Podcasts about Constitution

« Au terme d'une longue nuit, relève Afrik.com, l'Assemblée nationale béninoise a adopté, samedi matin à l'aube, une vaste révision constitutionnelle. Le texte instaure un Sénat et allonge les mandats du président de la République, des députés et des maires de 5 à 7 ans. » Précision importante, pointe La Nation à Cotonou, « cette réforme au niveau des mandats électifs prend effet à partir des élections générales de l'année prochaine. Ce qui veut dire que la (nouvelle) loi constitutionnelle ne concerne pas le mandat actuel du président de la République, Patrice Talon qui passera le témoin en mai prochain ». Pourquoi cette révision ? D'après la mouvance présidentielle, relève le site d'information Banouto, « ce nouveau texte vise à renforcer la stabilité, la transparence et l'efficacité des institutions et la vitalité démocratique du Bénin ». L'opposition bâillonnée ? Alors, « la question pressante, estime pour sa part La Nouvelle Tribune, toujours à Cotonou, est de savoir si le Bénin, fort de ce nouveau cadre constitutionnel, peut désormais engager une trajectoire de développement plus sereine et plus rapide. Les arguments avancés en faveur de cette modification visent principalement à éliminer ce qui est perçu comme des freins structurels au progrès national, pointe le quotidien béninois. La classe dirigeante pointe souvent du doigt les cycles électoraux polarisés et les crises politiques récurrentes, les décrivant comme des sources de distraction et d'instabilité, empêchant la pleine concentration sur les politiques de développement économique et social. L'un des objectifs affichés est d'instaurer une sorte de trêve politique en apaisant le jeu électoral et institutionnel. (…) Cependant, la lecture de la classe politique et de la Société civile est loin d'être unanime, tempère La Nouvelle Tribune. Pour certains observateurs, (au contraire) l'adoption de cette loi modificative est un processus qui pourrait exacerber les fractures politiques et conduire à la non-participation d'une partie importante de l'opposition aux différents rendez-vous électoraux. » Déjà, note Aujourd'hui, le principal parti d'opposition, les Démocrates, a été écarté des élections locales et de l'élection présidentielle : « à l'évidence, affirme le site burkinabé, le président Patrice Talon, qui ne briguera (donc) pas un 3e mandat, est en train de modeler le paysage politique et institutionnel avant son départ du palais de la Marina. Il a ouvert un large boulevard pour son dauphin, Romuald Wadagni, lequel sans un challenger de poids, en l'occurrence celui des Démocrates, écarté pour cause de parrainage, est à 50 % déjà vainqueur de la présidentielle d'avril prochain. » Une « manœuvre savamment orchestrée » ? Le Pays, toujours au Burkina, revient sur cette réforme constitutionnelle : certes, elle « est présentée par ses promoteurs comme un instrument de paix, une architecture d'unité nationale et un rempart contre l'instabilité. Pourtant, derrière cet argumentaire officiel particulièrement séduisant, pourrait se dissimuler une opération politique minutieusement calibrée, affirme le quotidien ouagalais, destinée à consolider le système mis en place par l'actuel président Patrice Talon, à neutraliser une opposition déjà affaiblie et à protéger l'élite dirigeante contre d'éventuelles poursuites judiciaires. Sinon, s'interroge le journal, pourquoi ne pas avoir engagé cette réforme plus tôt, si son ambition réelle était de renforcer la démocratie béninoise ? Pourquoi intervient-elle précisément à la fin du mandat du président en exercice ? Ce timing, loin d'être anodin, nourrit l'hypothèse d'une manœuvre savamment orchestrée ». Le Pays cite notamment l'allongement des mandats électifs à sept ans, qui constitue, d'après lui, « un point majeur de crispation. Car, il réduit davantage encore l'espace du pluralisme politique. (…) Ce passage du quinquennat au septennat réduira, en effet, la fréquence des élections, verrouillera durablement le jeu politique et condamnera une opposition déjà fragmentée, à une longue traversée du désert… » Illusion démocratique ? Autre point qui pose problème, selon Ledjely en Guinée : la création d'un Sénat : « car un élément interpelle, pointe le site guinéen : aucun futur sénateur ne sera élu. Tous seront membres de droit ou désignés. Et détail ultime : parmi les membres de droit figureront… les anciens présidents. Évidemment, diront certains. Beaucoup y voient un point de chute soigneusement aménagé par le président Patrice Talon lui-même. » Globalement, relève encore Ledjely, sous la présidence Talon, « le Bénin avait semblé incarner l'un des rares îlots d'espérance. En particulier, la confirmation par Patrice Talon qu'il ne briguerait pas un troisième mandat avait séduit. Au point que, dans le sillage des lauriers qui lui étaient tressés, on avait soudain oublié le sort des détenus politiques, dont Reckya Madougou (emprisonnée depuis plus de quatre ans). Mais peut-être avons-nous célébré trop tôt le chef de l'État béninois, soupire Ledjely. Entre l'absence de fait de l'opposition à la prochaine présidentielle et les récentes modifications constitutionnelles aux objectifs suspects, la victoire démocratique que l'on croyait entrevoir paraît bien illusoire ». À lire aussiBénin: l'adoption d'une nouvelle réforme constitutionnelle suscite de vifs débats dans la classe politique

Ils sont 35% à souffrir de ce qu'on appelle "le syndrome du nid vide". Et parmi les premières concernées… les mamans. Ce syndrome s'apparente à une forme de dépression que peuvent ressentir nos génitrices quand nous, leurs enfants, prenons notre envol et quittons le nid familial. Il concerne principalement les mamans puisqu'elles sont statistiquement plus occupées par les enfants que leurs maris, chez les couples hétérosexuels. Mais pourquoi ce syndrome concerne-t-il principalement nos mères ? Que pouvons-nous faire pour l'éviter ? Écoutez la suite de cet épisode de "Maintenant vous savez". Un podcast Bababam Originals, écrit et réalisé par Johanna Cincinatis. Première diffusion : août 2021 À écouter aussi : ⁠Notre personnalité change-t-elle quand on parle une autre langue ?⁠ ⁠Qu'est-ce que la technique du sous-marin ?⁠ ⁠Que peut changer l'introduction de l'IVG dans la Constitution française ?⁠ Retrouvez tous les épisodes de ⁠"Maintenant vous savez".⁠ Suivez Bababam sur ⁠Instagram⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

« Au terme d'une longue nuit, relève Afrik.com, l'Assemblée nationale béninoise a adopté, samedi matin à l'aube, une vaste révision constitutionnelle. Le texte instaure un Sénat et allonge les mandats du président de la République, des députés et des maires de 5 à 7 ans. » Précision importante, pointe La Nation à Cotonou, « cette réforme au niveau des mandats électifs prend effet à partir des élections générales de l'année prochaine. Ce qui veut dire que la (nouvelle) loi constitutionnelle ne concerne pas le mandat actuel du président de la République, Patrice Talon qui passera le témoin en mai prochain ». Pourquoi cette révision ? D'après la mouvance présidentielle, relève le site d'information Banouto, « ce nouveau texte vise à renforcer la stabilité, la transparence et l'efficacité des institutions et la vitalité démocratique du Bénin ». L'opposition bâillonnée ? Alors, « la question pressante, estime pour sa part La Nouvelle Tribune, toujours à Cotonou, est de savoir si le Bénin, fort de ce nouveau cadre constitutionnel, peut désormais engager une trajectoire de développement plus sereine et plus rapide. Les arguments avancés en faveur de cette modification visent principalement à éliminer ce qui est perçu comme des freins structurels au progrès national, pointe le quotidien béninois. La classe dirigeante pointe souvent du doigt les cycles électoraux polarisés et les crises politiques récurrentes, les décrivant comme des sources de distraction et d'instabilité, empêchant la pleine concentration sur les politiques de développement économique et social. L'un des objectifs affichés est d'instaurer une sorte de trêve politique en apaisant le jeu électoral et institutionnel. (…) Cependant, la lecture de la classe politique et de la Société civile est loin d'être unanime, tempère La Nouvelle Tribune. Pour certains observateurs, (au contraire) l'adoption de cette loi modificative est un processus qui pourrait exacerber les fractures politiques et conduire à la non-participation d'une partie importante de l'opposition aux différents rendez-vous électoraux. » Déjà, note Aujourd'hui, le principal parti d'opposition, les Démocrates, a été écarté des élections locales et de l'élection présidentielle : « à l'évidence, affirme le site burkinabé, le président Patrice Talon, qui ne briguera (donc) pas un 3e mandat, est en train de modeler le paysage politique et institutionnel avant son départ du palais de la Marina. Il a ouvert un large boulevard pour son dauphin, Romuald Wadagni, lequel sans un challenger de poids, en l'occurrence celui des Démocrates, écarté pour cause de parrainage, est à 50 % déjà vainqueur de la présidentielle d'avril prochain. » Une « manœuvre savamment orchestrée » ? Le Pays, toujours au Burkina, revient sur cette réforme constitutionnelle : certes, elle « est présentée par ses promoteurs comme un instrument de paix, une architecture d'unité nationale et un rempart contre l'instabilité. Pourtant, derrière cet argumentaire officiel particulièrement séduisant, pourrait se dissimuler une opération politique minutieusement calibrée, affirme le quotidien ouagalais, destinée à consolider le système mis en place par l'actuel président Patrice Talon, à neutraliser une opposition déjà affaiblie et à protéger l'élite dirigeante contre d'éventuelles poursuites judiciaires. Sinon, s'interroge le journal, pourquoi ne pas avoir engagé cette réforme plus tôt, si son ambition réelle était de renforcer la démocratie béninoise ? Pourquoi intervient-elle précisément à la fin du mandat du président en exercice ? Ce timing, loin d'être anodin, nourrit l'hypothèse d'une manœuvre savamment orchestrée ». Le Pays cite notamment l'allongement des mandats électifs à sept ans, qui constitue, d'après lui, « un point majeur de crispation. Car, il réduit davantage encore l'espace du pluralisme politique. (…) Ce passage du quinquennat au septennat réduira, en effet, la fréquence des élections, verrouillera durablement le jeu politique et condamnera une opposition déjà fragmentée, à une longue traversée du désert… » Illusion démocratique ? Autre point qui pose problème, selon Ledjely en Guinée : la création d'un Sénat : « car un élément interpelle, pointe le site guinéen : aucun futur sénateur ne sera élu. Tous seront membres de droit ou désignés. Et détail ultime : parmi les membres de droit figureront… les anciens présidents. Évidemment, diront certains. Beaucoup y voient un point de chute soigneusement aménagé par le président Patrice Talon lui-même. » Globalement, relève encore Ledjely, sous la présidence Talon, « le Bénin avait semblé incarner l'un des rares îlots d'espérance. En particulier, la confirmation par Patrice Talon qu'il ne briguerait pas un troisième mandat avait séduit. Au point que, dans le sillage des lauriers qui lui étaient tressés, on avait soudain oublié le sort des détenus politiques, dont Reckya Madougou (emprisonnée depuis plus de quatre ans). Mais peut-être avons-nous célébré trop tôt le chef de l'État béninois, soupire Ledjely. Entre l'absence de fait de l'opposition à la prochaine présidentielle et les récentes modifications constitutionnelles aux objectifs suspects, la victoire démocratique que l'on croyait entrevoir paraît bien illusoire ». À lire aussiBénin: l'adoption d'une nouvelle réforme constitutionnelle suscite de vifs débats dans la classe politique

Inside the unraveling of President Trump's relationship with some Republicans and parts of his MAGA base over the Epstein files; the fmr. Director of the CFPB Richard Cordray explains how the Trump administration's destruction of the CFPB harms consumers; which cities Trump is eyeing next for his ICE immigration crackdown and how local leaders are preparing To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A deep dive into the housing affordability trap that has been decades in the making, which Donald Trump is politically playing into; fmr. Gov. Jay Inslee discusses America's leadership vacuum at the annual global climate summit COP30; NJ Gov.-Elect Mikie Sherrill's campaign manager breaks down their decisive win and the lessons Democrats nationwide need to take from it To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Rep. Jamie Raskin discusses the ramifications of ongoing battle over the Epstein files; all the reasons why Trump's promise to send $2k checks to some Americans won't happen; the fmr. Director of the CFPB Richard Cordray explains how the Trump administration's destruction of the CFPB harms consumers; why the prosecutions of two people from the top of Trump's enemies list might be hitting a roadblock. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This week on the Mark Levin Show, the Democrat Party government shutdown is the best evidence why the government should never, for example, take over our healthcare system. It's not controlled by Democrat politicians (senators) abusing the filibuster rule to blackmail the country and do as much damage to the economy as possible to further government control of the economy and leftwing political agendas. Also, the U.S. air traffic control system and TSA should be privatized. It's unacceptable that our air traffic could come to a halt because air traffic controllers wouldn't show up for work during the shutdown. The Democratic Party is being internally devoured by Marxism and Islamism, ideologies foreign to America's founding principles. These forces, power-hungry and seeking centralized control, mask their hatred for the country as righteousness, liberation, equality, and affordability, while spreading rapidly and replacing the party's base and leadership. In response, a fascistic reaction emerges on the radical right by grifters like podcasters and influencers who gain fame and wealth promoting it. Both Marxists and fascists seek to destroy American institutions—the former to replace them, the latter claiming they fail—leading to dwindling support for the Declaration, Constitution, and founders. The Republican Party resists this fascistic right, albeit insufficiently, whereas the Democratic Party, having unleashed and failed to control these forces, is now becoming the Marxist left. In chapter two of "American Marxism," titled "Breeding Mobs," it explains how mass movements devour individual identity and uniqueness, rendering people indistinguishable while assigning group identities based on race, age, or income to foster class distinctions and divisions. These movements attract disenchanted, disaffected, and maladjusted individuals who blame external factors like the system or others for their conditions, lured by utopian promises and criticisms of society, where improving their lot ties to the cause and disparaging the successful becomes a tactic to instill meaning and self-worth. Ultimately, these movements rely on deceit, propaganda, intimidation, and force, leading to scapegoating, violence, and totalitarianism. Just think of figures like Bernie Sanders, AOC, Nick Fuentes, Steve Bannon, Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, and their supporters. Later, the U.S. healthcare system is the world's best, but some sort of health savings accounts that put more money in people's pockets, enabling them to choose and pay for their own healthcare premiums would be a great idea. Afterward, Gov Gavin Newsom's former chief of staff was indicted on 23 federal counts including conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rochelle Porto continues her Constitutional instruction as we look at laws influencing the 2nd Amendment, the modern efforts to blur the lines of Federal power leading to the rise of the administration state. The Constitution is a brilliant document forged in the fires of real life experience and great wisdom. It was a gift to future generations with the intent that we would protect and defend a nation ruled by We The People and be empowered to stop tyranny and despotism.  #BardsFM_OurSacredHonor #LimitationOfPowers #GodGivenRights Bards Nation Health Store: www.bardsnationhealth.com EnviroKlenz Air Purification, promo code BARDS to save 10%:www.enviroklenz.com EMPShield protect your vehicles and home. Promo code BARDS: Click here MYPillow promo code: BARDS >> Go to https://www.mypillow.com/bards and use the promo code BARDS or... Call 1-800-975-2939.  White Oak Pastures Grassfed Meats, Get $20 off any order $150 or more. Promo Code BARDS: www.whiteoakpastures.com/BARDS BardsFM CAP, Celebrating 50 Million Downloads: https://ambitiousfaith.net Morning Intro Music Provided by Brian Kahanek: www.briankahanek.com Windblown Media 20% Discount with promo code BARDS: windblownmedia.com Founders Bible 20% discount code: BARDS >>> TheFoundersBible.com Mission Darkness Faraday Bags and RF Shielding. Promo code BARDS: Click here EMF Solutions to keep your home safe: https://www.emfsol.com/?aff=bards Treadlite Broadforks...best garden tool EVER. Promo code BARDS: TreadliteBroadforks.com No Knot Today Natural Skin Products: NoKnotToday.com Health, Nutrition and Detox Consulting: HealthIsLocal.com Destination Real Food Book on Amazon: click here Images In Bloom Soaps and Things: ImagesInBloom.com Angeline Design: AngelineDesign.com DONATE: Click here Mailing Address: Xpedition Cafe, LLC Attn. Scott Kesterson 591 E Central Ave, #740 Sutherlin, OR  97479

Breaking down all the important revelations from the Jeffrey Epstein email release; Chris Matthews discusses his new book ‘Lessons from Bobby: Ten Reasons Robert F. Kennedy Still Matters'; Dr. Zeke Emanuel describes what the end of Obamacare subsidies means for tens of millions of Americans; breaking down the state of the Democratic Party To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A former federal judge appointed by President Reagan explains why he's resigning from a lifetime appointment in order to speak out against Trump's assault on the rule of law; why the tactics we are now seeing ICE use is a warning that the worst is yet to come; what the American people can expect now that Trump has admitted his tariffs don't work. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, breaks down the bombshell revelations inside the trove of Jeffrey Epstein documents his committee just released; where things stand in the southern hemisphere as the United States creeps closer to military action with Venezuela, Dr. Zeke Emanuel describes what the end of Obamacare subsidies means for tens of millions of Americans; Ashley Hope Pérez discusses her book ‘The Knife and the Butterfly' in this week's Velshi Banned Book Club. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Obamacare had the greatest cover-up in policy history! PLUS, Mike Zhao, Chair of Chinese Americans for the Constitution, talks to Shaun about Trump's plan to allow 600,000 Chinese student visas and the need to revamp our American education system. And researcher Peter A. Kirby, author of the upcoming book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project, talks to Shaun about the bio weapon system used to control the weather that has had negative consequences on human-kind and how the elites are shaping our futures. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

*Mansion tax? Wealth tax? Estate tax? All coming to Virginia? *Starbucks CEO fights back. *Transgender teacher in Danville suspended? *Alaska public school will not endorse Constitution? *Michelle Obama demands you think she is beautiful. *Tik Tok comments revealed *What is a moderate? *And more.

Près de 16 millions de Chiliens sont appelés à se rendre aux urnes ce dimanche (16 novembre 2025) pour élire le successeur du président sortant Gabriel Boric, auquel la Constitution interdit de briguer un second mandat consécutif.  8 candidats sont en lice, mais 2 favoris se détachent : Jeannette Jara, 51 ans, communiste et candidate d'une coalition de 9 partis de gauche et centre gauche, est en tête des sondages pour le 1er tour, talonnée par le candidat d'extrême droite José Antonio Kast, 59 ans, avocat, fondateur du parti républicain, battu il y a 4 ans par Gabriel Boric. Si ces deux favoris se retrouvent au second tour, le 14 décembre 2025, Jeannette Jara ne partira pas forcément gagnante. L'outsider Johannes Kaiser, 49 ans, fondateur du parti national libertarien, lui aussi d'extrême droite et nostalgique de la dictature militaire, pourrait bien jouer les faiseurs de rois en permettant à José Antonio Kast de l'emporter. Comment le Chili en est-il arrivé là ? Quel bilan laisse Gabriel Boric ? Le jeune président de gauche a-t-il tenu sa promesse de réduire les inégalités et d'apporter plus de justice sociale ? Comment expliquer la montée en puissance d'une extrême droite décomplexée ? Pourquoi la société chilienne n'arrive-t-elle pas à tourner la page de l'ère Pinochet au point de regretter le dictateur mort, il y a 20 ans ? Alors que l'immigration irrégulière et l'insécurité, mais aussi le narcotrafic ont été au cœur de la campagne présidentielle, le Chili risque-t-il de basculer à l'extrême droite ?   3 invités : - Franck Gaudichaud, professeur en Histoire et Études latino-américaines à l'Université Toulouse-Jean Jaurès, auteur de «Découvrir la révolution chilienne 70-73», paru en 2023 aux Éditions sociales - Olivier Compagnon, professeur d'Histoire contemporaine à l'Université Sorbonne Nouvelle/Institut des Hautes Études d'Amérique latine, chercheur au CREDA - Pablo Barnier-Khawam, docteur en Sciences Politiques associé au CERI et au CREDA,  spécialiste de la Bolivie et du Chili.

Our choice and use of words has a profound effect on the operation of justice, and a particular legal dispute now before the United States Supreme Court hangs on the meaning of three words. In this episode, Plato's Pod host James Myers explores what eight of Plato's works have to say about the meaning of words, and the ways that words shape constitutions, justice, and governments in our time as they did in Plato's time, 24 centuries earlier. Socrates was executed because his jury judged him guilty of two words – impiety and corruption – which we now interpret very differently, and it's an ancient example of how justice and injustice can still hinge on word meanings. The justices of the Supreme Court will soon render a decision on the meaning and usage of three words that have evolved from 1789 to 1977, and from 1977 to 2025. If we wrote our laws with a lengthy preamble setting out the lawmakers' meaning and intent, as the Athenian in Plato's Laws suggests, then justice might not be as difficult to establish at later times as it now is.

What's been landing in Alaska? SNAP chaos, shortened public comment periods, and ICE enforcement. Rachel and John also discuss the Constitution's Supremacy Clause and play public policy pursuit.

California officials misled a federal judge about policies that hide students' "gender transitions" from parents at schools, bombshell documents uncovered by a legal firm appear to show.For decades, leftists in the media and in the Democrat Party have tried to sell a simple equation: to be Latino is to be liberal. They've claimed that any resistance to their radical, anti-American agenda—whether it's open borders, defunding the police, or socialist economic policies—is racist. But that narrative was never true, and millions of Latinos are proving it wrong every day. Chris Salcedo, host of the Chris Salcedo Radio Show, the Chris Salcedo Show on Newsmax TV, and The Salcedo Storm Podcast, joins me to discuss his new book, The Rise of the Liberty-Loving Latino, where he tells the story corparate, legacy media refuses to cover: how a growing number of Hispanic Americans are standing up for faith, family, freedom, and the Constitution.Last week, the White House announced new deals that Donald Trump made with drugmakers Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk to lower the prices of some GLP-1 and weight-loss medications. J.D. Hayworth, a former House Ways and Means member and spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Reform Alliance, joins me to discuss what this deal truly means for American patients. Is it a real step toward affordability, or just another profit play by Big Pharma? Hayworth can explain what Congress must do next to ensure lasting savings and accountability.Becky Noble, a journalist at Red State and her Substack Gumshoe Politics, joins me to discuss the latest with Chip Roy's bill to freeze immigration and the perks of working for the Chicago Public School system.Chris SalcedoThe Rise of the Liberty-Loving Latino: A New American RevolutionPharmaceutical Reform AllianceBecky Noble at Red StateGumshoe PoliticsBecome a supporter of Tapp into the Truth: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tapp-into-the-truth--556114/support Tapp into the Truth on Rumble. Follow, watch the older shows, and join the live streams.“Remember Pop Rocks? Now, imagine they gave you superpowers.” Please let me introduce you to Energy Rocks! Born from the grit and ambition of a competitive athlete who wanted a better, cleaner way to fuel the body and mind, without the hassle of mixing powders, messy bottles, or caffeine crashes. Energy Rocks is a reimagining of energy into something fun, functional, and fantastically effective. A delicious popping candy energy supplement that delivers a rapid boost of clean energy and focus — anytime, anywhere. No water. No mixing. No bulky bottles. Just open, pop it in your mouth, and get ready to rock. Making any time the right time to “Get in the Zone, One Pop at a Time.”Take This Free Quiz To Find Out The Best & Worst Foods To Avoid For Joint Pain!Do you wake up in the morning with stiff joints or pain in your hips, back, knees, or elbows? Then, chances are you're feeling the effects of chronic inflammation taking its toll on your body. The good news is that it is NEVER too late to help get this under control. And the best part is certain foods help you do this naturally, without the need for prescription medications.If recent events have proven anything, you need to be as prepared as possible for when things go sideways. You certainly can't count on the government for help. True liberty requires self-reliance. My Patriot SupplySupport American jobs! Support the show! Get great products at great prices! Go to My Pillow and use promo code TAPP to save! Visit Patriot Mobile or Call (817) 380-9081 to take advantage of a FREE Month of service when you switch using promo code TAPP! Morning Kick is a revolutionary new daily drink from Roundhouse Provisions that combines ultra-potent greens like spirulina and kale with probiotics, prebiotics, collagen, and even ashwagandha. Just mix with water, stir, and enjoy!Follow Tapp into the Truth on Locals Follow Tapp into the Truth on SubstackHero SoapPatriot DepotBlue CoolersKoa CoffeeBrainMDDiamond CBDSauce Bae2nd SkullEinstokBeanstoxBelle IsleMomento AIHoneyFund"Homegrown" Boone's BourbonBlackout Coffee Co.Full Circle Brewing Co.Pasmosa Sangria  

The White House today announced four new trade deals with Latin American countries: Argentina, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Ecuador. Meanwhile, the BBC has apologized to President Donald Trump for airing a documentary shortly before the 2024 presidential election that edited his Jan. 6, 2021, speech to make it appear he incited violence.The government shutdown is officially over after Congress reached a deal last night. Eight members of the Senate Democratic caucus and six Democratic representatives joined Republicans to pass the legislation. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins says that most SNAP recipients should receive benefits by the end of next week.Meanwhile, the fight for control of the U.S. House continues as the Justice Department today files a lawsuit targeting California's new congressional map. The lawsuit, filed in a California federal court, accuses the state's newly approved Proposition 50 of racial gerrymandering in violation of the Constitution.

Welcome to Episode 4 of the Errol Flynn Series - Let's continue with the book "Errol Flynn Slept Here" by Robert Matzen and Micheal Mazzone- It's time for Ch. 2 - "The Road to Mulholland." In this chapter, we find out all about Errol's tumultuous yet saucy relationship with his first wife, silent French Film Star Lili Damita, and how he begins his journey to acquiring his beloved Mulholland Farm.   Loving this Errol Flynn Series? Watch it on MY YT CHANNEL - The Episodes come alive with great photos of Errol Flynn, which you can enjoy while I read and discuss the chapters with you! He really was SO handsome- do yourself a favor and WATCH the episodes too! Click here - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyIMNnG5yA1_MnnfJQwAjtzm7215e4JMQ   Love my show? Leave me a 5 star review on Apple Podcasts- thanks WATCH all my episodes - Go to my YouTube Channel and subscribe -https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2FsXn-xhr4mYIAK0569BBw I have a channel membership over there if you'd like to support me! Simply click on the "join" button underneath my YT videos - thanks. Can't join but want to leave a tIp? Help keep me caffeinated and fill my tip jar here - https://buymeacoffee.com/jenniferc    Other stuff  I've been a licensed esthetician and a makeup artist for over two decades - Want to see a list of all of my favorite beauty product recommendations? Everything I love, use, and wear all the time - CLICK HERE - https://shopmy.us/jenniferc/shelves   BUY MY ONLINE SKINCARE GUIDES HERE-  https://jenniferchristopherson.com   In Christ, Xo Jennifer    Disclaimer- This video/podcast episode is under Fair Use: Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use. All rights and credit go directly to its rightful owners. No copyright infringement intended. All Opinions are my own and within my right to express under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution    

Congress voted on Wednesday to end the longest federal shutdown in the nation's history. Virginia Senator Tim Kaine joined a handful of Democrats to broker a deal with Senate Republicans. The deal included reversing some federal layoffs and guaranteeing payment for furloughed workers. What it did not include was an extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credits, a provision many Democrats insisted Republicans needed to add before they'd approve a funding bill. Sen. Kaine joined the show to explain why he voted to end the shutdown, despite pushback from many in his own party.Kain said on the Politics Hour that there was no path forward on healthcare subsidies without reopening the government. He said he voted only after securing federal worker protections from the White House, including back pay, rehiring workers who were fired during the shutdown, and an end to mass layoffs."I'm getting some holy hell, but I'm getting a lot of thanks from Virginians," the Senator said. "There were bad options, and so I have no judgment about anybody who resolved this question differently than me."He also said he's optimistic about a December vote to extend healthcare subsidies, given the growing pressure on Congress to come up with a fix.Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen, who represents one of the largest number of federal workers in the country, voted against the deal. Sen. Van Hollen took the mic to explain why he believes the funding agreement won't address rising healthcare costs and will continue to allow President Trump to ignore the law.Sen. Van Hollen also voiced his support for Maryland Governor Wes Moore's redistricting efforts."I believe we should have national nonpartisan line drawing, but Republicans tried to tip the playing field in Texas, and Maryland should maximize its opportunity to protect our Democracy and the Constitution in redistricting," Senator Van Hollen said.Politicos are speculating that At-Large D.C. Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie is considering a run for mayor. With D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser still undecided about running for a fourth term, he's among several potential candidates reportedly weighing runs of their own. Councilmember McDuffie also commented on D.C. residents raising questions after recent incidents where D.C. police have collaborated with federal immigration agents. He said the ICE raids need to stop. "There's no deal that I would sign that would permit our law enforcement to work with ICE, and I would want to be unequivocal about that," he said.Send us questions and comments for guests: kojo@wamu.orgFollow us on Instagram: instagram.com/wamu885Follow us on Bluesky: bsky.app/wamu.org

This Day in Legal History: Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonOn this day in legal history, November 14, 1922, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, a foundational case in American property law. At issue was a Pennsylvania statute—the Kohler Act—that prohibited coal mining beneath certain structures to prevent surface subsidence. The Pennsylvania Coal Company had previously sold the surface rights to a parcel of land but retained the right to mine the coal beneath. When the state blocked their ability to do so, the company sued, arguing that the law had effectively stripped them of valuable property rights without compensation. The case reached the Supreme Court, where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the majority opinion.In his decision, Holmes introduced the now-famous principle that “while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” This line marked the birth of the regulatory takings doctrine, which holds that government actions short of full appropriation can still require just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Holmes emphasized that the economic impact of a regulation on the property owner must be weighed, not just the public interest it serves. In this case, the regulation was deemed too burdensome to be considered a mere exercise of police power.The Court sided with the coal company, holding that the Kohler Act, as applied, amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The dissent, penned by Justice Brandeis, warned against undermining states' ability to protect public welfare. Despite being a 5–4 decision, Mahon has had lasting influence on land use, zoning, and environmental regulation. It reframed the boundaries between public regulation and private rights, signaling that not all public-interest laws are immune from constitutional scrutiny. Today, Mahon remains a cornerstone case for litigants challenging regulations that significantly diminish property value.A Texas judge is set to hear arguments on Attorney General Ken Paxton's request to block Kenvue from issuing a $398 million dividend and from marketing Tylenol as safe during pregnancy. Paxton sued Kenvue in October, accusing the company of hiding risks linked to prenatal Tylenol use, including autism and ADHD—a claim not supported by the broader medical community. The lawsuit follows public comments by Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promoting the same unproven theory. Kenvue and Johnson & Johnson, which previously owned Tylenol, maintain the drug's safety and argue the state has no authority to interfere in federal drug regulation or corporate dividends.The companies also say the dividend will not impair Kenvue's solvency and warn that Paxton's effort could undermine both the First Amendment and the credibility of Texas courts. Paxton, however, argues that the public interest justifies intervention, citing potential future liabilities from Tylenol and talc-related lawsuits. He contends that misleading commercial speech can be regulated, and that the dividend should be halted to preserve cash in the face of those risks. The case could have broader implications, particularly for Kimberly-Clark's $40 billion acquisition of Kenvue, announced shortly after the lawsuit. Kenvue has vowed to appeal any injunction.Judge to weigh if Texas AG can block Kenvue dividend over Tylenol claims | ReutersSierra Leone has reached a tentative settlement with U.S. law firm Jenner & Block to resolve a dispute over $8.1 million in unpaid legal fees. The law firm sued the West African nation in 2022, claiming it was still owed money for representing Sierra Leone in a high-stakes case against Gerald International Ltd., which had sought $1.8 billion in damages over an iron ore export ban. Jenner argued the legal work was more extensive than initially expected and said it had only been paid $3.6 million by the end of 2021.Sierra Leone pushed back, disputing the existence of a valid contract and asserting that no further payments were owed. The country also tried to claim sovereign immunity, but a federal judge rejected those arguments in January, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey announced the settlement in principle last week, although specific terms were not disclosed. Neither party has commented publicly on the resolution.Sierra Leone, law firm Jenner & Block reach settlement over $8 million legal tab | ReutersMcDermott Will & Emery has become the first major U.S. law firm to publicly confirm that it is considering private equity investment, signaling a potential shift in how Big Law might operate. The firm's chairman acknowledged preliminary talks with outside investors, a move that stunned the legal industry, where non-lawyer ownership has long been resisted due to ethical and regulatory restrictions. McDermott is reportedly exploring a structure that would separate its legal services from administrative operations by creating a managed service organization (MSO) owned by outside investors, allowing the firm to raise capital without violating professional conduct rules.This model has gained traction among smaller firms, but McDermott's adoption could legitimize the MSO approach for large firms. Proponents argue it would free lawyers to focus on client work while upgrading support systems through external funding. Critics caution that it involves relinquishing control of critical firm functions and raises concerns about maintaining ethical standards, particularly regarding fee-sharing with non-lawyers. While still early, industry experts say other firms are beginning to explore similar paths to stay competitive, especially in jurisdictions like Arizona that allow non-lawyer ownership.McDermott's Outside Investor Talks Augur Big Law TransformationThe Trump administration has filed suit against California over its recently approved congressional redistricting maps, which were adopted through a ballot initiative known as Proposition 50. The measure, passed by voters last week, allows temporary use of new district lines that could give Democrats up to five additional U.S. House seats. The Justice Department joined a lawsuit initially filed by the California Republican Party and several voters, alleging that the redistricting plan was racially motivated and unconstitutional.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi called the maps a “brazen power grab,” accusing California of using race to unlawfully boost Hispanic voting power. California Governor Gavin Newsom dismissed the lawsuit, framing it as retaliation for California's resistance to Trump's broader political agenda. Newsom also argued that the new maps are a necessary corrective to Republican-led gerrymandering efforts, like those in Texas, where civil rights groups have sued over alleged dilution of minority voting power.The lawsuit claims California's map violates the U.S. Constitution by improperly using race in the redistricting process. The outcome could impact the balance of power in the House and add fuel to ongoing legal battles over partisan and racial gerrymandering nationwide.Trump administration sues California over new redistricting maps | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven, a composer of some note.This week's closing theme is the first movement of Ludwig van Beethoven's Symphony No. 8 in F Major, Op. 93 – I. Allegro vivace e con brio, a work that balances classical clarity with Beethoven's unmistakable wit and rhythmic drive. Composed in 1812 during a period of personal turmoil, the Eighth is often described as a cheerful outlier among his symphonies, compact and effervescent despite being written amid deteriorating health and emotional strain. It was premiered in 1814, but it was a revival performance on November 14, 1814, in Vienna that helped solidify its reputation and gave the public a second opportunity to appreciate its lightness and humor in contrast to the more dramatic works surrounding it.Unlike the grand scale of the Seventh or Ninth, the Eighth is shorter and more classical in form, often drawing comparisons to Haydn in its wit and economy. Yet Beethoven infuses it with his unique voice—syncopations, dynamic extremes, and abrupt harmonic shifts abound, particularly in the first movement. The Allegro vivace e con brio opens with a bold, playful theme, tossing melodic fragments between the orchestra with cheerful assertiveness. It's less stormy than many of Beethoven's first movements, but no less commanding.Critics at the time were puzzled by the symphony's restraint and humor, expecting more overt heroism from Beethoven. But modern listeners often recognize the Eighth as a masterwork of compression and invention. The first movement in particular plays with rhythmic momentum, frequently disrupting expectations just as they form. There's a confidence in its restraint, a knowing smile behind the forceful accents and offbeat rhythms. It's music that's both technically impressive and viscerally enjoyable, which is perhaps why Beethoven held it in especially high regard.As we close out the week, we leave you with that November 14 revival spirit—a reminder that even a “little Symphony” can land with enduring force.Without further ado, Ludwig van Beethoven's Symphony No. 8 in F Major, Op. 93 – I. Allegro vivace e con brio, enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for November 13, 2025. 0:30 We break down the Department of Justice’s stunning lawsuit against the state of California over Proposition 50, a ballot initiative that rewrote the state’s congressional maps with blatant, unapologetic racial gerrymandering. With the balance of power in Congress potentially shifting by as many as nine seats, this isn’t just about California. It’s about the future of the Voting Rights Act, the limits of racial considerations in mapmaking, and whether the Constitution still draws the lines… or the politicians do. 9:30 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know. President Trump signed a bill ending the federal Government shutdown. Democrat Katie Wilson defeated incumbent Democrat Bruce Harrell to become the next mayor of Seattle. The former Chief of Staff for California Governor Gavin Newsom was just arrested as part of a federal corruption investigation. 12:30 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 13:00 California is back in the headlines — and not for anything resembling sanity. We break down the explosive revelation that the California DMV handed out more than 17,000 commercial trucking licenses to foreign nationals, including illegal aliens with no work permits, no legal status, and in many cases, no ability to read or speak English. What should be a safety-first agency has been weaponized into a sanctuary institution, prioritizing politics over public safety. We dive into how this reckless licensing spree undermines trained American truckers, destabilizes one of the most regulated industries in the nation, and endangers everyone on the road. 16:00 We ask American Mamas — Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson — what they think about the viral confrontation between singer Tish Hyman and California congressional candidate Scott Weiner. After a fully intact biological male entered the women’s locker room at her San Francisco gym, Hyman — a Black lesbian and longtime Democrat voter — confronted Wiener directly, demanding to know whether he would actually protect women’s safety. The Mamas break down the moment Hyman stood her ground against a hostile crowd, challenged the narrative that “trans women are women,” and exposed the disturbing criminal history of the man at the center of the controversy. What emerges is a rare, powerful pushback from inside the Democratic base itself — and a sign that even in San Francisco, the backlash to radical gender policies may be beginning. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 22:30 We break down the stunning admission from Democratic Senators John Hickenlooper and Jack Reed, who now claim the longest government shutdown in American history was — unbelievably — “worth it.” While millions of Americans went without paychecks, vital services stalled, and military families were left in limbo, these senators are patting themselves on the back as if the suffering was an acceptable price for partisan leverage. We dig into what the shutdown was really about: not national security, not fiscal responsibility, but a political standoff over illegal-alien healthcare and a $1.5 trillion progressive wish list. 27:00 We Dig Deep into a rare moment of clarity from the U.S. Supreme Court — courtesy of Justice Neil Gorsuch. While promoting his upcoming children’s book, Heroes of 1776, Gorsuch sat down with Fox & Friends’ Lawrence Jones to discuss an urgent issue: America’s growing civic illiteracy. When asked about the consequences of removing foundational stories from our classrooms, Gorsuch didn’t hesitate. The greatest threat to America, he warned, is America itself — a population that no longer knows its own history. We unpack his sobering reminder that most Americans can’t pass the same citizenship test required of legal immigrants, and how that civic ignorance is fueling everything from political polarization to the rise of socialism in major cities. If we don’t teach people why this nation was founded — the principles of natural rights, limited government, and personal liberty — then someone else will fill that void, and not with the truth. 32:00 Get TrimROX from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 33:00 We dive into the newest revelations from the Epstein document dump—and what the media isn’t telling you. While headlines focus on misdirection and selectively edited claims, the real story is hiding in plain sight: high-profile journalists and a former New York Times reporter were privately begging Jeffrey Epstein for dirt on Donald Trump… and came up empty. We break down who was involved, what the emails actually show, and why the media’s narrative conveniently ignores the exculpatory details. 35:00 Plus, Barry Brownstein’s Daily Economy article, “The Economics of Gratitude" is a real Bright Spot. We unpack a powerful idea from the article, that gratitude— not entitlement— is the foundation of prosperity. Drawing on insights from 19th-century economist Frédéric Bastiat, we reflect on how modern life is built on the contributions of millions of people we’ll never meet—and how easy it is to lose sight of that. From the smartphones in our pockets to the computers on our desks, we rely every day on technology that no single person could ever build alone. Yet in a culture of comfort and convenience, gratitude evaporates quickly. We dig into how cultivating gratitude can reshape your worldview, your politics, and your daily life, and why remembering what you already have may be the most radical—and liberating—act you can take. 39:30 Harvard's grading scale has basically become a joke. They call it “grade inflation,” but let’s be honest—it’s a participation-trophy festival. And now there’s a rumor that Harvard might finally do something about it. Perhaps Harvard has realized that standards really do matter and they're saying, "Whoa." 41:30 And we finish off with some Words of Wisdom about gratitude. Follow us: americangroundradio.com Facebook: facebook.com / AmericanGroundRadio Instagram: instagram.com/americangroundradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Dean is joined by Don Fortson, one of the EPC's leading authorities on our denomination's history and doctrine. Together, they explore the deep relationship between the Essentials of Our Faith and the Westminster Confession of Faith, unpacking how these foundational documents work together to shape the theological core of the EPC's Constitution. Don and Dean discuss the importance of doctrinal integrity, the role of confessional subscription in the life of the church, and how the EPC's distinctive approach preserves both unity in the essentials and liberty in non-essentials. Through their conversations, listeners will gain a richer understanding of why what we believe – and how we hold those beliefs – matters deeply for the church's witness and health today.

In this episode of America's Founding Series on The P.A.S. Report Podcast, Professor Nick Giordano tells the riveting story of Pelatiah Webster, the clergyman-turned-economist, who saw America's future more clearly than anyone of his time. As the young republic teetered on collapse in 1781, Webster's bold vision for limited government, sound money, and individual enterprise laid the groundwork for the U.S. Constitution and the free-market system that built the nation. His warnings about inflation, dependency, and centralized control echo today as socialism and big-government promises sweep through modern politics.   Episode Highlights How Pelatiah Webster's 1781 blueprint inspired Madison and Hamilton and helped shape the U.S. Constitution. Why Webster's fight against debt, inflation, and dependency remains a direct warning to today's socialist and big-government movements. What Webster taught about freedom and property rights and why capitalism, not government control and socialism, is the true guardian of liberty.

The Right is arguably more fractured than ever before. Why is that, how did we get to this point, and what should we do about it? I sat down with Auron MacIntyre and asked him: What Should the Right Want? SPONSOR: StopBoxFirearm security redesigned. With the StopBox Pro, you'll never have to choose between security and readiness again. Its ingenious push-button locking system gives you fast, reliable access when every second matters - without the hassle of keys or reliance on batteries. Order now for a Buy One Get One Free for the StopBox Pro.Get 10% off with code MTA10 at https://www.stopboxusa.com/MTA10-----Support the show and surprise your friends and family with MTA gear for Christmas! Grab something awesome from our online shop. We've got T-shirts, mugs, and more - all designed for fans like you.Check out https://shop.nickjfreitas.com/-----GET YOUR MERCH HERE: https://shop.nickjfreitas.com/BECOME A MEMBER OF THE IC: https://NickJFreitas.comInstagram: www.instagram.com/nickjfreitas/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NickFreitasVATwitter: https://twitter.com/NickJFreitasYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@NickjfreitasTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@nickfreitas3.000:00:00 Intro00:01:02 Why the Right is so Fractured00:05:28 The Difference Between Conservatism and Right-wing00:13:58 Liberal Universalism and the American Constitution00:18:58 Objective Truth, Natural Law, and Cultural Differences00:28:50 Wokeism and Christianity00:36:38 The Return of Morality and Worldviews to Politics00:43:54 The Friend-Enemy Distinction00:50:34 Power Must Check Power00:55:25 Constitutions are Written on Our Hearts01:02:20 What Changes Would Auron Make to America?

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – What better way to honor our veterans than by exercising the rights they defended? The best way to honor them is to exercise the blessings of liberty the Constitution was designed to defend. That is why I will have Dr. Chloe on to discuss her new book: Can I Say That: Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly...

Send us a textCivil rights vs. civil liberties—what happens when rights collide? Today we discuss. Leadership Parenting- Resilient Moms Raise Resilient KidsLeigh Germann helps moms feel calm, confident, and raise resilient kidsListen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the show

Under our Constitution, the federal government and the states have distinct powers — especially when it comes to elections. But the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to interfere with how states run elections, pushing unlawful policies that undermine faith in safe, secure and accurate elections.Host Simone Leeper sits down with Catie Kelley, Senior Director of Policy and Strategic Partnerships at Campaign Legal Center, and Jonathan Diaz, CLC's Director of Voting Advocacy and Partnerships, to examine how the Trump administration has attempted to federalize elections, impose unconstitutional voter restrictions and silence Americans.They unpack CLC's major court victory against the administration's unlawful election executive order; explain how new proof-of-citizenship requirements could disenfranchise millions of voters; and discuss lawsuits defending states' rights and voters' privacy against federal overreach. They also explore broader threats—from troubling legislation and to presidential attacks on mail-in voting—and what Campaign Legal Center is doing to preserve checks and balances, protect election integrity and defend every American's freedom to vote.Timestamps:(00:00) — What does “federalism” mean, and why is it under attack?(02:50) — How is the Trump administration overstepping its authority on elections?(06:44) — What lawsuits has CLC filed to stop the president's election overreach?(07:58) — Why are proof-of-citizenship rules so dangerous for voters?(11:28) — How are military families impacted by new voting restrictions?(14:50) — Why is the DOJ demanding states' voter data—and why is it alarming?(17:56) — How are states pushing back to defend their power and voters' privacy?(19:10) — What is the SAVE Act, and how could it silence millions of voters?(25:16) — Why is mail-in voting under attack again?(28:41) — How does misinformation from the president erode trust in elections?(30:51) — What lessons from 2024 should shape the 2026 midterms?(34:04) — What can states do to strengthen confidence in elections?(36:24) — What should voters remember heading into 2026 and beyond?(40:17) — How can Americans hold the line for democracy?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Catie Kelley is Senior Director of Policy & Strategic Partnerships at Campaign Legal Center. Catie oversees CLC's policy work at the federal, state and local levels. She is leading CLC's work to address the emerging threats of election sabotage. Previously, Catie built and ran CLC's state campaign finance program. In that capacity, she worked with state and local stakeholders and policymakers to advance innovative policies designed to decrease the influence of money in the political process. She began her legal career in the Federal Election Commission's Office of General Counsel.Jonathan Diaz is Director of Voting Advocacy and Partnerships at Campaign Legal Center. Jonathan advocates for laws and policies that expand the freedom to vote for all Americans; leads CLC's work on combatting election sabotage; and coordinates CLC's relationships with national, state and local voting rights partners.Jonathan manages CLC's work to protect election results and defend against election sabotage, and he works directly with CLC's litigation, communications and policy teams to help set organizational strategy on voting rights and elections advocacy. He also works directly with election officials at the state and local level to improve election administration processes, and he represents CLC in democracy reform coalitions to coordinate legal, advocacy and messaging strategies with partner organizations across the country.Jonathan has also litigated voting rights cases in federal courts across the country, including LULAC v. Executive Office of the President (challenging the President's unconstitutional executive order on voting); LUCHA v. Fontes (challenging Arizona's burdensome and discriminatory proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration); VoteAmerica v. Raffensperger (challenging Georgia's restrictions on the distribution of absentee ballot applications); and Raysor v. Lee (challenging Florida's conditioning of rights restoration for voters with past felony convictions on the payment of legal financial obligations).Links:Victory! Anti-Voter Executive Order Halted in Court  – CLCVoting Is an American Freedom. The President Can't Change That – CLCHow CLC Is Pushing Back on the Trump Administration's Anti-Voter Actions – CLCTaking Action Against Presidential Abuses of Power  – CLCWhat You Need to Know About the SAVE Act  – CLCVote-By-Mail: A Secure and Accessible Way to Cast Your Ballot  – CLCA Raging Battle for Democracy One Year from the Midterms – Trevor Potter's newsletterAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Lock and load, patriots—@InTheMatrixxx and @ShadyGrooove charge into Season 7, Episode 217: "The Democrat Shutdown Ended; J6 Pipe Bomber Narrative Busted." FBI insider Dan Bongino demolishes media fake news on the January 6 pipe bomber, labeling reports "grossly inaccurate" and confirming no real leads despite open-source intel. These truth warriors break down the radical left's 43-day economic sabotage that failed spectacularly, celebrating President Trump's bold bill cutting taxes on tips, Social Security, and overtime—while calling out Democrat demands for illegal alien handouts. Razor-sharp analysis on psyops hitting MAGA heroes: Kash Patel's FBI overhaul treating cartels as terrorists and tracking Antifa funds; Alexis Wilkins under fire; and shredding Candace Owens' baseless smears for views. Evidence over emotion—algorithms breed division, but the Constitution is our ultimate weapon. Stand with Trump and America First! Tune in weekdays at 12:05 PM ET / 9:05 AM PT. Catch on-demand via Podbean or major apps. Show Notes: Intro & Patriot Call to Arms Democrat Shutdown Debacle Exposed J6 Pipe Bomber Narrative Busted by Bongino Trump's Tax Cuts Victory Psyops on Kash Patel & FBI Reforms Alexis Wilkins & Candace Owens Breakdown Closing: Truth Learned, Not Told Where to Listen: Podbean: https://mgshow.podbean.com (or search "MG Show") Also distributed to Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and more Engage: Telegram Chat: https://t.me/mgshowchannel Voice Chats: https://t.me/MGShow Follow on Social: X: @InTheMatrixxx | @ShadyGrooove YouTube: MG Show | ShadyGrooove Support MG Show: Fundraiser: https://givesendgo.com/helpmgshow Donate: https://mg.show/support Merch: https://merch.mg.show MyPillow Deal: Code MGSHOW at https://mypillow.com/mgshow Crypto Donations: Bitcoin: bc1qtl2mftxzv8cxnzenmpav6t72a95yudtkq9dsuf Ethereum: 0xA11f0d2A68193cC57FAF9787F6Db1d3c98cf0b4D ADA: addr1q9z3urhje7jp2g85m3d4avfegrxapdhp726qpcf7czekeuayrlwx4lrzcfxzvupnlqqjjfl0rw08z0fmgzdk7z4zzgnqujqzsf XLM: GAWJ55N3QFYPFA2IC6HBEQ3OTGJGDG6OMY6RHP4ZIDFJLQPEUS5RAMO7 LTC: ltc1qapwe55ljayyav8hgg2f9dx2y0dxy73u0tya0pu All Links: https://linktr.ee/mgshow Intermission Music: Lemurian Shores (with Lucentia) (~432 Hz) by Spheriá | https://soundcloud.com/spheriamusic | Promoted by https://www.chosic.com/free-music/all/ | CC BY-SA 3.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ #Trump #MAGA #AmericaFirst #J6 #DanBongino #KashPatel #CandaceOwens #FBI #Psyops #GovernmentShutdown

Part 2: The Natural Law provides a key to resolving a Republican debate in the 1980s on the normative judicial power, Judicial Activism v. Judicial Restraint. We did the Foreward by Richard A. Epstein last time (15 Oct 2025) and this time we continue with the Preface and Chapter 1. Stephen Macedo published "The New Right v. The Constitution" with The CATO Institute in 1986. We're going to make a fair use and do a transformative reading of the book. CATO offers a free download of the book here: https://www.cato.org/books/new-right-v-constitution We'd like to thank Stephen Macedo for writing the book and to thank CATO for making this material available in publishing it. Consider supporting CATO with a financial donation so that they can continue providing quality resources for discussion. Tell a friend about their resources. This episode includes a reading at the end of Psalm 51 (KJV) and January 18th of Streams in the Desert (Cowman: Los Feliz Station Lost Angeles, CA 1925). The Republican Professor is a pro-appropriate-judicial-activism podcast. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Steve Shultz interviews Dr. Scott Young for a special broadcast of "Prophets and Patriots.” Dr. Scott discusses how Trump is using the Constitution to solve debt, the shockingly relevant 14th Amendment, the impact of redistricting, and more! Dr. Scott also answers viewers' questions about NESARA. You can connect with Dr. Scott Young at https://drscottyoung.com and https://t.me/DrScottNESARA Do you have a question for Dr. Scott regarding NESARA? Submit it here and we may select it for an upcoming show: questionsfordrscott.com For more information and to register for the 2026 Israel Tour visit ElijahStreams.com/Israel26 Thank you for making the always-free Elijah List Ministries possible! Click here to learn how to partner with us: https://ElijahStreams.com/Donate Prefer to donate by mail? Make your check or money order (US Dollars) payable to: “ElijahStreams” and mail it to: ElijahStreams, 525 2nd Ave SW, Suite 629, Albany, OR 97321 USA

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – What better way to honor our veterans than by exercising the rights they defended? The best way to honor them is to exercise the blessings of liberty the Constitution was designed to defend. That is why I will have Dr. Chloe on to discuss her new book: Can I Say That: Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly...

Ce jeudi 13 novembre 2025 marque les 10 ans des attentats de Paris et de Saint-Denis. Le Stade de France, des terrasses de bars et la salle de concert du Bataclan avaient été pris pour cible par des terroristes se revendiquant du groupe État islamique. 132 personnes ont été tuées, dont des étrangers, comme Luis Felipe Zschoche Valle, un Chilien de 33 ans. Sa famille vient tous les ans à Paris honorer sa mémoire. Sa famille s'est confiée à RFI. La mère de Luis Felipe, Nancy Valle, a assisté aux cérémonies de ce jeudi 13 novembre 2025, comme les années précédentes. «Pour moi, c'est une année comme les autres», expliquait-elle au micro de Marine de La Moissonnière, quelques heures plus tôt. «Dix ans, ce n'est rien parce que l'absence est toujours là. Ce sont dix années de jours vides, de silences éloquents. Tous les jours, je pense à mon fils», poursuit-elle. «Avec le temps, ma peine s'est transformée. C'est une douleur plus apaisée : je ne ressens plus de rage, d'impuissance, de sentiment d'échec de n'avoir pas réussi à protéger mon enfant. Il n'y a plus rien à faire que se souvenir de lui, célébrer sa vie et honorer sa mémoire. Et c'est très important parce que ça peut permettre que cela ne se reproduise plus jamais», souligne-t-elle. «Chaque année, quand approche la date du 13 novembre, cette blessure qui est en train de cicatriser s'ouvre à nouveau.» Après avoir assisté aux cérémonies d'hommages, elle partira pour Gap où son fils est enterré. «C'est mon rituel, chaque année. Puis chaque fois, quand je repars pour le Chili, j'ai l'impression de l'abandonner, explique-t-elle, très émue. Ça me fait du bien d'être à Paris et à Gap, avec des gens qui ont vécu la même chose que moi. On se réconforte entre nous. Au Chili, ma famille et moi, on est seules avec notre douleur. Je n'ai personne avec qui parler de tout ça. Mais ici en France, si. Et ça fait du bien.» Le procès qui s'est tenu en 2021 et 2022 a aussi contribué à apaiser cette douleur. «Avant le procès, je n'existais pas pour la justice : personne ne nous a prévenues de la tenue du procès. On l'a su grâce à des journalistes de Radio France Internationale qui nous ont aussi expliqué comment y participer», se remémore Nancy Valle. «Ce procès m'a aidée. Il a été comme une reconstruction judiciaire. Cela m'a un peu apaisée de savoir que la justice avait fait son travail. C'est une satisfaction de savoir que les accusés ont été jugés et condamnés», conclut-elle.   Haïti : la sécurité des ports mise en cause par les États-Unis La garde-côtière américaine a déterminé que «le gouvernement haïtien ne mettait pas en œuvre de manière substantielle le Code international pour la sûreté des navires et des installations portuaires au niveau national et au niveau des installations portuaires» et ne «constatait pas la mise en place de mesures de sécurité efficaces», peut-on lire dans une lettre transmise au gouvernement haïtien via l'ambassade des États-Unis en Haïti, rapporte Le Nouvelliste, mercredi 12 novembre 2025. Tirs, kidnappings, à quai ou en mer, «depuis des mois, les ports et des navires sont attaqués par les gangs», ajoute son rédacteur en chef, Frantz Duval, alors que «Haïti importe par voie maritime plus de 80% de ses biens de consommation», souligne-t-il.    Le plus long shutdown de l'histoire des États-Unis s'achève Après plus de 40 jours de paralysie budgétaire, les fonctionnaires vont de nouveau pouvoir être payés et les programmes d'aides sociales vont reprendre, notamment l'aide alimentaire SNAP. Certains élus démocrates ont voté contre la ligne de leur parti, qui exigeait la prolongation des aides publiques pour le système d'assurance santé Obamacare. «Stupidity never shuts down» («La stupidité ne s'arrête jamais»), ce titre assassin et ce jeu de mots ont été choisis par le Wall Street Journal pour son éditorial du jour. Le quotidien économique se moque des démocrates qui ont cru que, plus la paralysie budgétaire durerait, plus ils auraient de chance d'obtenir la prolongation de l'Obamacare. Ce n'était «pas la stratégie la plus maline», estime le quotidien. Le quotidien Detroit Free Press est plus clément : les élus démocrates qui ont voté avec les républicains pour mettre fin au shutdown le plus long de l'histoire du pays «avaient des arguments entendables», lit-on dans une tribune publiée sur le site de ce média du Michigan. Par exemple, celui de considérer que les citoyens touchés par la paralysie budgétaire avaient «assez souffert». «Qu'auriez-vous fait à leur place ?», interroge l'auteur, qui s'adresse aux électeurs états-uniens. À ses yeux, il reste encore une chance de prolonger Obamacare.   Campagne électorale tendue au Honduras Le Honduras se prépare à voter pour choisir son nouveau ou sa nouvelle présidente, le 30 novembre 2025. La campagne se déroule dans un climat de «crispation» selon El Heraldo, à Tegucigalpa. La majorité sortante de gauche et l'opposition de droite s'accusent mutuellement de vouloir attenter contre la transparence et la sincérité du vote. D'un côté, une enquête a été ouverte contre un député de droite ou encore contre une membre de l'autorité électorale, soupçonnés d'avoir voulu organiser une fraude. De l'autre, le gouvernement de gauche est particulièrement critiqué après avoir annoncé que l'armée sera chargée de réaliser un décompte parallèle des voix. Les candidats de l'opposition ont appelé ce mercredi 12 novembre 2025 à «protéger» l'intégrité du processus électoral. Même les États-Unis ont décidé de s'en mêler. Le secrétaire d'État adjoint du gouvernement Trump, Christopher Landau, prévient que Washington «suit de près le processus électoral», rapporte le journal La Tribuna. Le gouvernement états-unien «exhorte les autorités [...] à respecter les lois et la Constitution», faute de quoi il «réagira rapidement», rapporte encore le média hondurien, qui y voit un «avertissement» de la part du grand voisin régional. El Heraldo nuance tout de même cette menace et pointe du doigt la «naïveté de l'opposition», qui insinue, selon le journal, que les États-Unis pourraient envahir le Honduras en cas de victoire de la majorité sortante de gauche. La présidente Xiomara Castro n'échappe pas aux critiques, cette fois-ci dans La Prensa, dont un des éditorialistes accuse la dirigeante d'attiser les divisions au sein de la société hondurienne.   Dans les Caraïbes françaises... Le saviez-vous ? La Martinique est la région de France où l'on compte le plus de… personnes âgées, nous raconte Benoît Ferrand, de La 1ère.

On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show, the Democratic Party is being internally devoured by Marxism and Islamism, ideologies foreign to America's founding principles. These forces, power-hungry and seeking centralized control, mask their hatred for the country as righteousness, liberation, equality, and affordability, while spreading rapidly and replacing the party's base and leadership.  In response, a fascistic reaction emerges on the radical right by grifters like podcasters and influencers who gain fame and wealth promoting it. Both Marxists and fascists seek to destroy American institutions—the former to replace them, the latter claiming they fail—leading to dwindling support for the Declaration, Constitution, and founders. The Republican Party resists this fascistic right, albeit insufficiently, whereas the Democratic Party, having unleashed and failed to control these forces, is now becoming the Marxist left. Also, Rep Mike Lawler calls in and explains that the Democrat government shutdown was idiotic, aimed at fighting Trump and appeasing their far-left base through political leverage rather than benefiting Americans or addressing healthcare. He argues that Obamacare's affordability relies solely on federal subsidies like enhanced ACA tax credits, which he is open to extending for one year to enable fundamental fixes, as the program has driven up costs over 15 years, destroyed the system through ineffective consolidation, and failed to achieve economies of scale.  Afterward, UC Berkeley student radicals from groups including Students Organizing for Liberation, Jewish Voice for Peace, and Young Democratic Socialists of America organized protests against a Turning Point event. These protesters are anti-Israel, anti-US radicals linked to Soros operations and leftist figures like Bernie Sanders and AOC, who seek to overthrow the country rather than engage in civil debate. Finally, we thank all who served in the military, although thanks can never be enough. Veterans are a unique and shrinking breed who deserve appreciation for their sacrifices, with the country owing them a great debt. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Brother Alvin Jackson unpacks vivid Second Coming imagery and covenant power in Section 133, then shows how Section 134 champions constitutional government and religious freedom amid persecution and calls disciples to courageous, informed civic engagement.SHOW NOTES/TRANSCRIPTS English: https://tinyurl.com/podcastDC247EN French: https://tinyurl.com/podcastDC247FR German: https://tinyurl.com/podcastDC247DE Portuguese: https://tinyurl.com/podcastDC247PT Spanish: https://tinyurl.com/podcastDC247ESYOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/I6v3Oy8Vux0ALL EPISODES/SHOW NOTESfollowHIM website: https://www.followHIM.co2021 Episode Doctrine & Covenants 133-134 Part 2https://youtu.be/XC76LJpD8rg2021 Episode Doctrine & Covenants 133-134 Part 3https://youtu.be/Uj4hHMgk4rUFREE PDF DOWNLOADS OF followHIM QUOTE BOOKSNew Testament: https://tinyurl.com/PodcastNTBookOld Testament: https://tinyurl.com/PodcastOTBookBook of Mormon: https://tinyurl.com/PodcastBMBook  WEEKLY NEWSLETTER https://tinyurl.com/followHIMnewsletter  SOCIAL MEDIA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/followHIMpodcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/followhimpodcastTIMECODE:00:00 Part 2 - Brother Alvin Jackson02:55 How to make wine 04:13 A Top Ten scripture06:19 Pack your bags08:38 Graves opening11:19 God uses the unlikely13:56 Growing up in the Baptist Church15:56 The Doctrine and Covenants presented 19:52 Principle of protection of the innocent23:39 King Noah was a “bad dude”27:19 Brother Jackson's greatest blessings and greatest warnings list30:38 The Constitution as forerunner33:55 “Almost all men …”35:54 W.W. Phelps article37:31 How should Saints interact with their government?42:34 The Founding Fathers' character45:18 Advice for parents47:31 We cannot be subtle any longer52:04 How to honor sacrifice 53:49 Brother Jackson bears his testimony of Jesus Christ58:49 End of Part 2 - Brother Alvin JacksonThanks to the followHIM team:Steve & Shannon Sorensen: Cofounder, Executive Producer, SponsorDavid & Verla Sorensen: SponsorsDr. Hank Smith: Co-hostJohn Bytheway: Co-hostDavid Perry: ProducerKyle Nelson: Marketing, SponsorLisa Spice: Client Relations, Editor, Show NotesWill Stoughton: Video EditorKrystal Roberts: Translation Team, English & French Transcripts, WebsiteAriel Cuadra: Spanish TranscriptsAmelia Kabwika: Portuguese TranscriptsHeather Barlow: Communications DirectorSydney Smith: Social Media, Graphic Design "Let Zion in Her Beauty Rise" by Marshall McDonaldhttps://www.marshallmcdonaldmusic.com

The United States Army Special Forces, aka Green Berets, are a unique fighting force and capability. They are masters at unconventional warfare with the capability of sending 12 man teams forward that can mobilize indigenous forces to ultimately other-throw whole nations. There methods are unique. As a force they are loyal to the Constitution and their mission. They are also a threat to the Globalist oligarchs that are trying to destroy America. A war has been waged to diminish and discredit the institution of the Green Beret. It is a war that must be stopped. #BardsFM #VeteransDay #GreenBeret Bards Nation Health Store: www.bardsnationhealth.com EnviroKlenz Air Purification, promo code BARDS to save 10%:www.enviroklenz.com BardsFM CAP, Celebrating 50 Million Downloads: https://ambitiousfaith.net Morning Intro Music Provided by Brian Kahanek: www.briankahanek.com MYPillow promo code: BARDS Go to https://www.mypillow.com/bards and use the promo code BARDS or... Call 1-800-975-2939.  White Oak Pastures Grassfed Meats, Get $20 off any order $150 or more. Promo Code BARDS: www.whiteoakpastures.com/BARDS Windblown Media 20% Discount with promo code BARDS: windblownmedia.com Founders Bible 20% discount code: BARDS >>> TheFoundersBible.com Mission Darkness Faraday Bags and RF Shielding. Promo code BARDS: Click here EMPShield protect your vehicles and home. Promo code BARDS: Click here EMF Solutions to keep your home safe: https://www.emfsol.com/?aff=bards Treadlite Broadforks...best garden tool EVER. Promo code BARDS: TreadliteBroadforks.com No Knot Today Natural Skin Products: NoKnotToday.com Health, Nutrition and Detox Consulting: HealthIsLocal.com Destination Real Food Book on Amazon: click here Images In Bloom Soaps and Things: ImagesInBloom.com Angeline Design: AngelineDesign.com DONATE: Click here Mailing Address: Xpedition Cafe, LLC Attn. Scott Kesterson 591 E Central Ave, #740 Sutherlin, OR  97479

Did you know illegal immigrants are included in the U.S. Census? Since the 1960's, the Left has been abusing the Constitution by counting illegal immigrants in the data that impacts our congressional maps and even presidential elections. Kevin Roberts and Larry O'Connor break down why exactly this is a problem and how it affects everything from power […]

Shaun reminds us what our Veterans fought against! PLUS, Shaun talks to Jim Pfaff, President of The Conservative Caucus, about the unconstitutionality of Obamacare, how our government is unmoored by the Constitution, and how we can revive (and make better) the Tea Party. In honor of Veteran's Day, Shaun talks to Marissa Keller, Senior Director of Farm2Veteran, about their mission to feed hungry veterans and how you can help them help veterans in need! And Lee Smith, author of The China Matrix: The Epic Story of How Donald Trump Shattered a Deadly Pact, is back to finish his conversation with Shaun about the problem with China is the American Elites who do business in China with the Chinese Elites and all the money China makes off the back of American taxpayers. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Gear up, freedom fighters! In MG Show Season 7, Episode 216: "President Trump Interview Part 2; Karoline Leavitt Press Briefing," hosts @intheMatrixxx and @shadygrooove (Jeff and Shannon) deliver unfiltered truth bombs defending FBI Director Kash Patel against "fake MAGA" smears from globalist puppets. Spotlighting Trump's groundbreaking China deal banning all 13 fentanyl precursors and 7 subsidiaries to dismantle the deadly cartel pipeline—securing our borders, crushing the invasion, and saving American lives under America First leadership. Dive into Trump's no-BS Fox News chat with Laura Ingraham: Economic triumphs like gas prices plummeting to record lows, Walmart's 25% cheaper Thanksgiving meals for hardworking families, his smart stance on H-1B visas for irreplaceable skilled talent (putting American workers first without selling out to Big Tech globalists), and his business-savvy White House renovations proving efficient, taxpayer-saving leadership. Karoline Leavitt's briefing exposes the 43-day Democrat-engineered government shutdown wrecking SNAP benefits and flights—demanding a clean CR bill to end the chaos and restore order. We dismantle misinformation campaigns, including baseless attacks on Patel's girlfriend Alexis Wilkins as a "Mossad plant," and debunk Democrat redactions in Epstein docs as desperate distractions from Trump's wins against the deep state. Battle-hardened info warriors bring primary sources, raw clips, and analysis exposing left-right media manipulation to divide the MAGA base. The Constitution is your weapon—truth is learned, never told. Stand with Trump against globalist sabotage and reclaim our Republic! Timestamps: - 0:00 - Intro: Gear Up, Freedom Fighters! - 2:30 - Defending Kash Patel Against Fake MAGA Smears - 10:45 - Trump's China Fentanyl Ban Breakthrough - 18:20 - Trump on Laura Ingraham: Economic Wins & Gas Prices - 25:10 - H-1B Visas: America First Talent Strategy - 32:40 - White House Renovations: Trump's Business Savvy - 40:15 - Karoline Leavitt Briefing: Ending Democrat Shutdown - 48:00 - Dismantling Misinformation & Epstein Smears - 55:30 - Primary Sources & Media Manipulation Exposed - 1:02:00 - Call to Action: Stand with Trump Tune in LIVE weekdays at 12pm ET / 9am PST. Catch on-demand on Rumble: https://rumble.com/mgshow or https://mgshow.link/7216. Where to Watch & Listen: - Live: Rumble (https://rumble.com/mgshow) | Red State Talk Radio (https://mgshow.link/redstate) | X (https://x.com/inthematrixxx) | Kick (https://kick.com/mgshow) - Podcasts: Search "MG Show" on Podbean, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Pandora, Amazon Music. Engage: Join the conversation on Telegram (https://t.me/mgshowchannel) with live voice chats (https://t.me/MGShow). Follow: - X: @intheMatrixxx (https://x.com/inthematrixxx) | @shadygrooove (https://x.com/shadygrooove) - YouTube: MG Show (https://youtube.com/c/inthematrixxx) | ShadyGrooove (https://www.youtube.com/c/TruthForFreedom) Support the Show: - Fundraiser: https://givesendgo.com/helpmgshow - Donate: https://mg.show/support - Merch: https://merch.mg.show - MyPillow Special (use code MGSHOW): https://mypillow.com/mgshow Crypto Donations: - Bitcoin: bc1qtl2mftxzv8cxnzenmpav6t72a95yudtkq9dsuf - Ethereum: 0xA11f0d2A68193cC57FAF9787F6Db1d3c98cf0b4D - ADA: addr1q9z3urhje7jp2g85m3d4avfegrxapdhp726qpcf7czekeuayrlwx4lrzcfxzvupnlqqjjfl0rw08z0fmgzdk7z4zzgnqujqzsf - XLM: GAWJ55N3QFYPFA2IC6HBEQ3OTGJGDG6OMY6RHP4ZIDFJLQPEUS5RAMO7 - LTC: ltc1qapwe55ljayyav8hgg2f9dx2y0dxy73u0tya0pu All Links: https://linktr.ee/mgshow Intermission Music: Lemurian Shores (with Lucentia) (~432 Hz) by Spheriá | https://soundcloud.com/spheriamusic (Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0) #Trump2024 #MAGA #KashPatel #FentanylBan #AmericaFirst #GovernmentShutdown #H1BVisas #EpsteinFiles #FoxNews #LauraIngraham #KarolineLeavitt #WhiteHouseRenovations #Misinformation #MGShow Trump Interview, Kash Patel FBI, Fentanyl Ban China, Government Shutdown 2025, Karoline Leavitt Briefing, H-1B Visas Trump, White House Renovations, Epstein Documents Redactions, Fake MAGA Attacks, America First Policy, MG Show Podcast, intheMatrixxx, shadygrooove, Fox News Laura Ingraham, Border Security Fentanyl, Economic Wins Gas Prices, Walmart Thanksgiving Deals, Misinformation Campaigns, Patriot Info Warriors, Constitution Defense, MAGA Podcast, Trump 2024, Deep State Exposed, Globalist Sabotage

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

This is a juicy one and NEEDS TO BE SAID Let's talk about what Meghan is unfortunately seeking in her life and business endeavors, what she SHOULD seek in her life, and her ongoing Victimhood narrative. I also examine WHY we get so angry and unsettled when we watch her story and actions play out in the media and the Royal Family - and how watching all of this play out can offer examples in our OWN lives in what NOT to do if we want to be happy. Love the show? Leave a 5 star review on Apple Podcasts and share this episode!   Watch my episodes - Go to my YouTube Channel and subscribe -https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2FsXn-xhr4mYIAK0569BBw   I have a channel membership over there if you'd like to support me! Simply click on the "join" button underneath my YT videos - thanks.   Can't join but want to leave a tIp? Help keep me caffeinated and fill my tip jar here - https://buymeacoffee.com/jenniferc    Other stuff    I've been a licensed esthetician and a makeup artist for over two decades - Want to see a list of all of my favorite beauty product recommendations? Everything I love, use, and wear all the time - CLICK HERE - https://shopmy.us/jenniferc/shelves   BUY MY ONLINE SKINCARE GUIDES HERE-  https://jenniferchristopherson.com     In Christ, Xo Jennifer    Disclaimer- This video/podcast episode is under Fair Use: Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use. All rights and credit go directly to its rightful owners. No copyright infringement intended. All Opinions are my own and within my right to express under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution      

Want to know more about the various methods of prescribing homeopathic remedies?   Join us for our newest episode as Dr. Ikram Manzoor describes his approach to what he called the basis of prescribing diagnostic concerns and how he administers remedies by employing an antidote for the illness' underlying cause.   Dr. Ikram Manzoor is a biochemist with a master's in public health and has practiced as a licensed homeopathic medicine practitioner since 2016 in District Nowshera, Pakistan. He is a visiting lecturer at Sarhad Homeopathic Medical College in Nowshera District and has taught homeopathy at the same college since 2014.   Check out these episode highlights: 01:30 - How he got into homeopathy 03:26 - Miasm as the first  base of prescribing 05:15 - The second basis of prescribing diagnostic concern called purely causation 05:41 - Dr. Ikram's remedy for abdominal pain 09:24 - Constitution and temperament as the third basis of prescribing 12:18 - The fourth basis for prescribing is sign and symptom 13:46 - The fifth basis for prescribing is modality 17:54 - How do you create a case for an allergy 18:53 - How to stop having intense sugar and carb cravings 20:50 - You can't help a disease if you don't grasp its pathophysiology   Know more about Dr. Ikram Manzoor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/people/Ikram-Manzoor/100033715093345 Email: Ikramhomeopath92@gmail.com   If you would like to support the Homeopathy Hangout Podcast, please consider making a donation by visiting www.EugenieKruger.com and click the DONATE button at the top of the site. Every donation about $10 will receive a shout-out on a future episode.   Join my Homeopathy Hangout Podcast Facebook community here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/HelloHomies   Here is the link to my free 30-minute Homeopathy@Home online course: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqBUpxO4pZQ&t=438s   Upon completion of the course - and if you live in Australia - you can join my Facebook group for free acute advice (you'll need to answer a couple of questions about the course upon request to join): www.facebook.com/groups/eughom

Voting is underway on Pakistan's 27th Constitutional Amendment bill in the National Assembly. The Amendment to Constitution will make Asim Munir Field Marshal for life, the chief of all defence forces- including Pakistan Navy & Air Force, and give him President-like immunity from prosecution. ThePrint Editor-In-Chief Shekhar Gupta explains the changes, and the sighnifcance of the 27th Amendment. #CutTheClutter Episode 1755 also looks at previous instances when Pakistan's Constitution has been amended.----more----Reed Zahid Hussain's article here: https://www.dawn.com/news/1954621/killing-the-constitution----more----Read Maleeha Lodhi's article here: https://www.dawn.com/news/1954232/slide-into-authoritarianism----more----Watch Shamshad Mirza's CutTheClutter episode here: https://youtu.be/xAtVjmoL98A

The American Revolution isn't over — it just changed uniforms. Documentary legend Ken Burns explains why we're still debugging an experiment from 1776.Full show notes and resources can be found here: jordanharbinger.com/1238What We Discuss with Ken Burns:America's origin was born from division, not unity. Ken Burns argues the US was born from violence and division, not unity. The Revolutionary War was a brutal civil war with brother fighting brother, not a clean myth of freedom and fireworks.The Revolution is an ongoing experiment. Ken sees the Revolution as the start of a political experiment still being debugged 250 years later. It's not a finished story but a continuous process of living up to founding ideals.Contradictions compose the country's core. The Revolution's hypocrisy is staggering: freedom built on slavery, liberty denied to women and Native peoples, idealism mixed with self-interest. These contradictions remain eerily familiar today.Good storytelling transcends politics. Ken found that compelling narratives neutralize binary thinking. His Vietnam documentary avoided expected backlash because a good story makes people say "I didn't know that" rather than taking sides.History is an active conversation. History isn't fixed answers, but an ongoing dialogue with the past. By listening closely, we can ask ourselves if we're living up to the promises made — and continue writing that unfinished story.And much more...And if you're still game to support us, please leave a review here — even one sentence helps! Sign up for Six-Minute Networking — our free networking and relationship development mini course — at jordanharbinger.com/course!Subscribe to our once-a-week Wee Bit Wiser newsletter today and start filling your Wednesdays with wisdom!Do you even Reddit, bro? Join us at r/JordanHarbinger!This Episode Is Brought To You By Our Fine Sponsors: Cayman Jack: Explore uncharted flavor: caymanjack.comMasterclass: 15% off annual membership: masterclass.com/jordanBetterHelp: 10% off first month: betterhelp.com/jordanProgressive: Free online quote: progressive.comAirbnb: Turn your house into a host: airbnb.com/hostSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, the Democrat Party government shutdown is the best evidence why the government should never, for example, take over our healthcare system. It's not controlled by Democrat politicians (senators) abusing the filibuster rule to blackmail the country and do as much damage to the economy as possible to further government control of the economy and leftwing political agendas. Also, the U.S. air traffic control system and TSA should be privatized.  It's unacceptable that our air traffic could come to a halt because air traffic controllers wouldn't show up for work during the shutdown.  Later, the media is ignorant for mischaracterizing the pardoning of 77 people involved in challenging the 2020 election results as an attempt to overturn them. Challenging elections is a longstanding legal right, dating back to John Adams' era, and includes demanding recounts, lobbying state officials like the Secretary of State, and submitting alternative slates of electors to the Archivist of the United States to preserve potential wins. These actions are neither obstructive nor criminal.  Afterward, Rep Chip Roy, who's running for Attorney General of Texas, calls in and explains that Texas is under attack by a network of radical Marxists and Islamists seeking to seize it from America. The nation is rooted in Judeo-Christian principles, the Constitution, and Western civilization, which directly conflict with Sharia law.  He also explains that Democrats are exposing their scheme by admitting Biden's temporary COVID subsidies are essential for Obamacare to function, as even the Washington Post acknowledges it was never affordable.  Finally, Tucker Carlson platformed a guest who downplayed Christian persecution in Nigeria and had previously represented an accused Nigerian figure involved in targeting Christians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

John Adams said the Constitution is only for a moral and religious people. I believe the same is true of Capitalism, and the further we get away from our Christian roots, the more everything crumbles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Adams said the Constitution is only for a moral and religious people. I believe the same is true of Capitalism, and the further we get away from our Christian roots, the more everything crumbles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Domestic Crisis: US Political Conflict Compared to Charles I and the Long Parliament. Gaius and Germanicus, speaking in Londinium, explore a significant domestic threat to the American Empire by drawing an analogy to 1641-1642 England, prior to the regicide of Charles I. They argue that the current US "emperor" is ignoring the repudiation registered by a recent vote, similar to Charles I ignoring the Long Parliament. Gaius fears that relentless impeachment awaits if Democrats dominate Congress. A scenario is hypothesized where a "blue governor" defies a presidential order (e.g., regarding ICE business), is detained, inciting Democratic rage and an overwhelming electoral victory. This state defiance is compared to historical examples like South Carolina against Andrew Jackson. Germanicus notes that escalating defiance by governors like Pritzker or Newsom is currently rhetorical, but an actual confrontation requiring federal force (Marshals, National Guard) would be necessary to truly break the Constitution. Such a confrontation could resemble an insurrection, potentially turning Americans against the president if handled poorly, or against the governor if he seems to be unraveling the Republic. Misperception is identified as a dangerous factor, referencing the panic in London when Charles I sought to arrest six traitors. Gaius insists that things get out of control without an "evil mastermind" and that any political trigger after the 2026 election could lead to impeachment. They agree that participants often fail to see the escalation toward crisis, much like in 1642 or 1914. Germanicus concludes that since Mr. Trump is unlikely to compromise, this lack of restraint could push things "over the edge." 1649

There is much debate among academics and policy experts over the power the Constitution affords to the president and Congress to initiate military conflicts. But as Michael Ramsey and Matthew Waxman, law professors at the University of San Diego and Columbia, respectively, point out in a recent law review article, this focus misses the mark. In fact, the most salient constitutional war powers question—in our current era dominated by authorizations for the use of military force—is not whether the president has the unilateral authority to start large-scale conflicts. Rather, it is the scope of Congress's authority to delegate its war-initiation power to the president. This question is particularly timely as the Supreme Court appears growingly skeptical of significant delegations of congressional power to the executive branch.Matt Gluck, Research Fellow at Lawfare, spoke with Waxman and Ramsey about their article. They discussed the authors' findings about the history of war power delegations from the Founding era to the present, what these findings might mean if Congress takes a more assertive role in the war powers context, and why these constitutional questions matter if courts are likely to be hesitant to rule on war powers delegation questions.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on the Mark Levin Show, we need to rid the Republican Party, the movement, and constitutional conservatism of bigots, racists, anti-Semites, and anti-Americans. These low lives, like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and Nick Fuentes, dishonor the greatest generation that defeated Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini. It's a time for choosing between the good guys and the bad guys, America or the Third Reich/Soviet Union. Republicans must stand up and confront the spread unlike Democrats who allowed it. Mamdani and his supporters like Linda Sarsour refuse assimilate and instead aim to conquer, devour, and dismantle the culture, police, communities, private property rights, and economy. This would attract unassimilated individuals from afar, harden electoral battles, and escalate into a cultural war beyond politics, with devastating effects on education, policing, healthcare, and wealth redistribution, driving successful people away. Tuesday's election results were no surprise because the Democrats immigration strategy to change the demographics and citizenry, without assimilation, has worked. NYC will decline, the question is by how much and Virginia is now part of the federal government. If the election was about affordability why did NJ vote to increase their property taxes and energy bills? neither the law nor the Constitution prohibits a President from imposing tariffs, which can serve purposes like rebuilding industries, countering foreign tariffs, or ensuring national security. Congress holds the power of the purse and could pass statutes to limit presidential tariff authority, but it has not done so, making judicial intervention unnecessary and a potential separation of powers issue. The Court should refrain from involvement, as any limits would come from congressional action or voter disapproval. Every conservative faith leader, organization head, think tank, legal group, media, and political entity need to boldly speak out against vile, poisonous movements on the left and the radical right, specifically fascists, thugs, and neo-Nazis, rather than true conservatives or constitutionalists. Tucker Carlson and his ilk have promoted harmful ideas and attacked traditional Christians and Jews and they need to be rejected. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices