Podcasts about Bostock

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

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.   The Supreme Court held that Tennessee's law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.First, the Equal Protection Clause does not require heightened scrutiny because Tennessee's law does not classify on any bases that warrant such review. The law contains only two classifications: one based on age (allowing treatments for adults but not minors) and another based on medical use (permitting puberty blockers and hormones for certain conditions but not for treating gender dysphoria). Classifications based on age or medical use receive only rational basis review—the most deferential standard of constitutional review. The law does not classify based on sex because it prohibits healthcare providers from administering these treatments to any minor for the excluded diagnoses, regardless of the minor's biological sex. When properly understood as regulating specific combinations of drugs and medical indications, the law treats all minors equally: none may receive these treatments for gender dysphoria, but minors of any sex may receive them for other qualifying conditions like precocious puberty or congenital defects.The law satisfies rational basis review because Tennessee's legislature had reasonable grounds for its restrictions. The state found that these treatments for gender dysphoria carry risks including irreversible sterility, increased disease risk, and adverse psychological consequences, while minors lack the maturity to understand these consequences and many express later regret. Tennessee also determined that the treatments are experimental with unknown long-term effects, and that gender dysphoria can often be resolved through less invasive approaches. Under rational basis review, courts must uphold laws if there are any reasonably conceivable facts supporting the classification. States have wide discretion in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty, noting that recent reports from health authorities in England and other countries have raised similar concerns about the evidence supporting these treatments for minors.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, arguing that Bostock v Clayton County (in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination because of sex includes discrimination based on transgender identity or sexual orientation) should not apply to Equal Protection Clause analysis and criticizing deference to medical experts who lack consensus and have allowed political ideology to influence their guidance on transgender treatments for minors.Justice Barrett authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, arguing that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause because they lack the “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” of a “discrete group” and because suspect class analysis should focus on a history of de jure (legal) discrimination rather than private discrimination.

On June 18, the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that prohibits medical transitions for transgender minors. In this episode, William Eskridge Jr. of Yale Law School and Christopher Green of The Ohio State University join to debate the decision and to discuss the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.    Resources United States v. Skrmetti (2025) Christopher Green, Brief amicus curiae, United States v. Skrmetti (Oct. 15, 2024) William Eskridge, et al., Brief amici curiae, United States v. Skrmetti (Sept. 3, 2024) Geduldig v. Aiello (1974)  Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠. Support our important work. ⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Part 3: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral II.B only in this episode, and stop at his II.C. We'll cover his II.C next time. Part 3. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Part 2: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral II A only in this episode, and stop at his II.B. We'll cover his II.B next time. Part 2. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comBatya is a journalist and author. She's a columnist for The Free Press, a co-host of The Group Chat on 2Way, and the author of two books: Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy, and Second Class: How the Elites Betrayed America's Working Men and Women. Her forthcoming book is about, as she puts it, “why Jews are Democrats and why the left turned on the Jews.”For two clips of our convo — on Trump's class warfare, and deporting non-citizens over speech — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: raised in an Orthodox family; debating issues with her parents and five siblings during Shabbat; spending high school in Israel; same-sex education; the mikveh; how sexual desire is better with limitations; becoming secular for a decade; getting a PhD in English literature; her “accidental” entry into journalism during Hurricane Sandy; the Great Awokening in media; Trump's despicable character; his fickle tariffs; his tax cuts; Congress ceding power to Trump; Biden's tariffs; his investment in factories and infrastructure; his disastrous immigration policy; Batya's evolving views on Trump; marriage equality; Bostock; trans activist ideology; Trump's EO on trans servicemembers; Scott Bessent; the overreach of neoliberalism; Adam Smith; the tax cuts in the BBB; crypto; defunding science at Harvard; gutting USAID; the State Dept's AI surveillance; the 1952 McCarthyite law; Öztürk and Khalil; UNRWA and Gaza; Israel striking Iran; and the possibility of regime change.There were eight clashes over facts in the episode. Chris ran them through Grok, which one presumes would not be too biased against Trump. You can read the eight back-and-forths on the web version of the episode. You should listen and, with these independent sources in mind, decide for yourself on the facts. I think I missed the mark a little a couple of times, but was specifically wrong in assuming that Batya was all in on the war against Iran and always had been. I apologize for that — and for getting a bit too amped up. I should try not to do that when I'm a host and I hope Batya will forgive me. But a vast amount of the chat was nonetheless delightful — and this is a stressful time. Coming up on the Dishcast: Paul Elie on crypto-religion in ‘80s pop culture, Walter Isaacson on Ben Franklin, Tara Zahra on the revolt against globalization after WWI, Thomas Mallon on the AIDS crisis, and Johann Hari turning the tables to interview me. (NS Lyons has indefinitely postponed a pod appearance — and his own substack — because he just accepted an appointment at the State Department; and the Arthur Brooks pod is postponed because of calendar conflicts.) Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

We were hoping to take a bit of a break over the summer, but the news keeps rolling in! The Maradona of the Midlands is joined by Tom Newton to talk about the newly released Premier League fixture list (and the lack of Boxing Day matches), the hopeful redevelopment of the Peter Taylor Stand, and the latest transfer news involving a Big Willy extension, goodbye to Toff and the impending arrival of between 2-3 Brazilians. Subscribe to 1865: The ORIGINAL Nottingham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We begin our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. Part 1. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

1865 meets NIGEL CLOUGH! In an 1865 exclusive, #NFFC legend Nigel Clough joins Jamie Martin and Tom Newton for a chat about good and bad times at the City Ground. Thanks to Nigel and Mansfield Town for making this happen! Listen and subscribe on Apple, Spotify and more: eighteensixtyfive.football Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Austin & Bilent run through all the action from a roller coaster major bye round featuring the WFB lows of Drinkwater and Sharpe and the dizzying highs of an unexpected hero.   If you like the show, don't forget to check out our new ”Good Friends of the Show” exclusive member package, featuring members only discord channel, individual player analysis, tactical game theory content, and personalise team review and trade assistance. To join, visit https://buymeacoffee.com/fantasyamateurs/membership and sign up for $5 per month to start receiving benefits.

This week on The Sunday Snap, Jono and Tubes break down a chaotic Round 15 of NRL SuperCoach with injury carnage, rage trades, and some sneaky pod plays on the rise.

It's the end of season review by your friends at 1865! Our Football Terrorists show was recorded the week after the season ended in triumph and disappointment for the Reds, as they qualified for Europe but failed to make the Champions' or Europa Leagues. In this end of season show: #NFFC performance ratings Player of the season: Milenković vs Wood vs Sels Review of the Women's double-winning season 2024-25 experiences Plus, Jeremy Davies joins us with his end of season sketch - was Leonardo da Vinci a Forest fan? Hosted by Rich Ferraro with Tom Newton, Steven Toplis and Baz. Subscribe to 1865: The ORIGINAL Nottingham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Host Dr. Sara Pereira sits down with Dr. Ian Bostock, a thoracic surgeon at Baptist Health Miami Cancer Institute and an associate professor of surgery at Florida International University. Their conversation explores his journey from childhood in Mexico and his early passion for both biology and art, to his initial interest in transplant surgery—and how a serendipitous meeting at Starbucks helped shape his career path. Dr. Bostock also reflects on the importance of supporting trainees and early-career surgeons as they embark on their professional journeys.

In episode 202, Coffey talks with Shannon Norris about a federal court ruling that invalidated portions of the EEOC's 2024 harassment guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity.  They discuss Norther District of Texas Federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's decision in State of Texas v. EEOC; the narrow scope of the Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County; the EEOC's broad interpretation of the Bostock ruling in its 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace; the elimination of courts' deference to agency's opinions under the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision; the distinction between agency guidance and actual law post Loper; practical workplace challenges concerning bathrooms, pronouns, misgendering, and dress codes; the difference between harassment based on biological sex versus sexual orientation or gender identity; why the Texas v. EEOC ruling doesn't change existing anti-harassment law; the importance of maintaining respectful workplaces regardless of legal requirements; and advice for employers to avoid becoming test cases in emerging litigation. Links to stuff they talked about are on our website at https://goodmorninghr.com/EP202 and include the following topics: State of Texas and The Heritage Foundation v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al: Memorandum Opinion and Order EEOC  Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit  Federal judge in Texas rules LGBTQ+ people can be discriminated against at work Federal Judge Scraps Biden EEOC's Gender Identity Guidance: Here's What It Means for the Workplace Good Morning, HR is brought to you by Imperative—Bulletproof Background Checks. For more information about our commitment to quality and excellent customer service, visit us at https://imperativeinfo.com.  If you are an HRCI or SHRM-certified professional, this episode of Good Morning, HR has been pre-approved for half a recertification credit. To obtain the recertification information for this episode, visit https://goodmorninghr.com.  About our Guest: Shannon Norris has represented a broad range of clients since he began practicing in 1993 in the areas of employment law, business litigation, trade secrets, civil fraud, and employee benefits.  During that time, he has represented Fortune 100 companies to small businesses and individuals.  Mr. Norris has extensive experience with employment litigation, noncompete agreements, misappropriation of trade secrets, and occupational fraud.  He is a regular speaker on topics relating to employment law, civil litigation, and human resources. Mr. Norris began his career in 1993 at the law firm of Jones Day, where he was a member of the Labor & Employment Law Section.  He formed his own practice in the year 2000.  He is also a Certified Fraud Examiner and a member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. Mr. Norris is Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated.  Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary.  Martindale-Hubbell® PEER REVIEW RATINGS™ fall into two categories—legal ability and general ethical standards. Shannon Norris can be reached athttps://www.norrisfirm.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/sdnorris/ About Mike Coffey: Mike Coffey is an entrepreneur, licensed private investigator, business strategist, HR consultant, and registered yoga teacher.In 1999, he founded Imperative, a background investigations and due diligence firm helping risk-averse clients make well-informed decisions about the people they involve in their business.Imperative delivers in-depth employment background investigations, know-your-customer and anti-money laundering compliance, and due diligence investigations to more than 300 risk-averse corporate clients across the US, and, through its PFC Caregiver & Household Screening brand, many more private estates, family offices, and personal service agencies.Imperative has been named a Best Places to Work, the Texas Association of Business' small business of the year, and is accredited by the Professional Background Screening Association. Mike shares his insight from 25+ years of HR-entrepreneurship on the Good Morning, HR podcast, where each week he talks to business leaders about bringing people together to create value for customers, shareholders, and community.Mike has been recognized as an Entrepreneur of Excellence by FW, Inc. and has twice been recognized as the North Texas HR Professional of the Year. Mike serves as a board member of a number of organizations, including the Texas State Council, where he serves Texas' 31 SHRM chapters as State Director-Elect; Workforce Solutions for Tarrant County; the Texas Association of Business; and the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, where he is chair of the Talent Committee.Mike is a certified Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) through the HR Certification Institute and a SHRM Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP). He is also a Yoga Alliance registered yoga teacher (RYT-200) and teaches multiple times each week. Mike and his very patient wife of 28 years are empty nesters in Fort Worth.   Learning Objectives: 1.       Understand the constitutional limitations on federal agencies like the EEOC under current law.2.       Understand the limitations of State of Texas v. EEOC and continue to prohibit any workplace harassment or disparate treatment based on sex.3.    &n...

Despite the monumental achievement of European football, there was a palpable sense of disappointment at the City Ground as the Reds failed to qualify for the Champions' League, even though other results went the way that we needed them to. In truth, Chelsea had the extra nous to get over the line, and Chris Wood missed two very preventable chances in a match where neither keeper was particularly tested. Steven Toplis and Tom Newton pick themselves up to analyse the game and we are joined by Nick from That Chelsea Podcast for a view from the opposition. We'll be back next week with our end of season Football Terrorists show. In the meantime, thank you so much for listening throughout the season, we have recorded over 100 podcasts and appreciate you joining us. Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottingham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's the Friday 5, bringing you the top #NFFC news: Final day showdown Nuno out? FA charges New contracts? Taiwo update Presented by Rich Ferraro with the Maradona of the Midlands, with news from Jamie Martin. We'll be back after Sunday's BIG match against Chelsea. COME ON YOU REDS! Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottingham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A much-needed win for the Reds in a match featuring three goals, sixteen minutes of stoppage time, a six minute VAR check and multiple tributes to Taiwo Awoniyi. Goals for Morgan Gibbs-White and Nikola Milenković earned the points, despite Jarrod Bowen's late consolation. It's tight at the top in the run for the Champions' League, with Forest in 7th, but only a point behind Newcastle in third. Eek. Presented by George Edwards, with Tom Newton (back from parental leave). The view from the opposition comes from Jamie of the We Are West Ham podcast. We'll be back with your Friday 5 news roundup at the end of the week, before the crunch match against Chelsea. COME ON YOU REDS! Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottingham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comDavid Graham is a political journalist. He's a long-time staff writer at The Atlantic and one of the authors of the Atlantic Daily newsletter. His new book is The Project: How Project 2025 Is Reshaping America. We go through the agenda and hash out the good and the bad.For two clips of our convo — on whether SCOTUS will stop Trump, and what a Project 2029 for Dems might look like — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up in Akron; his dad the history prof and his mom the hospital chaplain; aspiring to be a journo since reading Russell Baker as a kid; the origins of Project 2025; its director Paul Dans; Heritage and Claremont; the unitary executive; the New Deal; the odd nature of independent agencies; Dominic Cummings' reform efforts in the UK; Birtherism; Reaganites in Trump 1.0 tempering him; Russiagate; the BLM riots vs Jan 6; equity under Biden; Russell Vought and Christian nationalism; faith-based orgs; Bostock; the trans EO by Trump; our “post-constitutional moment”; lawfare; the souped-up Bragg case; Liberation Day and its reversal; Biden's industrial policy; the border crisis; Trump ignoring E-Verify; Labour's new shift on migration; Obama and the Dreamers; Trump's “emergencies”; habeas corpus; the Ozturk case; the Laken Riley Act; the abundance agenda; the national debt; DOGE; impoundment and Nixon; trans women in sports; Seth Moulton; national injunctions; judge shopping; and trying to stay sane during Trump 2.0 and the woke resistance.Coming up: Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Walter Isaacson on Ben Franklin, Tara Zahra on the last revolt against globalization after WWI, NS Lyons on the Trump era, Arthur C. Brooks on the science of happiness, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Hey Diabuddy thank you for listening to show, send me some positive vibes with your favorite part of this episode.In today's episode, I sit down with Emma Bostock, a mother, wife, and (T1D). We explore her intriguing diagnosis story, and we talk about her pregnancy and the challenges she faced at the start of her journey with Diabetes.Emma's Instagram:Coach Ken's Resources:Website: www.simplifyingdiabetes.comNewsletter Sign Up"More Than A1C" - My Signature Coaching ProgramThe Diabetes Nutrition Master CourseThe 5-Pillars Of Diabetes Success WorksheetSet Up a Free Call...Apparel StoreSupport & Donate To The PodcastThe T1D Exchange Registry is a research study, conducted over time, for individuals with type 1 diabetes and their supporters. Participants volunteer to provide their data for Diabetes research. Once enrolled, Registry participants have the opportunity to sign up for other studies on various topics related to type 1 diabetes.You can make an impact on the future of Diabetes now! Fill out an online  survey and gain access to tons of new research and the online portal. It only takes 10-15 minutes.Have a question, send me a DM or email. I'd love to connect and answer any questions you have.You can find the show  on any platform you listen to your podcasts!Don't forget to click on that subscribe button and leave a 5-star review, so you're notified when new episode drop every week.Questions about diabetes, don't hesitate to reach out:Instagram: @CoachK3NInstagram: @thehealthydiabeticpodFacebook: @Simplifying Life With DiabetesEmail: ken@simplifyingdiabetes.comPodcast Disclaimer: Nothing that you hear on The Healthy Diabetic Podcast should be considered medical advice or otherwise; please always consult your medical TEAM before making any changes to your Diabetes management.Support the show

It's the return of the Friday 5, bringing you the top #NFFC news: Awoniyi Marinakis Transfer targets TO EUROPE Club statement PL POTS/MOTS noms Presentd by Steven Toplis with the Maradona of the Midlands, and news presented by George Edwards, and compiled by Jamie Martin. We'll be back after Sunday's match against West Ham. COME ON YOU REDS! Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottingham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A bittersweet afternoon, as the Reds secured European football for the first time in thirty years, but also crumbled against one of the worst teams in Premier League history as Leicester equalised and then piled on the pressure in the last ten minutes. Steven and George bring you a bumper match report, discussing the many talking points including goals, offside decisions and injuries, and of course the Big Guy's intervention at full-time that captured so many headlines. Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's the return of the Friday 5, bringing you the top #NFFC news: 1 PL International Cup 2 MGW 3 Delap 4 Marinakis 5 Race for Europe Presentd by George Edwards with the Maradona of the Midlands, and news by Jamie Martin. We'll be back after Sunday's big match against Leicester. COME ON YOU REDS! Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As the race for the Champions' League gets ever tighter, Forest will probably be happy with a point from this one. They played some nice stuff and looked more composed in the first half, with Sangaré partnering Anderson in central midfield. After falling behind to Eberechi Eze's penalty, Murillo deflected Neco Williams' wayward shot for a quick response. Steven and George discuss the game and whether this was a deserved point or a lucky escape. We also have a view from the home fans, from Palace Mad Mason. Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This one was really disappointing, as Thomas Frank's tactical choices saw the visitors deservedly take the points. If the first goal was a little unfortunate due to Ola Aina's slip, the second showed that Brentford deliberately played that way. Steven and Maradona debate the game, the rain, and what it means for Forest's chances of Champions League qualification. As always, we will return after the Palace match, win, lose or draw. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Discover the innovative world of Arizona winemaking through the eyes of Todd Bostock from Dos Cabezas WineWorks. Todd shares his entry into the winemaking industry, highlighting the challenges and opportunities of crafting wines in the Sonoita Valley's diverse climates and soils. We discuss the impact of regional diversity on grape varieties and the techniques being used, such as co-fermenting grape varieties and producing canned and sparkling wines.  The episode also touches on the importance of local support in building a sustainable wine industry in Arizona and the ongoing experimentation that makes this emerging wine region exciting. Join us for a look into the art of winemaking in Arizona and Todd's pioneering contributions to its evolving wine culture. Winemaking Class Offers and Show Notes for all episodes at https://www.insidewinemaking.com/ Resources from this Episode Dos Cabezas WineWorks - https://www.doscabezas.com/ This episode is sponsored by Harvest Pillar concrete trellis posts. Want to learn more about Harvest Pillar concrete trellis posts and how they can help you save money in the long run? https://www.harvestpillar.com/ Follow and Review: We'd love for you to follow us if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We'd love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Episode Credits If you like this podcast and are thinking of creating your own, consider talking to my producer, Emerald City Productions. They helped me grow and produce the podcast you are listening to right now. Find out more at https://emeraldcitypro.com. Let them know we sent you.

The FA Cup Semi-Final ended in defeat as a disappointing first half saw the Reds concede a very early goal, as Man City threatened to overrun Nuno's team. The half-time introduction of Anthony Elanga almost paid immediate dividends but City scored a second straight away. Even then, the Reds hit the woodwork three times and forced an excellent save from Stefan Ortega, but Matz Sels also had to make some crucial interventions. Our match report features snippets from Wembley by Baz and Rich, some more considered analysis from Steven and George, and a view from Man City fan Mike Passaris. Join us later in the week for your Brentford match report, as the Reds return to league action, and we will also aim to reflect upon the Women's Championship winning season in due course. YOU REDS! Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to the Friday 5, 1865's weekly round-up of Nottingham Forest news, but this week we have a very special show for you as we preview Forest's trip to Wembley on Sunday for the FA Cup semi-final against Manchester City. As well as that, Jamie Martin joins us as usual, to bring us the top City Ground stories: 1. Spurs victory 2. FA Cup semi-final 3.⁠ ⁠⁠Women's team race for the title 4.⁠ ⁠⁠B team Cup Final date 5.⁠ ⁠⁠Mbuemo? Presented by Rich Ferraro with The Maradona Of The Midlands. We'll be back with a match report early next week. Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It was a much needed win for Nottingham Forest that took them back to third in the table, as the race for the Champions' League gets ever tighter. Early goals from Elliot Anderson and Chris Wood took the Reds into a half-time lead, but in truth, Nuno's substitutions didn't really work, and Forest were under the cosh for the last half an hour. Richarlison did get a late goal, but first Matz Sels made two great saves from the Brazilian, and Harry Toffolo made an incredible clearance off the line. Your match report is brought to you by Steven and Baz, and we will be back later in the week with our Friday 5 roundup and a preview of Sunday's trip to Wembley for the FA Cup Semi Final. Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to the 1865 Friday 5, your weekly roundup of the big stories coming from the City Ground this week, in which we also look ahead to Monday's game at Tottenham. Today's top headlines: 1 Everton post-mortem 2 McAtee to Forest? 3 B Team cup final 4 Season cards 5 NFFC Women Presented by Rich Ferraro, with the Maradona of the Midlands and George Edwards, and news from Jamie Martin. Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It was a first home defeat since November for the Reds, who were below par and deservedly lost, but the circumstances hurt as Murillo lost the ball in stoppage time after a Forest corner, leading to Abdoulaye Doucouré grabbing the points. George Edwards is in the host's chair, discussing the game with Baz, who felt that Forest were out-Nunoed by David Moyes and his team. We get a view from the away end by Adam from the Call of Everton channel. Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comEvan is an attorney and gay rights pioneer. He founded and led Freedom to Marry — the campaign to win marriage until victory at the Supreme Court in 2015, after which he then wound down the organization. During those days he wrote the book Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. Today he “advises and assists diverse organizations, movements, and countries in adapting the lessons on how to win to other important causes.” We became friends in the 90s as we jointly campaigned for what was then a highly unpopular idea.For two clips of our convo — on the early, fierce resistance to gay marriage by gay activists, and the “tectonic” breakthrough in Hawaii — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: raised in Pittsburgh by a pediatrician and a social worker; being a natural leader in high school; his awakening as a gay kid; the huge influence of John Boswell on both of us; working at Lambda Legal; Peace Corps in West Africa; a prosecutor in Brooklyn; the AIDS crisis; coalition building; engaging hostile critics; Peter Tatchell; lesbian support over kids; the ACLU's Dan Foley; Judge Chang in Hawaii; Clinton and DOMA; Bush and the Federal Marriage Amendment; the federalist approach and Barney Frank; Prop 8; the LDS self-correcting on gays; the huge swing in public support; Obama not endorsing marriage in 2008; Obergefell and Kennedy's dignitas; Trump removing the GOP's anti-marriage plank; Bostock; dissent demonized within the gay community; the Respect for Marriage Act; and Evan and me debating the transqueer backlash.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Claire Lehmann on the success of Quillette, Francis Collins on faith and science and Covid, Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee on Covid's political fallout, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Welcome to the 1865 Friday 5, your weekly roundup of the big stories coming from the City Ground this week, along with a preview of Nottingham Forest's forthcoming Premier League game against Everton. Today's top headlines: 1 Semi-final details confirmed 2 MGW to Man City? 3 Awoniyi update 4 B Team progress 5 Young Reds on loan Plus more on the NFFC Women's team and Nottingham Forest Netball, and news of Nuno's pre-match press conference. Presented by Rich Ferraro, with guest contributor Emilka, and the news comes from Jamie Martin. Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Send us a textIn this episode, Jen and Dyana chat with Australian adventurer and thru-hiker Cam Bostock—best known for his stunning outdoor exploration videos and epic long-distance hikes. Based in Western Australia, Cam has taken on some of the world's most iconic trails, including New Zealand's 1,864-mile Te Araroa Trail, the 2,650-mile Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) in the U.S., Mount Kilimanjaro, and countless rugged routes across Australia. All the while, he's been documenting his journeys for hundreds of thousands of followers. Cam brings a fresh, cinematic perspective to life in the wild. Tune in as we explore his most unforgettable trail moments, the mindset behind solo adventure, and how the outdoors has reshaped his view on life.Follow Cam on Instagram - @cambostockFollow Cam on YouTube - @CamBostockCam's Podcast - The Life Outside PodcastCam's business - OptiventureNOTABLE TIMESTAMPS:3:37 Welcome, Cameron Bostock!14:46 Cam's favorite trails in Australia20:31 Cam's experience on the Te Araroa Trail25:41 Why the Pacific Crest Trail stands out to Cam as his greatest adventure31:21 Cam's first steps on the PCT vs his last steps41:56 The sections on the PCT that impacted Cam and Jen the most50:03 Climbing Mount Kilimanjaro, the hilarious origin story of Team Spud, and dealing with altitude sickness58:23 Cam's top 3 pieces of gear1:02:10 Advice on how to stay connected to loved ones during long trips1:08:26 Cam answers questions from the public (Carr Boyd, hiking as a business, scariest encounter in the bush, planning/gear/itineraries)1:26:38 Cam's biggest lessons learned from the outdoors1:30:02 What is next for Cam and where to follow alongWhere to find and support Bush & Banter: Follow Bush & Banter on Instagram: @bushandbanter Visit Bush & Banter's website: www.bushandbanter.com Join Bush & Banter's Patreon community: patreon.com/bushandbanter E-mail Bush & Banter: bushandbanter@gmail.com Follow Dyana on Instagram: @dyanacarmella Follow Jennifer on Instagram: @thewhimsicalwoman

You can look at this two ways: either the Manager Of The Month curse hit and Forest predictably lost, or Nuno and the team recovered from an awful, passive start and gave Villa a match in the second half. Ultimately the Reds lost the game, but results elsewhere did not hurt us too much and the race for the Champions League is still on. Steven Toplis and Tom Newton review a match that saw Villa easily take an early two goal lead as the Reds just weren't switched on, but unlike the Man City, Bournemouth and Newcastle away games, they managed to regroup and Jota's second half strike was the least they deserved. The view from the home end comes from Neil of For The Love Of Paul McGrath. Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Forest have done the double over Manchester United for the first time since 1992BC (Brian Clough). Anthony Elanga's superb solo goal after just five minutes gave us the lead, and Murillo's goal line clearance at the death kept it for us. In between Man United played well but had little threat as Forest's hard work and tactical guile pretty much kept them at bay. Rich Ferraro is joined by Baz to talk about the match and they are joined by Man United fan Ste Barnes to share the view from the opposition. We'll be back with our Friday 5 roundup and Aston Villa preview, followed by our match report as the games come thick and fast. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

WOOF! Forest are going to Wembley! The Reds once again went through extra-time and penalties, and once again came out victorious as skipper Ryan Yates tucked away the last spot kick and sent Forest into the FA Cup semi-final, to play Manchester City. The match itself was not big on chances, but in truth Forest were the better team and mostly in control, although extra time had a few hairy moments. Then, despite Neco Williams' miss, Matz Sels, the captain, as well as Anderson, Hudson-Odoi and Milenković did the rest. Rich Ferraro is joined by a very excited George Edwards to report on the match, with a very magnanimous view from the home end by Brighton fan Rick. We'll catch you again after Tuesday's game against Man Utd. Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to the 1865 Friday 5, your weekly roundup of the big stories coming from the City Ground this week, along with a preview of Nottingham Forest's forthcoming FA Cup match at Brighton. Today's top headlines: 1 Wood 2 Full-backs 3 B Team 4 International Reds 5 Fixture updates Plus more on the NFFC Women's team following their weekend WNL Cup victory. Brought to you by Steven Toplis with Baz, and guest contributions from Matt and Leif. We'll be back with your Brighton match report at the weekend. Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week's Women's Football Show is a very special one, as we celebrate Carly and the team WINNING the National League Cup with a 3-1 victory over Stoke at the Bescot Stadium. Two goals from Charlie Wellings, and another from Mel Johnson sealed the win and brought some silverware back to the City Ground. Rich Ferraro is joined by Adam to talk about the game, the team selection and the big players on the day - obviously the goalscorers demand attention, but Carly Davies' tactics were important in unleashing the attacking potential whilst keeping it solid at the back. We'll be back at the end of the week with our Friday 5 show, incorporating the big news stories from Forest, and a preview of the men's FA Cup encounter against Brighton. Thanks as always for listening and COME ON YOU REDS! Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to Football Terrorists, 1865's monthly game show, discussion and exploration of the world of Nottingham Forest! In today's show: The Wheel Of Misfortune: Tommy T vs MGW International REDscue City Ground Super Subs Tricky Tree Tracks Of My Tears Plus, Jeremy Davies joins us with his monthly sketch and we hear from Forest-supporting vlogger and podcaster Ray Mundo Futbol, as he tells us about supporting Forest, and travelling around the world to document the stories of fans and clubs in the UK and beyond. Hosted by Rich Ferraro and the Maradona Of The Midlands, with guests Tom, Steven and Baz. Find Ray's content by searching RayMundoFutbol on social media and podcast platforms, or visit him on youtube.com/@raymundofutbol. We'll be back later in the week to review the Women's Team's cup final victory, and also to preview the FA Cup match against Brighton. COME ON YOU REDS! Subscribe to 1865: The Original Nottingham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Selma to Montgomery MarchOn March 21, 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. led the beginning of the third and final Selma to Montgomery march, a pivotal moment in the American civil rights movement. The march was a direct response to the violent suppression of earlier demonstrations and the systemic disenfranchisement of Black voters in the Jim Crow South. Just weeks earlier, peaceful marchers had been brutally attacked by law enforcement on “Bloody Sunday,” as they attempted to cross Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge. That violence was broadcast nationwide, shocking the conscience of the country and mobilizing public support for voting rights legislation.The march that began on March 21 was federally sanctioned, with U.S. District Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. ruling that the demonstrators had a constitutional right to march. Protected by federal troops and the National Guard, the marchers traveled 54 miles over five days, arriving at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery on March 25. Their numbers swelled to more than 25,000 by the time they reached the steps of the Capitol, where Dr. King delivered his famous "How Long, Not Long" speech, declaring that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”This sustained campaign of nonviolent resistance laid the moral and legal foundation for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law just five months later. The Act outlawed discriminatory practices like literacy tests and poll taxes and empowered federal oversight of voter registration in areas with histories of discrimination. The Selma marches highlighted the power of constitutional protest and judicial protection of civil rights, reinforcing the essential role of federal courts in safeguarding democratic participation.There was once a towering oak tree that stood firm in the wind and, under it, a reed that bent whenever the wind blew. A tyrant came to the land of the reed and oak, stomping his boot wherever he pleased. The oak resisted and was chopped down. The reed, seeing this, bent deeper–letting the boot press it into the mud day after day. Years passed and the reed, still alive, whispered to the boot: “See? I'm wise – I survived.”The boot replied, “You're not wise. You're soft. The oak was crushed because it defied us. But you? I step on you because I can.” Then the boot ground the reed into the dirt—without another thought. In a move that underscores the growing influence of executive power over traditionally independent legal institutions, President Trump rescinded an executive order targeting Paul Weiss after the firm pledged $40 million in pro bono services aligned with his administration's political goals. The announcement followed a private meeting with firm chairman Brad Karp and was accompanied by a sweeping commitment: no DEI policies, merit-based hiring, and representation of clients across the political spectrum—including those favored by the administration.Trump had previously sanctioned Paul Weiss by revoking its security clearance and threatening client contracts, citing the involvement of former partner Mark Pomerantz in the Manhattan DA's prosecution of Trump. That campaign against Paul Weiss, part of a broader effort targeting over 20 legal entities, seemed aimed at punishing firms perceived as adversarial while promoting loyalty through coercion.Karp's public gratitude for the order's withdrawal—and his reported acknowledgment of “wrongdoing” by Pomerantz—reads less like a principled resolution and more like a compelled confession by a simpering coward. Paul Weiss, a firm with deep Democratic ties, has now aligned itself with a president actively dismantling traditional norms around legal independence, seemingly in exchange for restored access and favor.This capitulation signals more than just a thaw in Trump's icy relationship with Big Law—it may represent a strategic blueprint: punish, pressure, and reward compliance – like with dogs. Legal experts and those with eyes to see warn that this redefinition of executive influence risks turning law firms into instruments of political will rather than defenders from it.Trump Rescinds Paul Weiss Order as Firm Pledges $40 Million (2)Frustrated by constant helicopter and seaplane noise, New York lawmakers are pushing for a first-of-its-kind "noise tax" targeting non-essential flights over the city. The proposal, led by state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, would charge $50 per seat or $200 per flight for tourist and luxury air travel, while exempting essential services like medical transport, law enforcement, and construction. The revenue—expected to reach $10–15 million annually—would fund the state's Environmental Protection Fund, a move Gonzalez says is critical amid federal environmental funding cuts under President Trump.The bill reflects growing anger among residents across socio-economic lines who say aerial traffic disrupts daily life, especially in parks and along waterfronts. App-based services like Blade have exacerbated the issue by making chartered air travel more accessible to the wealthy, turning the skies into noisy corridors over neighborhoods and landmarks.Supporters, including advocacy group Stop the Chop NY/NJ, hope the tax discourages unnecessary flights by raising costs. However, the helicopter industry, represented by Vertical Aviation International, strongly opposes the bill. They argue that aviation regulation is solely under federal jurisdiction and warn the tax could trigger lawsuits and threaten jobs. The group says it has already taken steps to reduce noise but acknowledges that changing flight paths often just shifts the problem from one area to another.The legislation has passed the state Senate but faces challenges in the Assembly, where it stalled last year. With a budget deadline approaching on April 1, negotiations continue.New Yorkers Sick of Hovering Helicopters Prompt Bid to Tax NoiseA federal judge has ruled that the Social Security Administration (SSA) likely broke privacy laws by giving Elon Musk's anti-fraud team, known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), unrestricted access to sensitive personal data on millions of Americans. Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of Maryland blocked any further data sharing and criticized the agency for turning over vast amounts of information without proper oversight. The judge described DGE's actions as a "fishing expedition" based more on suspicion than evidence, warning against overreach in the name of rooting out fraud.The data in question comes from the SSA's “Numident” database—its so-called “crown jewels”—which holds Social Security numbers, medical records, banking data, and more, some dating back to the 1930s. SSA officials admitted DGE staff had access to a “massive amount” of records, and privacy advocates said the team was embedded in the agency without vetting or training. The ruling requires DGE to delete any data it accessed.The decision is a significant setback for DGE and comes on the heels of another ruling limiting Musk's authority to shut down USAID, since he lacks Senate confirmation. President Trump's administration has defended DGE's mission, calling it a necessary tool to cut waste, but the court noted a disturbing lack of concern for citizen privacy. SSA's acting head, Leland Dudek, expressed confusion over the order's breadth and said it might require cutting off access for all SSA staff.Meanwhile, labor unions and advocacy groups involved in the lawsuit welcomed the decision, saying it defends Americans' data from unlawful government intrusion. DGE's aggressive tactics have drawn scrutiny across other agencies as well, with courts allowing access in some departments but blocking it in more sensitive areas like the Treasury.Judge stops Musk's team from 'unbridled access' to Social Security private data | ReutersChief Judge Diane Sykes of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will take senior status on October 1, creating the first appellate court vacancy during President Donald Trump's second term. Sykes, appointed by President George W. Bush and once considered a potential Supreme Court nominee under Trump, has served over three decades in both the Wisconsin and federal judiciary. Her transition to semi-retirement allows Trump to nominate a new full-time judge to the influential Chicago-based court, which currently holds a narrow 6–5 Republican-appointed majority.Sykes cited a desire to spend more time with family as her reason for stepping back from active service. She becomes the second federal appellate judge to announce senior status since Trump's return to office, following Judge Sandra Ikuta of the 9th Circuit. While four appellate vacancies remain from President Biden's term, Sykes's departure offers Trump his first direct opportunity to shape the 7th Circuit bench.Sykes has authored notable decisions, including one upholding Wisconsin's voter ID law and a dissent in a landmark 2017 case where the 7th Circuit ruled that LGBTQ employees are protected under Title VII. She criticized the majority in that case for overstepping legislative boundaries—a position later rejected by the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).7th Circuit's Sykes to take senior status, creating vacancy for Trump | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.This week, we close with a piece as enduring and elemental as the legal principles we often discuss: Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, specifically its iconic Prelude. Born on this day, March 21, 1685, Bach remains one of the foundational figures in Western music—a composer whose work balances mathematical precision with deep emotional resonance. Though he wrote for kings and churches, his music speaks to the full range of human experience, from joy to lament, duty to wonder.The Prelude to this suite is among the most recognizable solo cello pieces ever written, opening with a simple G major arpeggio that expands into a flowing, almost improvisational meditation. It's unaccompanied, yet complete—no orchestra, no embellishment, just one instrument revealing infinite depth. Written around 1717–1723 during Bach's time in Köthen, the suites were not published in his lifetime and lay in relative obscurity until cellist Pablo Casals rediscovered them in the 20th century.The piece carries a quiet authority that feels apt for reflection—whether on a ruling, a civil rights march, or a government in turmoil. It's structured, yes, but never rigid; expressive, but never indulgent. The Prelude doesn't declare or argue. It invites, it unfolds. It reminds us, like authority best wielded, that elegance lies in clarity and that restraint can be a form of power.This week, we let the steady resonance of Bach's Prelude accompany us out.Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, the Prelude. 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

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!What's the real difference between a difficult workplace and one that's legally "hostile"? This episode cuts through the legalese to reveal the actual standards courts use when determining if harassment crosses the line from unpleasant to unlawful.We unpack decades of landmark Supreme Court decisions that have shaped workplace discrimination law, from Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson establishing sexual harassment as discrimination, to the groundbreaking Bostock v. Clayton County extending protections to LGBTQ+ workers. Through clear explanations of key legal concepts like "severe or pervasive" and "reasonable person standard," we demystify what makes harassment actionable under federal law.The conversation moves beyond theory into practical territory, examining what documentation employees should maintain, how reporting systems affect liability, and when employers become responsible for harassment from supervisors, coworkers, or even customers. We explore nuanced questions about online harassment in remote work settings and how intersectionality affects discrimination cases when someone faces multiple forms of bias simultaneously.Whether you're an employee wondering if your workplace crosses legal boundaries, a manager seeking to understand your responsibilities, or simply curious about this evolving area of law, this episode provides a comprehensive yet accessible roadmap to navigating hostile work environment claims. Take away clear guidance on documentation strategies, reporting options including the EEOC, and how changing workplace dynamics continue to shape these critical legal protections. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

It's been a big few weeks for the Nottingham Forest Women's team, as two big wins against Burnley and Derby have kept them at the top of the league, and there is the small matter of a Cup Final tomorrow (Saturday 22nd March) against Stoke at the Bescot Stadium. Rich Ferraro is joined by Adam to review the league matches and preview the cup final - what team will Carly Davies pick, and which players are likely to pose the greatest threat to our opponents? Adam will be back next week to review the weekend's action, and in the meantime we will be back with our Football Terrorists game show, incorporating Jamie Martin's weekly news roundup. Thanks as always for listening and COME ON YOU REDS! Subscribe to 1865: The Intelligent Nottngham Forest Podcast via your podcast provider, and please leave a review, as it helps other Forest supporters find our content: Apple - Spotify - YouTube. Join us on X, Instagram, Bluesky, Threads or TikTok. 1865: The Nottingham Forest Podcast is part of the Sports Social Network, and partnered with FanHub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This Magic Mailbag is not to be missed! Hypnotherapist Jessica Porter will be joined by Dr Sophie Bostock to answer your questions on all things sleep - from which position to drift off in, to how to avoid a 'crap nap'... Get ready to become a sleep genius

Jon Bostock is the new CEO of Kodak Alaris. With an impressive career spanning leadership roles at GE, Big Ass Fans, and Truman's, Jon has built a reputation for driving innovation and sustainable business growth. At Big Ass Fans, he led a successful company restructuring and sale, and later, he founded Truman's to revolutionize the cleaning industry with a focus on reducing waste.In this episode, we explore Jon's book The Elephant's Dilemma, focusing on key moments of inspiration, the power of innovation, and the critical role diversity plays in shaping successful companies.Episode Resources:The Elephant's DilemmaLink to purchase:FYLPxTracee Badway Merch CollaborationFYLPxWRDSMTH Merch Collaboration*suggestion is to size upDownload this episode of For Your Listening Pleasure wherever you get your podcasts! Make sure you follow us on Instagram @foryourlisteningpleasure Click here to listen to the For Your Listening Pleasure Theme Song Playlist on Spotify.To continue the conversation, feel free to DM me at https://www.instagram.com/foryourlisteningpleasure/ or email me at foryourlisteningpleasure@gmail.com.

Brought to you by Trade Coffee! Get up to 3 bags free with any new Trade subscription at drinktrade.com/OA OA 1128 - First: an urgent question from a patron on Trump's latest executive power grab. Matt explains the history of the “unitary executive theory” and the Federalist Society-backed movement to give the President more power than an actual king.  Then: Rutgers Law professor Katie Eyer studies, teaches, and litigates the law of anti-discrimination with a specialty in LGBTQ rights. She joins to discuss the current state of the law in the shadow of the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti and the wake of Donald Trump's recent anti-trans executive orders. Which, if any, of these orders should we actually be concerned about? What does it mean that the fight for trans lives is now becoming a federal issue?  Can Trump really just instruct the federal government to ignore the Supreme Court's extension of employment protections to LGBTQ employees in Bostock v. Clayton County? Professor Eyer takes up these questions and many more as we find reasons both for concern and for hope. “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” (2/18/25) “Interrogating the Historical Basis for a Unitary Executive,” Daniel D. Birke, Stanford Law Review (Jan. 2021) Professor Katie Eyer (Rutgers Law bio) Anti-Transgender Constitutional Law, 77 Vanderbilt L. Rev. __ (2024) (forthcoming) Transgender Constitutional Law, 171 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1405 (2023) Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 US ___ (2020) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Fresh from the DTC Conference and Unified Symposium, the guys sit down with two out-of-state winemakers who are making waves in their regions. Todd Bostock – Dos Cabezas WineWorks, Sonoita, Arizona Since 1995, Dos Cabezas WineWorks has been growing grapes and crafting wines in Southern Arizona. The winery and its 80 acres of vineyard were pioneered by the late visionary Al Buhl. Todd joined the team as winemaker in 2002, and by the end of 2006, the Bostock family took over operations. Dos Cabezas sources high-quality fruit from its two estate vineyards: Pronghorn Vineyard in Sonoita and Cimarron Vineyard in the Kansas Settlement. Curious about what grapes thrive in Arizona's unique climate? Todd shares his insight on growing and making wine in the desert. Dos Cabezas WineWorks - Website - Instagram Kent Foulker – Cedar Ridge Winery, Swisher, Iowa The Quint family has a long history of farming and distilling spirits, and in 2005, Jeff Quint founded Cedar Ridge with a mission to put Iowa bourbon on the map. As the first licensed distillery in Iowa since Prohibition, Cedar Ridge released its first batch of whiskey in 2010 and quickly became a leader in craft spirits. But Iowa isn't just about corn. Kent Foulker dives into what it takes to grow grapes and produce wine in the heart of the Midwest, and how Cedar Ridge balances both wine and whiskey under one roof. Cedar Ridge Winery - Website - Instagram Tap your play button for a fascinating conversation about winemaking in unexpected places, the challenges and rewards of working in non-traditional wine regions, and how passion drives these winemakers to create something truly unique. [Ep 359]

We're breaking down two of the vilest executive orders Trump signed on his first day in office. First up, he's attacking trans people every way he can, and the crueler, the better. How does this interact with the Supreme Court's holding in Bostock? And Trump ignored 125 years of precedent to declare birthright citizenship illegal. One federal judge has already said NFW. Subscribers get a discussion of the latest Alex Jones bankruptcy negotiations. Links: Skrmetti: It was THAT Bad https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/skrmetti-it-was-that-bad?utm_source=publication-search   Trump EO - DEFENDING WOMEN FROM GENDER IDEOLOGY EXTREMISM AND RESTORING BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/   Foley & Lardner instructions to clients re: Trump's EOs https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2025/01/president-trumps-rescission-executive-order/   Trump EO on birthright citizenship https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/   Coughenour TRO https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.343943/gov.uscourts.wawd.343943.43.0_1.pdf   Baldoni/Lively docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635145   Alex Jones docket (for Patreon bonus) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66583024/alexander-e-jones/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod Contributing Artist: Liz Dye; Andrew Torrez Album artist: Liz Dye; Andrew Torrez Album: Law and Chaos Genre: Government; Politics Publisher: Res Ipsa Media LLC  

SCOTUS is considering whether Tennessee's total ban on transgender medical care for minors violates the Equal Protection Clause, and Liz and Rebecca have some thoughts. They explain what the oral arguments last month revealed and what the stakes are for the real people who will be affected by the Court's decision.    Background Case page on SCOTUSblog Oral Arguments Transcript Senate Bill 1 NYT: "Opinion - The Supreme Court Just Showed Us What Contempt for Expertise Looks Like” SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court appears ready to uphold Tennessee ban on youth transgender care Cases Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) Loving v. Virginia (1967)   Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)   Submit your questions for the mailbag episode here!   Check us out on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and X. Our website, we-dissent.org, has more information as well as episode transcripts.

A rising star in Major League Baseball, an All-Star career ahead of him, and a senseless act of violence that shocked the sports world . In this episode of Foul Play Files, we look at the tragic murder of Lyman Bostock—a player who was just hitting his prime when his life was taken far too soon. Note: This episode is part of an ongoing series entitled “Foul Play Files." Each episode re-examines a criminal case involving a professional baseball player/team. Check out other episodes in this stack, including: The 1985 MLB Cocaine Scandal A Star Commits Murder: The Story of Martin Bergen Baseball Legend vs. Niagara Falls: The Mysterious Death of Ed Delahanty Sign Up for the FREE Newsletter, dive deeper into the episode, and access to the FREE bonus show at: https://rounders.substack.com Liked the Show? Leave Me a One-Time "Good Game" Tip! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Tip on Stripe ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Tip on PayPal Connect on Social Media: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow on YouTube ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow on Facebook ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow on Instagram ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow on Tik Tok⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow on Bluesky⁠⁠ Send Me a Question for a Future Show! Send a Message on Social Media (see above) Send an email (rounderspodcast@gmail.com)

Cam is a renowned endurance athlete, through hiker, and all around outdoor adventurer. In 2024, between completing the Pacific Crest Trail and several other adventures, he slept outdoors more than indoors!