Podcasts about Civil Rights Act

On Tuesday's "Dan O'Donnell Show," Dan breaks a bombshell: Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley almost certainly violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution by setting aside more than $1 million of taxpayer money for raises explicitly tied to county employees' race and gender. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in SFFA v. Harvard that race-conscious admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.  The decision had an immediate impact on how colleges and universities determine who gets into their institutions.  Three years after the ruling, researchers and organizations focused on college admissions have considered its impacts, examined the varying interpretations by state governments, and asked what the future of opportunity looks like.  

For the third installment of our month-long collaboration with the This Day podcast, we go to 1964 and a moment when the two major parties in this country, in a sense, switched. This Day hosts Jody Avirgan, Nicole Hemmer, and Kellie Carter Jackson are joined by Eric K. Ward, executive vice president of Race Forward, to trace the story from Jim Crow through the New Deal and into the Civil Rights Act—and to understand why the Democratic coalition that produced it was always too contradictory to survive. How did Black voters move from Lincoln's party to LBJ's? And what did White Southerners do when their party started to leave them behind? Be sure to check out Eric's documentary White with Fear on PBS: https://www.pbs.org/show/white-with-fear/ Learn more about this special series here: https://kettering.org/america-250-podcast-series-begins-in-september/ If you enjoy this episode, go over to This Day's feed for two more episodes on each of these historical topics. The Context's host, Alex Lovit, will be the guest in the third episode each week. Listen to all episodes here: https://www.jodyavirgan.com/political-history-show Attention, Washington, DC-area listeners! Join us on Monday, October 19, 2026, for a live taping of This Day. The Context host, Alex Lovit, will join This Day hosts live on stage. The featured guest is Kettering Senior Fellow Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II. They will be in conversation about the moment of democratic realignment we are living through right now. Are we witnessing a fundamental shift in who holds power, who gets left out, and how race and class are reshaping the coalitions that define American politics? And what can history teach us about moments like this one? The event is open to the public, and tickets are available through the Howard Theatre: https://www.unionstagepresents.com/shows/this-day-live-the-next-realignment-presented-by-the-charles-f-kettering-foundation-19-oct Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Best-Selling Author & Distinguished Carter G. Woodson book award presented to exemplary books written for children and young people each year at the NCSS Annual Conference.Robert H. Mayer is the award-winning author of When the Children Marched: The Birmingham Civil Rights Movement and the editor of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a teacher, Mayer's passion continues to be making history relevant and accessible to young people. His time spent in Jackson, Canton, and McComb, Mississippi, as well as meeting scholars and activists integral to the civil rights movement, fueled the desire to write In the Name of Emmett Till. He lives in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, with his wife Jan, where he writes, teaches, and tutors youth in a local middle school.The  2002 BAFTA, SAC, Critics Choice Award Balloted Movie “Till”  lead actress Danielle Deadwyler gives an unforgettable performance as Mamie Till-Mobley, showing deep grief and fierce.  Mamie's actions galvanized the Civil Rights Act of 1957. She dedicated her life to teaching children while continuing to fight for civil rights in America. The 1955 murder of Emmett Till in Mississippi is widely remembered as one of the most horrible lynching's in American history. African American children old enough that year to be aware personally felt the terror of Till's murder. These children, however, would rise up against the culture that made Till's death possible. Over the next decade, from the violent Woolworth's lunch-counter sit-ins in Jackson to the school walkouts of McComb, the young people of Mississippi picketed, boycotted, organized, spoke out, and marched, determined to reveal the vulnerability of black bodies and the ugly nature of the world they lived in. These children changed that world. © 2026 Building Abundant Success!!2026 All Rights ReservedJoin Me on ~ iHeart Radio @ https://tinyurl.com/iHeartBASSpot Me on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/yxuy23baAmazon ~ https://tinyurl.com/AmzBAS

Disparate impact may sound boring. It isn't.It's the rule the Supreme Court established in 1971 to catch discrimination that doesn't announce itself. Fifty-four years later, the EEOC, acting on Trump's executive order, walked away from that standard. Then the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel went further, declaring disparate impact liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional. The new requirement: prove the employer intended to discriminate, which sounds neutral until you notice who can actually produce that proof. A white employee suing over "reverse discrimination" has a paper trail sitting right there — the employer's own DEI policy. Black workers rarely, if ever, get that paper trail; they'd have to read a hiring manager's mind. Imani Gandy breaks down how the law built to stop discrimination got rewired to shield it in this Imani Explains It All episode of Baby Boom! Lawyered. Expert Repro Journalism That Inspires. Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a member today. B*itch, Listen now has its own dedicated feed on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you get your podcasts. If you already subscribe to Boom! Lawyered, sign up for B*tch, Listen so you won't miss it.

Disparate impact may sound boring. It isn't.It's the rule the Supreme Court established in 1971 to catch discrimination that doesn't announce itself. Fifty-four years later, the EEOC, acting on Trump's executive order, walked away from that standard. Then the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel went further, declaring disparate impact liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional. The new requirement: prove the employer intended to discriminate, which sounds neutral until you notice who can actually produce that proof. A white employee suing over "reverse discrimination" has a paper trail sitting right there — the employer's own DEI policy. Black workers rarely, if ever, get that paper trail; they'd have to read a hiring manager's mind. Imani Gandy breaks down how the law built to stop discrimination got rewired to shield it in this Imani Explains It All episode of Baby Boom! Lawyered. Expert Repro Journalism That Inspires. Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a member today. B*itch, Listen now has its own dedicated feed on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you get your podcasts. If you already subscribe to Boom! Lawyered, sign up for B*tch, Listen so you won't miss it.

This Day in Legal History: The 16th Street Baptist Church BombingOn September 15, 1963, members of the Ku Klux Klan planted dynamite beneath the steps of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama—a hub of the civil rights movement—and detonated it on a Sunday morning. The blast killed four young Black girls: Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, and Denise McNair. It was an act of racial terrorism aimed at the heart of a community, and it became one of the galvanizing atrocities of the civil rights era.The legal aftermath is a study in the agonizing slowness of justice. Though the FBI identified suspects within a few years, no one was prosecuted at the time—an all-too-familiar failure of Southern justice to hold white supremacists accountable for violence against Black Americans. It took fourteen years for the first conviction: Robert Chambliss, found guilty of murder in 1977. And it took until the twenty-first century for the rest—the FBI reopened the case in 1997, leading to the convictions of Thomas Blanton in 2001 and Bobby Frank Cherry in 2002, nearly forty years after the crime. A fourth suspect died before he could be charged.The significance of September 15, 1963 for the law is twofold. The bombing helped build the political will that produced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—the deaths of those four girls were not in vain in the sense that they hardened the nation's resolve to write equality into law. And the decades-long road to conviction is a sobering lesson about accountability: that justice delayed is a profound injustice, but also that the law's memory can be long, and that consequences can reach the responsible actors even many years after the fact. That last idea—that accountability shouldn't expire just because time has passed or the guilty have moved on—runs, in a much quieter register, straight through my column today.In a significant loss for the administration, the Supreme Court has refused to let the U.S. Postal Service impose its new mail-ballot restrictions for this November's midterm elections—effectively ending, for this cycle, a fight we've been tracking for weeks. Recall the sequence: an executive effort to have the Postal Service dictate new requirements on how states handle mail-in ballots; a Boston federal judge, Indira Talwani, blocking it as likely unlawful because the Postal Service has no authority to control mail-in voting; the administration racing to the Supreme Court on the emergency docket; and then, just yesterday, a second judge blocking it too. Now the Supreme Court has spoken, and it kept the injunction in place, finding the administration was unlikely to succeed on the merits. The most telling part is Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence. He didn't fully close the door on the government's statutory argument—he wrote there's “at least a fair prospect” the rule falls within the Postal Service's authority—but he said that imposing this rule in the middle of the 2026 election would be arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. That's the Purcell principle in spirit: courts are extremely wary of changing election rules right before an election, because doing so breeds chaos and confusion for voters and administrators. So the practical outcome is clear: the old rules govern this midterm, and the mail-ballot restrictions are off the table for now. The significance is that the judiciary—including a conservative justice—drew a hard line against reshaping the mechanics of a national election, on the fly, weeks before people vote. The merits question may return in calmer times, but the attempt to change the rules mid-election has failed.In loss for Trump, US Supreme Court won't let Postal Service restrict mail ballots | Reuters · NPR · CNBCElon Musk's X Corp and his AI venture—now operating as SpaceXAI—have dropped Apple from the antitrust lawsuit they filed last year, while vowing to press on against their real target: OpenAI. The suit, filed in federal court in Texas, accused Apple of illegally conspiring with OpenAI to monopolize the markets for smartphones and generative-AI chatbots, essentially by baking ChatGPT into Apple Intelligence on iPhones and freezing out rival chatbots like Musk's Grok. In a court filing, Musk's companies moved to dismiss the claims against Apple—without explaining why, and without saying whether a settlement was reached—but they made clear the case against OpenAI continues. Here's the legal meat. The core theory is an exclusive-dealing and monopolization claim: the allegation that a dominant platform, Apple, and a dominant AI provider, OpenAI, struck a deal that unlawfully forecloses competitors from a critical distribution channel. That's a serious antitrust argument in the abstract—exclusive arrangements by dominant firms can violate the Sherman Act if they lock rivals out of the market. But it sits inside a very tangled rivalry: Musk co-founded OpenAI, is now its bitter competitor and litigation adversary on multiple fronts, and runs a competing chatbot. Dropping Apple while keeping OpenAI in the case tells you where Musk sees leverage—and possibly that Apple, facing its own separate antitrust battles, found a way to resolve its piece. The significance is that this is a live front in the biggest question in tech antitrust right now: as AI gets embedded into the dominant platforms we all use, who controls the gateways, and do those integration deals help consumers or unlawfully entrench the incumbents? That fight is very much still on—just now aimed squarely at OpenAI.Musk's X Corp and SpaceXAI resolve antitrust lawsuit against Apple | Reuters · CNBC · The WrapAnd finally, in my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I take on a question that's playing out in Australia but has direct lessons for the U.S.: what to actually do about misconduct at the Big Four accounting firms. Australia is considering breaking up its Big Four—separating audit from consulting—in the wake of a KPMG scandal, and my argument is that structural separation, while fine, is only part of the answer, and policymakers shouldn't mistake it for a cure-all. Here's the core of the problem. KPMG Australia is accused of using confidential information from one client to win audit business from others. And here's the key insight: splitting off the consulting arm wouldn't stop that. An audit-only firm still holds confidential information its competitors don't have, and it can still be tempted to weaponize that information to win the next audit client. In fact, we've seen exactly this in the U.S.—back in 2019, the SEC settled with KPMG's U.S. firm over a partner who tried to use improperly obtained information about regulatory inspections to win audit business. Spinning off consulting wouldn't have prevented it, because the misconduct arose from competition inside the audit sector itself. So what do I actually propose? Two things. First, target how firms compete for business: require real controls on who can access confidential client and regulatory information, mandate independent review of major sales pitches by someone whose pay isn't tied to winning the contract, and let regulators spot-check bids. Second—and this is the part I care most about—fix who pays. Right now, a partner can win business improperly, collect the bonus, and leave the firm years before anyone notices. When the penalty finally lands, it's paid by the current partners, people who may have had nothing to do with it, while the wrongdoer keeps the spoils. Australia has moved to increase individual penalties, which is good, but penalties aren't the same as clawing back the money. I argue firms should structure partner compensation so that pay tied to misconduct stays recoverable for a set period—even after the partner walks out the door. The deeper principle, and you'll recognize it from today's legal-history segment, is that accountability shouldn't expire just because time has passed or the guilty party has moved on. Breaking up the Big Four might change what firms sell. But we also need to change how they win business—and who pays when the lines are crossed.KPMG Australia Scandal Shows Misconduct Rules Need Strengthening | Bloomberg Tax 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

2 Hours and 27 MinutesPG-13This is a re-release of episodes:Episode 831: How the 'Civil Rights Regime' Was Enshrined w/ Ryan TurnipseedEpisode 905: The Civil Rights Act and Its Consequences w/ Gregory HoodEnshrining the Civil Rights RegimeRyan's Find My Frens PageGreg at American RenaissanceThe Age of Entitlement: America Since the SixtiesPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

# Episode DescriptionIn this solo episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we tackle one of the most persistent problems in how we teach and understand the civil rights movement: the "happy ever after" narrative.For many years, students have been taught that the struggles of the 1950s and 60s culminated in victory – that the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act somehow "solved" racism in America. This is, of course, nonsense. History doesn't work like that. The civil rights movement achieved significant gains, but the idea that racism was somehow "sorted" in 1968 is deeply misleading.Drawing on Kevin Verney's excellent book *The Debate on Black Civil Rights in America*, we explore the historiographical challenges of writing about the post-1968 period. Historians are naturally cautious about passing judgment on recent decades, which means the story of African American life since 1980 is often reduced to a few paragraphs about the emergence of a black middle class – and, bizarrely, a section on performers like Michael Jackson and Will Smith.We examine the debate around Jesse Jackson's presidential campaigns, the argument over whether race or class is the primary division in American society, and the continuing crisis of inner-city poverty and police violence that the "happy ever after" narrative conveniently ignores.Topics covered:- The "happy ever after" problem in civil rights historiography- The challenge of writing about recent history- Jesse Jackson and the debate over black political leadership- Race vs. class in post-civil rights America- William Julius Wilson and the "declining significance of race"- Inner-city poverty and institutionalised racism- The limitations of liberal reform---*If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.*Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive ContentBecome a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory▸ Join the Community & Continue the ConversationFacebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcastSubstack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com▸ Read Articles & Go DeeperWebsite: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's what they do when they don't want something to happen, filibuster, an effort to prevent a vote in the USSenateby extending debate.这就是他们不想让某事发生时会采取的手段——冗长辩论，这是一种通过延长辩论来阻止美国参议院投票表决的做法。TheSenateprides itself on being a deliberative body where debate is vital to decision making.参议院以自己是一个审议机构而自豪，在那里辩论对决策至关重要。Senaterules allow debate on a measure to continue until three-fifths--60 out of the 100 senators--vote to end it.参议院规则允许对一项议案进行辩论，直到五分之三（即100名参议员中的60名）投票决定终止辩论为止。At one time, a two-thirds vote was needed, butSenaterules changed in 1975.曾经需要三分之二的多数票，但参议院规则在1975年进行了修改。So when asenatoror group of senators want to block something, they take the floor and keep talking.当某位参议员或一群参议员想要阻止某项议案时，他们就会持续发言。In recent decades, the mere threat of a filibuster has been enough to halt action on almost any bill that lacks the support of 60 senators.近几十年来，仅凭冗长辩论的威胁就足以阻止任何缺乏60名参议员支持的法案推进。But the use of the filibuster was ended for approval of judicial appointments in 2013 and for Supreme Court approvals in 2017.但是，冗长辩论在2013年终止适用于司法任命的批准，并在2017年终止适用于最高法院的批准。The term filibuster is derived from a Dutch word for "pirate".“filibuster”一词源自荷兰语中意为“海盗”的单词。The record for the longest filibuster is held bySenatorStrom Thurmond of South Carolina, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes inoppositionof the Civil Rights Act of 1957. 最长的冗长辩论记录由南卡罗来纳州参议员斯特罗姆·瑟蒙德保持，为反对1957年《民权法案》连续演讲了24小时18分钟。

For decades, American hiring and admissions have been distorted by a legal and bureaucratic regime that promised equal treatment while repeatedly rewarding institutions for sorting people by race and sex. The Civil Rights Act itself does not exclude white men; Title VII protects employees from discrimination because of race and sex regardless of which race or sex they are. But affirmative action rules, consent decrees, diversity mandates, contracting preferences, and institutional risk management created powerful incentives to treat demographic categories differently. Incentives shape behavior. Universities, Fortune 500 companies, government agencies, and nonprofits learned to fear discrimination claims, bad publicity, activist campaigns, and regulatory scrutiny. Long before “wokeness” became a corporate religion, lawyers and compliance departments were already teaching institutions to think in terms of protected groups, disparate impact, representation targets, and litigation exposure. Support me and this channel by subscribing to BlazeTV Today and Get $20 off your annual subscription: https://blazetv.com/Auron Follow on: Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-auron-macintyre-show/id1657770114 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3S6z4LBs8Fi7COupy7YYuM?si=4d9662cb34d148af Substack: https://auronmacintyre.substack.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre Gab: https://gab.com/AuronMacIntyre YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/c/AuronMacIntyre Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390155 Odysee: https://odysee.com/@AuronMacIntyre:f Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/auronmacintyre/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech is celebrated every year on August 28, marking the historic day in 1963 when he addressed more than 250,000 people during the March on Washington from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. This massive peaceful turnout helped pave the way for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Codex 5.1 MLK books available at https://amzn.to/49zwY32 Civil Rights books available at https://amzn.to/4q0jbJf Inquisikids products available at https://amzn.to/49ZRrhV ENJOY Ad-Free content, Bonus episodes, and Extra materials when joining our growing community on https://patreon.com/markvinet SUPPORT this channel by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3POlrUD (Amazon gives us credit at NO extra charge to you). Mark Vinet's HISTORICAL JESUS podcast at https://parthenonpodcast.com/historical-jesus Mark's TIMELINE video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9 X (twitter): https://twitter.com/MarkVinet_HNA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels Mark's books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM Audio credits: Inquisikids Daily 15jan2024 Who Was Martin Luther King Jr.?; I Have a Dream speech by Martin Luther King Jr. (Archive.org). Audio excerpts reproduced under the Fair Use (Fair Dealings) Legal Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, education, scholarship, research and news reporting.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech is celebrated every year on August 28, marking the historic day in 1963 when he addressed more than 250,000 people during the March on Washington from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. This massive peaceful turnout helped pave the way for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Codex 5.2 MLK books available at https://amzn.to/49zwY32 Civil Rights books available at https://amzn.to/4q0jbJf Inquisikids products available at https://amzn.to/49ZRrhV ENJOY Ad-Free content, Bonus episodes, and Extra materials when joining our growing community on https://patreon.com/markvinet SUPPORT this channel by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3POlrUD (Amazon gives us credit at NO extra charge to you). Mark Vinet's HISTORICAL JESUS podcast at https://parthenonpodcast.com/historical-jesus Mark's TIMELINE video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9 X (twitter): https://twitter.com/MarkVinet_HNA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels Mark's books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM Audio credits: Inquisikids Daily 15jan2024 Who Was Martin Luther King Jr.?; I Have a Dream speech by Martin Luther King Jr. (Archive.org). Audio excerpts reproduced under the Fair Use (Fair Dealings) Legal Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, education, scholarship, research and news reporting.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: The Murder of Emmett TillOn August 28, 1955, fourteen-year-old Emmett Till was abducted, tortured, and murdered in the Mississippi Delta by two white men, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, after Till—a Black teenager visiting from Chicago—was accused of offending a white woman in a grocery store. His killers beat him, shot him, weighted his body, and threw it in the Tallahatchie River. He was a child, and his murder, and what came after, helped ignite the modern civil rights movement.The legal story is one of justice utterly failing, and then, slowly, refusing to disappear. Bryant and Milam were tried the next month in a segregated Mississippi courtroom. The trial lasted five days; the all-white, all-male jury deliberated for barely an hour before acquitting both men, with one juror later saying it wouldn't have taken that long if they hadn't stopped for a soda. Protected by double jeopardy, the two men then sold their confession to a magazine for a few thousand dollars, describing in detail how they'd killed the boy they had just been acquitted of murdering. It was one of the starkest demonstrations imaginable that the machinery of Southern justice was not built to deliver justice to Black victims.The significance of August 28, 1955 reaches across the decades. Emmett's mother, Mamie Till-Mobley, made the searing decision to hold an open-casket funeral and let the world photograph her son. That act of witness galvanized a generation. And there is a haunting piece of calendar symmetry worth honoring: exactly eight years later, on August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. stood at the Lincoln Memorial and delivered the “I Have a Dream” speech to the March on Washington. The law eventually, partially, caught up—the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and, only in 2022, a federal anti-lynching law that bears Emmett Till's name. It's a reminder that some of the most important developments in American law began not in a courtroom win, but in a courtroom failure so profound that the country could not look away.The brothers Andrew and Tristan Tate were back in a Miami federal courtroom this week, shackled, asking a judge to release them on bond while they fight extradition to the United Kingdom. The two, who have built a massive and controversial online following, have been held in a federal detention center since their July arrest on U.K. rape and sex-trafficking charges. Their lawyers made a pointed argument: if Romania, where the brothers face a separate sex-crimes case, is willing to let them remain free pending those proceedings, then a U.S. court should free them too—especially since, they argue, two of the most recognizable men on the internet can't exactly disappear. Prosecutors pushed back hard, and here the law is decidedly against the Tates. In ordinary criminal cases, release pending trial is the norm. But international extradition is different: there is a strong, long-standing presumption against bail, rooted in the idea that the United States has a treaty obligation to actually produce the person for the requesting country, and that letting an extradition target go free risks a diplomatic and legal failure if they flee. Courts generally require “special circumstances” to grant bail in an extradition case—a demanding standard—and prosecutors noted the brothers have money and have bragged about holding multiple passports. Legal experts quoted in the coverage thought it unlikely they'd win release. The significance is a useful window into a corner of the law most people never see: that fighting extradition is not like fighting ordinary charges, and the presumption of liberty that normally protects defendants is largely flipped when a foreign government is waiting to prosecute.Tate brothers press for release from US jail during extradition fight | ReutersPBS NewsHour · NPRA federal appeals court has cleared a significant hurdle for Bayer's $7.25 billion settlement of tens of thousands of Roundup cancer claims. The Eighth Circuit dismissed a challenge by a group of objecting plaintiffs who were trying to derail the deal—and the fight was about forum, which sounds dry but matters enormously in mass litigation. Bayer structured this as a class-action settlement in Missouri state court, an unusual move: it's using a single state-court proceeding to try to resolve claims nationwide. The objectors argued that a state court has no business fast-tracking a nationwide resolution, and that the whole thing belongs in front of the federal judge already overseeing the consolidated federal Roundup litigation. A federal judge ruled in June that the case could stay in Missouri state court, and now the Eighth Circuit has agreed, dismissing the appeal. Why does the forum matter so much? Because a settlement that binds a nationwide class of people—including people who haven't actively participated—raises real due-process questions about whether a single state court can bind absent claimants across the country, and because plaintiffs and defendants often have strong strategic preferences about which court, and which rules, govern a mega-settlement. This connects to the Bayer story we covered earlier this summer, when the Supreme Court handed the company a big win on failure-to-warn claims; this settlement is the other half of Bayer's campaign to finally contain a decade of Roundup litigation. A hearing to approve the deal is set for September 14, with roughly 65,000 claims hanging in the balance. The significance is that Bayer is close to buying its way out of a liability that has dogged it for years—and the courts just removed one of the last procedural obstacles.US court dismisses appeal over objections to $7.25 billion Roundup deal | ReutersRTÉ · Maryland Daily RecordAnd finally—though this is anything but a footnote—the biggest story of the week, and arguably the summer: Meta has agreed to pay up to $18 billion and fundamentally change how its apps work for teenagers, settling the landmark case accusing it of designing Facebook and Instagram to addict children. This is the resolution of the very trial we watched begin just ten days ago—the 29-state case in Oakland, with the whistleblower testimony from Arturo Bejar. Rather than let it run to a verdict, Meta settled, and the numbers are staggering: more than $17.6 billion to 48 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the territories, plus another $459 million to resolve privacy claims tied to the old Cambridge Analytica scandal. But the money may be the less important part. For the next decade, Meta has agreed to concrete design changes: teens will be capped at two hours a day on the apps, and blocked from using them between midnight and 6 a.m. without a parent's consent. And in a clever pressure mechanism, part of the payout is contingent on whether YouTube and TikTok adopt similar protections—effectively using this settlement to try to move the whole industry. Everything we've tracked all summer led here: the New Mexico verdict, the Tennessee trial, the bellwether cases, the Ninth Circuit clearing these suits past Section 230. This is the reckoning arriving. It still needs approval from Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over the trial, but if it holds, it's one of the largest consumer-protection settlements in American history—and, more consequentially, the first time a court-supervised deal will reach inside these platforms and re-engineer them for the safety of kids. The era of treating social media's effect on children as an unregulated externality may have just ended, not with a verdict, but with $18 billion and a clock that shuts the app off at midnight.Meta reaches $18 billion of settlements over children's social media addiction | ReutersCNN · Al Jazeera 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

(0:00) Eric Weinstein joins the show! (03:09) Has American science stalled? Cowboy science, Fauci, and the scientific precariat (21:31) Weinstein's fix: Blow a hole in the Civil Rights Act, kill peer review, fund people not ideas (41:36) Ed Witten drove physics off a cliff, and is Renaissance Technologies a secret Los Alamos? (52:49) Boom, Vroom, Zoom: Did stagnant physics save the human species? (01:07:11) UAPs, multi-temporal adversaries, and Einstein's prison (01:16:12) China poaches our best scientists, AI reads the trash can corpus   Thanks to our partners for making this possible!   Starting a business? Northwest Registered Agent gives you everything you need to build a complete Business Identity including free tools and built-in privacy. Get more at https://www.northwestregisteredagent.com/ALLINFREE    With over nine million acres protected across all fifty states, The Conservation Fund secures the irreplaceable lands we love. Learn more at http://conservationfund.org   Follow Eric: https://x.com/ericweinstein   Follow the besties:  https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg   Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod   Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod   Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@allin   Follow on LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod   Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg   Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect #allin #tech #news  

After an April executive order by the Trump administration, the Department of Education has taken the stance that considering race in school discipline violates the Civil Rights Act.

This Day in Legal History: The Nineteenth Amendment Is RatifiedOn August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty-sixth state to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment—the final state needed to reach the three-quarters threshold—and with that vote, the constitutional guarantee that the right to vote could not be denied on account of sex became part of American law. It enfranchised, at a stroke, roughly half the adult population of the United States.The story of how it happened is almost unbelievably close. Tennessee's state senate had ratified comfortably, but the house was deadlocked, tied 48 to 48. The decisive vote belonged to a 24-year-old representative named Harry Burn, who had a red rose on his lapel signaling opposition to the amendment—and a letter in his pocket from his mother, Phoebe, urging him to “be a good boy” and vote for suffrage. He did. His single vote broke the tie, Tennessee ratified, and the amendment was certified into the Constitution days later. A generational struggle turned, in the end, on a young man listening to his mother.The significance of August 18, 1920 is best understood as the payoff to a story we told on this show back in July. When we covered the Seneca Falls Convention and its 1848 Declaration of Sentiments—the founding document of the American women's rights movement, which dared to demand the vote—I noted that it would take seventy-two years to win the ballot. This is that day. The distance from Seneca Falls to Nashville is the distance from a bold, ridiculed demand to a line in the Constitution. And like the Fifteenth Amendment before it, the Nineteenth didn't instantly deliver on its promise—many women of color, in particular, remained effectively disenfranchised for decades until the Voting Rights Act. But it permanently changed who “the people” are in a democracy. It's a reminder, on a day full of stories about the law's unfinished business, that some of the most fundamental rights we now take for granted were won slowly, against fierce resistance, and sometimes by a single vote.A landmark trial has begun in California federal court that could reshape the most popular apps on the planet: a bipartisan coalition of 29 states has put Meta on trial, alleging it deliberately designed Instagram and Facebook to addict and harm children. This is the big one we've been building toward all summer—the federal counterpart to the state cases in New Mexico and Tennessee. The states, led by Colorado, California, New Jersey, and Kentucky, told the court that Meta engineered features like infinite scrolling, notifications, “likes,” visual filters, and algorithmic recommendations to drive compulsive use, and misled the public about the platforms' safety for young people. Here's an important procedural wrinkle: while there's an eight-person jury in Oakland, it's serving only in an advisory capacity—the case will ultimately be decided by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. That's because this is largely an equitable case, and what the states are really after isn't just money but sweeping changes to how the platforms work: stronger age verification, restrictions on algorithms trained on children's data, limits on notifications, and the removal of features like infinite scroll. On damages, Meta itself has floated the staggering figure of $1.4 trillion as its potential exposure, though the states haven't named a number and legal experts consider an award anywhere near that scale unlikely. The significance is that this trial could force concrete, structural redesign of Instagram and Facebook for young users—not a settlement negotiated in private, but a judge's findings after a public trial. Everything we've tracked, from the multistate penalties to the New Mexico verdict to the Ninth Circuit clearing these suits, has been leading here. This is where the social-media reckoning gets its fullest public airing yet. Meta faces 29-state trial that could reshape Instagram and Facebook | ReutersYahoo Finance · anewsThe Justice Department has opened a civil-rights investigation into the College of William & Mary, alleging the Virginia public university runs scholarship and mentorship programs that unlawfully discriminate in favor of minority students. The Department's Civil Rights Division announced a “compliance review” under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act—which bars race discrimination by institutions that receive federal funding—targeting several specific programs: a fellowship in the education school that gives preference to Hispanic or Latina women with financial need, a doctoral mentorship program for “future education leaders of color,” and a law-school scholarship program. Here's the legal backdrop that makes this a national trend and not a one-off. After the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ended race-conscious admissions, the fight didn't end—it moved. The administration is now using Title VI to argue that race-conscious scholarships, fellowships, and pipeline programs are themselves a form of unlawful discrimination, framing programs designed to expand opportunity for underrepresented groups as illegal “discrimination in favor of minorities.” Supporters of these programs say they're lawful efforts to remedy historic exclusion and build diverse professions; critics say any use of race, even to help, runs afoul of the post-SFFA legal landscape. It's worth being precise: this is a compliance review, an investigation, not yet a lawsuit or a finding of wrongdoing. The significance is that this is part of a systematic campaign we've tracked against universities—from Harvard to Columbia—and it signals that the enforcement frontier after affirmative action has shifted from the admissions office to the financial-aid office. Every race-conscious scholarship in the country is now, potentially, a legal target. DOJ probes College of William & Mary alleging discrimination in favor of minorities | ReutersBloomberg · Fox NewsA federal judge has ordered the release of a woman charged with vandalizing the World War II Memorial in Washington—and the top federal prosecutor there, Jeanine Pirro, is not happy about it. The defendant, 41-year-old Melissa Farris of Kentucky, was arrested last week and charged with two felony counts after the memorial's fountain was filled with soap suds and the words “Clean hands Dirty $” were spray-painted across a surface in red and green. A judge ordered her released on conditions—surrendering her passport and not leaving the continental U.S. without approval—and Pirro publicly criticized that decision. Let's unpack the legal pieces, because there are two distinct ones. First, pretrial release: in the American system, the default is that a defendant awaiting trial should be released unless the government shows they're a flight risk or a danger, with conditions used to manage any risk. A judge ordering release with conditions is the system working as designed—the presumption of innocence is not an empty phrase—even when a prosecutor would prefer detention. Second, the underlying conduct: Farris reportedly said on social media that she acted to protest tax dollars not being spent on ordinary Americans and alleged corporate wrongdoing. But political motivation doesn't convert property destruction into protected speech—you can hold the message and still prosecute the spray paint. The significance ties into a thread we've followed: this is the same U.S. Attorney, Jeanine Pirro, at the center of the Reflecting Pool saga, again clashing over how a memorial-vandalism case should be handled—this time frustrated that a judge released a defendant rather than that a case was dropped. A preliminary hearing is set for September 3, and it's a reminder that the everyday machinery of bail and pretrial release keeps operating regardless of how politically charged the underlying act may be. US judge orders release of woman accused of vandalism at World War Two Memorial | ReutersWashington Post · CBS NewsAnd finally, in my column this week, I take on a well-intentioned proposal to tax artificial intelligence in order to help the workers it displaces—and argue that, while the instinct is right, the mechanism is wrong. The proposal in question is Representative Greg Casar's AI Tax and Work Protection Act. Its premise is sound: if firms are capturing the gains from replacing human workers with AI while pushing the costs—unemployment, lost tax revenue—onto workers and society, those costs look like an externality, the same way pollution does. And we tax externalities all the time: cigarettes, gasoline, carbon. So taxing AI to fund worker protections is a reasonable idea in principle.My problem is with the particulars. Casar's bill doesn't actually tax worker displacement—it taxes AI “tokens,” the technical units of AI computation, with the rate keyed to the unemployment rate. That creates an appealing feedback loop on paper: as AI drives up unemployment, the tax rises and generates more money to put people back to work. But it asks the Treasury to do two things it's genuinely bad at. First, it has to figure out, in real time and on a political calendar, how much of any given rise in unemployment is actually caused by AI, as opposed to a recession, a pandemic, or a war. That's a causal judgment the tax code has no machinery for. Second, and worse, it has to put a stable dollar value on a “token”—an unstable, non-standardized unit that spans text, code, images, audio, and video, and isn't sold in any clean arm's-length market. You're trying to tax the meter, and the meter doesn't have a reliable price.So here's the alternative I argue for: instead of taxing AI use, give the public an equity stake in the companies that capture AI's gains—let the government own a piece of the franchise rather than tax the meter. This isn't as exotic as it sounds; scholars like Jeremy Bearer-Friend and Sarah Polcz have proposed having AI firms pay tax in kind, transferring equity rather than cash, and Senator Sanders has floated a far more aggressive version—a 50% stake funding a sovereign wealth fund. My point is that you don't have to go to 50% to adopt the underlying architecture. Equity is a better proxy than token usage: it scales with the actual size of the economic reallocation AI produces, and it only asks the government to value a company once, rather than to price billions of individual computations or adjudicate whether a particular prompt cost a particular job. If AI merely augments workers and produces modest gains, the public's share stays modest; if it produces extraordinary gains, the public shares in the upside. A smaller equity assessment on the largest firms, held through an independently managed vehicle, would let the public participate in AI's wealth without handing a shrunken Treasury an impossible measurement problem. The instinct to make sure the public benefits from AI is exactly right—we should just own a piece of the thing, not tax the ticker. Taxing AI to Help Workers Sounds Good, But Public Deserves More | Bloomberg Tax 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

2 Hours and 27 MinutesPG-13This is a re-release of episodes:Episode 831: How the 'Civil Rights Regime' Was Enshrined w/ Ryan TurnipseedEpisode 905: The Civil Rights Act and Its Consequences w/ Gregory HoodEnshrining the Civil Rights RegimeRyan's Find My Frens PageGreg at American RenaissanceThe Age of Entitlement: America Since the SixtiesPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, recently referred to the Trump Administration as an "invasive species" in a speech in a church. Seth highlights the contributions of Republicans to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the irony of Democrats accusing Republicans of being racist, the concept of "woke" culture and how it has become a divisive issue in American society. Happy Birthday Buck Owens! We’re joined by Don Spini from Sun Valley Wealth. Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley has won the Democratic nomination for Wisconsin governor, defeating Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidate Francesa Hong.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Britain's Last ExecutionsOn August 13, 1964, two men—Peter Anthony Allen and Gwynne Owen Evans—were hanged simultaneously in two different English prisons for the murder of a man during a robbery. They were the last people ever executed in the United Kingdom. Evans died at Strangeways Prison in Manchester and Allen at Walton Prison in Liverpool, both at eight in the morning, and with them, centuries of capital punishment in Britain came quietly to an end.Neither man knew he was making history; the abolition of the death penalty wasn't yet law. But the machinery of change was already turning. The very next year, in 1965, Parliament passed the Murder Act, which suspended the death penalty for murder for a trial period of five years. In 1969, Parliament made that suspension permanent for England, Scotland, and Wales. The death penalty lingered on the books for a handful of exotic offenses—treason, piracy with violence, certain military crimes—until it was finally abolished completely in 1998, bringing British law into line with the European Convention on Human Rights.The significance of August 13, 1964 is sharpened by contrast. Britain reached the end of capital punishment through ordinary legislation, and much of Europe followed a similar path, treating abolition as a basic human-rights commitment. The United States took the opposite fork: the Supreme Court briefly halted the death penalty in 1972 in Furman v. Georgia, only to allow it back four years later in Gregg v. Georgia, and capital punishment remains part of American law today, administered by the federal government and a number of states. So this anniversary is a useful mirror—a reminder that two closely related legal systems, working from a shared common-law inheritance, reached opposite conclusions on one of the deepest questions a legal system can face: whether the state should ever have the power to take a life. That's the question our opening quote, from Bryan Stevenson, puts squarely on the table.The law firm Motley Rice is in line for a payday of more than $67 million—its fee for winning New Mexico's sprawling case against Meta. We covered the underlying result: a judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a teen mental-health fund, on top of $375 million in civil penalties a jury imposed in March, bringing New Mexico's potential recovery to more than $942 million. Motley Rice represented the state on contingency, and under its contract it can seek a sliding-scale cut—20% of the first $50 million recovered, scaling down to 5% on amounts over $250 million—which works out to roughly 7% of the total, or about $67 million. Here's the practice-of-law angle worth understanding. States increasingly hire private plaintiffs' firms to bring these massive cases because they don't have the in-house firepower to go toe-to-toe with a company like Meta and its armies of lawyers. The firm fronts the enormous cost and risk of years of litigation in exchange for a percentage if it wins—the same model that produced the giant tobacco settlements of the 1990s, in which Motley Rice was a central player. Supporters say it lets under-resourced states take on deep-pocketed defendants they otherwise couldn't touch; critics say it hands public law-enforcement power to private firms with a profit motive. The significance is that this is the economic engine behind the whole wave of state social-media litigation we've been tracking. The fee comes out of New Mexico's recovery, and it only gets paid after appeals conclude—and Meta has said it will appeal—so the number, like the verdict, isn't final. But it's a rare, concrete look at the money that makes this kind of public-interest litigation actually happen. Law firm Motley Rice's fee for Meta case in New Mexico could top $67 million | ReuterAlbuquerque Journal · JD JournalTwo press-freedom organizations—The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation—have sued in Manhattan federal court to shut down a Trump Media service that sells wealthy subscribers early access to President Trump's social media posts. The service, called Truth API, launched August 1 and charges up to $100,000 a month for a faster feed of ten high-profile Truth Social accounts, including the president's own. The legal concern at the heart of the suit is a specific and serious one: Trump's posts routinely move financial markets—an announcement about tariffs or a company can send stocks lurching—and a paid feed that delivers those posts to deep-pocketed subscribers before the general public gives those subscribers a head start to trade on market-moving information. In other words, it potentially creates a two-tiered market in the president's words, where those who can pay six figures a month get to act on presidential statements seconds or minutes before everyone else. That's the kind of information asymmetry securities law generally frowns on. The service drew scrutiny fast—Senators Elizabeth Warren and Adam Schiff had already called for a government investigation days before this suit. It's also legally novel: the plaintiffs are press-freedom groups, framing public access to a president's official-ish communications as a matter of public interest, which raises interesting questions about their theory and standing. The significance is that this sits at a genuinely new intersection—of a president who governs partly through market-moving social media posts, the business incentive to monetize that, and a securities and public-information framework that never contemplated selling early access to the president's feed. However the case comes out, it's a preview of the strange legal questions created when official speech becomes a paid product. Trump sued over service that offers paid early access to Truth Social posts | ReutersWashington Post · NPRA group of current and former Palestinian students and staff have sued Columbia University, alleging that the school discriminated against its Palestinian community over the past two years. According to the complaint filed in New York, the plaintiffs say Columbia failed to protect Palestinian members from harassment, subjected them to what they call “unfair and biased disciplinary hearings,” and “actively participated in and amplified” what they describe as racially, ethnically, and politically motivated targeting of Palestinians on campus. The legal vehicle here is worth understanding, because it's the same one being wielded on multiple sides of the campus fights. Civil-rights law—principally Title VI of the Civil Rights Act—bars institutions that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. We've seen Title VI invoked against universities over allegations of antisemitism, and we've seen the Justice Department use it to pressure schools like Harvard. Here, Palestinian and Arab plaintiffs are invoking that same framework to allege discrimination against them. The context matters: Columbia suspended more than 65 students last year over a pro-Palestinian protest that shut down its main library, and it agreed to pay the federal government over $200 million to resolve federal probes and restore funding. Columbia has denied discriminating and says it condemns hate, and it declined to comment on the pending litigation. To be clear, these are allegations in a complaint, not proven facts, and I'm not weighing in on the underlying political conflict. The significance is legal and institutional: universities are now being sued from opposite directions under the very same civil-rights statute, and Columbia in particular finds itself squeezed between federal enforcers, one set of students, and another—each claiming the protection of Title VI. It's a vivid illustration of how anti-discrimination law becomes the battleground when a campus fractures. Palestinian students and staff sue Columbia University alleging discrimination | ReutersUS News · Middle East Eye 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

August 6, 2026On August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, In 1865, Americans ratified the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, outlawing enslavement except as punishment for crimes, In subsequent years, with the ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, citizenship was guaranteed to anyone born or naturalized in the US (except certain Indigenous Americans) and the right to vote was extended to Black men, These amendments gave Congress the power to enforce them, In response, white opponents hindered the ability of Black men to vote, Opposition did not gain traction until after WWII, when judges used the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to argue that states could not deprive any American of equality, Under pressure from President Dwight D Eisenhower, Congress passed civil rights acts in 1957 and 1960, and in 1964 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which strengthened voting rights, In 1965, the Voting Rights Act became law, It was reauthorized repeatedly by large margins, but in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the provision of the law requiring that states with a history of discrimination get approval before changing voting laws, The assault on the Voting Rights Act continued in 2026, after the decision in Louisiana v Callais, The gap between white and Black voter turnout in the 2024 election was the highest since at least 2008.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

We break down Tuesday’s key Democratic primary races in Missouri and Michigan, featuring renowned Economist Dr. Julian Malveaux. Dr. Malveaux will offer expert insights into the results and explain how they could impact the upcoming General elections—knowledge you can’t afford to miss if you care about your vote and your voice. We’re also honored to welcome Baltimore Civil Rights leader Carl Snowden, who will provide his unique perspective on the week’s events and commemorate the historic anniversary of the 1965 Civil Rights Act—a milestone that continues to inspire the fight for justice today. Before diving into politics, don’t miss a special panel led by Sister Pam Africa from the MOVE organization, focusing on the urgent campaign to free political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal. This is more than just talk radio—it’s a call to action and a forum for ideas that can move our community forward.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Week: A superintendent in Massachusetts has put out a fascinating take on a revision to the ubiquitous Bloom's Taxonomy, the helpful tool which has defined orders of thinking for decades in education. In the age of AI, he claims, the hierarchical nature of Bloom's no longer reflects the more complex arc of thinking students will do in a world where humans think with AI. It's an interesting take, and solidly sidesteps all of the most perilous ramifications of the rush to bring AI into the classroom.  Plus, the confederates in charge of the federal government made it official this week. The US Dept of Education will no longer use “disparate impact” as criteria for holding state, districts, or schools accountable for compliance with the Title XI of the Civil RIghts Act of 1964, effectively gutting the landmark legislation. Now, short of having a smoking gun, or video evidence of officials spewing epithets, it will be virtually impossible for plaintiffs to seek federal relief from systemically racist practices in America's schools. Manuel and Jeff discuss.  All of the Above sends our condolences to the family, friends, and loved ones of noted Denver educator and co-host of the Too Dope Teachers and Mic podcast, Kevin Adams.  Check out this beautiful profile of Kevin in NEA Today, and his first appearance with us on All of the Above back in 2020. Rest in peace and power Kevin!All of the Above was named #30 on the Best 100 Education Podcasts in the US by MillionPodcasts.com. Check us out, like, subscribe, and drop a rating :) MAXIMUM WOKENESS ALERT -- get your All of the Above swag, including your own “Teach the Truth” shirt! In this moment of relentless attacks on teaching truth in the classroom, we got you covered. https://all-of-the-above-store.creator-spring.com Watch, listen and subscribe to make sure you don't miss our latest content!Listen on Apple Podcast and Spotify Website: https://AOTAshow.com

Social media is everywhere today. Ever wonder how the role social media plays into the employer/employee relationship? In this episode, guests Aaron Holt and SaNni M-K Lemonidis, both experienced labor and employment attorneys, join host Matt Greer for a deep dive into the murky waters of who said what where and to whom. Can employers regulate what an employee says on a social media channel – say Facebook or X? It depends. The “manner and method” of our free speech outside of work still matters. It's about content and context. Harassment and discrimination matter still matter. Try the “water cooler principle,” if  a comment was made on social media, ask if the same comment was made at work around the water cooler, would the boss feel obligated to act. If the answer is yes, then action is likely required. This is a fascinating field, nuanced and sometimes dependent on the size of a company and capacity for control as well, as the company's own use of social media in outreach and marketing. The laws, and EEOC guidance, haven't changed. But the environment we live and work in has. Basic principles still apply. For employees, be nice to each other. For employers, do your best to ensure no one is being harassed or bullied. If someone says there's a problem, employers can protect themselves by investigating complaints and developing and adhering to consistent policies. REFERENCES MENTIONED:  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 NLRB v. Pier Sixty, Justia Law Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  Okonowsky v. Garland, Justia Law  Connick v. Myers, Justia Law  The ABA Labor and Employment Law Section 2026 Annual Conference is scheduled for Nov. 4-7, 2026 in Washington, DC ABA Labor and Employment Law Section Subscribe to ABA Labor and Employment Law Podcast: https://play.megaphone.fm/jzfpgfsst3wnyevnhvs9cq

What Does the Confederacy's Legacy Mean for the Modern South and Christian America?   Host Curtis Chang and New York Times columnist, and Good Faith podcast "founding friend," David French confront the enduring power of the Confederate myth. David reflects on growing up as a white Southerner in a culture shaped by Confederate symbols, revisionist history, racial injustice, and a deeply rooted shame-and-honor code. Curtis, a Chinese American immigrant, brings an outsider's perspective that challenges familiar assumptions about heritage, memory, and belonging. Together, they examine Confederate monuments, the theological defenses of slavery, the meaning of "heritage, not hate," and whether honest historical reckoning can lead to redemption and reconciliation.   02:51 - Curtis Congratulates David on the Birth of His Latest Grandchild 05:54 - Why Does the Confederacy Still Matter? 10:12 - The South's Distinct Cultural Cohesion 22:19 - "Heritage, Not Hate": A White Southern Perspective 29:52 - Race, Religion, and Revisionism in the South 42:13 - The Resurgence of Explicit Racism 47:20 - What to Do with Confederate Memorials 56:32 - Repenting of Southern Shame-Honor Culture 01:01:32 - Institutions Founded on Injustice Can Carry Spiritual Darkness   Sign up for The After Party Informational Webinars Sign up for The Good List   Mentioned in This Episode: Learn about the Tulsa Race Massacre Learn about The Great Migration Watch MLK50 Conference (video) More about General George H. Thomas More about the Southern Baptist Convention and slavery What is Kinism More about the South's resistance to Reconstruction Read the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Watch: Selma and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (video)   Scriptures: Ephesians 6:12 (ESV) Colossians 2:15 (ESV) Luke 10:25–37 (ESV) Matthew 20:16 (ESV) Matthew 10:39 (ESV)   More From David French: David French's New York Times pieces HERE Follow David French on Threads   Follow Us: Good Faith on Instagram Good Faith on X (formerly Twitter) Good Faith on Facebook   The Good Faith Podcast is a production of a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan organization that does not engage in any political campaign activity to support or oppose any candidate for public office. Any views and opinions expressed by any guests on this program are solely those of the individuals and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of Good Faith.

Julia Azari, Professor of Political Science at Marquette University, has a new, award-winning[*] book centering on the connection between race and the American presidency, specifically in the reaction to presidents who made progress on the issue of race in the United States. Backlash Presidents: From Transformative to Reactionary Leaders in American History focuses on four different periods in American political history and a number of different presidential administrations including: Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Donald J. Trump. Race and the American presidency are not usually topics that are looped together, and this is also part of the point that Azari is making in the book, since presidents often try to elide racial politics and policy issues. Race is also not usually connected to presidential impeachments, but this is yet another key point that Azari raises, connecting racial progress, the backlash responses, and the subsequent impeachments. In noting these connections, Azari threads examples over time where presidents directly confronted race in American politics, working towards more racial equality, and how these efforts also prompt a backlash response. The key case studies in Backlash Presidents are Abraham Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War in the 1860s, Lyndon Johnson's efforts in the 1960s in regard to the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, as well as anti-poverty legislation, and finally Barack Obama as the first Black president of the United States, which was both symbolic and structural. Backlash Presidents traces not only the progress made during these administrations, but also the responses that followed in the subsequent administrations. It is these next administrations, of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Donald Trump, where each of these presidents were either impeached or were about to be impeached, and how this dynamic pulls together a variety of different threads to help us to understand presidential politics, institutional development, and American political history all in context of the question of race. Azari's research is connected to the idea of political time, but with the important addition of pulling out the problem of race in the United States. Backlash Presidents contributes to our thinking about not only the time and context of presidents and their administrations, but also to thinking about what it is that presidents do to politics itself. Part of this analysis also interrogates populism, positioning these movements within the context of racial backlash, while also building out the understanding of the president's position within his own party, especially during these fraught periods. In each of the key examples, Azari highlights the ways in which Johnson, Nixon, and Trump were outsiders to what was going on inside their parties—in each case the Republican Party at the time—and how these shifting partisan foundations opened up different kinds of vulnerabilities for these presidents. In each of the case studies, there is also the discussion of the role that the U.S. Congress plays, since they are the actors who move towards impeaching and trying the president. Members of the House of Representatives need to move beyond constraints in order to impeach a president, and in these instances, they have concluded that the president is not correct in some basic and meaningful way, that the president is not upholding his oath of office, and is also undermining the forward movement on race and racial equality. Backlash Presidents: From Transformation to Reactionary Leaders in American History is a deeply researched analysis, with important historical context and details to help flesh out the particular time period under consideration. The examination is further complicated and built out with important understandings of party politics in the United States, and how president fits into their political party, or may be seen as an outsider. Racial dynamics in the United States undergirds the entire theory, and helps us see the tensions within partisan politics, presidential politics, and American democracy. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022), and of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social [*] The Presidents and Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association awarded Backlash Presidents the 2025 Richard E. Neustadt Best Book Award, given for the best book on executive politics published during the year. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Julia Azari, Professor of Political Science at Marquette University, has a new, award-winning[*] book centering on the connection between race and the American presidency, specifically in the reaction to presidents who made progress on the issue of race in the United States. Backlash Presidents: From Transformative to Reactionary Leaders in American History focuses on four different periods in American political history and a number of different presidential administrations including: Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Donald J. Trump. Race and the American presidency are not usually topics that are looped together, and this is also part of the point that Azari is making in the book, since presidents often try to elide racial politics and policy issues. Race is also not usually connected to presidential impeachments, but this is yet another key point that Azari raises, connecting racial progress, the backlash responses, and the subsequent impeachments. In noting these connections, Azari threads examples over time where presidents directly confronted race in American politics, working towards more racial equality, and how these efforts also prompt a backlash response. The key case studies in Backlash Presidents are Abraham Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War in the 1860s, Lyndon Johnson's efforts in the 1960s in regard to the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, as well as anti-poverty legislation, and finally Barack Obama as the first Black president of the United States, which was both symbolic and structural. Backlash Presidents traces not only the progress made during these administrations, but also the responses that followed in the subsequent administrations. It is these next administrations, of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Donald Trump, where each of these presidents were either impeached or were about to be impeached, and how this dynamic pulls together a variety of different threads to help us to understand presidential politics, institutional development, and American political history all in context of the question of race. Azari's research is connected to the idea of political time, but with the important addition of pulling out the problem of race in the United States. Backlash Presidents contributes to our thinking about not only the time and context of presidents and their administrations, but also to thinking about what it is that presidents do to politics itself. Part of this analysis also interrogates populism, positioning these movements within the context of racial backlash, while also building out the understanding of the president's position within his own party, especially during these fraught periods. In each of the key examples, Azari highlights the ways in which Johnson, Nixon, and Trump were outsiders to what was going on inside their parties—in each case the Republican Party at the time—and how these shifting partisan foundations opened up different kinds of vulnerabilities for these presidents. In each of the case studies, there is also the discussion of the role that the U.S. Congress plays, since they are the actors who move towards impeaching and trying the president. Members of the House of Representatives need to move beyond constraints in order to impeach a president, and in these instances, they have concluded that the president is not correct in some basic and meaningful way, that the president is not upholding his oath of office, and is also undermining the forward movement on race and racial equality. Backlash Presidents: From Transformation to Reactionary Leaders in American History is a deeply researched analysis, with important historical context and details to help flesh out the particular time period under consideration. The examination is further complicated and built out with important understandings of party politics in the United States, and how president fits into their political party, or may be seen as an outsider. Racial dynamics in the United States undergirds the entire theory, and helps us see the tensions within partisan politics, presidential politics, and American democracy. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022), and of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social [*] The Presidents and Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association awarded Backlash Presidents the 2025 Richard E. Neustadt Best Book Award, given for the best book on executive politics published during the year. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Julia Azari, Professor of Political Science at Marquette University, has a new, award-winning[*] book centering on the connection between race and the American presidency, specifically in the reaction to presidents who made progress on the issue of race in the United States. Backlash Presidents: From Transformative to Reactionary Leaders in American History focuses on four different periods in American political history and a number of different presidential administrations including: Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Donald J. Trump. Race and the American presidency are not usually topics that are looped together, and this is also part of the point that Azari is making in the book, since presidents often try to elide racial politics and policy issues. Race is also not usually connected to presidential impeachments, but this is yet another key point that Azari raises, connecting racial progress, the backlash responses, and the subsequent impeachments. In noting these connections, Azari threads examples over time where presidents directly confronted race in American politics, working towards more racial equality, and how these efforts also prompt a backlash response. The key case studies in Backlash Presidents are Abraham Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War in the 1860s, Lyndon Johnson's efforts in the 1960s in regard to the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, as well as anti-poverty legislation, and finally Barack Obama as the first Black president of the United States, which was both symbolic and structural. Backlash Presidents traces not only the progress made during these administrations, but also the responses that followed in the subsequent administrations. It is these next administrations, of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Donald Trump, where each of these presidents were either impeached or were about to be impeached, and how this dynamic pulls together a variety of different threads to help us to understand presidential politics, institutional development, and American political history all in context of the question of race. Azari's research is connected to the idea of political time, but with the important addition of pulling out the problem of race in the United States. Backlash Presidents contributes to our thinking about not only the time and context of presidents and their administrations, but also to thinking about what it is that presidents do to politics itself. Part of this analysis also interrogates populism, positioning these movements within the context of racial backlash, while also building out the understanding of the president's position within his own party, especially during these fraught periods. In each of the key examples, Azari highlights the ways in which Johnson, Nixon, and Trump were outsiders to what was going on inside their parties—in each case the Republican Party at the time—and how these shifting partisan foundations opened up different kinds of vulnerabilities for these presidents. In each of the case studies, there is also the discussion of the role that the U.S. Congress plays, since they are the actors who move towards impeaching and trying the president. Members of the House of Representatives need to move beyond constraints in order to impeach a president, and in these instances, they have concluded that the president is not correct in some basic and meaningful way, that the president is not upholding his oath of office, and is also undermining the forward movement on race and racial equality. Backlash Presidents: From Transformation to Reactionary Leaders in American History is a deeply researched analysis, with important historical context and details to help flesh out the particular time period under consideration. The examination is further complicated and built out with important understandings of party politics in the United States, and how president fits into their political party, or may be seen as an outsider. Racial dynamics in the United States undergirds the entire theory, and helps us see the tensions within partisan politics, presidential politics, and American democracy. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022), and of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social [*] The Presidents and Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association awarded Backlash Presidents the 2025 Richard E. Neustadt Best Book Award, given for the best book on executive politics published during the year. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Julia Azari, Professor of Political Science at Marquette University, has a new, award-winning[*] book centering on the connection between race and the American presidency, specifically in the reaction to presidents who made progress on the issue of race in the United States. Backlash Presidents: From Transformative to Reactionary Leaders in American History focuses on four different periods in American political history and a number of different presidential administrations including: Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Donald J. Trump. Race and the American presidency are not usually topics that are looped together, and this is also part of the point that Azari is making in the book, since presidents often try to elide racial politics and policy issues. Race is also not usually connected to presidential impeachments, but this is yet another key point that Azari raises, connecting racial progress, the backlash responses, and the subsequent impeachments. In noting these connections, Azari threads examples over time where presidents directly confronted race in American politics, working towards more racial equality, and how these efforts also prompt a backlash response. The key case studies in Backlash Presidents are Abraham Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War in the 1860s, Lyndon Johnson's efforts in the 1960s in regard to the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, as well as anti-poverty legislation, and finally Barack Obama as the first Black president of the United States, which was both symbolic and structural. Backlash Presidents traces not only the progress made during these administrations, but also the responses that followed in the subsequent administrations. It is these next administrations, of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Donald Trump, where each of these presidents were either impeached or were about to be impeached, and how this dynamic pulls together a variety of different threads to help us to understand presidential politics, institutional development, and American political history all in context of the question of race. Azari's research is connected to the idea of political time, but with the important addition of pulling out the problem of race in the United States. Backlash Presidents contributes to our thinking about not only the time and context of presidents and their administrations, but also to thinking about what it is that presidents do to politics itself. Part of this analysis also interrogates populism, positioning these movements within the context of racial backlash, while also building out the understanding of the president's position within his own party, especially during these fraught periods. In each of the key examples, Azari highlights the ways in which Johnson, Nixon, and Trump were outsiders to what was going on inside their parties—in each case the Republican Party at the time—and how these shifting partisan foundations opened up different kinds of vulnerabilities for these presidents. In each of the case studies, there is also the discussion of the role that the U.S. Congress plays, since they are the actors who move towards impeaching and trying the president. Members of the House of Representatives need to move beyond constraints in order to impeach a president, and in these instances, they have concluded that the president is not correct in some basic and meaningful way, that the president is not upholding his oath of office, and is also undermining the forward movement on race and racial equality. Backlash Presidents: From Transformation to Reactionary Leaders in American History is a deeply researched analysis, with important historical context and details to help flesh out the particular time period under consideration. The examination is further complicated and built out with important understandings of party politics in the United States, and how president fits into their political party, or may be seen as an outsider. Racial dynamics in the United States undergirds the entire theory, and helps us see the tensions within partisan politics, presidential politics, and American democracy. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022), and of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social [*] The Presidents and Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association awarded Backlash Presidents the 2025 Richard E. Neustadt Best Book Award, given for the best book on executive politics published during the year.

This Day in Legal History: The Dodd-Frank ActOn July 21, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the most sweeping overhaul of American financial regulation since the New Deal. It was a direct response to the 2008 financial crisis—the collapse that wiped out trillions in household wealth, toppled storied institutions like Lehman Brothers, and required massive taxpayer bailouts to keep the banking system from failing entirely.Dodd-Frank tried to attack the crisis's root causes on several fronts at once. It created the Financial Stability Oversight Council to watch for systemic risks—the danger that one firm's failure could cascade through the whole economy—and gave regulators new “resolution authority” to wind down failing giants in an orderly way, an attempt to end the problem of banks being “too big to fail.” It imposed the Volcker Rule, restricting banks from making certain speculative bets with depositors' money. It brought the shadowy derivatives market under federal oversight. And, in its most visible legacy, it created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—a new agency dedicated to policing mortgages, credit cards, and other consumer financial products, born largely from an idea championed by then-professor Elizabeth Warren.Dodd-Frank has been contested ever since—fought over in rulemaking, trimmed by later legislation, and litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, including a major case over the constitutionality of the CFPB's structure. But its core significance endures: it represents the country's considered legal judgment that concentrated financial power, left unchecked, poses a systemic danger, and that the answer is robust administrative regulation. It's a fitting anniversary to sit alongside today's news, because so much of what we cover comes back to the same enduring question—how the law should restrain private economic power without strangling the enterprise that power creates.A federal judge has temporarily paused Paramount Skydance's roughly $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, siding for now with a coalition of twelve state attorneys general who sued to stop it. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín issued a fourteen-day temporary restraining order, finding the deal “likely” violates antitrust law. Here's the framework. Antitrust law exists to preserve competition, and one of its central tools is blocking mergers that would concentrate too much market power in a single company. The states, led by California, sued on July 13 arguing that combining these two entertainment giants would create a media behemoth with the power to raise prices across film and television and to squeeze rivals. A temporary restraining order is exactly what it sounds like—a short-term freeze to preserve the status quo while the court takes a harder look; the “likely violates” language signals the states cleared the initial bar of showing they're reasonably likely to succeed. It is not a final ruling that the merger is illegal. The significance is twofold. First, it's a reminder that even after companies strike a deal, they still have to clear the antitrust gauntlet, and state attorneys general—not just federal enforcers—can be the ones holding the gate. Second, the sheer scale here, a hundred-and-ten-billion-dollar combination of major studios and networks, makes this a marquee test of how aggressively courts will scrutinize consolidation in an industry that shapes what Americans watch.Judge orders Paramount to temporarily pause Warner Bros. acquisition | ReutersA federal judge has granted final approval of Anthropic's $1.5 billion settlement with a class of authors who accused the AI company of misusing their books to train its chatbot Claude—the largest known copyright settlement in U.S. history. The deal works out to roughly $3,000 per work across an estimated 500,000 books, split among the authors and publishers who hold the rights. The legal backstory is important, because it's more precise than “AI company pays authors.” The now-retired Judge William Alsup, who first handled the case, drew a careful line: he suggested that training AI on lawfully acquired books could qualify as fair use, but found that Anthropic had violated authors' rights by downloading and storing more than seven million pirated books in a “central library”—copies it obtained illegitimately, regardless of whether they were ultimately used for training. In other words, the core wrong the settlement addresses is the piracy—the acquisition and hoarding of stolen copyrighted works—not simply the act of training itself. The settlement drew objections from some authors who argue it's too small, overpays the plaintiffs' attorneys, or wrongly leaves out certain rights holders, and the judge had to weigh those before signing off. The significance is that this sets a real-world price on one flavor of AI's copyright problem. It doesn't resolve the biggest open question—whether training on copyrighted material is itself lawful—but it establishes that how you got the training data matters enormously, and that building your library out of pirated books can cost you well over a billion dollars.US judge approves Anthropic's $1.5 billion settlement of copyright lawsuit | ReutersAnd finally, the Justice Department has announced a civil-rights probe into Harvard University, this time over its financial aid programs. The Department's Civil Rights Division says it has opened a “compliance review” to determine whether Harvard's China-based financial aid arrangements discriminate on the basis of national origin by steering aid to foreign—presumably Chinese—students in a way that excludes American citizens. The theory rests on an unusual inversion of civil-rights law. Statutes like Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bar recipients of federal funding from discriminating based on national origin, and they've historically been used to protect racial and ethnic minorities. Here the DOJ is deploying that framework to allege discrimination against American-citizen students. The trigger, according to the Department, was an audit of Harvard's foreign-funding disclosures showing the university has received more than $630 million from sources based in China, some of it allegedly earmarked, through donor restrictions, for aid to particular students. Harvard says it's reviewing the letter and will engage with the government. The significance is that this is the latest salvo in a sustained campaign against Harvard and other elite universities, which have faced probes and funding threats over everything from admissions to campus protests. Whatever the merits of this specific allegation, the pattern is what's notable: the machinery of federal civil-rights enforcement being aimed, repeatedly and pointedly, at a handful of institutions the administration has publicly targeted.US DOJ says it is probing Harvard over financial aid programs | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Mark Simone Interviews Author Ann Coulter on Her Latest Article on Birthright Citizenship. The Mark Simone Show July 1, 2026 • 11 min Episode Description They talk about the Supreme Court blocking Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship, which means if you're born in the U.S., you're a citizen, no matter your parents' status. They also get into how college campuses are pushing students to vote for progressive candidates.   Article mentioned- https://anncoulter.com/2026/07/02/dred-scotus/   Dred SCOTUS by Ann Coulter  July 2, 2026  Obviously, the Supreme Court's ruling on anchor babies in Trump v. Barbara is ridiculous. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with the Papist nut and the three witches, has apparently decided the “FREE MONEY” sign on our border was not good enough. We need to give the third world an even bigger incentive to flock here. Henceforth, we will lure illegal aliens with the guarantee of American citizenship for any kids they give birth to on U.S. soil. Welcome Hamas! (And you thought Democratic primaries were already wild!) Inasmuch as no one on TV seems to have bothered reading the opinions, here are a few highlights. 1) Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent is a tour de force. It will go down in history with Justice Benjamin Curtis's dissent in Dred Scott and Justice Frank Murphy's dissent in Korematsu. (It's also a good primer for snowbirds, who plan to avoid state taxes by moving to Florida, on the vital importance and clear legal meaning of “domicile.”) By contrast, Roberts's opinion for the court will go down with Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, finding that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination against transgender employees—a ruling that was so embarrassing it was immediately ignored by everyone, including Gorsuch. That was clear this week, when, for the fourth time since Bostock, the court rejected similar claims by transgenders. 2) I'm sorry to mention that, inasmuch as Gorsuch was on the right side of the anchor baby case. Which reminds me, could the conservatives confidently informing us that anchor babies are required by the constitution (Bill O'Reilly, John Yoo, The Wall Street Journal, etc.) cite a single other case with Roberts on one side and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the other, where Roberts was right? How about that terrific Obamacare ruling, deeply grounded in the text of the constitution? 3) Thomas's central point—appalling to liberals, but true nonetheless—is that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to overrule Dred Scott, which held that black Americans were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Black slaves and freedmen alike, Thomas writes, “were unambiguously Americans. They were not foreigners. They were not aliens. They owed no foreign allegiance.” He quotes Frederick Douglass's plea for the citizenship of blacks: “We address you not as aliens nor as exiles … We are Americans.” In response to Thomas's manifestly obvious point that the Fourteenth Amendment was “enacted … with the one pervading purpose of securing equal citizenship for the freed slaves,” the great legal scholar Justice Ketanji Jackson ripostes: “The teacher who scolds a student for bullying a classmate hopes the student learns the broader lesson of treating everyone with kindness, not just that one kid.” 3) In his 91-page dissent, Thomas cites 42 legal cases, 19 historical letters or diplomatic dispatches, 6 formal Attorney General opinions and 11 statutes, including The Civil Rights Act of 1866, The Expatriation Act of 1868 and the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802. All directly on point. This, Roberts calls “scant evidence.” Whereas he cites a mighty three cases for his majority opinion: an inapposite one from Britain; the opinion of a New York assistant vice chancellor in an 1844 inheritance dispute in New York (BIG, if true); and one, Wong Kim Ark—the “strongest support for today's decision,” as Alito put it—using dubious dicta from a wandering opinion that primarily relied on the parents having been “legally domiciled” in the U.S. when the child was born. Not to be confused with, “living here illegally.” (Or “wintering in Palm Beach.”) It's as if Roberts didn't realize the case was about kids born to illegal aliens. 5) Roberts's weirdest citation is to an 1872 letter from Attorney General George Williams describing Francois Heinrich, a child born to Austrian parents while they were “temporarily residing” in New York City, as having been “originally clothed with American nationality.”

2 Hours and 27 MinutesPG-13This is a re-release of episodes:Episode 831: How the 'Civil Rights Regime' Was Enshrined w/ Ryan TurnipseedEpisode 905: The Civil Rights Act and Its Consequences w/ Gregory HoodEnshrining the Civil Rights RegimeRyan's Find My Frens PageGreg at American RenaissanceThe Age of Entitlement: America Since the SixtiesPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Most readers are familiar with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They are less familiar with the 1957 Civil Rights Act.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/consolidating-federal-power-under-civil-rights-act-1957

Most readers are familiar with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They are less familiar with the 1957 Civil Rights Act.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/consolidating-federal-power-under-civil-rights-act-1957

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, we bring you the best of Mark Levin on Independence Day weekend. Chief Justice Roberts improperly relied on English common law as a basis for birthright citizenship, despite the framers using it only as a guide and rejecting elements that conflicted with the U.S. system. The 14th Amendment and the preceding Civil Rights Act of 1866 were narrowly intended to grant full citizenship rights to freed Black slaves and their children amid post-Civil War resistance—not to address immigration or confer citizenship on children of illegal aliens. The opinion wrongly equates "jurisdiction" with mere physical presence, leading to illogical results like automatic citizenship for babies of illegal immigrants (who retain foreign allegiance) while creating unaddressed exceptions for diplomats, revealing a result-oriented, activist approach that rewrites history. Roberts and his Majority twisted the history of the 14th amendment and just constitutionalized birthright citizenship, knowing full well that our nation, like Europe, is facing a grave threat from within as a result, in part, of the intentional refusal of our government, when the Democrats are in power, to enforce immigration laws and, oppositely, facilitating the importation of aliens from all over the world without proper vetting.   Also, the constitutional amendment process is rarely used. It requires two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress to propose language, followed by ratification by three-fourths (38) of the states—neither of which is feasible for issues like changing birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court has constitutionalized elements not originally in the Constitution, making reversal through amendments impractical. Instead, the effective path is filling Court vacancies with constitutionalists, as achieved in overturning Roe, without resorting to court packing. Afterward, the growing fusion of Marxism and Islamism is a societal cancer, which has been discussed before in American Marxism. The Marxist counterrevolution devours American society, culture, politics, schools, media, and entertainment. The oppressor-oppressed framework fuels the leftist tactics, corporate capitulation and the Marxist-anarchist ideology of Antifa and BLM. Islamists and Marxists have united and they have the same objective: power.  On Power discusses power as a fundamental force shaping human existence, determining social arrangements, quality of life, personal and national fates, and the balance between liberty and tyranny. It is ubiquitous, consequential, and context-dependent, manifesting in various forms like implied, granted, or necessary powers, and inextricably linked to liberty—where its misuse leads to anarchy or oppression. The current enemy within attacks the country through these dynamics. Later, the Persian and Jewish peoples share a historical bond rooted in the reign of Cyrus the Great, the Persian emperor from around 559 to 529 BC. Most notably, he freed the captive Jews exiled by Nebuchadnezzar, allowing them to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their Temple, earning praise in Jewish Scripture as a divinely empowered savior. This ancient connection endures, as Persians today, particularly those oppressed by the Iranian regime, refer to Netanyahu as "the Great Jew," reflecting mutual affinity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

685. Today author Adam J. Smith joins us to talk about his writing. Based in Covington, Adam uses his adopted home state of Louisiana as the backdrop for his fiction. Through his books, readers are introduced to Callier, Louisiana, a seemingly quiet town where deep secrets and unexpected dangers hide just beneath the surface. From the chilling pursuit of a small town killer in The Callier Cutter to the battle against institutional corruption in Your Honor, Smith captures the tension of local mystery. He also writes youth fiction using Callier as a starting point for a fantasy portal to Adventure Land. Smith weaves the unique spirit and pacing of Louisiana life into unforgettable tales of suspense, community, and adventure. Now available: Liberty in Louisiana: A Comedy. The oldest play about Louisiana, author James Workman wrote it as a celebration of the Louisiana Purchase. Now it is back in print for the first time in 222 years. Order your copy today! This week in the Louisiana Anthology. C'lestine Eustis and James Herndon. Cooking in Old Creole Days. Gumbo Filé. (First English recipe). "Put into a casserole (saucepan) a spoonful of pure lard and one of flour, stir it well until it is of a light brown. Chop an onion into small pieces and throw them in. Cut up a fat capon or chicken into small pieces and put these in the casserole with the flour and lard. Stir it all the while until the chicken is nearly done. When the whole is well browned, add a slice of ham, cut up small. Throw in two or three pods of red pepper, and salt to your taste. Now add a quart of boiling water, and leave it on the fire for two hours and a half. A quarter of an hour before dinner is served add three dozen oysters with their liquor. Just before taking the soup off the fire, put in a tablespoonful of filet, stirring it all the while. Let it boil one minute and then serve. Do not put in too much filet; the spoon should not be full. Indeed, half a tablespoonful is enough." Louise Livingston Hunt, New Orleans. This week in Louisiana history. July 3, 1870. The riverboat Robert E. Lee defeated the Natchez in a race on the Mississippi.  This week in New Orleans history. July 3, 1964: Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act, major New Orleans hotels and restaurants began the official process of desegregation. This week in Louisiana. GalaxyCon New Orleans  Opening Weekend July 10'12, 2026 New Orleans Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, 900 Convention Center Blvd New Orleans, LA 70130 Website: galaxycon.com GalaxyCon opens its three‑day pop‑culture festival on July 10, bringing celebrity guests, cosplay, comics, gaming, and fan meet‑ups to the New Orleans Ernest N. Morial Convention Center. The weekend features panels, autograph sessions, photo ops, and a massive exhibitor hall: Friday, July 10: 2 p.m. - 1 a.m. Saturday, July 11: 10 a.m. - 1 a.m. Sunday, July 12: 10 a.m. - 8 p.m. GalaxyCon is billed as a '3‑Day Festival of Fandom,' with appearances from actors, voice actors, creators, cosplayers, and fan groups across sci‑fi, fantasy, anime, comics, and gaming. Tickets range from $50.00 to $350. Postcards from Louisiana. The Rock Block Band at Felix's Restaurant and Oyster Bar. Listen on Apple Podcasts. Listen on audible. Listen on Spotify. Listen on TuneIn. Listen on iHeartRadio. The Louisiana Anthology Home Page. Like us on Facebook. 

Michael Vorenberg traces how Andrew Johnson, initially seen as a radical ally, shifted toward a policy of white supremacy and hasty peace. He vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, leading moderate Republicans to unite with radicals. This intense conflict centered on whether the war had legally ended. (14)1865

SCHEDULE OF JBS 7-3-2026. 1913 WILSON OPENIG DAYColonel Jeff McCausland discusses John Buford's arrival at Gettysburg, identifying key terrain like Cemetery Hill. Buford sent urgent messages to John Reynolds, urging him to bring infantry forward quickly. Reynolds trusted Buford's assessment, leading Union forces to occupy positions just as the Confederate attack began. (1)Colonel Jeff McCausland recounts how General Reynolds was killed by a Confederate marksman while leading his men forward into the woods. Later that day, Robert E. Lee issued a famous discretionary order to Richard Ewell to take Cemetery Hill "if practicable." Ewell, newly promoted and lacking initiative, hesitated and ultimately declined to attack. (2)Colonel Jeff McCausland explains how rifled muskets increased accuracy while tactics remained outdated, causing high casualties. On the second day, Strong Vincent took the initiative to occupy Little Round Top without orders. Joshua Chamberlain's 20th Maine successfully held the Union's far left flank with a desperate bayonet charge. (3)Colonel Jeff McCausland describes how, on the third day, Lee ordered a frontal assault on the Union center despite Longstreet's protests. Pickett's Charge resulted in devastating casualties, with nearly 60-65% of the force lost to artillery and rifle fire. Longstreet was visibly overwhelmed by the certainty of the attack's failure. (4)Mary Kissel discusses a catastrophic earthquake in Venezuela, highlighting the human tragedy exacerbated by corrupt building practices. While US first responders are assisting, Kissel critiques the State Department for preventing opposition leader María Corina Machado from returning. She argues diplomacy should promote strategic interests and free societies. (5)Mary Kissel evaluates US policy toward China, noting Beijing's aggression toward Taiwan and the Philippines. She praises the Trump administration's support for Ukraine, particularly in surveillance and military assistance, which enabled deep strikes into Russian territory. She urges the White House to champion the moral high ground. (6)Anatol Lieven discusses Vladimir Putin's public admission that Ukrainian drone strikes are causing significant difficulties and a loss of refining capacity. While Putin remains in charge, he faces pressure from hawks and doves regarding escalation. Despite successful drone campaigns, the battlefield in the Donbass remains stagnant. (7)Lance Gatling reports that Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi unveiled a $2.3 trillion investment roadmap focused on 17 key technologies, including AI and chip manufacturing. The plan aims for economic independence and supply line diversity. Takaichi enjoys high public support, particularly from conservatives and young people tired of Chineseintimidation. (8)Michael Vorenberg challenges the idea that the Civil War ended at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865. While Lee's surrender was a crucial step involving the stacking of arms, Lincoln did not publicly declare the war over. Lincolnremained focused on the ongoing process of reconstruction. (9)Michael Vorenberg recounts how, following Lincoln's assassination, William T. Sherman met Joseph Johnston at Bennett Place to negotiate a surrender. Sherman offered terms more generous than Grant's, including allowing Southerners to keep weapons in armories to prevent guerrilla warfare. However, the Washington cabinet rejected these terms as too lenient. (10)Michael Vorenberg explains that after official surrenders, Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith fled to Mexicorather than surrender his Trans-Mississippi forces. Small skirmishes continued at Palmetto Ranch, which is often cited as the last battle of the war. Meanwhile, Grant sent Sheridan to the Rio Grande to deter French intervention. (11)Michael Vorenberg discusses how the government used military tribunals to try Lincoln's conspirators and Andersonville commandant Henry Wirz, arguing a state of war still existed. Secretary of War Stanton hoped to implicate Jefferson Davis in these crimes to justify execution, but Wirz refused to provide such testimony before hanging. (12)Michael Vorenberg examines Richard Henry Dana's "grasp of war" philosophy, arguing the Union should hold the Confederacy until civil rights were secured. This contrasted with Lincoln's "let 'em up easy" approach. Congress used these war powers to extend the Freedman's Bureau and pass reconstruction legislation. (13)Michael Vorenberg traces how Andrew Johnson, initially seen as a radical ally, shifted toward a policy of white supremacy and hasty peace. He vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, leading moderate Republicans to unite with radicals. This intense conflict centered on whether the war had legally ended. (14)Michael Vorenberg explains that on August 20, 1866, Johnson proclaimed the insurrection over to strip Congress of its war powers. Despite ongoing massacres in Memphis and New Orleans, Johnson tried to suppress reports of violence to maintain a "peace" narrative. The Supreme Court later affirmed this technical end date. (15)Michael Vorenberg describes how Ulysses S. Grant found himself caught between the warring factions of the Johnsonadministration. After witnessing Johnson's disastrous "swing around the circle" tour, Grant realized the President was unfit for loyalty. Grant eventually sided with Secretary of War Stanton, facilitating his 1868 presidential run. (16)All 16 folded into single paragraphs, John. One correction for the log: segment 5 had "Maria Karina Machado" — fixed to María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader. Flag anything else.

It's Friday, July 3rd, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Ethiopian Christian convert from Islam attacked and forced to flee As a child in Gawo Kebe, Ethiopia, Taha Dinka faithfully attended the mosque and adhered to his community's Islamic beliefs. He never imagined his life would ever take a different direction, reports International Christian Concern. In 2019, Dinka heard the Gospel and decided to follow Jesus. He said, “When I accepted Christ, I felt peace in my life. I believed God had rescued me from darkness.”   However, the decision that brought him hope also opened the door for rejection, threats, and persecution. Soon after his conversion, Dinka began facing strong opposition from those closest to him because of his faith in Christ.    Dinka said, “People I loved turned against me, and some even told me I had betrayed my family and my religion. Others warned me that I would suffer or die if I continued following Christ.”   Christian converts from Islam in Muslim-majority areas often face violence and even death threats. In August 2025, Dinka said, “I was violently attacked and forcefully removed from my home because I had refused to renounce Christianity. The attacks left me injured and traumatized. I was beaten because I would not deny Jesus. At that moment, I realized my life was truly in danger.”  He was forced to flee in search of safety. In Matthew 10:22, Jesus said, "You will be hated by everyone because of Me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” House Speaker Johnson puts SAVE Act in budget reconciliation bill Here in the United States, On Wednesday. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he is aiming to push the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE America Act, through a third budget reconciliation bill, reports NewsNation. Johnson's remarks came shortly after President Trump canceled a signing ceremony for a sweeping bipartisan housing package, saying he will not sign the legislation until the Senate passes the voter ID bill. The SAVE America Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and the presentation of an ID to cast a ballot. The bill passed the House, but has stalled in the Senate, where Democrats have vowed to oppose it, leaving it short of the votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has repeatedly dismissed Trump's calls to eliminate or reform the filibuster in order to pass the bill. Johnson talked to the president about adding the SAVE America Act to the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA so that the entire bill including the funding of the troops and the SAVE America Act would only need a simple majority vote.  Here's Speaker Johnson at the Wednesday press conference. JOHNSON: “The SAVE America Act, as passed in February unanimously by all Republicans -- and that's components of the proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter ID when you show up to vote, that will be merged onto the [National Defense Authorization Act] and transmitted to the Senate as one bill. That's the most efficient, effective way to do it.” Call your two Senators at 202-224-3121 and urge them, whether they are Democrat or Republican, to support the National Defense Authorization Act which has the SAVE America Act added to it. Clarence Thomas: Birthright citizenship devalues what it means to be American citizen In a lengthy dissent, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took the majority to task for interpreting the Constitution to mean that citizenship is automatically conferred on anyone born in the United States, regardless of the legal status of the parents, Thomas argued that the ruling “devalues” what it means to be an American citizen. In the 6-3 decision on June 30th, the majority held that an executive order President Donald Trump issued on the first day of his second term violated the Constitution. The order directed that only children born on American soil to legal residents are automatically citizens of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment states, in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” In his dissent, Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, noted as Trump previously argued, that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. It was in direct response to the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision of 1857, which held that blacks were not citizens. Thomas wrote, “Both the Civil Rights Act [of 1866] and the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race. Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States.” He added, “Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority,” Under Trump's proposal, birthright citizenship would be limited to those with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Babies born to temporary visitors or people who entered the country illegally would not be citizens at birth, reports NBC News. Young Washington movie in theaters tonight On the cusp of America's 250th birthday tomorrow, Angel Studios* and Wonder Project release the movie “Young Washington” nationwide tonight. Watch the trailer. It follows the early life of George Washington as he transforms from an ambitious, awkward youth into a military commander. Facing class barriers, he secures a job surveying the Ohio Valley, only to stumble into the bloody triggers of the French and Indian War. Directed by Jon Erwin, who also produced the House of David TV series, the historical drama explores Washington's steep climb into Virginia's upper crust. William Franklyn-Miller, the 22-year-old British actor, portrays George Washington, Ben Kingsley portrays Robert Dinwiddie, and Kelsey Grammer portrays Thomas Fairfax. When setbacks shake George's faith in a kind, loving God, he gets angry. He tells his mother, “Providence placed me here. Why? For me to fail?” Focus on the Family says that Mary Washington, George's mother, serves up one of the movie's best lines. She says, “Failure is the tutor sent by God. If you don't learn from it, you fail twice. If you do learn from it, you've earned wisdom.” After George improbably survives a disastrous battle, a Native American chief—one who fought alongside the French—demands to meet George. His own warriors had George in their sights repeatedly. He claims they “never miss.” And yet, somehow, George stands before him, uninjured. The Indian chief tells him, “The Creator chose you. You have been shielded by the Spirit.” (Get the booklet entitled The Bulletproof George Washington by David Barton) Shortly thereafter, George shows up in Virginia Lt. Gov. Robert Dinwiddie's office with a bullet hole in his hat and a well-earned reputation for surviving impossible situations. Listen to the scene from the “Young Washington” movie. DINWIDDIE: “What happened, Washington? All those bullet holes in your jacket? How are you alive?” WASHINGTON: “I don't know.” Proverbs 16:9 says, "A man's heart plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps". The movie, Young Washington, dramatizes the events leading up to the French and Indian War, including the war's initial bloody triggers. PluggedIn.com warns that the film is not suitable for young children because there's plenty of fighting, shooting and chopping. And while none of it is particularly bloody or gory, it may come as a shock for those expecting a gentler “Christian” film. *Note: Angel Studios is owned by the Mormons also known as the “Church” of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Worldview cautions our listeners to remember that Mormons teach a false gospel and an unbiblical worldview. So, please be discerning in the viewing of any Angel Studios productions. 15-year-old listener from Eswatini, Africa sounds off Yesterday, 21 Worldview listeners took the time to send me an email about what they enjoy about this newscast. I'll be sharing their emails throughout this month. If you are one of the 21 people who wrote me, thank you! Eli McSeveney, a 15-year-old in Eswatini, Africa, bordered by South Africa and Mozambique, wrote me at Adam@TheWorldview.com. He said, “We listen to The Worldview in 5 Minutes every day, mid-morning, when we take a break from our homeschool over a cup of tea.  I love that I can trust the facts you give, unlike CNN. But my favorite part is right at the end, when you urge us to ‘Seize the day for Jesus Christ!' “Quinn, age 13, said, ‘I love how Mr. Adam McManus addresses the transgender issue.  He says a man, who is ‘pretending to be woman.'  And the regular updates on the persecution of Christians throughout the world is eye opening.' “And Bianca, my mom, said, ‘Thank you for your team's faithfulness in bringing us truth. We find that you help us make sense of the news, and we feel hopeful instead of distraught. And thank you for the Bible verses that shed light on how to interpret what is going on.'” 7 Worldview listeners gave $800 yesterday Yesterday, 7 Worldview listeners stepped up to the plate and invested their treasure to ensure that The Worldview stays on the air for another 365 days. Our thanks to Jason in Fairbanks, Alaska and Steven in Jacksonville, Florida – both of whom gave $50. We're grateful to God for Janice in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Susan in Hoyt, Kansas – both of whom gave $100. And we appreciate the generosity of Samuel in Fellsmere, Florida and Jeremy in Swansea, Wales -- both of whom gave $150 as well as Linda in Hanahan, South Carolina who gave $200. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please. (drum roll sound effect) $2,562. (sound effect of people cheering) In the first three days of our month-long fundraiser, we are seriously behind!  We need to raise $9,888 by 12 midnight tonight, Friday, July 3rd – when a lot of people are on vacation -- to get back on track toward our $123,500 finish line come July 31st. I've got 2 brainstorms. First, would you consider being one of 30 listeners to make a donation, no matter how small?  Whether it's $5 or $500, give what you feel the Lord has placed on your heart.  Second, if the Lord has blessed you financially, would you be open to being one of 5 people to give a one-time gift of $1,000? Go to TheWorldview.com, click on Give, select the dollar amount, and make sure to click on the “recurring” button if that's your wish.  This Christian newscast does not bow to our politically correct culture. We champion the truth and a Biblical worldview. That is why you love it!  Invest in it today so that this newscast can continue. Again, go to TheWorldview.com, click on Give. Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, July 3rd, in the year of our Lord 2026. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

It's the last opinion day of the term, and the big one landed: Trump v. Barbara, the birthright-citizenship case. We read the majority as the rare easy case and spend most of the episode on why the four dissents each end up somewhere different — and trying to figure out exactly where they actually land. Along the way: a bogus Nina Totenberg story, a Landor GVR that might quietly unsettle a chunk of Spending Clause criminal law, and whether the professors who defended the order deserve the "legal scholarship police." Highlights[00:00:27] The bogus Nina Totenberg wire story that Justice Alito was retiring — "Fake news, Dan."[00:02:03] The Justice Alito / Justice Sotomayor bench-dissent dust-up from the immigration hand-downs[00:03:11] Last opinion day — 3 opinions, 4 cases; NRSC v. FEC and West Virginia v. B.P.J. / Little v. Hecox flagged for later[00:05:27] A significant new grant teed up on possession of semi-automatic rifles (AR-15s)[00:06:43] A GVR in light of Landor in a federal arson case, and the narrow-vs-broad theory of what a GVR means[00:09:34] Whether Landor's narrowing of Sabri could upend a swath of Spending Clause federal criminal law[00:10:58] Why RLUIPA reaches prisoners — Chuck Colson's post-Watergate lobbying (courtesy of a listener, Emma Kaufman)[00:12:55] Trump v. Barbara — Trump loses, but closer than predicted: "Trump beats the spread"[00:15:25] Should professors who defended the order be punished? — "we don't need legal scholarship police"[00:19:58] The majority's walk: common law → Dred Scott → the 14th Amendment → Wong Kim Ark[00:26:21] Wong Kim Ark as linchpin, and whether its "domiciled here" language was doing any work[00:36:48] Justice Kavanaugh concurs in the judgment on the statute, then dispatches the constitutional question breezily[00:42:05] New states, Hawaii, and Living Originalism — when may you add new exceptions? "Weird islands you can't drive to"[00:48:33] The 91-page Justice Thomas dissent, the facial-challenge pivot, and the reserved domicile question[00:56:40] Justice Alito's Civil Rights Act / "not subject to any foreign power" reading, and the statelessness caveat[01:00:11] Justice Gorsuch's 3-page solo dissent: if not domiciled here, then where? — a jab Thomas may not share[01:05:33] Justice Jackson's anti-subordination concurrence, and whether it lands against Thomas[01:10:24] "I feel proud to be an American, Dan" — hail to the Chief, and to Justice Barrett; sign-offRelevant linksCasesTrump v. Barbara — slip opinionLandor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections — slip opinionSabri v. United States (2004)United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)NRSC v. FEC — slip opinionWest Virginia v. B.P.J. / Little v. Hecox — slip opinionCommentary & articlesSCOTUSblog opinion recap: "Supreme Court strikes down Trump's order ending birthright citizenship"Ilan Wurman & Randy Barnett's NYT essay defending the order (Minnesota Law summary)

On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show, Chief Justice Roberts improperly relied on English common law as a basis for birthright citizenship, despite the framers using it only as a guide and rejecting elements that conflicted with the U.S. system. The 14th Amendment and the preceding Civil Rights Act of 1866 were narrowly intended to grant full citizenship rights to freed Black slaves and their children amid post-Civil War resistance—not to address immigration or confer citizenship on children of illegal aliens. The opinion wrongly equates "jurisdiction" with mere physical presence, leading to illogical results like automatic citizenship for babies of illegal immigrants (who retain foreign allegiance) while creating unaddressed exceptions for diplomats, revealing a result-oriented, activist approach that rewrites history. Roberts and his Majority twisted the history of the 14th amendment and just constitutionalized birthright citizenship, knowing full well that our nation, like Europe, is facing a grave threat from within as a result, in part, of the intentional refusal of our government, when the Democrats are in power, to enforce immigration laws and, oppositely, facilitating the importation of aliens from all over the world without proper vetting. Also, the constitutional amendment process is rarely used. It requires two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress to propose language, followed by ratification by three-fourths (38) of the states—neither of which is feasible for issues like changing birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court has constitutionalized elements not originally in the Constitution, making reversal through amendments impractical. Instead, the effective path is filling Court vacancies with constitutionalists, as achieved in overturning Roe, without resorting to court packing. Later, Hans von Spakovsky calls in and explains that Roberts' opinion was appalling and a complete rewrite of American history, particularly regarding the 14th Amendment. He notes that Justices Alito and Thomas eviscerated it in separate dissents, highlighting that Roberts' historical account was inaccurate. He criticized Roberts' selective and distorting use of sources like Thomas Paine and Frederick Douglass, pointing out Thomas's observation that Douglass viewed Black Americans as citizens due to their equal allegiance to the U.S., unlike illegal aliens who owe allegiance to their native countries. Finally, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison favored limited central government, while Alexander Hamilton preferred a powerful, activist federal government with implied powers. Modern nationalist populists share this Hamilton big-government outlook with the left, which lacks clear constitutional principles and risks abuse, in contrast to true constitutional conservatism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett. Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment while dissenting in part. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Neil Gorsuch. The court grounded its decision in the historical context of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, tracing the language back to English common law, the Dred Scott decision and its widespread condemnation, Attorney General Edward Bates' wartime opinion on citizenship, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the court's prior precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Hawk connects the executive order directly to Stephen Miller's documented stated goal of an America populated almost entirely by people who look like him, and explains why birthright citizenship was the primary legal mechanism the administration intended to use to strip citizenship from Black and brown Americans descended from earlier generations born in the United States. He closes by noting that Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito remain on the court, and what that means for the 2026 midterm Senate races in Texas and Maine if either justice resigns under a Republican-controlled Senate. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

A striking triptych once displayed in countless African American households, the Trinity typically features Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King Jr., and John F. Kennedy. More than decoration, these portraits were deliberate acts of memory and quiet resistance, a medium through which African Americans asserted their own narratives of hope, leadership, and the fight for justice. In this provocative history The Trinity: John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Civil Rights in African American Memory (UNC Press, 2026), Sharron Wilkins Conrad traces the Trinity across several decades, showing how African Americans didn't merely remember the civil rights movement; they shaped its meaning. The Trinity reveals why Kennedy's image hung beside King and Christ, while Lyndon B. Johnson, despite signing landmark legislation such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, remained largely unheralded. Kennedy's charisma, symbolic promise, and perceived martyrdom placed him among sacred icons, while Johnson—seen as transactional and confronted by the era's growing impatience—never secured the same emotional legacy. In a gripping exploration of memory and meaning-making, Conrad reveals how communities create historical truths by elevating some leaders, sidelining others, and preserving their own visions in defiance of the official record. Raymond Williams, PhD is a political scientist, blogger, and book club administrator with an interest in American History and Politics. You can find Raymond on Instagram, Threads, and Twitter at @rtwilliams16. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

What if the very institutions designed to educate and empower were also places where harm could quietly thriveIn this powerful and eye-opening episode, I sit down with Julie Cruse—writer, inventor, instructional designer, and author of The Burn List: A Memoir of Abuse from Home to Higher Education. Julie has been recognized by Dance Magazine as a “pioneer of computational choreography,” and her work spans over two decades across Ivy League, public, and community colleges. With more than 30 grants and honors, including a National Science Foundation fellowship, her accomplishments are remarkable—but her story is also deeply sobering.Julie courageously shares her journey from an abusive childhood into a prolonged experience of academic exploitation. Across seven universities, she faced grooming, harassment, and retaliation from faculty—experiences that ultimately forced her out of her PhD program and academic career.What Is Academic Abuse?Academic abuse is often hidden in plain sight. It can include:Grooming and manipulation by those in positions of authorityHarassment and coercionRetaliation when boundaries are set or complaints are madeDespite protections like Title IX and Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), these issues persist—making awareness and advocacy more important than ever.Key Takeaways from This Episode✨ Why some students are more vulnerable Julie explains how factors like isolation, power imbalance, and a desire to succeed can make students easier targets.✨ How to protect yourself Practical, empowering advice including:Set clear boundariesAvoid being alone with faculty in private settingsKeep detailed records of interactions (dates, times, events)✨ What to do if harassment occurs There is often a required process and hierarchy of reporting. Understanding the steps ahead of time can help you navigate the system more effectively.✨ Why this conversation matters Silence allows abuse to continue. Open conversations help validate survivors, create accountability, and drive change.A Safe Place to Be HeardJulie has created a survivor-led platform at Academic Abuse where individuals can:Share their stories in a safe, supportive environmentAccess resources for healingResearch documented cases of abuse at specific universitiesIf you or someone you know has experienced discrimination or abuse in higher education, this platform offers both validation and support.Connect with JulieWebsite: Julie Cruse official website https://www.juliecruse.com/Advocacy Platform: Academic Abuse https://www.academicabuse.com/  Final ThoughtsThis episode is a courageous step toward shining light on a difficult but critical issue. By speaking openly about academic abuse, we can better protect students, support survivors, and work toward meaningful change in higher education.If this episode resonated with you, please share it with someone who might benefit.And don't forget to subscribe, rate, and review Linda's Corner to help spread more hope, healing, and awareness.Listen, Share, and SupportIf this episode resonated with you, please share it with someone who may need hope today.Be sure to subscribe, leave a rating and review, and help us spread more healing and inspiration to the world.Free Resource for HealingIf you're ready to release stress, calm your mind, and begin healing from within, visit:

2 Hours and 27 MinutesPG-13This is a re-release of episodes:Episode 831: How the 'Civil Rights Regime' Was Enshrined w/ Ryan TurnipseedEpisode 905: The Civil Rights Act and Its Consequences w/ Gregory HoodEnshrining the Civil Rights RegimeRyan's Find My Frens PageGreg at American RenaissanceThe Age of Entitlement: America Since the SixtiesPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Pastor Dale Partridge boldly confronts one of liberalism's greatest sacred cows — the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He demonstrates how it has not brought racial peace, but has instead made racial tension far worse, and makes the compelling case for why this law must be repealed so that Americans can once again enjoy their fundamental right to freedom of association.

Christ Is King: America After Trump — November 12–14, 2026 in Dallas, Texas. Tickets are limited. Register now to secure your seat!https://newchristianright.com/conference/Get The Silent Jihad At: https://newchristianright.com/jihad

May 22, 2026In a graduation speech at the University of Michigan in 1964, President Lyndon Johnson laid out his vision for “the Great Society,” It was a forward looking vision of a country that used its post-World War II prosperity to look toward greater things, and to advance civil rights and end poverty, Congress would pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and the Food Stamp Act, Democrats were able to pass 84 new laws to put the Great Society into place, Congress took on voting rights, access to education, health insurance, and the rights of consumers, It enacted laws protecting the environment and supporting the arts, In his speech at the University of Michigan, Johnson charged the graduates to lead America toward a new age, reminding them that Americans have the power to shape the civilization that we want.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

May 16, 2026May 17th is the anniversary of the Brown v Board of Education decision declaring racial segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional, Three years later, President Eisenhower proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson wrestled the Act through Congress, But efforts to expand voter registration for Black Americans were stymied, even after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, On March 7. 1965 after the shooting of Jimmie Lee Jackson, marchers set out from Selma AL to the state capital at Montgomery to draw attention to the struggle, they were stopped by the government. The march was started again, and this time 25,000 people completed their trip, The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed on August 6, 1965, Yet the basic rights protected by the Act were gutted on April 29, 2026 by the Supreme Court, Thousands, including 18 members of Congress, traveled to Selma and Montgomery today, to call for action to protect voting rights, Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told an audience that those trying to gerrymander their way into controlling Congress have awakened a sleeping giant, as people come together knowing what it means to the country to protect the vote.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

The EEOC is suing the New York Times, alleging the paper violated the Civil Rights Act by passing over a white male employee for a promotion because of his race and sex - employment attorney James Fett weighs in. President Trump's endorsed candidates scored major wins in Indiana, defeating several Republican state senators who opposed his redistricting push. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick faced closed-door questioning on Capitol Hill over newly released Epstein files that appear to contradict his past claims about when he last had contact with Jeffrey Epstein. Ted Turner, the billionaire media pioneer who founded CNN and helped reshape cable television, has died at 87 after a years-long battle with Lewy body dementia.   Pure Talk: Dial #250 and say keyword MEGYN KELLY to switch to Pure Talk and get unlimited data for just $34.99 a month!   Done with Debt: https://www.DoneWithDebt.com & tell them Megyn Kelly sent you! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.