional legitimacy has remained contested. Presidents from both parties have often complied only in part—or ignored it altogether—asserting that the resolution unlawfully limits executive authority.While the War Powers Resolution was intended to prevent unilateral military action, it has had limited practical effect in restraining presidents from engaging in hostilities without express congressional approval. Legal scholars continue to debate its enforceability and the constitutional balance it attempts to strike. The 1973 veto and subsequent override encapsulate enduring tensions between the executive and legislative branches over control of U.S. military power.Two federal judges—Julien Neals of New Jersey and Henry Wingate of Mississippi—recently admitted that erroneous rulings issued from their chambers were the result of law clerks or interns improperly using AI tools. The judges revealed in letters to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts that the flawed opinions contained fictitious citations or parties due to unvetted generative AI research. Judge Neals said a law school intern used ChatGPT, which led to nonexistent case quotes in a June 30 order, violating his chambers' unwritten policy against AI use. He has since formalized that policy. Judge Wingate reported that a law clerk used Perplexity AI to help draft a July 20 restraining order, which contained completely inaccurate case details. He acknowledged the draft “should have never been docketed” and is now requiring dual reviews of all drafts and hard-copy verification of cited cases.Legal scholars were critical of the situation, arguing that the use of AI does not relieve judges of their duty to verify citations and legal reasoning. Professors Stephen Gillers and Bruce Green both questioned how such oversights could occur and whether this reflects a broader trend of judges signing off on unverified drafts. Senator Chuck Grassley, who initiated an inquiry into the incidents, urged the judiciary to develop robust AI policies to prevent similar breakdowns in judicial accuracy. Interim guidance from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts now cautions against using AI for core judicial tasks and emphasizes user accountability.Judges Admit to Using AI After Made-Up Rulings Called Out (1)Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) has filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the House of Representatives to officially swear her in, and the case has been assigned to Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Washington, D.C. Grijalva, who won a special election on September 23 to succeed her late father, Raúl Grijalva, has not yet been seated, and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has delayed scheduling her swearing-in. Her formal entry into Congress would reduce the Republican majority and enable Democrats to trigger a vote on releasing Jeffrey Epstein-related documents.Judge McFadden is known for conservative rulings, though his record includes some independent decisions, such as restoring the Associated Press' White House access. Grijalva's legal team is examining the implications of his assignment to the case.Grijalva argues that the delay is not just procedural but prevents her from doing the basic work of a representative. Without a formal swearing-in, she lacks an office budget, staff, constituent services, and a working phone line. The number for her late father's office still routes to outdated voicemails. In contrast, Speaker Johnson downplayed the significance of the delay, suggesting Grijalva can still serve constituents informally. The case, Ariz. v. House of Representatives, now centers not only on procedural norms but also on the balance of political power in a narrowly divided House.Grijalva's Lawsuit to Force House Swearing-In Draws Trump JudgeNew York Attorney General Letitia James is expected to plead not guilty today in federal court to charges of bank fraud and making a false statement to a financial institution. The indictment accuses her of misrepresenting a 2020 Norfolk, Virginia property as a second home to secure a lower mortgage interest rate—saving nearly $19,000—when she allegedly used the home as a rental investment. James denies wrongdoing and plans to challenge the charges, calling them baseless.The case marks a dramatic turn for James, a Democrat who last year won a $450 million civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump. Although the monetary penalty was overturned on appeal, the court upheld the underlying fraud finding. James is one of several public figures who have clashed with Trump and are now facing criminal charges under his administration, alongside former FBI Director James Comey and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.Critics, including a third of Republicans according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, believe Trump is weaponizing federal law enforcement to target perceived enemies. The lead prosecutor in the James case, U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, was appointed by Trump after he replaced a prior prosecutor who raised concerns about the strength of the case. James' team argues Halligan is unlawfully serving in the role and has already moved to dismiss the charges. The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge Jamar Walker, a Biden appointee.NY Attorney General Letitia James, a Trump adversary, to plead not guilty to mortgage charge | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Strauss, Jr.This week's closing theme features Johann Strauss Jr. and a spirited dive into the Wiener Klänge im Walzertakt mit Johann Strauss – I (”Viennese Sounds in Waltz Time with Johann Strauss – I”). Known as the “Waltz King,” Strauss Jr. was born on October 25, 1825, in Vienna and became the most celebrated composer of light dance music in the 19th century. While his father, Johann Strauss Sr., founded the family's musical dynasty, it was Strauss Jr. who elevated the Viennese waltz to international acclaim, transforming what had been a lively but modest ballroom dance into a glittering art form.Strauss Jr. composed over 500 works, including waltzes, polkas, and operettas, many of which captured the charm and social energy of Habsburg Vienna. His most famous pieces—like The Blue Danube, Tales from the Vienna Woods, and Vienna Blood—remain fixtures in concert halls and New Year's galas to this day. The selection in Wiener Klänge im Walzertakt offers a snapshot of this legacy, blending elegance, momentum, and melodic wit with unmistakable Viennese flair.Beyond their musical appeal, these waltzes represent a cultural moment: a fading empire still wrapped in gilded pageantry, danced into memory by the music of Strauss. They also underscore Strauss Jr.'s gift for orchestration—light but never shallow, sentimental yet never saccharine. His music invites listeners not just to hear, but to move, swirl, and feel the rhythm of a society twirling on the edge of modernity.As we close this week, let the shimmering 3/4 time of Johann Strauss Jr. remind us of both the power of beauty and the politics of public joy. In the same way his music bridged popular entertainment and sophisticated art, so too does this moment ask us to consider how culture can move between courts, crowds, and chambers alike.Without further ado, Viennese Sounds in Waltz Time with Johann Strauss, the first movement – 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

JOIN US FOR THE MEMBERS-ONLY BONUS SHOW IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS MAIN SHOW: INSERT HERE:   https://youtube.com/live/lpiNTk7fEgMJOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~16 cents/day! $5/month! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join TRUMP WINS AGAIN IN FEDERAL COURT!  This time the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals—traditionally recognized as the MOST LIBERAL of the federal court circuits, has handed Trump a RESOUNDING VICTORY on his authority to call out the National Guard and deploy it to Portland OR.In a 2-1 vote this three-judge panel ruled to toss out the temporary restraining order issued against Trump by an unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior federal district trial court Judge Karin—not kidding, Karin—Immelgut, citing reasoning error after reasoning error in her TRO against Trump.  The two judges in the majority—Judge Bridget Bade and Judge Ryan Nelson—were both appointed by Trump. Even better, Judge Nelson wrote a concurrence not only supporting the reasonableness and lawfulness of Trump's deployment of the National Guard, he also argued strenuously that such this exercise of Article II authority by the President simply was not subject to judicial review AT ALL. There was also a histrionic dissent by 76-year-old Judge Susan Graber, a Clinton appointee, class of 1997. Join me LIVE at 11 AM ET as I break it all down into plain English!NOTE: I previously covered Judge Immelgut's unconstitutional TRO decision here:  "Lawless Democrat Rogue Judge VIOLATES Constitution AGAIN!" https://youtube.com/live/IrjYOD-gvSII also invite each of YOU to join me in our desperate but worthy mission to save our great nation. The easiest way to do that? SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! EVEN BETTER, BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join : -)Episode 1050

JOIN US FOR THE MEMBERS-ONLY BONUS SHOW IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS MAIN SHOW: INSERT HERE:   https://youtube.com/live/mZt0gAL-PowJOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~16 cents/day! $5/month! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join The great and powerful President Donald J. Trump has ordered the firing of Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission, and of course she has sued in federal court and received an injunction against her firing from an unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior federal district trial court judge.  The dispute over Trump's power to fire the heads of so-called independent agencies will now be argued to SCOTUS.As we all know, SCOTUS has so far tossed out ever injunction in every similar firing case involving Trump's exercise of his core and plenary Article II powers, and we have every reason to expect that will be the outcome here.To flesh out the arguments in support of Trump's firing authority, I'll be breaking down a friend-of-the-court (amicus) brief filed by America First Legal, the conservative public interest organization founded in 2021 by the great and powerful Stephen Miller, senior advisor to President Donald J. Trump himself. Join me LIVE at 4 PME T as I break it all down!I also invite each of YOU to join me in our desperate but worthy mission to save our great nation. The easiest way to do that? SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! EVEN BETTER, BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join : -)Episode 1051

In this episode, I chat with Tom Luongo, a well-known macro expert and a returning five-timer on the show, about the power games behind markets and politics. If you want a hard-hitting map of the current geopolitical and cultural battlefield, this one's for you. ––– Support My Work ––– Paypal: https://www.paypal.biz/BitcoinMatrix Strike/Bitcoin: BitcoinMatrix@strike.me Cash App: https://cash.app/$BitcoinMatrix Venmo: https://venmo.com/u/bitcoinmatrix PO Box: The Bitcoin Matrix, P.O. Box 18056, Sarasota, FL 34231 ––– Offers & Discounts ––– MicroSeed is redefining seed phrase security. Check out https://microseed.io/shop/ and use code MATRIX at checkout. Theya is the world's simplest Bitcoin self-custody solution. Download Theya Now at theya.us/cedric Get up to $100 in Bitcoin on River at river.com/matrix The best Team Bitcoin merch is at HodlersOfficial.com. Use the code Matrix for a discount on your order. Become a sponsor of the show: https://thebitcoinmatrix.com/sponsors/ ––– Get To Know Today's Guest ––– • Tom Luongo on X: https://x.com/TFL1728 ––– Socials ––– • Check out our new website at https://TheBitcoinMatrix.Com • Follow Cedric Youngelman on X: https://x.com/cedyoungelman • Follow The Bitcoin Matrix Podcast on X: https://x.com/_bitcoinmatrix • Follow Cedric Youngelman on Nostr: npub12tq9jxmt707gd5vnce3tqllpm67ktr0mqskcvy58qqa4d074pz9s4ukdcs ––– Chapters ––– 00:00 - Intro 03:10 - The “three strata” of power and the unseen high table 10:02 - War frame, funding flows, and Trump's multi-front strategy 24:56 - Is this a perpetual war? Systems vs. psychopaths  28:05 - Money is changing  33:35 - OMB cuts and the 60-day clock on federal firings 43:10 - Article II power, Chevron deference fallout, and dollar “plumbing”  45:04 - Gold & silver drains; Bitcoin as U.S. collateral asset  54:04 - Property taxes as “serfdom” and the DeSantis debate  56:05 - Why Fannie & Freddie matter; the 30-year mortgage explained   1:04:24 - 2008 redo: conservatorship, AIG, and Dodd-Frank hurdles  1:23:25 - Final rallying cry I want to take a moment to express my heartfelt gratitude to all of you for tuning in, supporting the show, and contributing. Thank you for listening! The information in all The Bitcoin Matrix Podcast episodes and content is based on hypothetical assumptions and is intended for illustrative purposes only. PAST PERFORMANCE DOES NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE RESULTS. This video is provided for entertainment purposes only. The information contained herein represents temporary, changing views and subjective impressions and opinions regarding the inherently uncertain and unpredictable issues discussed. The reader, user, and/or viewer must not assume that these contents are accurate, complete, timely, or up to date. Market conditions change rapidly and unpredictably. Nothing herein should be interpreted as any kind of offer, solicitation, commitment, promise, warranty, or guarantee whatsoever relating to any of the contents of these videos. DISCLAIMER: INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE BITCOIN MATRIX PODCAST IS PROVIDED “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND FREEDOM FROM INFRINGEMENT. The viewer of this video assumes the entire risk of any acting on any information contained herein. No representation is made that any regulatory authority has passed on the merits, adequacy or accuracy of this information. The viewer assumes all liability.

Tune in here to this Monday's edition of the Brett Winterble Show! Brett kicks off the program by talking about the historic peace deal in the Middle East and the release of the remaining hostages from Gaza. He frames the moment as a major diplomatic win, attributing the success to former President Donald Trump’s leadership and deal-making abilities. Brett sharply contrasts this with President Biden’s foreign policy approach, blaming Biden for both the war in Ukraine and the October 7th Hamas attacks. He argues that Trump’s efforts, like the Abraham Accords, planted the seeds for peace and stability in the region. Later, Brett turns his focus to a recent exchange between Senator J.D. Vance and ABC's George Stephanopoulos. He plays a clip from the interview in which Vance defends the president’s constitutional authority, even in the face of potential Supreme Court rulings. The conversation centers on the limits of judicial power and executive authority, with Vance arguing that certain rulings could be considered illegitimate if they interfere with the president’s Article II powers. Stephanopoulos presses Vance on whether a president can defy the Supreme Court, Listen here for all of this and more on The Brett Winterble Show! For more from Brett Winterble check out his YouTube channel. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

MEMBERS! JOIN US FOR THE BONUS SHOW IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS MAIN SHOW: INSERT HERE:  https://youtube.com/live/5O8bjulfflUJOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join This week the unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior district trial courts issued yet another feckless, sure-to-be-reserved, obstructionist Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) against our great and powerful elected Article II Executive Branch President Donald J. Trump in the exercise of his core and plenary powers as Commander in Chief of US military forces.This time the feckless and obstructionist order was issued by Federal Judge April Perry, class of Biden 2024, and raised to the federal bench on November 22, 2024, after Trump's election as President on a 51-44 Senate vote.  As is common to Biden federal bench nominees, Perry has zero prior judicial experience, and her background consists mostly of working for various left-wing organizations.Perry is obliged to simultaneously apply a tortured reading to the relevant statute that authorizes Trump's activation and deployment of the national guard, as well as simply override the Commander in Chief's judgment on whether the circumstances warrant calling out the guard—the combination resulting in a grotesque overreach far beyond the legitimate Article III authority of a federal court judge as well as being an obvious violation of the Constitution's separation of powers and infringement of the core and plenary Commander in Chief powers of the Article II. Executive Branch president. Join me LIVE at 11 AM ET as I break it all down!I also invite each of YOU to join me in our desperate but worthy mission to save our great nation. The easiest way to do that? SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! EVEN BETTER, BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join : -)Episode 1043

Leah is joined by guest co-host Skye Perryman, president & CEO of Democracy Forward, to discuss the week's news, including the continued pushback on the shadow docket from the lower courts and Trump's boundless abuse of Article II. Then Kate, Melissa, and Leah — along with special guest Sherrilyn Ifill — take a look at the impact of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, three years into her time on the Supreme Court.Favorite things:Skye: Sierra FerrellLeah: The Summer I Turned Pretty (Amazon); Charlie Kirk, Redeemed: A Political Class Finds Its Lost Cause, Ta-Nehisi Coates (Vanity Fair); Miolin Bakery, Brooklyn; L'Appartement 4F, Brooklyn & Manhattan Kate: Pennsylvania Supreme Court election (get involved at Vote Save America) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: Final Draft of the US Constitution EngrossedOn September 16, 1787, the final draft of the United States Constitution was signed by the Constitutional Convention delegates in Philadelphia. Although the official signing date was September 17, the 16th was the day the finished document was ordered to be engrossed — meaning it was written in its final, formal script on parchment. This step marked the culmination of four months of intense debate, compromise, and drafting by delegates from twelve of the thirteen original states. The Constitution replaced the failing Articles of Confederation and established a stronger federal government with distinct executive, legislative, and judicial branches.Debates on September 16 included last-minute details such as how amendments could be proposed and the extent of federal power over the militia. The delegates had already resolved key issues like the Great Compromise (creating a bicameral legislature), the Electoral College, and the Three-Fifths Compromise regarding the counting of enslaved individuals for representation. One of the final acts on the 16th was the approval of the letter that would accompany the Constitution to Congress, urging ratification by the states.Though the Constitution would still need to be ratified by nine of the thirteen states, the events of September 16 set the stage for the formal adoption the following day. The engrossed copy would be signed on September 17 and later become the foundation of American law and governance.Maurene Comey, a former federal prosecutor and daughter of ex-FBI Director James Comey, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over her sudden termination in July. She alleges that her firing was politically motivated, stemming from her father's adversarial relationship with Donald Trump. The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, names both the Justice Department and the Executive Office of the President as defendants and claims Comey was given no reason for her dismissal. According to the suit, Comey had received strong performance evaluations, including one in April signed by Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton.Comey had played key roles in high-profile prosecutions, including the sex trafficking case against Ghislaine Maxwell and the recent conviction of Sean “Diddy” Combs on prostitution-related charges. She was fired just two weeks after the Combs trial ended. The email she received from DOJ human resources cited presidential authority under Article II but offered no specific explanation. When she asked Clayton about the decision, he allegedly said, “All I can say is it came from Washington.”The lawsuit challenges the administration's ability to remove career, non-political prosecutors and raises concerns about politicization of the Justice Department, particularly in cases involving Trump or his allies.Former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey sues Trump administration over firing | ReutersElon Musk's company X Corp has settled a trademark dispute with legal marketing firm X Social Media over the use of the “X” name. The case, filed in Florida federal court in October 2023, stemmed from Musk's rebranding of Twitter to X, which X Social Media claimed caused consumer confusion and financial harm. As part of the resolution, both parties asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be reopened. The founder of X Social Media, Jacob Malherbe, confirmed the settlement and announced the company will now operate under the name Mass Tort Ad Agency.The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and X Corp did not issue a comment. The lawsuit was one of several Musk's company has faced over the “X” name, which is widely used and trademarked by numerous businesses, including Microsoft and Meta. In its defense, X Corp argued that many companies have long coexisted with similar “X” trademarks and accused X Social Media of trying to exploit the situation for profit. This settlement follows another earlier agreement in which X Corp resolved a separate trademark claim brought by the firm Multiply.The dismissal brings closure to a case that raised questions about branding overlap and trademark dilution in an increasingly crowded digital landscape.Musk's X Corp settles mass-tort ad agency's trademark lawsuit over 'X' name | ReutersTwo U.S. law firms, Bartlit Beck and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, are requesting $85 million in legal fees after securing a $700 million settlement with Google over alleged antitrust violations tied to its Play Store. The settlement, which is still pending approval by U.S. District Judge James Donato, resolves claims that Google overcharged Android users by restricting app distribution and imposing excessive in-app transaction fees. Under the agreement, $630 million will go to a consumer fund, with another $70 million allocated to a state-managed fund shared by all 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.Consumers are expected to receive a minimum of $2, with additional compensation based on their Play Store spending from August 2016 to September 2023. Google also agreed to ease restrictions on app developers, allowing them to inform users about alternative payment methods and enabling easier direct app downloads from the web. The fee request amounts to approximately 13.5% of the consumer settlement fund, and the firms say they invested nearly 100,000 hours over more than three years.While Judge Donato previously raised concerns about the scope of the deal, no U.S. state has objected to the fee request so far. Google has not admitted any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, and users will still have the opportunity to raise objections before final approval.Lawyers behind $700 million Google settlement ask for $85 million fee award | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Norway's recent national election, which effectively became a referendum on one of the last remaining wealth taxes in Europe. Despite having a $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund and no immediate fiscal need for a wealth tax, Norwegians narrowly backed the Labour Party, signaling that voters still care about fairness in taxation—even when the government doesn't need the money. In a global landscape where wealth taxes have mostly disappeared, this was a small but potent victory for the principle of equity.I argued that this matters beyond Norway. Wealth taxes used to be common across Europe, but most were abandoned due to fears of capital flight and elite lobbying. That Norway held the line—even amid billionaire threats and a populist surge—suggests that wealth taxes can survive politically when fairness becomes a central electoral value. It also underscores that symbolic wins can shape broader policy debates by proving what's administratively and politically possible.In the U.S., we lack Norway's fiscal cushion, yet we've persistently avoided taxing wealth. Policymakers often justify this inaction with fears about capital mobility, but I question whether we're really more vulnerable to capital flight than Norway is. The deeper issue is political will. Americans have long treated wealth taxation as politically toxic and bureaucratically unworkable, but that may be more a product of narrative than necessity.Norway's voters showed that fairness can be enough to win—even narrowly. But I emphasize that such policies require ongoing public defense; they don't sustain themselves. If we continue dodging the issue in the U.S., we'll be doing so not from a place of strength, but from a place of illusion. If Norway can defend taxing wealth despite not needing to, we have no excuse not to even try.Norway Wealth Tax Victory Shows Visible Fairness Still Matters 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

On this episode of Reaganism, host Roger Zakheim sits down with Matt Waxman, a professor at Columbia University Law School. Roger and Matt discuss the Trump administration's recent strike against the Tren de Aragua gang in the Caribbean. Matt outlines the constitutional and international legal hurdles the president faces authorizing the strike. Matt and Roger discuss the intricacies of the authorization for the use of military force, and the distinctions between Al Qaeda and cartel groups like Tren de Aragua. Roger and Matt explore the White House's use of the president's Article II powers to justify the strike against Tren de Aragua. They conclude the conversation with an evaluation of Israel's strike against Hamas in Qatar, Matt finds the strike was justified under international law, but draws important distinctions between Israel's strike and how the US would conduct a similar strike. Roger and Matt finish the episode by concluding Israel's strike was escalatory and opens a new chapter in the Israel-Hamas war.

The “Autopen Pardon Scandal” House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer announced that the committee is wrapping up its investigation into President Joe Biden’s alleged use of the autopen to issue thousands of pardons. Records suggest Biden’s aides, including Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, authorized pardons using the autopen without Biden’s direct involvement. Critics, including Donald Trump and constitutional attorney Mark Smith (on Fox News), argue this raises questions about presidential authority, legitimacy of pardons, and executive power under Article II. Defenders claim the use of autopen is legal and Republicans are politicizing the issue. US Military Build-up in Puerto Rico Amid Venezuela Tensions Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Kane made an unannounced visit to Puerto Rico. The visit coincided with rising US-Venezuela tensions following a US military strike on a Venezuelan cartel vessel. The Pentagon is considering Puerto Rico as a hub for counter-narcotics operations, deploying F-35 jets, Marines, and multiple warships to the Caribbean. Officials emphasize the move is not for regime change but to combat narco-terrorism and drug trafficking networks. Puerto Rico’s strategic location is highlighted as key for intercepting drug routes. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Ford Grants Nixon PardonOn September 8, 1974, President Gerald R. Ford granted a full and unconditional pardon to former President Richard M. Nixon for any crimes he may have committed while in office, specifically those related to the Watergate scandal. The announcement came just one month after Nixon resigned in disgrace, becoming the first U.S. president to do so. Ford, who had only recently assumed the presidency, delivered the pardon via a televised address, explaining that he hoped to heal the nation's wounds and end the "long national nightmare." The decision was met with swift and widespread controversy.Critics accused Ford of striking a backroom deal with Nixon—trading the presidency for a guarantee of legal immunity. The move damaged Ford's credibility and likely contributed to his loss in the 1976 presidential election. Supporters, however, argued that the pardon was necessary to move the country forward and prevent a divisive, prolonged legal spectacle. Legally, the pardon was grounded in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the president broad clemency powers for federal offenses. Importantly, Nixon had not been formally charged at the time of the pardon, making it a preemptive act.The pardon set a precedent for the scope of presidential pardon powers, later cited in legal arguments involving other controversial figures. It also fueled lasting debates about executive accountability and the limits of legal immunity for high-ranking officials. Public opinion at the time was largely against the decision, but historical reassessment has yielded more nuanced views. Ford later received the Profile in Courage Award in 2001 for the pardon, which some historians came to see as a politically costly but morally principled decision. The moment remains a defining one in the legal and political legacy of both Nixon and Ford.Luigi Mangione, accused of murdering UnitedHealth Group executive Brian Thompson, argued in a court filing that federal prosecutors unfairly prejudiced potential jurors by linking him to a separate mass shooting. Prosecutors had previously claimed Mangione inspired Shane Tamura, who killed four people and himself at the offices of Blackstone and the NFL. Mangione's attorneys countered that there is no evidence Tamura was influenced by either Mangione or his anti-health-insurance-industry writings. They accused the government of deliberately trying to bias jurors and undermine Mangione's right to a fair trial.The government cited Tamura in response to Mangione's request for more details on what prosecutors might argue during a potential capital sentencing phase. Prosecutors claimed that Mangione's alleged ability to inspire vigilante violence demonstrates his dangerousness and supports their pursuit of the death penalty. However, Mangione rejected any link to Tamura and called the connection politically motivated. His legal team reiterated its demand for more information on the government's death penalty theory. U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett will determine whether the prosecution must share additional details at this stage.Luigi Mangione Says Linking Him to Blackstone Killer Biases JuryThe Trump administration has announced plans to deport Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant at the center of a high-profile immigration case, to Eswatini, a country in southern Africa with which he has no ties. Abrego is currently detained in Virginia and previously faced deportation to Uganda, but the destination was changed after he claimed fear of persecution there. A Department of Homeland Security official dismissed his claims, citing that he has alleged fear of persecution in over 20 countries.Abrego was initially deported to El Salvador in March despite a court order blocking the move, prompting criticism of the administration's handling of his case. He was later returned to the U.S. in June to face federal charges of transporting undocumented migrants, to which he has pleaded not guilty. His attorneys argue that the prosecution is retaliatory and aimed at coercing a guilty plea. They also revealed that the government offered to send him to Costa Rica if he accepted a plea deal, or to Uganda if he refused.Abrego, who had been living in Maryland with his American wife and children, has become a symbol in the broader debate over immigration enforcement. The administration previously used deportation flights to Eswatini for people labeled too dangerous for their home countries to accept, raising further concerns about Abrego's treatment.Trump administration says migrant Abrego could be deported to Eswatini | ReutersThe Trump administration has officially ended its legal defense of a rule, created under President Biden, that banned employee noncompete agreements. These agreements prevent workers from joining competing businesses or starting their own in the same industry. On Friday, the Justice Department moved to dismiss two appeals in federal courts that challenged rulings striking down the 2024 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rule. The decision was widely expected after Trump-appointed FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, a critic of the rule, indicated earlier this year that the agency was reviewing its legality.The dropped appeals mean courts will not rule on whether the FTC has the authority to implement broad nationwide bans under its antitrust mandate. The original FTC rule had cited evidence that over 20% of U.S. workers are bound by noncompete clauses, which it argued restrict worker mobility and depress wages. However, Ferguson and other Republicans maintain that the FTC lacks the rulemaking power to impose such sweeping bans.The legal challenges were brought by a marketing firm, a real estate developer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other business groups. During Trump's first term, his administration held that although some noncompete clauses might be illegal, the agreements as a whole were not. Meanwhile, the FTC announced a new enforcement action against a major pet cremation company, accusing it of using unlawful noncompetes, including for low-wage workers.Trump administration drops defense of ban on employee 'noncompete' agreements | ReutersThe Trump administration is preparing backup plans to continue imposing tariffs if the Supreme Court rejects its current legal basis for doing so. After losing in lower courts, Trump is asking the Supreme Court to uphold his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1970s national security law that appellate judges ruled does not authorize tariffs. In the meantime, White House officials have been quietly exploring other legal tools for months, anticipating potential judicial pushback.Two key alternatives under consideration are Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 232 allows the president to raise tariffs if certain imports are found to threaten national security—many of Trump's existing tariffs fall under this provision and wouldn't be directly affected by the IEEPA ruling. Section 301 permits the U.S. trade representative, under presidential direction, to take action in response to unfair trade practices. However, neither law offers the speed and flexibility that IEEPA provided, and each comes with legal and logistical hurdles.Trump's legal team and advisers remain confident that the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority that includes three of his appointees, might still side with him. But regardless of the legal outcome, the administration is determined to maintain a public and political case for Trump's tariff powers, framing them as essential to national security and foreign policy goals. These legal uncertainties are complicating U.S. trade negotiations, as foreign governments remain cautious and unconvinced that the court case will significantly shift the U.S. position.The White House is exploring how to keep Trump's tariffs if the Supreme Court strikes them down 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

On this episode of the Chuck ToddCast, the conversation turns to the political battles shaping 2025. From the issues Democrats should lean into—and the ones they should avoid—to Trump's trolling of Chicago and his administration's push for a showdown over crime and “terrorism,” the stakes are high. Chuck dives into how the White House is setting the stage for possible military action against cartels and even Venezuela, with flimsy constitutional justifications that have sparked pushback from voices like Rand Paul. Meanwhile, Democrats face their own identity struggles, from the risks of being tied to “socialism” with Latino voters to Bernie Sanders' refusal to formally join the party. Plus, a look ahead to the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, where three strong contenders could reshape the party's futureThen, physician-turned-politician Abdul El-Sayed joins Chuck to discuss why he left medicine for the rough-and-tumble of politics. From the challenges of running for office with a foreign name to centering his campaign on improving life for children, El-Sayed argues that healthcare isn't just about access—it's about fairness. He pulls back the curtain on a system where insurers and hospital CEOs collude to inflate prices, pharmaceutical companies raise costs simply because they can, and Americans are tricked into thinking “choice” in healthcare actually benefits them.The conversation doesn't stop at healthcare—it spans the crisis of trust in public health, the lessons El-Sayed learned from his 2018 gubernatorial run, and the corrosive role of money in politics. He weighs in on Gretchen Whitmer's record, Trump's overreach beyond Article II, and what sets him apart in Michigan's Senate race. And in a moment of global reflection, El-Sayed takes on the politics of genocide—from Israel and Gaza to China's treatment of the Uighurs—arguing that calling atrocities by their name is a test of values, even when nuance is hard to find in today's polarized climate.Finally, Chuck gives a history lesson on Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon and its impact on modern politics, recaps the weekend in college football, and answers listeners' questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment.Timeline:(Timestamps may vary based on advertisements)00:00 Introduction04:00 The issues Democrats should run on, and issues they should avoid05:15 Trump's trolling of Chicago got the reaction he wanted06:30 The administration wants a showdown over Chicago08:30 The administration's aggressive application of the term “terrorism”10:15 The Democratic base wants fight, government shutdown likely12:15 Trump administration setting the stage for war with Venezuela13:30 Administration needs to justify designating cartels terrorists16:45 Trump's justification to congress for military action against cartels 19:00 Trump's justification was lacking, and didn't mention Venezuela 20:15 Trump ignoring the constitution in rationalizing action against cartels 21:45 Vance says fighting cartels is best use of military 23:15 JD gets into back and forth with Rand Paul on X 24:45 Venezuela story should be consuming Washington 26:15 Rand Paul has been willing to be combative with administration 29:00 The progressive left won't succeed if they're associated with socialism 30:45 "Socialism" isn't rebrandable with Latino voters 31:45 Bernie Sanders still hasn't joined the Democratic party 33:15 Michigan Democratic senate primary has 3 great candidates33:45 Abdul El-Sayed joins the Chuck ToddCast 35:30 What made you choose politics when your background is medicine? 37:15 The challenge of running for office with a foreign name 38:15 Centering politics around improving the world for children 39:15 Disparities in access to health care based on money and connections 40:45 Health insurance is getting worse despite rising cost 42:00 Insurers and hospital CEOs collude to raise prices 44:00 What should be the cost expectation for pharmaceuticals? 45:30 Pharma companies raise prices because they can 46:30 RFK Jr. shouldn't be anywhere near healthcare 47:30 The impact of the internet on public health 49:30 The crisis Kennedy is creating at HHS and CDC 50:15 How can we restore trust in public health authorities? 52:30 MAHA's appeal is the idea you can control your health future 53:45 Parallels between public health and education 55:30 Health relies on both the individual and public health 56:30 Healthcare industry has tricked the public using concept of "choice" 58:15 Would you keep a semi-privatized system under medicare for all? 1:00:45 Health networks curtail choice and raise prices 1:02:15 What did you learn from your 2018 run for governor? 1:04:45 The disease of our political system is money buying politicians and policy 1:06:00 Trump spoke to economic pain and was able to reach voters 1:07:30 Assessment of Gretchen Whitmer's governorship 1:09:30 Whitmer tried to work with Trump at times, will you? 1:11:30 Trump is exercising far more power than Article 2 permits 1:13:15 Differences between you and your opponents for MI senate? 1:14:00 Taking corporate money is a major philosophical difference 1:16:30 Reforming public health will require healthcare pros in D.C. 1:18:15 The trend of public health officials running for office 1:20:30 How much will Israel/Gaza factor into the election? 1:21:45 Calling something a genocide when you see it is a values test 1:23:00 Was Israel justified in going after Hamas? How much was justifiable? 1:24:00 The extremes on both sides of the war strengthen each other 1:25:00 We aim, arm and abet Israeli leaders who don't want two states 1:26:00 Tax dollars should benefit taxpayers, not foreign militaries 1:27:00 It's difficult to find nuance in our current politics 1:29:15 Money in politics make it difficult to have an honest conversation 1:30:00 Having a nuanced conversation around the world genocide 1:32:15 The holocaust can't set the bar for use of the term "genocide" 1:33:45 Is China committing genocide of the Uighurs? 1:35:00 Using the word genocide can just "switch off" voters1:42:45 Chuck's thoughts on interview with Abdul El-Sayed 1:44:15 This week in history - Chuck's history lesson 1:45:15 Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon on September 8th, 1974 1:47:00 The case for pardoning Nixon 1:49:15 The case against pardoning Nixon 1:52:00 Ford's decision implied the country couldn't handle a trial 1:53:15 A majority of the country thought the pardon was wrong 1:55:00 Nixon never got his due process 1:56:15 Pardon was a stain on presidential decision making 1:56:45 College football update 2:00:45 Ask Chuck 2:01:15 Why Putin won't grant Trump a ceasefire 2:04:15 Why do Epstein victims face dehumanization when Trump doesn't? 2:08:00 Thoughts on the political salience of this season of South Park?

Physician-turned-politician Abdul El-Sayed joins Chuck Todd to discuss why he left medicine for the rough-and-tumble of politics. From the challenges of running for office with a foreign name to centering his campaign on improving life for children, El-Sayed argues that healthcare isn't just about access—it's about fairness. He pulls back the curtain on a system where insurers and hospital CEOs collude to inflate prices, pharmaceutical companies raise costs simply because they can, and Americans are tricked into thinking “choice” in healthcare actually benefits them.The conversation doesn't stop at healthcare—it spans the crisis of trust in public health, the lessons El-Sayed learned from his 2018 gubernatorial run, and the corrosive role of money in politics. He weighs in on Gretchen Whitmer's record, Trump's overreach beyond Article II, and what sets him apart in Michigan's Senate race. And in a moment of global reflection, El-Sayed takes on the politics of genocide—from Israel and Gaza to China's treatment of the Uighurs—arguing that calling atrocities by their name is a test of values, even when nuance is hard to find in today's polarized climate.Timeline:00:00 Abdul El-Sayed joins the Chuck ToddCast01:45 What made you choose politics when your background is medicine?03:30 The challenge of running for office with a foreign name04:30 Centering politics around improving the world for children05:30 Disparities in access to health care based on money and connections07:00 Health insurance is getting worse despite rising cost08:15 Insurers and hospital CEOs collude to raise prices10:15 What should be the cost expectation for pharmaceuticals?11:45 Pharma companies raise prices because they can12:45 RFK Jr. shouldn't be anywhere near healthcare13:45 The impact of the internet on  public health15:45 The crisis Kennedy is creating at HHS and CDC16:30 How can we restore trust in public health authorities?18:45 MAHA's appeal is the idea you can control your health future20:00 Parallels between public health and education21:45 Health relies on both the individual and public health22:45 Healthcare industry has tricked the public using concept of “choice”24:30 Would you keep a semi-privatized system under medicare for all?27:00 Health networks curtail choice and raise prices28:30 What did you learn from your 2018 run for governor?31:00 The disease of our political system is money buying politicians and policy32:15 Trump spoke to economic pain and was able to reach voters33:45 Assessment of Gretchen Whitmer's governorship35:45 Whitmer tried to work with Trump at times, will you?37:45 Trump is exercising far more power than Article 2 permits39:30 Differences between you and your opponents for MI senate?40:15 Taking corporate money is a major philosophical difference42:45 Reforming public health will require healthcare pros in D.C.44:30 The trend of public health officials running for office46:45 How much will Israel/Gaza factor into the election?48:00 Calling something a genocide when you see it is a values test49:15 Was Israel justified in going after Hamas? How much was justifiable?50:15 The extremes on both sides of the war strengthen each other51:15 We aim, arm and abet Israeli leaders who don't want two states52:15 Tax dollars should benefit taxpayers, not foreign militaries53:15 It's difficult to find nuance in our current politics55:30 Money in politics make it difficult to have an honest conversation56:15 Having a nuanced conversation around the world genocide58:30 The holocaust can't set the bar for use of the term “genocide”1:00:00 Is China committing genocide of the Uighurs?1:01:15 Using the word genocide can just “switch off” voters1:03:30 People assume having an Arab name means tribal loyalty to Arabs

What does the Bible say about Jesus descending into hell? The Rev. Brady Finnern, President of the LCMS Minnesota North District and host of KFUO Radio's Concord Matters, joins Andy to talk about the Formula of Concord reading plan he created for 2025, including the questions concerning The Descent into Hell that are addressed in September's readings. What does the Bible say about Jesus descending to hell? Why did Jesus descend into hell? What are the ideas and theories about what 1 Peter 3:18 means by “he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison”? What do we do with the questions not answered by God's Word? Find the full reading plan from The Lutheran Witness at witness.lcms.org/2024/reading-plan, and find correlating Concord Matters episodes at kfuo.org/formulaofconcord. September | The Descent Into Hell WEEK 1: Ep IX 1–4 (p. 495) SA Part I (p. 262) SC Part II, Article II (p. 329) WEEK 2: LC Part II, Article II (p.401–402) WEEK 3: SD IX (p. 596–597) WEEK 4: 1 Peter 3:18–22; Heb. 10:10–13; Psalm 16 As you grab your morning coffee (and pastry, let's be honest), join hosts Andy Bates and Sarah Gulseth as they bring you stories of the intersection of Lutheran life and a secular world. Catch real-life stories of mercy work of the LCMS and partners, updates from missionaries across the ocean, and practical talk about how to live boldly Lutheran. Have a topic you'd like to hear about on The Coffee Hour? Contact us at: listener@kfuo.org.

Sam Harris speaks with David French about Trump's assault on American democracy. They discuss Trump's persecution of political opponents, abuse of the pardon power, Congress's ineffectiveness, David's proposed change to Article II of the Constitution, whether democracy in the U.S. has passed the point of no return, the future of election integrity, Trump's threats against Elon Musk, the weaponization of ICE, the dangers of deploying the National Guard in American cities, white evangelical support for Trump, Republican infighting and why only Trump can hold the MAGA coalition together, Trump's unique political talents, the prospect of him remaining in power beyond two terms, and other topics. If the Making Sense podcast logo in your player is BLACK, you can SUBSCRIBE to gain access to all full-length episodes at samharris.org/subscribe.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe D's are panicking, they cannot lose control over the Fed or worse have the Fed shutdown, which is going to happen. Trump is setting the precedent and he wants the court to make the ruling so there is not question of what authority he has. The Fed is trapped, no inflation, Trump is forcing them into a position that they will not be able to get out of. The [DS] is battling evidence that is coming out against them, the evidence is getting worse and they need to distract from this and keep the news cycle clogged with other stories. Every time news breaks against the [DS]/[D's] some type of event occurs. Trump is now exposing Soros. Soros funds the riots and antifa. Antifa mapping started a long time ago.   Economy (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1960524710342746224 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1960494829236052013 https://twitter.com/RepJasmine/status/1960343560756056539 Lisa Cook committed a crime and nobody is above the law You don't get special privileges based on the color of your skin   NEW: Lisa Cook to File Lawsuit After Trump Fires Her as Federal Reserve Governor….Fed Says It Will Abide by Court Decision Lisa Cook is preparing to file a lawsuit after President Trump fired her as Federal Reserve Governor. President Trump on Monday evening fired Biden-appointed Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook amid mortgage fraud allegations. “Pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as amended, you are hereby removed from your position on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, effective immediately,” President Trump wrote in a letter to Lisa Cook. “I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position,” Trump added as he cited housing regulator Bill Pulte's criminal referral on Lisa Cook for mortgage fraud – specifically occupancy fraud.   Source: thegatewaypundit.com What Fed must do now after Jerome Powell's Jackson Hole epiphany Last Friday in Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell finally – and grudgingly – admitted what the Trump team has been saying all along: tariffs don't fuel inflation. At most, tariffs create a one-time adjustment in prices, not the kind of runaway spiral that demands punishing rate hikes. And even that one-time bump may be negligible if, as we have long argued, foreign exporters – not American consumers – shoulder most or all of the burden. The implication is clear: whether the impact is zero or merely a one-time step-up in prices, there is absolutely no justification for the Fed to hide behind "tariff uncertainty" as an excuse for overly restrictive interest-rate policy.   Soure: foxnews.com Political/Rights  https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1960481691606376666 https://twitter.com/AsraNomani/status/1960407636446175597 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1960714129783546232  FAILED promises. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1960729811099308460 Obama Judge Says MS-13 Gang Member Kilmar Abrego Garcia Cannot be Deported Until At Least October 

In a letter posted to Truth Social on Monday night, President Donald Trump ordered the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her position for alleged mortgage fraud. Citing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and his powers under Article II of the Constitution, Trump stated that he was removing Cook “for cause.” Cook responded by saying that “no cause exists under the law” and that the president did not have the authority to fire her.Tangle LIVE tickets are available!We're excited to announce that our third installment of Tangle Live will be held on October 24, 2025, at the Irvine Barclay Theatre in Irvine, California. If you're in the area (or want to make the trip), we'd love to have you join Isaac and the team for a night of spirited discussion, live Q&A, and opportunities to meet the team in person. You can read more about the event and purchase tickets here.Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: Do you think Trump has legal cause to fire Cook? Let us know!Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The DC Court of Appeals has handed President Trump yet ANOTHER YUGE court legal victory in affirming the authority of the President to cut off funding from Progressive money laundering operations like USAID and various corrupt NGOs, which had been stealing US taxpayer dollars by the trillions—all to line the pockets of Progressive politicians, court followers, and their privileged families. The unelected, black-robed, tyrannical federal district court Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali, the first Muslim and Arab DC district court judge, raised to the bench on November 20 2024 by the Democrats AFTER Trump's re-election, by a mere 50-49 vote, who was also a past leader of a radical left-wing group that called for defunding the police, had issued an injunction freezing Trump's Article II Executive Branch authority.  This was at the behest of a gaggle of plaintiff USAID/NGO thieves looting the US Treasury for their own fattening. The court of appeals had initially paused much of Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali's injunction, and today that same three-judge panel issued Judge Ali's injunction the death blow, making clear that if anyone could check Trump's Article II authority to freeze spending it was the Article I and Article II branches of government—and not some mere Article III judge, and certainly not some gaggle of USAID/NGOs who had been eating fat at the trough of stolen taxpayer moneys. The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

Why does it matter that we understand that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man? The Rev. Brady Finnern, President of the LCMS Minnesota North District and host of KFUO Radio's Concord Matters, joins Andy and Sarah to talk about the Formula of Concord reading plan he created for 2025, including the questions concerning The Person of Christ that are addressed in August's readings. What is a proper understanding of the natures of Christ, and where is this written and confessed? Why is a proper understanding of the divine and human natures of Jesus vital to our faith? What happens when we get it wrong, and how can this be detrimental to faith? Where do we see these errors in other churches' teachings? Find the full reading plan from The Lutheran Witness at witness.lcms.org/2024/reading-plan, and find correlating Concord Matters episodes at kfuo.org/formulaofconcord. August | The Person of Christ Week 1: Ep VIII 1-3 (p. 491) AC III (p. 32) Week 2: Ep VIII 4-18 (p. 492-493) Ap III (p. 82) Week 3: LC Part II, Article II (p. 401-402) SD VIII 1-15 (p. 581-583) Week 4: Ep VIII 19-39 (p. 493-495)

Donald Trump is bungling the Jeffrey Epstein scandal in real time. The Trump-Epstein connection is the politics news of the month, with no end in sight to further developments about the extent of the so-called “Epstein files” that may or may not be in the administration's possession. Trump's MAGA base is openly angry at him for seemingly the first time over the course of two administrations. Some Republicans have demanded answers, even as GOP leaders have shut down the House to stop Democrats from pursuing the release of further information. Both parties are using the scandal to their advantage, to the detriment of Epstein's real-life victims and survivors. This week, Katelyn and Christine interview independent journalist Ken Klippenstein about the Epstein discourse that split MAGA and might finally, finally stick to Teflon Don.Watch the full episode on Cancel Me, Daddy's YouTube channel.Links:Follow Ken Klippenstein on Bluesky @kenklippenstein.bsky.socialSubscribe to Ken's newsletter: www.kenklippenstein.comNPR's “Morning Edition”: A timeline of the controversy over the administration's handling of the Epstein filesMarianna Sotomayor and Kadia Goba for The Washington Post: House largely grinds to a halt over Epstein filesKatelyn Burns for Vox (2020): “At a news conference in 2019, [Trump] lied so often — about everything from Labor Secretary Alex Acosta's involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein case to whether Article II of the US Constitution gives him unlimited power — that Vox's Aaron Rupar called it a “master class in gaslighting.”Landon Thomas Jr. for New York (2002): “I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”In this episode, we cover:• The documented Trump-Epstein connection timeline• Political psychology of scandal immunity• How conservative media frames controversial stories• Progressive analysis of MAGA loyalty dynamicsThis isn't just another Trump scandal breakdown - it's a deep dive into American political tribalism and the media narratives that shape public opinion.

Article II, Section II of the United States Constitution grants numerous powers to the presidency. However, Clause II dictates the President must have the advice and consent of the United States Senate in order to exercise these powers.  What does this mean and what is the nomination and confirmation process between these two branches of government?  When specifically must the President consult with the Senate on nominations?  For whom in the executive branch does this apply and for whom does it not?  To shed light on this very important power, we are pleased to welcome Dr. Jon Schaff, Professor of Government/Director of the Center for Public History and Civic Engagement at Northern University in South Dakota.

This Day in Legal History: Second Confiscation ActOn July 17, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Second Confiscation Act into law, dramatically expanding federal wartime powers during the Civil War. Building on a more limited first version passed in 1861, the new act authorized the seizure of property—particularly land and slaves—from individuals engaged in or supporting the rebellion. It declared that any Confederate supporter who did not surrender within sixty days would have their property “forfeited and seized” by the United States government. Crucially, the law applied even to those who had not been convicted in court, effectively bypassing traditional due process protections.One of the most controversial aspects was the emancipation provision: slaves of disloyal owners were to be “forever free.” While limited in scope—applying only to territories held by Union forces and to those enslaved by rebels—it marked a key moment in the legal evolution of emancipation as a war aim. Lincoln, a lawyer sensitive to constitutional boundaries, had reservations about the law's due process implications. To address these, he issued a “signing statement” urging that the law be enforced in a way that preserved judicial oversight where possible.Still, the act laid the legal groundwork for broader emancipation efforts, including the Emancipation Proclamation issued six months later. It also reflected increasing pressure from abolitionist Republicans in Congress who sought a more aggressive stance against the Confederacy. The Confiscation Act expanded the Union's legal toolkit for undermining Confederate infrastructure and punishing rebellion, though enforcement was often inconsistent on the ground. It pushed the boundaries of property rights and signaled a shift in federal authority during wartime.A U.S. appeals court appears likely to block the Trump administration's effort to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nearly 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants. During oral arguments on July 16, 2025, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals questioned the abrupt reversal of TPS protections just days after President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem took office. Judges expressed skepticism about the administration's rationale, particularly since the Biden administration had extended TPS protections until October 2026 only two weeks earlier.Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw questioned how conditions in Venezuela could have changed so significantly in such a short timeframe. Government attorney Drew Ensign argued that the Biden administration's extension was legally insufficient and that agencies have the authority to reconsider decisions. However, Judge Anthony Johnstone countered that policy changes must follow proper legal channels, not be masked as legal corrections. Judge Salvador Mendoza raised concerns that Noem and Trump's comments—some of which he described as “arguably racist”—might reflect racial bias in the policy shift.The TPS Alliance, represented by Ahilan Arulanantham, argued that federal law only allows revisions to TPS decisions for minor corrections, not full reversals. District Judge Edward Chen had already blocked the TPS termination in March, citing discriminatory motivations. The case affects Venezuelans who received TPS in 2023, with their status set to expire in April unless court protections remain in place. If the administration's policy holds, earlier TPS recipients from 2021 could also lose their status by September. Several other lawsuits have also challenged the termination of TPS for Venezuelans and Haitians.US judges skeptical of Trump ending Venezuelan migrants' legal status | ReutersNinth Circuit skeptical of Venezuelan immigration status terminations, despite SCOTUS block | Courthouse News ServiceThe U.S. Department of Justice has fired Maurene Comey, a prominent federal prosecutor and daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, without providing a clear reason. Comey had led high-profile prosecutions, including the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell in the Jeffrey Epstein case and the recent case against music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs. Two anonymous sources confirmed the dismissal and said Comey received a memo citing the president's Article II constitutional authority to remove federal employees.The move comes amid broader personnel changes at DOJ under the Trump administration, which recently reversed its position on releasing Epstein-related documents—an about-face that has frustrated Trump's supporters. Maurene Comey was part of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan and played a key role in Maxwell's 2022 conviction and sentencing. She also prosecuted Combs, who is currently in jail awaiting sentencing for transporting women for prostitution. Although jurors acquitted Combs of the most serious charges, he remains in custody.The dismissal of Comey follows a pattern of DOJ firings under Attorney General Pam Bondi, who recently terminated several prosecutors involved in investigations tied to Trump, including members of Special Counsel Jack Smith's team. James Comey, fired by Trump in 2017, is currently under investigation alongside former CIA Director John Brennan. Neither the DOJ nor Maurene Comey has commented on her termination.US DOJ fires federal prosecutor Maurene Comey, daughter of ex-FBI head James Comey | ReutersEx-FBI Chief James Comey's Daughter Ousted as Federal Prosecutor - BloombergTwenty U.S. states—mostly led by Democratic governors—filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from ending a federal grant program aimed at disaster prevention. The program, known as Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), was launched in 2018 to help fund infrastructure improvements that protect communities from natural disasters such as floods and wildfires. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues that FEMA acted beyond its legal authority when it terminated the program in April without congressional approval.The states, led by Washington and Massachusetts, assert that ending BRIC violates the separation of powers, as Congress explicitly funded the program and made disaster mitigation a key function of FEMA. They also contend that the decision-makers at FEMA—former acting director Cameron Hamilton and his successor David Richardson—were not lawfully appointed and therefore lacked authority to shut down the program.FEMA defended the decision by claiming the program had become wasteful and politicized, but bipartisan lawmakers criticized the move, especially given BRIC's importance to rural and tribal communities. Over the past four years, the program has awarded approximately $4.5 billion for nearly 2,000 projects, including flood walls, road improvements, and evacuation centers.The lawsuit comes amid scrutiny over FEMA's recent handling of deadly floods in Texas, which killed over 130 people, reinforcing concerns about cutting pre-disaster funding. The plaintiff states are seeking a preliminary injunction to reinstate the BRIC program while the case proceeds.Trump administration sued by US states for cutting disaster prevention grants | ReutersFEMA Sued By 20 States Over Cuts to Disaster Mitigation ProgramGeorge Retes, a 25-year-old U.S. citizen and Army veteran, says he was wrongfully detained for three days following an immigration raid at a cannabis farm in Camarillo, California. Retes, who works as a security guard at the site, described a violent arrest by federal agents during a chaotic scene involving protestors. He alleges that officers broke his car window, used tear gas on him, and restrained him forcefully, despite his repeated statements that he was a citizen and an employee.The raid was part of a broader immigration enforcement effort under the Trump administration, which began ramping up in June. Retes claims he was never told what he was being charged with and was taken to a downtown Los Angeles facility without explanation. He missed his daughter's third birthday while detained and now plans to sue the federal government.Immigrant rights groups have warned that U.S. citizens and legal residents are sometimes wrongly caught up in such raids. The Department of Homeland Security confirmed Retes' arrest and release, stating that his case, among others, is under review by the U.S. Attorney's Office for potential federal charges. Retes condemned the treatment he received and called for greater accountability, saying no one—regardless of immigration status—should be subjected to such abuse.US citizen says he was jailed for three days after California immigration raid | 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

From April 12, 2019: Julian Mortenson, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, is the author of a remarkable new article entitled "Article II Vests Executive Power, Not the Royal Prerogative," forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review and available on SSRN.Recently, Benjamin Wittes spoke with the professor about the article, which Mortenson has been working on for years—as long as the two have known each other. The article explores the history of exactly three words of the U.S. Constitution—the first three words of Article II, to be precise: "the executive power."Huge claims about presidential power have rested on a conventional understanding of these three words. Julian argues that this conventional understanding is not just partially wrong, or mostly wrong, but completely wrong, as a matter of history. And, he tries to supplant it with a new understanding that he argues is actually a very old understanding of what those words mean.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The United States Constitution is efficient in its division of power between the three branches of government.  Articles I, II and III create the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches, respectively.  Within Article II, Section II gives the President certain powers to function as our chief diplomat with other countries.  Just what are these powers?  What is the check on this power from the other branches?  What is a treaty, and what is the difference between treaties and executive orders?  To guide our discussion on Article II, Section II, Clause II we are delighted to welcome Dr. Heather Yates as our guest this week.  Dr. Yates is a professor of American politics.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer 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.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (06/23/2025): 3:05pm- On Saturday night, seven U.S. B-2 bombers dropped a total of fourteen 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs on Iranian nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. In a press conference following the strategic strike, President Donald Trump called the mission a “spectacular military success.” 3:10pm- On Monday, Iran responded to U.S. strikes on key nuclear development facilities by launching missiles at an American base in Qatar—the largest American military installation in the Middle East. The Defense Department has said the air defense systems intercepted the missiles and there were no U.S. casualties. 3:20pm- During a press conference Sunday night, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Dan Caine revealed that Iranian air defense never spotted the American B-2 bombers over Iranian airspace and, consequently, never fired a single shot during Saturday night's strategic bombing. 3:30pm- Deputy Head of Russian President Vladimir Putin's Security Council Dmitry Medvedev called America's strike on Iranian nuclear facilities a “dangerous escalation” and suggested other countries may supply Iran with a nuclear weapon—though, he did not say which nations. 3:40pm- Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned Iran not to shut down the Strait of Hormuz with mines. China, an ally of Iran, has echoed a similar sentiment. According to estimates 84% of the crude oil that moves through the Strait goes to Asian markets. 4:05pm- Listeners react to the Trump Administration's decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Is there concern that Iran and its allies—China, Russia, and terror organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—could retaliate? 4:30pm- John Yoo—The Emanuel Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and dismisses Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's (D-NY) suggestion that President Donald Trump violated Article II of the Constitution and should be impeached for authorizing strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. 4:50pm- While appearing on Fox News, Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) praised the U.S. military's strikes on Iran and President Trump's decision—explaining “it was a very limited military exercise” and did not amount to a declaration of war. 5:00pm- Dr. EJ Antoni—Chief Economist at the Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to breakdown potential financial repercussions related to the strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Could Iran respond by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, and what would that mean for oil prices globally? 5:20pm- While appearing on Fox News, Trump Administration Border Czar Tom Homan discussed potential Iranian sleeper cells in the United States—explaining that the Biden Administration's relaxed border security policies resulted in “1,272 nationals of Iran released” into the U.S. 5:40pm- Breaking News: The Supreme Court has stayed a lower court order and will allow the Trump Administration to deport illegal migrants swiftly to countries where they don't have citizenship. 5:50pm- Did Mel Gibson and Pierce Brosnan turn down the role of Batman? 6:05pm- Dr. Victoria Coates—Former Deputy National Security Advisor & the Vice President of the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and reacts to the United States's strategic strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Plus, BREAKING NEWS: Israel and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire. Dr. Coates is the author of the book: “The Battle for the Jewish State: How Israel—and America—Can Win.” 6:30pm- In a post to Truth Social, Preside Donald Trump wrote: “CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE! It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE (in approximately 6 hours from now, when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions!), for 12 hours, at which point the War will be considered, E ...

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: 4:05pm- Listeners react to the Trump Administration's decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Is there concern that Iran and its allies—China, Russia, and terror organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—could retaliate? 4:30pm- John Yoo—The Emanuel Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and dismisses Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's (D-NY) suggestion that President Donald Trump violated Article II of the Constitution and should be impeached for authorizing strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. 4:50pm- While appearing on Fox News, Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) praised the U.S. military's strikes on Iran and President Trump's decision—explaining “it was a very limited military exercise” and did not amount to a declaration of war.

LA: ARTICLE II. @ANDREWCMCCARTHY @NRO @THADMCCOTTER @THEAMGREATNESS.   1944 C IN C, PEARL HARBOR

In this interview with Dr. James Renihan we discuss a particular criticism in regards to the 1646 revision of the second article, having to do with the doctine of the Trinity, found in the of the First London Baptist Confession of Faith.

In episode NINE of One, Holy, Christian, and Apostolic, Wade continues to discuss Chapter 3 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, wrapping up Section 1, looking at Article II. Why is it important that I remember that not only do I believe, but we believe. What is the church's role in my faith? In what way can the church be understood as a mother. What is the importance of the creeds and how does the Apostles' Creed relate to the Nicene Creed? We hope you enjoy the episode and look forward to exploring the One, Holy, Christian, and Apostolic faith together more in episodes to come. If you want to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church online, you can find it here and here. Show Notes: Support 1517 Podcast Network 1517 Podcasts 1517 on Youtube 1517 Podcast Network on Apple Podcasts 1517 Events Schedule 1517 Academy - Free Theological Education What's New from 1517: Celebrate 2,000 Episodes of Christian History Almanac! The Impossible Prize: A Theology of Addiction by Donavan Riley Ditching the Checklist by Mark Mattes Broken Bonds: A Novel of the Reformation, Book 1 of 2 by Amy Mantravadi More from the hosts Michael Berg @ 1517 Wade Johnston @ 1517 Let the Bird Fly! website Thanks for listening!

Where do our presidents get their powers? Are those powers enumerated in the Constitution? Or are those powers bestowed by Congress? For our Founders, was the presidency essentially an instrument of legislative agenda? Or did they believe that the president possesses some sovereign right distinct and separate from Congress? In this interview, I discuss the following with my guest: ►Is it possible to compare a modern president, e.g., Pres. Trump, with one of our Founding presidents, e.g., Pres. Washington? Would this be like comparing apples to oranges? ►What was George Washingtons' presidency like? ►Is studying America's founding period important for history's sake, or does it provide some legal structure for our current constitutional framework? ►If the past truly is a foreign country, i.e., so different than our present, then what values can we derive from studying it? ►What is originalism? ►What is pluralism? ►What are a president's process powers? ►What are president's enumerated powers? ►What are the clear exceptions to the president's Article II powers? ►Do statutes increase presidential power? Can they take away presidential power? ►What is a unitary executive? ►What agency and institutional hurdles do presidents face? ►Why is terminating federal employees such an important and controversial issue? ►Do statutes empower presidents or constrain them?

The Pope is dead which means it's Pope Picking season. We've got all the top contenders for fanciest hat in the land. The Judicial Branch of government is trying to impose on Article II. Which is to say judges think they have more power than the president. We uncover the judicial coup.The Karmelo Anthony/Austin Metcalf case has taken a new turn. As Anthony accumulates allies and advocates, the media refuses to do due diligence. So here's everything you need to know about the twists and turns of the Karmelo Anthony case.GUEST: Josh FirestineLet American Financing help you regain control of your finances. Go to https://americanfinancing.net/crowder or call 1-800-974-6500. NMLS 182334, http://nmlsconsumeraccess.org/Link to today's sources: https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/sources-april-22-2025DOWNLOAD THE RUMBLE APP TODAY: https://rumble.com/our-appsJoin Rumble Premium to watch this show every day! http://louderwithcrowder.com/PremiumGet your favorite LWC gear: https://crowdershop.com/Bite-Sized Content: https://rumble.com/c/CrowderBitsSubscribe to my podcast: https://rss.com/podcasts/louder-with-crowder/FOLLOW ME: Website: https://louderwithcrowder.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/scrowder Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/louderwithcrowder Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/stevencrowderofficialMusic by @Pogo

From January 26, 2021: Jack Goldsmith sat down with Michael McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of the new book, "The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution." They discussed McConnell's textual historical approach to interpreting presidential power under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the many novel elements of executive power embodied in Article II and the proper understanding of Article II's Vesting Clause. They also talked about contemporary implications of Michael's reading of Article II for war powers, the unitary executive and late impeachments.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we dive into the latest clash between the judiciary and President Donald Trump's administration. Maryland v. Dept. of Agriculture pits an Obama-appointed federal judge, James Bredar, against Trump's Article II executive authority. At issue? Trump's firing of thousands of federal workers, which a coalition of states claims causes them "inconvenience." Judge Bredar ordered Trump to re-hire all the fired employees, but Trump's team has appealed to the Court of Appeals—and may take it all the way to the Supreme Court to defend his constitutional right to fire executive branch staff.  Fresh off a SCOTUS stay in a similar California case (keeping 16,000 fired employees out of work for now), the White House is pushing back hard. Today, they sent the Court of Appeals a clear message: follow SCOTUS' lead and respect Trump's executive power. Join us as we break down the White House's argument, the legal showdown, and what this means for the balance of power in Washington.  Don't miss it—hit that like button, subscribe, and ring the bell for more updates on this unfolding story!  #Trump #FederalJudge #SCOTUS #ExecutivePower #MarylandvDeptofAgriculture  

This Day in Legal History: Senate Approves Alaska PurchaseOn April 9, 1867, the United States Senate voted to ratify the Treaty with Russia for the Purchase of Alaska, approving the acquisition of the territory for $7.2 million. The deal, championed by Secretary of State William H. Seward, added over 586,000 square miles to U.S. territory. At the time, many Americans viewed the icy, remote land as a barren wasteland, mocking the transaction as “Seward's Folly” or “Seward's Icebox.” Despite public ridicule, Seward pursued the deal partly to prevent British expansion from neighboring Canada and to extend American commercial interests into the Pacific. Russia, for its part, saw little strategic or economic value in Alaska and feared it might lose the territory without compensation in a future conflict.The treaty passed in the Senate by a vote of 37 to 2, reflecting support among lawmakers despite popular skepticism. Legal authority for the purchase came through the treaty-making power of the executive branch, with Senate ratification required under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Once finalized, the transfer of sovereignty occurred in October 1867 in Sitka, with a formal ceremony marking Russia's departure.Criticism of the purchase subsided decades later following the Klondike Gold Rush and, eventually, the discovery of significant oil reserves. These developments drastically changed the public's perception of Alaska from frozen liability to strategic asset. The purchase also helped lay the groundwork for America's growing influence in the Pacific and Arctic regions.President Donald Trump announced that major law firms pledging $340 million in pro bono work would assist his administration with coal industry initiatives and international tariff negotiations. Speaking at a White House event, Trump said these firms—such as Paul Weiss, Skadden, Milbank, and Willkie—would provide legal support for leasing and regulatory issues in coal mining, as well as in talks with foreign countries on trade. While he didn't specify which firms would take on specific tasks, Trump emphasized their legal talent and claimed they were offering services “for the right price.”The announcement coincided with Trump signing executive orders invoking the Defense Production Act to increase coal mining and directing investments into advanced coal technology. He also said the Department of Justice would be tasked with challenging state and local regulations he views as harmful to miners. The law firm agreements came after Trump targeted several legal firms with directives that threaten their business, prompting lawsuits from Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block. Trump posted the agreements on Truth Social, stating the firms would work on causes like veterans' rights and combating antisemitism, although details on how their roles will be determined remain unclear.Trump Says He'll Enlist Big Law Dealmakers for Coal, TariffsA group of 67 former top legal executives from companies like Microsoft, Intel, and Eli Lilly filed a legal brief condemning President Trump's executive orders targeting several major law firms. They argue that the orders violate the Constitution and threaten the independence of corporate legal counsel by coercing political loyalty through federal contract threats. The brief supports a lawsuit by Perkins Coie, one of the firms impacted by the orders, which claims the directives bar its attorneys from government buildings and jeopardize its clients' federal contracts.The former general counsels contend that Trump's actions don't just punish individual firms, but undermine the principle that companies should be free to choose their legal representation without fear of political retaliation. The brief highlights how the orders signal to businesses that hiring lawyers linked to Trump's critics could lead to government sanctions. Trump issued similar orders against WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, and all three firms have secured temporary legal blocks against the measures.While some firms like Paul Weiss struck deals with Trump to avoid penalties—agreeing to provide pro bono work for causes aligned with his administration—others have pushed back. Four days prior, hundreds of law firms submitted their own brief supporting Perkins Coie. Trump's administration defends the orders as efforts to stop perceived political bias in Big Law.Former top lawyers at major companies decry Trump orders against law firms | ReutersAn immigration judge has given the U.S. government through today to present evidence justifying the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and lawful permanent resident. Khalil was arrested in New York and transferred to a detention facility in rural Louisiana, sparking concern over due process and free speech rights. At Tuesday's hearing, Judge Jamee Comans made it clear that if the government cannot prove Khalil is deportable, she will dismiss the case by Friday. She also criticized delays in sharing evidence and emphasized the importance of Khalil's due process rights.Khalil's lawyer, Marc Van Der Hout, claims the deportation effort is politically motivated and violates the First Amendment, suggesting that Khalil is being targeted for speaking out in support of Palestinians. The government argues Khalil should be deported under a Cold War-era law that allows removal if an immigrant is deemed a threat to U.S. foreign policy, and also accuses him of omissions on his green card application—charges he denies.The case has drawn national attention, including a crowded virtual courtroom. A separate habeas petition is also under consideration in federal court, and Khalil cannot be deported while that process plays out. His wife, a U.S. citizen who is expecting their child this month, has been unable to visit him due to her pregnancy.US given one day to show evidence for deporting Columbia University protester Khalil | ReutersA federal judge has ordered President Trump's White House to temporarily lift access restrictions on the Associated Press (AP) while a lawsuit challenging the ban moves forward. The Trump administration had barred AP journalists from events like Oval Office briefings and Air Force One trips after the agency refused to adopt Trump's preferred term, "Gulf of America," instead continuing to refer to the "Gulf of Mexico." U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from excluding journalists based on viewpoint.The ruling, which takes effect Sunday to allow time for appeal, restores the AP's access to White House press events. McFadden emphasized that if some journalists are granted access, others cannot be denied for their editorial stance. The AP sued three senior Trump aides in February, claiming the restrictions were unconstitutional retaliation against protected speech and lacked due process.AP reporters testified that the ban hindered their ability to cover the president, while Justice Department lawyers argued that access to presidential spaces is a privilege, not a right. Press freedom groups and the White House Correspondents' Association welcomed the decision, calling it a win for independent journalism. The case remains ongoing, with a final ruling expected in the coming months.Judge lifts Trump White House restrictions on AP while lawsuit proceeds | 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

This episode began as a dedication to Lysander Spooner. The more I learned about him, the more relevant he appeared to the current constitutional crisis facing the nation which involves partisan, hack, Democrat, activist federal, circuit court judges who are violating President Trump's Article II powers by anointing themselves commander-in-chief, chief magistrate and chief executive by issuing nationwide restraining orders against numerous Trump executive actions. Using Spooner's writings as the foundation, we provide a quick refresher course on the Constitution and offer some constitutionally-sound methods that should be employed to end this constitutional crisis once and for all.  Show Notes Instagram | Truth Social | GETTR | Twitter | GAB | Apple | Rumble | BitChute -------------------------------- Spooner: We Didn't Consent to the Constitution Lysander Spooner's Strategy to Stop Unconstitutional Acts The Real Forgotten Enforcement Mechanism of the Constitution Truth Quest Podcast Episodes Anti-Federalist episode: Episode #75 - The Truth About the Anti-Federalists Federalist Papers episodes: Episode #43 - The Truth About the Federalist Papers - Part I Episode #44 - The Truth About the Federalist Papers - Part II Episode #45 - The Truth About the Federalist Papers - Part III Truth Quest Podcast secession episodes: EPIC RANT - How to Save America From Itself Episode #192 - A Practical Guide to State Secession Episode #128 - The Truth About Opposition to Secession Episode #88 - The Truth About Secession - Part II Episode #87 - The Truth About Secession - Part I -------------------------------- Support the podcast by shopping at the Truth Quest Shirt Factory. With each shirt design there will be an explanation of what to expect from those inquisitive or brave enough to ask you about it. In most cases there are links to podcast episodes that will deepen your understanding of the importance of each phrase. We hope you take the challenge of wearing these shirts in public. Rest assured that you will be well-equipped with the rhetorical tools to engage in conversation and/or debate.  Good luck! And thanks for supporting the Truth Quest Podcast!

President Trump's White House Deputy Chief of Staff terrorizes the corporate media with facts, knowledge of the law, the Constitution, and the President's scope of power under Article II... and HE DESTROYS THEIR ARGUMENTS on live television. Stephen Miller's ability to match wits and facts with any Trump doubter underscores today's theme: Republicans are simply kicking the Democrats' butts. CNN's Harry Enten delivers the TKO as multiple polls now show democrats with their lowest approval in modern history.

This week host Mark Call welcomes back special Guest Harmon Taylor, of Legal Reality, for a discussion of the first six weeks of the new Trump Administration, and in particular, some of the implications of what may finally be a 'turn-around' against what he calls "anti-Scriptural morality." DOGE, for example, is uncovering incredible amounts of graft, bribery, corruption, and outright treason. And yet, the implications of AI, and the use of tracking technology for what certainly appear to be "good purposes," are also "fraught with peril." Likewise, an attack on "Lawfare," and the corruption of the court system beyond all reason, but by means of admittedly encouraging use of "executive power" (Article II of the cnostitution) is encouraging, since it moves in the right direction, and helps to "open peoples' eyes" to the level of Evil we have been subjected to, but is still a "double-edged sword." The implications are both encouraging, and a strong warning. Don't miss this discussion! https://hebrewnationonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/CooH-13-Mar-2025-Special-Guest-Harmon-Taylor-podcast-xxx.mp3

Alan's Soaps https://www.AlansArtisanSoaps.comUse coupon code TODD to save an additional 10% off the bundle price.Bioptimizers https://Bioptimizers.com/toddEnter promo code TODD to get 10% off any order.Bonefrog https://BonefrogCoffee.com/toddCelebrate St. Patrick's Day with an Irish Bag of coffee and a “Lucky” gift box from BoneFrog Coffee.  Use code TODD at checkout to receive 10% off your first purchase and 15% on subscriptions.Bulwark Capital Bulwark Capital Management (bulwarkcapitalmgmt.com)Don't miss the next live Webinar Thursday March 20th at 3:30pm pacific.  Sign up today by calling 866-779-RISK or go to KnowYourRiskRadio.com.Renue Healthcare https://Renue.Healthcare/ToddYour journey to a better life starts at Renue Healthcare. Visit Renue.Healthcare/Todd.You probably saw this “unprecedented scene” as the media calls it, where James Dennehy leaves the FBI building in a parade of bagpipes and crying associates. Truly, there is a ghost in the Democrat fraud machine…Episode Links:New York FBI field office head James Dennehy leaves the FBI building to the sound of *bagpipes* after he says he was forced to resign.“ActBlue, the Democratic Fund-Raising Powerhouse, Faces Internal Chaos”Whoever Controlled The Autopen Controlled The Overthrow Of The U.S. GovernmentNASA: Turns out Elon Musk was telling the truth. Biden refused to let the stranded astronauts to come home last year for political reasons.Article II of the Constitution states that the executive power shall be vested in @POTUS. No court may take over that rule. No court may define or limit the scope of the duties of an official within the Executive Office of the President.Trump wants 'activist' groups that sue the government to put up money if they lose; The White House said the order will rein in 'activist judges' and keep 'litigants accountable'Rep. Al Green on the Breakfast Podcast claims he was removed from Trump speech due to 'racism'Democrat Women want you to know they are fighting!The clerk of the House changed Mary Miller's words in the record. This is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!! Rep Miller recognized Rep McBride as “gentleman” and “Mr.” NOT as “gentlewoman” and “Ms.”McBride is a MAN!!! No one should change Rep Miller's words!! Are we not Republican controlledThis Democrat Rep. accidentally let the truth slip out about what Democrats plan to do after President Trump's State of the Union: "We're gonna continue to speak lies to his truth" This is a real quote. Absolutely incredible

Truth Be Told with Booker Scott – Activist judges and liberal attorney generals are blocking Trump's executive authority, defying Article II of the Constitution. A DHS audit by Elon Musk's team uncovered $59 million spent on luxury hotels for illegal immigrants. With lawsuits piling up, should Trump ignore the courts like Biden did? Matt Palumbo weighs in on ‘Truth Be Told.'

The Nation’s Jeet Heer explores why Trump is so eager to annex Canada. Senator Tammy Duckworth details her Article II responsibilities in confirming Trump’s cabinet.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Richard Epstein reacts to the long list of appointees to Trump's cabinet, including his less-than-traditional selections for Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence, and Attorney General. He also addresses the suggestion that Trump use Article II, Section 3 to recess-appoint his whole cabinet. Recorded on November 13th, 2024.