Podcasts about Chief justice

Candidate filing season is underway, and the next few weeks will reveal not just who's running—but who can't get on the ballot. Chris and John flag what to watch: retirements, surprise re-runs by incumbents, and especially the volume (and seriousness) of primaries against sitting legislators—potentially on both sides of the carbon capture pipeline issue.They then revisit TIF (Tax Increment Financing) within Iowa's urban renewal framework and the renewed debate around it inside the Governor's property tax proposal. The core reforms discussed: (1) a 20-year limit (ending “perpetual TIFs”), and (2) narrowing eligible spending toward horizontal infrastructure (roads/utilities) rather than incentives that effectively boost developer profitability. The theme is not abolition—just enforceable guardrails.Next up: a Budget Continuation Act concept—essentially a “status quo” backstop that keeps government operating if a budget isn't passed on time (whether due to political deadlock or emergencies). They frame it as stability for taxpayers and a structural safeguard against D.C.-style shutdown politics and policy “hostage-taking” during endgame budget negotiations.Finally, they tease broader regulatory reform via the REINS Act approach—tightening legislative oversight of major regulations and reinforcing checks and balances over the administrative state. They also note movement on integrity/oversight legislation affecting SNAP and Medicaid, driven in part by federal rule changes and the need to reduce error and fraud exposure for Iowa.00:00:14 – Welcome + trivia setup00:01:12 – Trivia question: President + Chief Justice (only one person)00:02:13 – Candidate filing period: who's in, who's out, and what to watch00:05:04 – Primaries vs incumbents; carbon pipeline politics00:06:50 – Democrats: U.S. Senate primary chatter and endorsements00:09:04 – TIF recap: what it is and why it exists00:10:45 – Governor's TIF reforms: 20-year limit + guardrails00:12:33 – Restricting TIF uses: infrastructure vs developer incentives00:17:00 – Budget Continuation Act: how it works and why it matters00:21:25 – How budget brinksmanship drives bad policy add-ons00:24:16 – REINS Act: regulatory oversight and checks/balances00:27:54 – SNAP/Medicaid oversight bills: error rates and fraud control00:29:15 – Wrap + subscribe

The day the Supreme Court released its tariff ruling, Trump told reporters he “could care less” about whether Supreme Court Justices attended his State of the Union. Well, on Tuesday, that did not appear to be the case. This episode, we dive into highlights from the Court's 170-page ruling, weigh whether Justice Kavanaugh is trying to suck up to Trump for that Chief Justice seat, and get to the bottom of Kash Patel partying with the U.S. men's hockey team. Also, Flavor Flav, if you're looking for a podcaster duo to cover the celebration you're throwing in Vegas for the women's hockey team, let a channel know.

The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has decided to withdraw a Class 8 social science textbook and its chapter discussing judicial corruption after the Chief Justice of India took serious exception to it. What began as an academic chapter has now escalated into a constitutional moment, drawing in the judiciary, senior advocates, and the central government.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

DEI is facing unprecedented legal and cultural pushback. Kenji Yoshino and David Glasgow, founders of NYU Law's Meltzer Center, argue it's time for a strategic shift: swap the 'E' in DEI for Equality. They join Mike to discuss their new book, How Equality Wins, explaining why mandatory diversity statements often lead to "preference falsification," the importance of supporting dissent, and why the movement must expand its tent to include the working class by simply going "where the pain is." Plus, we're awaiting Chief Justice's Facial expressions during the State of the Union.  And in the spiel, why your daily anxiety has become the ultimate consumer product. Produced by Corey Wara Video and Social Media by Geoff Craig Do you have questions or comments, or just want to say hello? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com For full Pesca content and updates, check out our website at https://www.mikepesca.com/ ⁠For ad-free content or to become a Pesca Plus subscriber, check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ For Mike's daily takes on Substack, subscribe to The Gist List https://mikepesca.substack.com/ Follow us on Social Media:⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/pescagist/ X https://x.com/pescami TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@pescagist To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠ad-sales@libsyn.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist

On this episode, Cody and Steve discuss the founder to whom all other Chief Justices are measured, John Marshall.Sources· Currie, David. The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years, 1789-1888. Chicago, IL: U. of Chicago Press, 1992.· Hobson, Charles F. The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law. Abilene, KS: U. Press of Kansas, 1996.· Newmyer, R. Kent. John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State U. Press, 2001.· Stites, Francis N. John Marshall: Defender of the Constitution. Boston, MA: Little & Brown, 1981.· See General Sources page on the website to see the complete list of general sources Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Marbury v. MadisonOn February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that permanently reshaped American constitutional law. The dispute arose after President John Adams appointed several “midnight judges” in the final hours of his administration. One of those appointees, William Marbury, never received his commission because it was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commission, prompting Marbury to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court.Presiding over the case was Chief Justice John Marshall, whose involvement added a striking layer of irony. Before becoming Chief Justice, Marshall had served as Secretary of State under Adams and had been responsible for sealing the very commissions at issue. In other words, Marshall was now reviewing the legal consequences of actions taken by his former office. Rather than recuse himself, he authored the opinion that would define the Court's authority.Marshall concluded that Marbury had a legal right to his commission but held that the statute granting the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Marshall reasoned, any conflicting statute must be void. In declaring part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the Court asserted the power of judicial review for the first time.The decision simultaneously denied Marbury his remedy while expanding the Court's institutional authority. It avoided a direct political confrontation with Jefferson while firmly establishing the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. What began as a minor political dispute over an undelivered commission became the foundation for the Supreme Court's power to strike down unconstitutional laws.A federal judge has permanently blocked the Justice Department from releasing a prosecutor's report concerning the classified documents case against President Donald Trump. The ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who concluded that making the report public would amount to a “manifest injustice” because the case never went to trial. She reasoned that publishing detailed allegations of criminal conduct without a jury verdict would undermine basic fairness principles.The case had been brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith and accused Trump of unlawfully retaining sensitive national defense materials at his Mar-a-Lago property and obstructing government efforts to recover them. Trump and his co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, pleaded not guilty and described the prosecution as politically motivated. In 2024, Cannon dismissed the charges, finding that Smith had not been lawfully appointed.After Trump returned to office, the Justice Department supported efforts to keep the report confidential. Although special counsels are typically required to submit reports explaining their charging decisions, Cannon held that releasing this one would conflict with her earlier rulings, including her determination that Smith's appointment was invalid. She also cited concerns about exposing grand jury material.The decision prevents public disclosure of substantial details about one of the four criminal cases Trump faced after leaving office. It follows the Supreme Court's recent decision limiting Trump's tariff authority and marks another significant legal development in the ongoing disputes surrounding his post-presidency investigations.US judge permanently blocks release of report on Trump documents case | ReutersThe chief judges of two major federal appeals courts have announced plans to step back from active service later this year, creating new vacancies for President Donald Trump to fill. Debra Ann Livingston of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both notified the president that they intend to take senior status. Livingston plans to assume senior status on July 1, while Sutton will do so on October 1.Their decisions come ahead of the November midterm elections, when control of the U.S. Senate could shift, potentially complicating confirmation of successors. Because judicial vacancies have been relatively scarce during Trump's second term, the openings present an opportunity to expand his appellate appointments. During his first term, Trump appointed 54 appellate judges, significantly influencing the judiciary's ideological direction.Both judges were originally appointed by President George W. Bush. Livingston, who has served on the Second Circuit since 2007 and became chief judge in 2020, has at times issued notable dissents, including in cases involving LGBTQ workplace protections and congressional subpoenas tied to Trump's business records. Sutton, on the Sixth Circuit since 2003 and chief judge since 2021, has been an influential conservative jurist. He authored a 2014 opinion upholding same-sex marriage bans that the Supreme Court later overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges.Senior status allows eligible judges to continue hearing cases on a reduced basis while enabling the president to nominate full-time replacements. Their departures will hand Trump two high-profile appellate vacancies at a time when few others are available.Two chief US appellate judges to leave active service, handing Trump vacancies | ReutersIn my weekly column for Bloomberg Tax, I examine the Trump administration's proposed 0.125% “land port maintenance tax” and question whether it is truly infrastructure policy or contingency planning after the Supreme Court curtailed its tariff authority. The proposal is framed as a parity measure to mirror the Harbor Maintenance Fee, but I argue the timing is hard to ignore. Just this week, the Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, reaffirming that Congress controls taxing power absent clear delegation. In my view, that ruling narrows executive trade authority and invites efforts to find alternative mechanisms embedded elsewhere in the customs code.I suggest the land port tax looks like one such alternative. Although labeled a “maintenance” fee, it would be imposed at the border and function economically like a tariff, with costs passed to US importers and consumers. Because most land-based trade flows through Canada and Mexico, I note that the charge would operate in practice as a North American supply chain tax. Calling it infrastructure policy does not change its price effects.I also argue that the Harbor Maintenance Fee analogy falls apart on inspection. Whatever its flaws, the HMF at least carries a user-fee logic tied to dredging and port upkeep. By contrast, the new proposal appears loosely connected to land-border infrastructure and bundled within a broader maritime industrial policy agenda. If shipbuilding is a national security priority, I contend Congress should fund it transparently through the Defense Department and regular appropriations. If the HMF distorts shipping routes, it should be reformed directly rather than replicated inland.Ultimately, I maintain that after Learning Resources, any border charge that operates like a tariff will face legal skepticism. If policymakers intend to subsidize maritime industry, they should say so clearly, define measurable goals, and subject the costs to democratic accountability. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This week The President of The United States of America and Tech Stuff Guy discuss Olympics, Seahawks, Tariffs, Prince Andrew, and The President answers some questions from Perfect 10 Patreon Patriots sitting in LIVE. If you enjoy the show leave a rating and review on spotify or iTunes. Join the Patreon for hours of bonus content ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.Patreon.com/MPGA⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(0:00) Intro (1:29) About the podcast sponsor: The American College of Governance Counsel. (2:15) Start of interview. *Reference to prior episode with Leo Strine (E100) (3:09) The Call of Conscience and The Current Moment (reference to his speech at the Weinberg Center in Oct of 2025) (5:18) Skepticism about Credibility of the Elite Among the Youth (7:02) The Ethical Muscle (8:20) Acknowledging Discrimination (8:56) The Climate Crisis (12:37) Shifts in Delaware Law (13:45) Return to Traditions. "What Delaware has done is return to its traditions that existed the entire time I was a judge." (14:28) The Controlled Company Debate and the MFW standard. (25:00) On the recent pushback against incorporating in Delaware: "I don't minimize the moment" (32:00) Section 220 Books and Records under SB21 (34:20) The statute was amended to provide more predictability. It actually looks like the Model Business Corporation Act. "I think both elements of this statute balance fairness and efficiency in a really good way." (39:54) Activist Judges and Delaware. "This was a nonpartisan initiative to restore confidence in Delaware's corporate law. I have the utmost respect for our judiciary, I'm proud to have been part of it, and I believe they will follow the law." (42:26) Delaware's Competitive Edge (48:25) The Rise of AI Companies (52:16) Energy Demand from AI. From guardrails to "trust us" (58:39) The Urgency of Leadership (1:01:59) Davos looks like a portrait of leadership failure "either eliminate it or make it real." Leo E. Strine, Jr., is Of Counsel at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Prior to joining WLRK, he was the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court from early 2014 through late 2019.   You can follow Evan on social media at:X: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/__To support this podcast you can join as a subscriber of the Boardroom Governance Newsletter at https://evanepstein.substack.com/__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Aughie and Nia discuss the Stone Court, years 1941 - 1946.  Harlan Fiske Stone served first as an Associate Justice, and then as the Chief Justice, over a Court that issued several important war-time rulings.  Despite its ruling in the Korematsu case, Stone oversees a gradual warming to civil rights and liberties on the Court.

The Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, has determined that petitions seeking the removal of the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, Mrs Jean Mensa, her two deputies and the Special Prosecutor, Mr Kissi Agyebeng, do not establish a prima facie case to warrant further action

Alex Murdaugh's fight for a new trial just reached South Carolina's highest court—and the justices came with hard questions.On February 11, 2026, the South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murdaugh's appeal of his double-murder conviction. The hearing split into two phases: first, the alleged jury tampering by former Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill; second, whether the trial itself was fair given the evidence admitted against him.Chief Justice John Kittredge set the tone early, calling Hill a "rogue clerk" and pressing prosecutor Creighton Waters on the scope of financial crimes evidence. "The granular detail and the expansiveness of which everything under the sun was allowed is arguably problematic," Kittredge said. Justice George James questioned the "logical connection" between Murdaugh's financial crimes and the murders of Maggie and Paul.Waters attempted to frame Murdaugh's financial desperation as the boiling point—at one point invoking the movie "Fargo" to illustrate his argument. Justice John Few wasn't having it: "I haven't seen 'Fargo'—get to the point."Defense attorneys Harpootlian, Griffin, and Barber argued that Hill's comments to jurors—including "watch his body language" and warnings not to be "fooled"—constituted jury tampering that denied Murdaugh a fair trial. They also challenged cell phone evidence, a blue raincoat with gunshot residue, and the overwhelming emphasis on financial crimes as prejudicial.The state maintained the conviction was based on "overwhelming evidence" and that Hill's remarks were "fleeting" and "largely neutral." But the justices pushed back repeatedly.No decision was issued from the bench. The court will deliberate privately with no deadline for a ruling. This episode covers the full hearing—what was argued, how the justices reacted, and what comes next.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#MurdaughAppeal #AlexMurdaugh #TrueCrimeToday #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #BeckyHill #JuryTampering #CreightonWaters #MurdaughCase #TrueCrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis

Aughie and Nia explore the Hughes Court, years 1930 - 1941. Charles Evans Hughes managed many personnel changes; he wrangled lots of strong personalities and widely divergent judicial philosophies in his time as Chief Justice. Hughes brought tremendous political skill to navigating this court in transition.

This episode dives headfirst into what may be the most explosive judicial scandal in Colorado history. We break down the verified federal complaint filed by Christopher S.P. Gregory, a former senior leader inside Colorado's judicial discipline system, accusing the Colorado Supreme Court, Governor Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser, and dozens of judges, lawyers, and oversight officials of a years-long conspiracy to conceal corruption, obstruct a federally required audit, and silence whistleblowers. At the center: a $2.66–$2.75 million alleged fraud and bribe scheme tied to former SCAO Chief of Staff Mindy Masias and a cover-up that spans more than six years.We walk through the paper trail: the 2019 anonymous fraud complaint sent directly to the Justices, Polis, and Weiser; the deliberate withholding of the “Masias Memo” from the State Auditor; coordinated damage control after public exposure; admissions of misconduct by a former Chief Justice; expired statutes of limitation due to obstruction; and repeated allegations that judicial oversight bodies were stacked, compromised, and weaponized to protect insiders. This isn't just about one contract it's about systemic abuse of power, suppression of evidence, retaliation against a whistleblower, and alleged violations of federal civil rights law.Finally, we unpack the seven claims at the heart of the case: civil rights conspiracy, obstruction of justice, failure to prevent misconduct, retaliation under the Colorado False Claims Act, demands for extraordinary writs to dismantle conflicted oversight bodies, equitable relief to halt ongoing constitutional violations, and reimbursement of taxpayer-funded legal defenses for officials found personally liable. If these allegations are substantiated, the fallout could shake Colorado's judiciary, trigger federal scrutiny, and force a reckoning over who the rules really apply to.

On this week's episode, Cody and Steve discuss the ambassador/Chief Justice/governor multitasker, John Jay.Sources· Bemis, Samuel Flagg. Jay's Treaty: A Study in Commerce and Diplomacy. New Haven, CT: Yale U. Press, 1923.· Bemis, Samuel Flagg & Ferrell, Robert H. The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy. New York City, NY: Cooper Square, 1963.· Littlefield, Daniel C. “John Jay, the Revolutionary Generation, and Slavery.” New York History 81, vol. 1 (2000), pp. 91-132. . Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.· Magnet, Myron. “The Education of John Jay.” City Journal 20, no. 1 (2010). . Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.· Stahr, Walter. John Jay: Founding Father. New York City, NY: Hambledon & London, 2005.· See General Sources page on webpage for general sources used Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this episode of Inside Olympia:  Host Austin Jenkins sits down with Washington State Supreme Court Chief Justice Debra Stephens.

In this podcast, Kyle welcomes Aaron Siri, a prominent legal advocate known for his work with the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) and Del Bigtree's Highwire, who has been influential in uncovering pharmaceutical industry practices. The conversation revolves around Siri's new book, 'Vaccines. Amen,' which critiques the almost religious zeal with which vaccines are regarded and delves into various controversial aspects of vaccine safety and policy. Siri discusses the deficiencies in safety testing of vaccines, such as the Hepatitis B vaccine trials involving infants, and highlights how the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act shifted the responsibility of vaccine safety from manufacturers to the federal government, resulting in a lack of accountability. The conversation also explores the history and efficacy of the Measles vaccine, potential long-term health impacts of vaccines, and the broader implications of governmental and pharmaceutical industry practices. Kyle and Siri emphasize the importance of individual choice and informed consent in vaccination decisions, criticizing the lack of transparency and the ethical implications of government-mandated vaccines. The discussion concludes with reflections on the future of vaccine policy and the importance of maintaining personal freedoms and rights. Aaron Siri is the managing partner of Siri and Glimstad, where he focuses on civil rights, informed consent, class actions, and complex civil litigation. His work includes challenging medical mandates, defending parental rights, representing whistleblowers, and forcing government transparency, including litigation that compelled the FDA to release Pfizer COVID 19 records. Aaron previously practiced at Latham and Watkins and clerked for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel. He earned his law degree from UC Berkeley School of Law, where he served as Editor in Chief of the Berkeley Business Law Journal.   From Kyle: The Community is coming! Click here to learn more   Connect with Aaron here: Instagram Website Siri & Glimstad LLP   Our Sponsors: Let's level up your nicotine routine with Lucy. Go to Lucy.co/KKP and use promo code (KKP) to get 20% off your first order. Lucy offers FREE SHIPPING and has a 30-day refund policy if you change your mind.   Connect with Kyle: I'm back on Instagram, come say hey @kylekingsbu Twitter: @kingsbu Our Farm Initiative: @gardenersofeden.earth Odysee: odysee.com/@KyleKingsburypod Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@Kyle-Kingsbury Kyle's Website: www.kingsbu.com - Gardeners of Eden site If you enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe & leave a 5-star review with your thoughts!

The legislature kicked off today with the usual pomp and circumstance.  The only remarkable thing about Gordon's speech was what he didn't talk about--climate change.  He probably thought that'd be unpopular so instead he lectured legislators how they should do things his way.  He also promised that he would always defend Wyoming's right to export our resources.   Too bad, the legislature gave him the money to do that in 2019 and he vetoed the bill. Also, you know you've made it when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court refers to your show in the State of the Judiciary speech.  All I can say is I'm not the one full of misinformation.

The Honorable Nathan L. Hecht was the longest‑serving member in the history of the Supreme Court of Texas and the longest‑tenured Texas judge in active service. As he approached his well‑deserved retirement, Rocky Dhir welcomed The Honorable Hecht to the podcast to reflect on his many years of service to the Texas legal system. They discussed his career path, the behind‑the‑scenes work judges performed within the courts, his efforts to improve access to justice, his advice for lawyers, and much more. Nathan L. Hecht served as the 27th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas. He was elected to the Court seven times, first in 1988 as a Justice and later in 2014 and 2020 as Chief Justice.

In breaking news today, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has doubled down on her Trumpian political tactics, publicly demanding that Prime Minister Mark Carney allow her to meddle in Canada's politically-independent judiciary system or she will ‘withhold funding' from the judicial appointment process. Danielle Smith told PM Carney in a letter that she wants be consulted on all future appointments to Alberta's Court of King's Bench, the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. Let's talk about why this is a terrible idea…This shocking move comes just days after Alberta's three chief justices issued a rare public statement, warning that democracy only functions when all three branches of government operate independently and respect each other's role. Premier Smith has declared her desire to “direct” judge appointments in the past and has invoked the Notwithstanding Clause four times in the last sitting of Parliament alone.Tune into Episode 366 of The Bill Kelly Podcast for daily politics news updates.This Canada politics news update was recorded on February 4, 2026.Don't forget to like, share, comment and subscribe to support Bill's work. THANK YOU!Become a YouTube member for weekly public and private livestreams, and to hear Bill's stories and life lessons from 50+ years as a broadcast journalist in his members-only series, THE WAY I SEE IT: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeUbzckOLocFzNeY1D72iCA/joinListen everywhere: https://kite.link/the-bill-kelly-podcastYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheBillKellyPodcast/featuredBlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/billkellypodcast.bsky.socialSubStack: https://billkelly.substack.com/WATCH THIS EPISODE and subscribe to our channel: https://youtu.be/tMweyKSH9vYFURTHER READINGDanielle Smith says Alberta will withhold funding for judges without more input on selectionhttps://globalnews.ca/news/11650810/danielle-smith-alberta-judges/Alberta judges urge respect, independence after Danielle Smith said she wants to ‘direct' themhttps://globalnews.ca/news/11640013/alberta-judges-danielle-smith/Statement by the Chief Justices of Alberta Courtshttps://albertacourts.ca/ This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit billkelly.substack.com/subscribe

Aughie and Nia explore the Taft Court, years 1921 - 1930. William Howard Taft is the only Chief Justice to have served as President of the United States. His court was conservative, leaning in the pro business direction in terms of striking down regulations of the economy. 

In this segment, host Pete Mundo discusses the recent controversy surrounding the Missouri Supreme Court with Scott Faughn from the Missouri Times. They dive into the details of a speech given by the Chief Justice, which sparked a reaction from the Missouri Senate. Scott breaks down the context and explains why this issue matters to the average person. They discuss the Missouri Plan, a system that's been in place since the 1970s, and how it's helped preserve the state's traditions. The conversation touches on the importance of respecting institutions and the consequences of not doing so.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're gonna get a rare opportunity to break out your cold weather gear this weekend; the former Chief Justice is in London, visiting the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, for a week of hearing cases; and this year's Cayman Instyle fashion week puts the spotlight on sustainability.

Chief Justice Steven R. Jensen appears on Talk Justice with LSC President Ron Flagg. They speak about his path to South Dakota's Supreme Court, the national Conference of Chief Justices, efforts to promote public interest law, access to justice initiatives and the challenges facing state courts. Jensen, who is currently serving his second term as chief justice, was first appointed to the South Dakota Supreme Court in 2017.

Aughie and Nia discuss the Whie Court, ears 1910 - 1921. Edward Douglass White was the first Associate Justice to be elevated to the position of Chief Justice. The White Court was slightly less conservative than the previous Fuller Court, choosing to favor regulations under the Commerce Clause and upholding the federal income tax.

Utah Chief Justice Matthew Durrant addressed the Utah Legislature with the State of The Judiciary. During his speech, the Chief Justice addressed legislative tensions in his State of the Judiciary address. Greg and Holly discuss what was brought up.

This Day in Legal History: Marbury v. MadisonOn January 20, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that began as a minor dispute over an undelivered judicial commission and ended by redefining American constitutional law. The story traces back to the final days of the Adams administration, when outgoing President John Adams rushed to appoint Federalist judges before Thomas Jefferson took office. John Marshall, then serving simultaneously as Secretary of State and incoming Chief Justice, sealed the commissions but failed to deliver several of them. One of the would-be judges, William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to force Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, to hand over the commission.The case placed Marshall in a precarious position, as he was being asked to rule on a problem he had helped create. Marshall first held that Marbury had a legal right to his commission and that the law ordinarily provided a remedy when such rights were violated. He then turned to the Judiciary Act of 1789, which appeared to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. Marshall concluded that this provision conflicted with Article III of the Constitution, which strictly limits the Court's original jurisdiction. Rather than ordering Madison to act, Marshall declared that the statute itself was unconstitutional.By denying Marbury his commission while simultaneously asserting the power to strike down an act of Congress, Marshall executed a strategic legal maneuver that avoided a direct confrontation with the executive branch. The Court emerged stronger despite losing the immediate case. In explaining why the Constitution must prevail over conflicting statutes, Marshall articulated the principle of judicial review. That reasoning transformed the Supreme Court from a relatively weak institution into the ultimate interpreter of constitutional meaning.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to a Hawaii law that restricts carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the owner's explicit permission. The case was brought by three licensed concealed-carry holders and a local gun rights group after Hawaii enacted the law in 2023. Under the statute, individuals must have clear verbal or written authorization, including posted signage, before bringing a handgun onto most business premises. A lower federal court initially blocked the law, but the Ninth Circuit later ruled that the measure likely complies with the Second Amendment.Hawaii has argued that the law appropriately balances gun rights with property owners' authority to control access to their premises. The challengers contend that the rule effectively prevents lawful gun owners from engaging in everyday activities such as shopping, dining, or buying gas. The challengers are supported by the Trump administration, which claims the law severely burdens the practical exercise of Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court declined to review other portions of the law involving bans in sensitive places like beaches and bars.The dispute unfolds against the backdrop of the Court's recent expansion of gun rights, particularly its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which recognized a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. That decision also reshaped how courts evaluate gun regulations by focusing on historical analogues rather than modern policy goals.US Supreme Court to hear challenge to Hawaii handgun limits | ReutersA federal judge has allowed Dominion Energy to resume construction on its $11.2 billion offshore wind project off the coast of Virginia, marking another courtroom loss for President Donald Trump's efforts to curb offshore wind development. Judge Jamar Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Dominion could restart work while it continues to challenge a stop-work order issued by the Interior Department. That order had halted several offshore wind projects based on newly cited, classified national security concerns related to radar interference.Walker found that the government's suspension was overly sweeping as applied to Dominion's project and emphasized that the cited security risks related to turbine operations, not ongoing construction. Earlier in the week, other offshore wind developers had secured similar rulings, allowing their projects to move forward despite the administration's objections. Dominion has already invested close to $9 billion in the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which is expected to supply electricity to hundreds of thousands of homes. The company said it would focus on safely resuming construction while continuing to pursue a long-term resolution with federal regulators.The decision underscores the legal and financial stakes for the offshore wind industry, as project delays can threaten multi-billion-dollar investments. At the same time, lawsuits challenging federal actions and the administration's opposition to offshore wind continue to create uncertainty for the sector. Several states, particularly along the East Coast, view offshore wind as critical to meeting growing energy demand and reducing emissions as electricity use increases.US judge allows Dominion offshore wind project to restart, another legal setback for Trump | ReutersFlorida has joined Texas in scaling back the American Bar Association's role in determining which law school graduates may sit for the state bar exam. In a 5–1 decision, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the ABA will no longer serve as the sole accrediting body for Florida bar eligibility, though graduates of ABA-accredited schools will remain eligible. The court said it plans to allow graduates of law schools approved by other federally recognized accrediting agencies to take the bar, even though no such agencies currently specialize in law school accreditation.The court framed its decision as an effort to expand access to affordable legal education while protecting academic freedom and nondiscrimination. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis praised the move, criticizing the ABA as overly partisan and arguing it should not control entry into the legal profession. The ABA responded that the ruling reaffirms state authority over licensing and said it would continue to promote the value of national accreditation standards.Florida's decision follows a similar move by the Supreme Court of Texas, which recently announced plans to develop its own criteria for approving non-ABA law schools. Other states, including Ohio and Tennessee, are also reviewing their accreditation rules. These developments come amid escalating conflict between the ABA and President Donald Trump's administration, which has taken steps to reduce the organization's influence across multiple areas, including judicial nominations and legal education.Within the ABA, the controversy has prompted internal reforms aimed at reinforcing the independence of its law school accreditation arm. One Florida justice dissented, warning that abandoning exclusive reliance on the ABA was an unnecessary and risky departure from a system that had functioned well for decades.Florida joins Texas in limiting ABA's law school oversight role | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I argue that the Internal Revenue Service's partnership audit program has effectively been dismantled under the second Trump administration, with specialized auditors fired, pushed out, or leaving altogether. These weren't ordinary revenue agents but highly trained experts who understood the most complex partnership structures and could spot abuse hidden deep inside tiered entities. Once that kind of institutional knowledge walks out the door, it can't simply be rebuilt by restoring funding later. There is no meaningful private-sector substitute for this expertise, and when these specialists leave government, they often stop doing enforcement work entirely.I explain that this collapse isn't just a federal tax problem—it's a looming state budget issue. High-income states that rely heavily on progressive income taxes are especially vulnerable when wealthy taxpayers shift income through opaque pass-through structures. For decades, states have relied on federal audits and enforcement as a backstop, but that dependency has now become a serious liability. I suggest that states step into the vacuum by hiring former IRS partnership specialists and building dedicated partnership audit units within their own revenue departments.With relatively modest investment, states could recover revenue that would otherwise vanish into complex and lightly monitored structures. I also propose a multistate enforcement compact that would allow states to share audit resources, staff, and findings, creating a decentralized alternative to federal enforcement. The core message is that while federal capacity has been allowed to wither, the expertise still exists—and states may be the last institutions capable of preserving it.IRS Partnership Audit Brain Drain Is an Opportunity for States 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

Acid attack survivors are recognised as persons with a specified disability under the Rights of Persons with Disability Act (RPwD), 2016. This acknowledges external disfigurement, but overlooks cases of forcible ingestion of acid wherein injuries are internal and often invisible. Recently, the Supreme Court heard a plea by an acid attack survivor, Shaheen Malik, to formally recognise such acid attack survivors under the protective umbrella of the RPwD Act. The Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant asked the Centre to consider a comprehensive policy framework.  In this episode, we explore the inclusion of acid attack survivors and the intersection of their rights, both as "victims" fighting for justice under criminal law, and persons with disabilities navigating the system to access compensation, healthcare, and employment benefits.  Host: Vibha B Madhava Guest: Madiah Shahjar, Programme and Legal Associate at Brave Souls Foundation, and the advocate who represented Shaheen Malik in the SC plea hearings. Edited by Sharmada Venkatasubramanian Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Chief Justice John Roberts famously told the country that, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, he would act like an umpire—just there to call balls and strikes. To help answer the question of how Umpire Roberts Court has fared, Harry spoke with Lisa Graves about her new book, Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights, in which Graves makes the case that Roberts has acted less as an umpire than a political loyalist. In the conversation, Harry and Lisa discuss Roberts's background as a movement conservative at DOJ, his nomination and ascension as Chief Justice, and his tenure now entering its third decade. They also delve into the modern Federalist Society, unpacking how Roberts and his fellow conservative justices align—or don't—with its ideology. With the Supreme Court wielding unprecedented influence over American policy, this discussion provides a clear look at how we arrived at the Court we have today. Read Lisa's book: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/lisa-graves/without-precedent/9781645030676/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We're going live with attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to break down two explosive developments in two of the biggest murder cases in America right now.First up: Alan Jackson just withdrew from the Nick Reiner case. Three weeks in, he told a judge he had "no choice" — then walked outside and told reporters that Nick Reiner is "NOT guilty of murder under California law." Sources say money was the issue. Nick's parents — the people he allegedly killed — would normally fund his defense. Now public defender Kimberly Greene is stepping in with thirty seconds of prep time. We're asking Eric what happens to all the work Jackson's team did, whether the insanity defense has any real shot, and what this means for the February arraignment.Then we're diving into the Mickey Stines case out of Kentucky. The former Letcher County Sheriff is charged with murdering Judge Kevin Mullins in his own chambers — captured on video. The defense just filed a recusal motion after discovering footage of the presiding judge, Christopher Cohron, seated next to the victim at a mental health conference one week before the murder. Cohron never disclosed it. He's also refusing to unseal the psychiatric evaluation the defense needs for their insanity claim. Eric walks us through what happens if the Chief Justice has to get involved.Join us live — drop your questions in the chat and we'll get Eric's take in real time.#NickReiner #MickeyStines #AlanJackson #InsanityDefense #LiveStream #TrueCrime #EricFaddis #MurderTrial #JudgeRecusal #HiddenKillersLiveThis video is for commentary and entertainment purposes only. All accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISDOES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The Mickey Stines murder case is frozen — and the reason is a video nobody knew existed until now. Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins True Crime Today to break down the recusal motion that could change everything.Former Letcher County Sheriff Mickey Stines is charged with murdering District Judge Kevin Mullins in his courthouse chambers in September 2024. The shooting was captured on video. The defense isn't disputing Stines pulled the trigger — they're arguing he was legally insane. But now, before any of that gets argued in front of a jury, the defense is fighting to remove the judge.According to court filings, Special Judge Christopher Cohron was filmed seated inches from Mullins at a Kentucky Judicial Commission on Mental Health meeting — seven days before Mullins was killed. The defense claims Cohron never disclosed this. They're now arguing that his rulings — blocking the psychiatric evaluation from being unsealed, barring it from the bond hearing — show an appearance of bias that cannot stand in a case where mental health is the entire defense.Eric Faddis has been on both sides of fights like this. He walks us through the legal standard for recusal, what happens if Cohron denies the motion, and how this could escalate to Kentucky's Chief Justice. We also get into the venue battle, the death penalty decision that still hasn't been made, and what fifteen months of procedural gridlock tells us about how the system handles a case this tangled.#MickeyStines #TrueCrimeToday #EricFaddis #JudgeCohron #KevinMullins #RecusalMotion #KentuckyMurder #TrueCrimeNews #CourthouseShooting #CriminalJusticeJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISDOES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

We're going live with defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to break down the recusal motion that just froze the Mickey Stines murder case — and we're taking your questions.Here's what happened: The defense discovered video showing Special Judge Christopher Cohron seated next to Judge Kevin Mullins at a mental health commission meeting, seven days before Mullins was shot to death by Stines in his Letcher County chambers. According to the defense motion, Cohron never disclosed this to the parties. Now they want him off the case — arguing that in a trial built entirely around Stines' mental state, this undisclosed connection creates an appearance of bias that can't be overlooked.Cohron has already denied the defense's motion to unseal Stines' psychiatric evaluation. He blocked them from using it at the bond hearing. The defense is connecting those rulings to what they found in that video. And now everything is frozen until someone decides whether Cohron stays or goes.Eric Faddis walks us through the legal standard for recusal, what happens if Cohron refuses to step aside, and how this fight could escalate all the way to the Chief Justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court. We're also covering the venue battle, the sealed psychiatric report, and why prosecutors still haven't announced whether they're seeking the death penalty — fifteen months into this case.Got questions? Drop them in the chat. Eric's here to answer.#MickeyStines #HiddenKillersLive #EricFaddis #JudgeRecusal #KevinMullins #LetherCounty #LiveStream #TrueCrimeLive #KentuckyMurder #CriminalDefenseJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISDOES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

A video that nobody knew existed has thrown the Mickey Stines murder case into chaos. According to a defense motion filed December 29th, Special Judge Christopher Cohron was captured on video sitting next to Judge Kevin Mullins — the man Stines is accused of killing — at a mental health commission meeting just one week before the shooting. Mullins' widow was reportedly in the room. Cohron allegedly never disclosed any of this to the parties.Now the defense is demanding Cohron recuse himself, arguing his impartiality cannot be trusted in a case where mental health is literally the entire defense. Stines' attorneys have already watched Cohron deny their motion to unseal the psychiatric evaluation and block them from using it at the bond hearing. They're connecting those rulings to the video — and asking whether a reasonable observer could see this as anything other than bias.The December 18th hearing was supposed to address bond and venue. It lasted minutes. Cohron said there was an "issue" and adjourned. Eleven days later, we found out the issue was him.Stines remains in jail — over fifteen months now — with no bond, no trial date, and no official motive. The prosecution still hasn't said whether they're seeking death. And now everything waits on one question: Does Cohron step aside, or does this fight go to the Chief Justice?We break down the recusal motion, the legal standard, and what's likely to happen next in a case that can't seem to get out of its own way.#MickeyStines #KevinMullins #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimePodcast #LetherCounty #KentuckyCrime #JudgeRecusal #CourthouseMurder #InsanityDefense #ShawnStinesJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISDOES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

In this episode of Justice Speaks, Justice Elizabeth Clement, President of the National Center for State Courts, examines judicial independence and the future of state courts. Drawing on her experience as Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, she discusses court leadership, public trust, and preparing courts for emerging challenges.

Tonja Jacobi discusses her article “Supreme Court Interruptions and Interventions: The Changing Role of the Chief Justice.” Recent scholarship has focused on how often the Supreme Court Justices get interrupted, especially when female Justices are speaking. To fix this, the Court changed how hearings are run. This article looks at whether these interruptions—and the gender […]

A feckless Chief Justice who is obviously trying to avoid being attacked by his favorite president Trump, issued a worthless “Final Report” on this past year at the Judiciary, filled with misstatements, omissions and misleading “statistics”. Missing from the report? Any mention of Trump's attacks on the Judiciary, Judges, Lawyers and Law Firms, the violence threatened against them, the use of rogue US Attorneys to go after Trump's political enemies, the corruption of the DOJ, the lack of ethics at the Supreme Court, and the battle that has spilled into the open between the lower federal trial courts and the Supreme Court, or the Court being complicit with Trump through the use of the “shadow docket” to allow back door appeals to side with Trump 86% of the time. Michael Popok blows apart the Report and its attempt to wrap Roberts and judges in a flag to fool the American people into believing that the Third Branch hasn't been captured by MAGA and Trump. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast⁠ Legal AF: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af⁠ MissTrial: ⁠https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial⁠ The PoliticsGirl Podcast: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast⁠ Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan⁠ Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen⁠ The Weekend Show: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show⁠ Burn the Boats: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats⁠ Majority 54: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54⁠ Political Beatdown: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown⁠ On Democracy with FP Wellman: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman⁠ Uncovered: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

AP correspondent Ben Thomas reports the Supreme Court's chief justice is offering a soothing assessment amid concern the nation may be facing a constitutional crisis.

In this episode of Policy Chats, former Chief Justice of California Tani Cantil Sakauye joins hosts Dori Pham and Jaz William for a wide ranging conversation on how courts can strengthen a thriving, prosperous, and abundant society.Chief Justice Cantil Sakauye breaks down how California's judiciary is structured across 58 counties, explaining the distinct roles of the trial courts, Courts of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court. She also demystifies the Judicial Council, the constitutional policymaking body that sets statewide rules and guidance that shape everything from jury service to courtroom procedure.A major focus of the discussion is access to justice. She reflects on key initiatives from her tenure, including expanding language access across California courts, increasing interpreter services, and strengthening self help resources so that individuals without attorneys can navigate court processes more safely and effectively. She also discusses efforts to address the burden of fines and fees, including ability to pay approaches and traffic ticket relief programs.The conversation then turns to governance under constraint. She shares how judicial leaders approached statewide budget cuts by using shared frameworks and collective decision making across counties to protect core services and maintain public trust, while allowing local courts flexibility in implementation.Finally, she offers an inside look at the judiciary's response to the COVID 19 pandemic. With no playbook available, she describes how emergency orders, remote proceedings, and public health safeguards were developed under intense pressure, and how constitutional rights remained the guiding framework. She closes with lessons on crisis leadership, emphasizing the importance of listening, bringing down the temperature in conflict, and engaging broad perspectives, plus advice for students interested in law, public service, and community leadership.Topics CoveredHow California's court system is structured across trial courts, Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme CourtWhat the Chief Justice does and how the Judicial Council makes statewide court policyExpanding access to justice through language services and self help supportAddressing fines and fees and improving court affordabilityHow statewide budgeting decisions are made across 58 countiesLeading through COVID 19 with emergency orders, remote hearings, and public health safeguardsLessons on listening, de escalation, and leadership in conflictCareer paths in law, public policy, and public service, including the continued need for the human element in justiceThis episode is produced by the UCR School of Public Policy and reflects our mission of creating solutions that improve lives locally and globally.

We finish Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court today for Part 4d of this deep dive as we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court starting from from his page 23 Roman Numeral III, letter B number 2 in the Slip Opinion through to the end of the Opinion of the Court on the bottom of page 35. We have one more episode in this Deep Dive after this one to do the concurrences by Thomas and Gorsuch. This is the 15th Chevron Deference Deep Dive episode we've done on TRP podcast since winter 2024. And here it is winter 2025. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. We will pick up with the Republican concurrences in Loper Bright next time. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-separation-of-powers podcast. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

The Alliance of Former Chief Justices is dedicated to preserving judicial independence and the rule of law. Former Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Lawton Nuss talks about the new alliance, the threats he faced while serving on the court, and an upcoming vote on how justices are selected in Kansas.

EXECUTIVE POWER AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES Colleague Professor Richard Epstein, Hoover Institution. Epstein discusses a Supreme Court case regarding the President's power to fire members of independent boards like the FTC. He fears Chief Justice Roberts will side with executive power, a move Epstein views as an "unmitigated disaster" that undermines the necessary independence of agencies like the Federal Reserve. NUMBER 14

Aaron Siri is the Managing Partner of Siri & Glimstad LLP and has extensive experience in a wide range of complex civil litigation matters and class actions. Siri & Glimstad LLP's team is made up of more than 100 professionals and the firm has robust practices in the areas of civil rights, class actions, employment litigation, immigration, medical malpractice, and vaccine injury and exemptions. Mr. Siri has extensive experience and has handled numerous high-profile cases related to mandated medicine, vaccine injury, and policy. This experience includes challenges to federal and state mandates; the restoration of exemptions, including for U.S. military members; extensive litigation against federal agencies for transparency; and deposing immunologists, infectious disease doctors, pediatricians, and vaccinologists, including the world's leading vaccinologist. Mr. Siri has successfully prosecuted numerous class actions against large corporations resulting in payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans. Mr. Siri has acted as counsel to clients in multiple commercial disputes exceeding one billion dollars, including Oracle Team's challenge for the America's Cup and matters concerning the collapse of the World Trade Center. Prior to Siri & Glimstad, Mr. Siri was a litigation attorney at Latham & Watkins and, prior to that, clerked for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel where he advised the Chief Justice of relevant American, English (Commonwealth), and International Law precedent for cases of first impression, including removal of Israel's citizens from the Gaza Strip. Mr. Siri earned his law degree at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law with four Prosser Prizes and ten High Honors and was the Editor-in-Chief of the Berkeley Business Law Journal. Prior to law school, Mr. Siri was an auditor at Arthur Andersen LLP, where he examined internal controls and audited micro-cap technology companies. Mr. Siri is admitted to practice law in federal and state courts across the country and is regularly interviewed on national television as an expert on various legal issues related to civil rights. Mr. Siri has also been published in numerous national print media outlets. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What do the National Labor Relations Board, Blake Lively's lawsuit against Justin Baldoni, and Lindsey Halligan have in common? They're all swimming in the chaos soup cooked up by a Supreme Court that engages in motivated reasoning and jettisons precedent whenever it gets in the way. Eat up!Links: Richman v. UShttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71982634/richman-v-united-states/?order_by=descCorporate Union Busting in Plain Sight, Economic Policy Institute, January 28, 2025https://www.epi.org/publication/corporate-union-busting/Amazon Services LLC v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board (New York Litigation) [docket via CourtListener]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71421477/amazoncom-services-llc-v-new-york-state-public-employment-relations-board/National Labor Relations Board v. State of California (California Litigaton) [docket via CourtListener]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71657795/national-labor-relations-board-v-state-of-california/National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Parks Servicehttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72028010/national-trust-for-historic-preservation-in-the-united-states-v-national/List of Trump Clemency Grantshttps://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-grants-president-donald-j-trump-2025-presentUS v. Abrego https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70475970/united-states-v-abrego-garcia/?order_by=descAbrego Garcia v. Noem https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71191591/abrego-garcia-v-noemShow Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Oral arguments took place in the highly-anticipated unitary executive case, Trump v. Slaughter. The overruling of the case that seems to govern, Humphrey's Executor, has been long expected, and indeed, the Chief Justice referred to the “dry husk” that was all that remained of that case after recent years of whittling by the current and recent Court.  However, faced with the extremity of possible consequences, the Court veered this way and that, indicating that while the direction seems clear, the destination may not be.  Fascinating intersections with other cases and theories that Professor Amar has studied and expounded over the years abound, and in our Cosell-like tour of the argument's twists and turns, you will learn how it fits together.  CLE is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Jeff is joined by Justice Sharon Kennedy, Chief Justice of the Ohio State Supreme Court to discuss the Rule of Law – what is it? Why is it so essential to limited, fair government? How is it promoted, protected, and how can we understand it better so as to pass on its value to future […]

Jeff is joined by Justice Sharon Kennedy, Chief Justice of the Ohio State Supreme Court to discuss the Rule of Law - what is it? Why is it so essential to limited, fair government? How is it promoted, protected, and how can we understand it better so as to pass on its value to future generations?Join us as we look at some of the most foundational, essential ideas, moments, and events in our history as we look forward to America's 250th birthday.Host: Jeff SikkengaExecutive Producer: Jeremy GyptonSubscribe: https://linktr.ee/theamericanidea

A Supreme Court decision that sent shockwaves across America. Dred Scott v Sandford, 1857. Who was the Chief Justice responsible for the decision? On what grounds did he rule that Dred Scott, and by extension all African Americans, was not a citizen of the US? Don is joined by renowned historian Kate Masur, author of "Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement".Edited by Aidan Lonergan. Producer is Freddy Chick.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  You can take part in our listener survey here.All music from Epidemic Sounds.American History Hit is a History Hit podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Kate, Leah, and Melissa dive into the legal pushback over ICE and the National Guard in Chicago and Portland, anti-marriage equality goblin Kim Davis's unwelcome return to the courts, the administration's lawless strikes on boats in the waters around South America, and the specter of Trump 3.0. Then, they preview November's SCOTUS cases, including Learning Resources v. Trump, which challenges Trump's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Favorite things:Leah: Task (HBO Max); West End Girl, Lily Allen; The Kavanaugh Stop - 50 days later, Chris Geidner (Law Dork); The Supreme Court's Self-Defeating Supremacy, Steve Vladeck (The Supreme Court Review); God's Chief Justice, Doug Bock Clark (ProPublica); Lawyers March for Democracy on November 15 at 1-3pm.Kate: The Emergency, George Packer; Expert Backgrounder on War Powers Resolution 60-Day Clock for Boat Strikes Expiring Monday, Rebecca Ingber and Jessica Thibodeau (Just Security)Melissa: Impermissible Punishments: How Prison Became a Problem for Democracy, Judith ResnikHurricane relief for Jamaica:The WalkGood Jamaica Relief FundThe American Friends of JamaicaGlobal Empowerment MissionMercy CorpsFood for the Poor Jamaica Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/events Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

“The Chief Justice… is presiding over the end of the rule of law in America”. That quote did not come from host Dahlia Lithwick, but this week's guest, former Federal Circuit Court Judge and George H. W. Bush appointee, J Michael Luttig. On this week's show, Judge Luttig explains the unprecedented split we're seeing between the federal courts and the highest court in the land in response to Trump's lawlessness on everything from tariffs, to due process, to deploying the National Guard, and what it all means for the future of American democracy.  Next, Dahlia talks to the CEO of the small family business at the center of the tariffs case that will be argued at SCOTUS on Wednesday. Rick Woldenberg of Learning Resources explains why he's standing up to Trump's monarchic power grab, and why he sees himself standing shoulder-to-shoulder with James Madison. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“The Chief Justice… is presiding over the end of the rule of law in America”. That quote did not come from host Dahlia Lithwick, but this week's guest, former Federal Circuit Court Judge and George H. W. Bush appointee, J Michael Luttig. On this week's show, Judge Luttig explains the unprecedented split we're seeing between the federal courts and the highest court in the land in response to Trump's lawlessness on everything from tariffs, to due process, to deploying the National Guard, and what it all means for the future of American democracy.  Next, Dahlia talks to the CEO of the small family business at the center of the tariffs case that will be argued at SCOTUS on Wednesday. Rick Woldenberg of Learning Resources explains why he's standing up to Trump's monarchic power grab, and why he sees himself standing shoulder-to-shoulder with James Madison. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Newt discusses the life and contributions of John Jay, a pivotal figure in American history. Born in 1745 in New York City, Jay's early life was shaped by his family's quest for religious freedom and his education at King's College. Initially advocating for reconciliation with Britain, Jay's political journey saw him evolve into a staunch supporter of American independence. As a member of the Continental Congress, he contributed to the Olive Branch Petition and played a significant role in drafting the New York State Constitution. Jay's diplomatic efforts included serving as an ambassador to Spain and negotiating the controversial Jay's Treaty with Britain. His legal acumen was evident during his tenure as the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, notably in the Chisholm v. Georgia case. Jay's political career also included serving as the Governor of New York, where he enacted the gradual abolition of slavery. Despite facing challenges and controversies, Jay's legacy as a founding father is marked by his dedication to establishing a robust and balanced government, as reflected in his contributions to the Federalist Papers and his advocacy for the separation of powers. His life exemplifies the complexities and commitments of the early American statesmen in shaping the nation.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.