Podcasts about constitutional

He began using gendered pronouns such as “she,” “her,” and “hers.” Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

Purple Political Breakdown - Key Points from My Favorite Episodes So FarMEDIA & INFORMATION INTEGRITY"What is Informed? How Do We Solve Media Bias and Misinformation?" Ft. Kira ShishkinListen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/what-is-informed-how-do-we-solve-media-bias-and-misinformation-ft-kira-shishkin Key Points: The average person is drowning in headlines, spin, and clickbait Need for concise, factual, and bias-free news briefings Importance of breaking through the noise with facts-only approach Media bias and misinformation are solvable problems with the right tools"Alex Fink: Cutting Through the Noise of Online Politics"Listen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/alex-fink-cutting-through-the-noise-of-online-politics Key Points: AI-driven tools can eliminate junk news and clickbait content Nutrition labels concept for evaluating quality of online articles Tackling disinformation requires constant vigilance and innovation Customizable news feeds can shape future of online news consumption"Uncovering the Truth: How 1440 Media Provides Unbiased Political News" Ft. Tim HuelskampListen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/uncovering-the-truth-how-1440-media-provides-unbiased-political-news-tim-huelskamp Key Points: Unbiased news delivery is possible with proper editorial standards Importance of separating fact from opinion in news reporting Need for news sources that don't push partisan agendasELECTORAL REFORM & DEMOCRACY"How Will Star Voting Save Politics" Ft. Sara WolkListen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/how-will-star-voting-save-politics-ft-sara-wolk Key Points: STAR Voting can eliminate wasted votes and strategic voting Current voting systems limit true representation Electoral reform is essential for breaking two-party dominance Voters deserve better options than "lesser of two evils""How Do We Build Trust in Elections?" Ft. Joan BladesListen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/how-do-we-build-trust-in-elections-ft-joan-blades Key Points: Trust in elections requires meaningful conversations across political divides Living Room Conversations model creates safe spaces for dialogue Building trust starts with listening and understanding different perspectives Election integrity depends on civic engagement and dialogue"Understanding the Value of Independent Voters & Swing States" Ft. Dr. Lura ForcumListen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/understaning-the-value-of-indepdent-voters-swing-states-will-change-politics-ft-dr-lura-forcum Key Points: Independent voters represent growing political force Swing states demonstrate importance of nuanced political thinking Independent voters often seek practical solutions over partisan rhetoric Political future depends on engaging unaffiliated votersCONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS"The Ultimate Guide to Understanding the Bill of Rights: Explained Simply"Listen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-understanding-the-bill-of-rights-explained-simply Key Points: Breaking down each amendment for practical understanding Ranking amendments by current relevance and importance Constitutional literacy is essential for civic participation Bill of Rights protections remain relevant to modern challenges"The Constitutional Carry Debate: Safety or Risk"Listen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/the-constitutional-carry-debate-safety-or-risk Key Points: Second Amendment interpretations vary significantly Balance between individual rights and public safety Constitutional carry policies have complex implications Need for evidence-based approaches to gun policyEDUCATION & FAMILY POLICY"How Do We Fix Public Education in Texas?" Ft. Democrat Claire Campos-O'NealListen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/how-do-we-fix-public-education-in-texas-ft-democrat-claire-campos-o-neal Key Points: Voucher systems present both opportunities and challenges Education policy requires bipartisan solutions Local control vs. state oversight creates ongoing tensions Parent choice and public school funding need balance"The Government Should Have No Control Over Children" Ft. Gene ValentinoListen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/the-government-should-have-no-control-over-children-ft-gene-valentino Key Points: Parental rights vs. government oversight creates complex debates Importance of discussion and compromise between political sides Children's welfare requires balanced approach from all stakeholders Government role in family life needs clear boundaries"Why Parents Hold the Key to a Stronger Society" Ft. Nathaniel TurnerListen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/why-parents-hold-the-key-to-a-stronger-society-ft-nathaniel-turner Key Points: Parental involvement crucial for societal health Family structures impact broader community outcomes Parents need support systems, not government interference Strong families create strong communitiesSOCIAL JUSTICE & EQUITY"From Equality to Equity: Taking Action Against Systemic Discrimination" Dr. Frank DouglasListen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/from-equality-to-equity-taking-action-against-systemic-discrimination-dr-frank-douglas Key Points: Difference between equality and equity in policy outcomes Systemic discrimination requires intentional solutions Action needed beyond awareness to create real change Balanced approach to addressing historical inequities"Empowering Latino Communities: Key Solutions for Achieving a New American Dream" Ft. Dr. Paul RiveraListen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/empowering-latino-communities-key-solutions-for-achieving-a-new-american-dream-ft-dr-paul-rivera Key Points: Latino communities need targeted but inclusive policies American Dream must be accessible to all communities Economic empowerment requires comprehensive approach Community leadership essential for lasting change"The Amazing Power of Being a Minority in American History"Listen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/the-amazing-power-of-being-a-minority-in-american-history-you-might-learn-something-new Key Points: Minority communities have shaped American progress Historical perspective reveals ongoing contributions Minority experiences offer valuable lessons for society Diversity strengthens American institutionsCONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES"The Pros and Cons of A.I. and Will It Take People's Jobs"Listen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-a-i-and-will-it-take-people-s-jobs Key Points: AI presents both opportunities and displacement risks Job market adaptation requires proactive planning Technology policy needs bipartisan approach Worker retraining and support essential for transition"Is Our Mental Health Changing as Technology Develops?"Listen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/is-our-mental-health-changing-as-technology-develops Key Points: Technology's impact on mental health requires study Digital age creates new psychological challenges Mental health policy needs updated approaches Balance between technology benefits and risks"Climate Change is Real and Here's How We Solve It" Ft. Beth Steven McDanielListen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/climate-change-is-real-and-here-s-how-we-solve-it-ft-beth-steven-mcdaniel Key Points: Climate change requires evidence-based solutions Environmental policy can have bipartisan support Economic and environmental interests can align Practical solutions exist beyond political rhetoricPOLITICAL DISCOURSE & REFORM"How Do We Stop the Cycle of Hatred"Listen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/how-do-we-stop-the-cycle-of-hatred Key Points: Political hatred undermines democratic institutions Cycle of hatred can be broken through intentional effort Common ground exists across political divides Healing requires commitment from all sides"We Can Change Political Conflict for the Better" Ft. Hesha AbramsListen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/we-can-change-political-conflict-for-the-better-listen-now-to-change-politics-ft-hesha-abrams Key Points: Political conflict can be transformed into productive dialogue Mediation techniques apply to political disputes Change is possible with proper facilitation Conflict resolution skills essential for democracy"Social Media Influencers and Political Leaders Need to be Held at a Higher Standard"Listen: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/social-media-influencers-and-political-leaders-need-to-be-held-at-a-higher-standard Key Points: Online influence comes with responsibility Political leaders must model better behavior Social media platforms shape political discourse Higher standards benefit democratic dialogueNew Links: https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-relationship-between-donald-trump-and-jeffrey-epstein-will-pam-bondi-resign https://share.alivepodcastnetwork.com/what-is-finc-and-digital-democracy-a-new-coalition-to-challenge-the-two-party-system-and-the-establishment-ft-travis-misurellStandard Resource Links & RecommendationsThe following organizations and platforms represent valuable resources for balanced political discourse and democratic participation: PODCAST NETWORKALIVE Podcast Network - Check out the ALIVE Network where you can catch a lot of great podcasts like my own, led by amazing Black voices. Link: https://alivepodcastnetwork.com/ CONVERSATION PLATFORMSHeadOn - A platform for contentious yet productive conversations. It's a place for hosted and unguided conversations where you can grow a following and enhance your conversations with AI features. Link: https://app.headon.ai/Living Room Conversations - Building bridges through meaningful dialogue across political divides. Link: https://livingroomconversations.org/ BALANCED NEWS & INFORMATIONOtherWeb - An AI-based platform that filters news without paywalls, clickbait, or junk, helping you access diverse, unbiased content. Link: https://otherweb.com/ VOTING REFORM & DEMOCRACYEqual Vote Coalition & STAR Voting - Advocating for voting methods that ensure every vote counts equally, eliminating wasted votes and strategic voting. Link: https://www.equal.vote/starFuture is Now Coalition (FiNC) - A grassroots movement working to restore democracy through transparency, accountability, and innovative technology while empowering citizens and transforming American political discourse FutureisFutureis. Link: https://futureis.org/ POLITICAL ENGAGEMENTIndependent Center - Resources for independent political thinking and civic engagement. Link: https://www.independentcenter.org/ Get Daily News: Text 844-406-INFO (844-406-4636) with code "purple" to receive quick, unbiased, factual news delivered to your phone every morning via Informed ( https://informed.now) All Links: https://linktr.ee/purplepoliticalbreakdownThe Purple Political Breakdown is committed to fostering productive political dialogue that transcends partisan divides. We believe in the power of conversation, balanced information, and democratic participation to build a stronger society. Our mission: "Political solutions without political bias."Subscribe, rate, and share if you believe in purple politics - where we find common ground in the middle!

This summer marks a year since Labour's landslide victory at the 2024 general election. The party's manifesto contained a number of pledges for reforming the UK's constitution and political institutions. So how have those pledges fared since Labour took office? Which promises have been delivered? What unexpected changes have been introduced? And what further reforms will – or should – be on the government's agenda?The rule of law The Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General have both placed great emphasis on this new government upholding the rule of law. What does this mean in practice? Has the government delivered on this aspiration, and what more is needed to do so? What challenges has it faced? Speakers:Andy Slaughter MP – Labour MP for Hammersmith and Chiswick, and chair of the House of Commons Justice CommitteeBaroness (Victoria) Prentis of Banbury KC – Conservative peer, former Attorney General and former Conservative MPDr Joelle Grogan – legal academic and presenter of The Law Show on BBC Radio 4Chair: Professor Veronika Fikfak – Professor of Human Rights and International Law, UCL   Links:Website: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unitMailing list: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/get-involved/mailing-listBlog: constitution-unit.com

A federal judge is holding January 6th organizer Caroline Wren in contempt for failing to hand over documents in the civil case brought by Capitol Police Officers. It appears that Rudy Giuliani is also failing to hand over documents.Justice Kagan has denied four Seattle cops their bid to keep their names secret pursuant to a public records request. A magistrate judge has recommended that Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan's motion to dismiss on immunity and Constitutional grounds be dismissed. We also have some new information about Alexander Acosta, the prosecutor who gave Jeffrey Epstein a sweetheart deal in Florida. Allison Gillhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com/https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrote.comHarry DunnHarry Dunn | Substack@libradunn1.bsky.social on BlueskyWant to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early?Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45podTell us about yourself and what you like about the show - http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short

President Donald Trump published a fiery Truth Social post, slamming the far Left and mainstream media for promoting fake news surrounding the Epstein files, just as they did about the Russia hoax and 2016 election interference. Will many Trump supporters continue to be upset that Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel haven't released the Epstein files? Or will they celebrate the Trump Administration's achievements in national security, the economy/inflation, foreign policy, etc.? The Sekulow team discusses the White House's anger over the Epstein files scandal, FBI Deputy Director Don Bongino's stance, the ACLJ's legal work – and much more.

Three worship services went off without a hitch, but Seattle and Los Angeles were a different story. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

This summer marks a year since Labour's landslide victory at the 2024 general election. The party's manifesto contained a number of pledges for reforming the UK's constitution and political institutions. So how have those pledges fared since Labour took office? Which promises have been delivered? What unexpected changes have been introduced? And what further reforms will – or should – be on the government's agenda?The electoral system in a multiparty eraThe growth of multiparty politics raises questions about whether the First Past the Post electoral system can still be justified. What are the arguments for and against reform? What alternative systems might be considered? And, with ministers saying they will maintain the status quo, is there any way reform could actually come about?Speakers:Peter Lamb MP – Labour MP for CrawleyFrances Foley – Deputy Director of CompassProfessor Robert Ford – Professor of Political Science at the University of ManchesterChair: Professor Alan Renwick - Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit Links:Website: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unitMailing list: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/get-involved/mailing-listBlog: constitution-unit.com

FBI Conspiracy Probe Secures Major Evidence.

This is a great victory for women and girls at the University of Pennsylvania and across our nation. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

This summer marks a year since Labour's landslide victory at the 2024 general election. The party's manifesto contained a number of pledges for reforming the UK's constitution and political institutions. So how have those pledges fared since Labour took office? Which promises have been delivered? What unexpected changes have been introduced? And what further reforms will – or should – be on the government's agenda?Standards in public lifeThe Labour Party put standards and ethics at the heart of its attacks on the previous Conservative government, promising to bring in a ‘politics of service'. Has the party's conduct in office lived up to this rhetoric? How has it changed the regulation of standards in government and parliament? What further changes are needed in this area, and what is the best means to ensure that these are delivered?Speakers:Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP – Conservative MP for Kenilworth and Southam, former Attorney General and former member of the Committee on Standards in Public LifePhil Brickell MP – Labour MP for Bolton WestProfessor Gillian Peele – member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and Emeritus Associate Professor of Politics at the University of OxfordChair: Lisa James – Senior Research Fellow, Constitution Unit   Links:Website: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unitMailing list: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/get-involved/mailing-listBlog: constitution-unit.com

BREAKING: Kash Patel Opens ‘Conspiracy' Probe.

This is another positive step toward stopping forced taxpayer funding of the abortion industry. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

This summer marks a year since Labour's landslide victory at the 2024 general election. The party's manifesto contained a number of pledges for reforming the UK's constitution and political institutions. So how have those pledges fared since Labour took office? Which promises have been delivered? What unexpected changes have been introduced? And what further reforms will – or should – be on the government's agenda?This online conference took stock of constitutional developments in the last year, and looked ahead, with a range of senior speakers including parliamentarians, academics, and commentators.Opening keynote from Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office In this opening keynote address, Nick Thomas-Symonds summarised the government's approach to the constitution, and priorities for constitutional reform. What has been achieved so far, and what are the most important priorities for the future? Which key principles underpin the government's plans? Speaker:Nick Thomas-Symonds MP is Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, with responsibility for the constitution and EU relations. He has been the Labour MP for Torfaen since 2015 and his previous posts include Shadow Home Secretary and Shadow Solicitor General. He is a former barrister and academic. Chair: Professor Meg Russell FBA – Director of the Constitution Unit   Links:Website: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unitMailing list: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/get-involved/mailing-listBlog: constitution-unit.com

Is Superman Still Our Hero or Just Another Pawn in the Culture War?Superman: Stand for Truth, Fly For Freedomhttps://gorightnews.com/is-superman-still-our-hero-or-just-another-pawn-in-the-culture-warhttps://rumble.com/v6w2b1y-is-superman-still-our-hero-or-just-another-pawn-in-the-culture-war.htmlhttps://youtu.be/DRHo98wXfjs?si=ZE5aZb_UtBCOy3y0https://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-superman-still-our-hero-or-just-another-pawn-in-the-culture-war--66953432

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

Is Superman Still Our Hero or Just Another Pawn in the Culture War?Superman: Stand for Truth, Fly For Freedomhttps://gorightnews.com/is-superman-still-our-hero-or-just-another-pawn-in-the-culture-warhttps://rumble.com/v6w2b1y-is-superman-still-our-hero-or-just-another-pawn-in-the-culture-war.htmlhttps://youtu.be/DRHo98wXfjs?si=ZE5aZb_UtBCOy3y0https://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-superman-still-our-hero-or-just-another-pawn-in-the-culture-war--66953432

SUPREME COURT: Justice Fears for Our Democracy.

Chief Justice Roberts argued that the “five lawyers” in the slim majority essentially rescinded natural marriage and declared it “wrong.” Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

There's a Constitutional solution to balancing the budget, and Rick Santorum is helping lead the Convention of States Project.

Constitutional crisis Friday full 2325 Fri, 11 Jul 2025 15:16:02 +0000 E0JZnroZRVrSLiMSMcyODSHKPFEnpcOI news MIDDAY with JAYME & WIER news Constitutional crisis Friday From local news & politics, to what's trending, sports & personal stories...MIDDAY with JAYME & WIER will get you through the middle of your day! © 2025 Audacy, Inc. News False https://player.amperwavepodcasting.com?feed-link=https%3A%2F%2Fr

New York Times reporter Adam Liptak discusses the Supreme Court's decisions to limit the power of lower courts while expanding presidential power, and its consequential use of the so-called shadow docket. "It's it's not an overstatement to say that in a matter of months American democracy has been transformed," he tells Terry Gross.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

BREAKING: Trump Blocked in Federal Court.

The government also has no place forcing the false, corrosive gender ideology upon its citizens. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

Clinton, AR 2010

New York Times reporter Adam Liptak discusses the Supreme Court's decisions to limit the power of lower courts while expanding presidential power, and its consequential use of the so-called shadow docket. "It's it's not an overstatement to say that in a matter of months American democracy has been transformed," he tells Terry Gross.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

A Fox News report revealed a massive investigation into former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan for possibly lying to Congress about President Donald Trump and the Russian hoax. What will the new DOJ under FBI Director Kash Patel uncover? The Sekulow team discusses the irony that Comey and Brennan are under investigation for the same Russian probe that led to Trump's impeachment, the ACLJ's legal work – and much more.

The First Amendment simply does not allow government schools to require families to sacrifice their religious beliefs for their children to attend school. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

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

BREAKING: Federal Judge Blocks Trump Bill.

Constitutional Deep Dives with Eric! Article 3 - Section 1 - Lifetime Tenure for Federal Judges! Powered by: ww.buchanandisability.com THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS: Nutrition World: https://nutritionw.com/ Vascular Institute of Chattanooga: https://www.vascularinstituteofchattanooga.com/ The Barn Nursery: https://www.barnnursery.com/ Optimize U Chattanooga: https://optimizeunow.com/chattanooga/ Guardian Investment Advisors: https://giaplantoday.com/ Alchemy Medspa and Wellness Center: http://www.alchemychattanooga.com/ Our House Studio: https://ourhousestudiosinc.com/ ALL THINGS JEFF STYLES: www.thejeffstyles.com PART OF THE NOOGA PODCAST NETWORK: www.noogapodcasts.com Please consider leaving us a review on Apple and giving us a share to your friends! This podcast is powered by ZenCast.fm

It makes no sense to require states to fund an organization that kills children. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

Hero former sheriff Richard Mack joins us in a very enlightening discussion about “How can America regain its Constitutional foundations in freedom?” We also celebrate his book “Are You a David?”   One of our favorite guests, Sheriff Mack, did something men or women rarely do—he took on his colleagues to push them to stand up for themselves at their best and to live and work by their highest ideals on behalf of freedom for American citizens. Sheriff Mack points out that sheriffs are the only law enforcement officers elected by the people and are directly responsible to them to defend their Constitutional rights and well-being. He and his organization are empowering sheriffs around the country to defend the rights of citizens in their own counties, even against police, judges, and the federal government when they break the law or trample on Constitutional rights.   He is the Founder and President of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, giving seminars around the country. He appears across a wide range of media, including CNN, Fox, Newsweek, and The New York Times. He is a no-nonsense truth teller and freedom fighter who is great to interview.   One of his more stunning accomplishments was to become the first sheriff in American history to sue the federal government on behalf of the rights of the people in his country. In Mack/Prinz v. U.S., the Supreme Court supported his right to refuse to impose background checks for gun owner licenses on the grounds that they were unconstitutional.   We have a tremendous discussion about each of the above issues, all focused on supporting freedom in America and the world. In the third and final segment, Sheriff Mack, Ginger Breggin, and I support President Trump's actions in bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. However, I raise a question about the numerous presidents in a row who have started wars, when declaring a State of War is assigned to Congress, not the President or anyone else.   Will President Trump's enormously successful attack on Iran dangerously further the war-making potential for future presidents, especially when the Deep State, the Military-Industrial Complex, banking, and so many others thrive on war, while weak Congresses rarely take a stand on anything? In rebuilding America, we are making available so much more power to future U.S. Presidents. In that not-too-distant future, unscrupulous leaders could once again become ambitious to create the American Global Empire.   As a barrier to future tyranny, we need to re-establish that Congress, and only Congress, can declare wars– which essentially means that only Congress can start a war!   ______   Learn more about Dr. Peter Breggin's work: https://breggin.com/   See more from Dr. Breggin's long history of being a reformer in psychiatry: https://breggin.com/Psychiatry-as-an-Instrument-of-Social-and-Political-Control   Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal, the how-to manual @ https://breggin.com/a-guide-for-prescribers-therapists-patients-and-their-families/   Get a copy of Dr. Breggin's latest book: WHO ARE THE “THEY” - THESE GLOBAL PREDATORS? WHAT ARE THEIR MOTIVES AND THEIR PLANS FOR US? HOW CAN WE DEFEND AGAINST THEM? Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey Get a copy: https://www.wearetheprey.com/   “No other book so comprehensively covers the details of COVID-19 criminal conduct as well as its origins in a network of global predators seeking wealth and power at the expense of human freedom and prosperity, under cover of false public health policies.”   ~ Robert F Kennedy, Jr Author of #1 bestseller The Real Anthony Fauci and Founder, Chairman and Chief Legal Counsel for Children's Health Defense.

On this 2A Tuesday, Marc welcomes Mark Walters of Armed American Radio to break down the latest developments in the “Big Beautiful Bill” affecting gun owners. Walters explains the confusing journey of suppressor and short-barreled rifle deregulation—how the tax is being repealed, but federal registration still stands, pending court challenges and legislative action. They also examine Austria's push for gun confiscation after a mass shooting, and why it should alarm Americans. Walters warns U.S. gun control advocates are watching closely, using international restrictions as a blueprint. The conversation closes with a bold idea: imagine Trump wooing Glock HQ from Austria to Georgia. Plus, a surprise twist—should teen bullies lose their driver's licenses?

Constitutional Deep Dives with Eric! Article 3 - Section 1 - Lifetime Tenure for Federal Judges! Conversations centered around the American Experiment and our Constitution and Bill of Rights! Our goal is to provide different perspectives - give historical context - model how to talk with those whom we may disagree with - tie foundational principals to today's headlines - PLUS, have some fun along the way. Please leave us a review and share with your friends! (A PODCAST PROVIDED AND OWNED BY DURING THE BREAK PODCASTS) Brought to you by Eric Buchanan and Associates: www.buchanandisability.com This podcast is hosted by ZenCast.fm

Riding Shotgun With Charlie #233 Phil Journey NRA BOD Member   I had a chance to catch up with Phil Journey at the NRA Annual Meetings back in April. He's quite an interesting man with some long roots in the Second Amendment and with the NRA. He was on the list of four reform candidates last year in 2024. This year, of course, there were 28 reformers that people were supporting, many who did get onto the Board of Directors of the NRA. He spends times telling us about his collection of firearms, how he got into politics and ran for office, and some of the inside dirt on what was going on with NRA leadership.   Phil is from Kansas and grew up with a couple of uncles, one was a gunsmith and the other was an inventor. His father used to hunt and got him into shooting. In law school, he got into competitive shooting and made it to second place in IPSC in Oklahoma. At one point, he spent more time making sure everyone else had the rights to keep shooting and owning firearms.    While in law school he had three semesters on Constitutional law, one semester was only on the First Amendment, but nothing on the Second Amendment. Working on his dissertation, he pointed out that at that time, much of the thought was that it was a collectivist theory right and the courts reflected that. But he realized it was an individual right. That's when he decided this was going to be his cross to bear.    Getting out of law school, he started working on some campaigns for the US Senate. He learned a lot in those days, thinking candidates would read some of the pro-gun literature he would give candidates. Back then he started his ties with the NRA as an election volunteer coordinator, He got 5,000 people to come to a city council meeting. This was how he got involved in political action committees.   Phil's career was as a practicing attorney. He was appointed to the Kansas Senate in 2003. After a handful of years in the state Senate, he was elected to the Judicial District Court. Having these positions did interfere with his business. He also got into other businesses like storage rentals. At one point, he sold several firearms to fund one of his campaigns so he didn't have to ask for money. Phil is also into collecting cars as well as guns. We learn about the extensive collection, how he acquired some of the guns and cars.    Back in 1995, Neal Knox helped get him elected to the NRA Board of Directors. Even back then there were issues with Wayne LaPierre. One is that if there was a contract that was more than $100,000, it had to be in writing and passed by two of the three executive officers. LaPierre would make them oral contracts and not run them by the executives. Journey and Knox did get pushed off the board, but only Phil was able to get back on it.    During the years when he wasn't on the board, he still kept an eye on the goings on, including what Leticia James was up to in New York. With some help, he was able to get back onto the board in 2020. He noticed that the board meetings were much shorter than they used to be and he realized that wasn't quite right. There was a lot of ‘go along to get along' happening with the BOD. Reading the petition from James, he saw that the things that were wrong in the 1990's were four times worse.   Phil gets into several things that were going on with the NRA and how it needed to be changed. In 2024, he got together with Rocky Marshall, Dennis Fusaro, and Jeff Knox and started a small reform team. They all got elected onto the board to start making changes. This year, there were many more reformers on the ballot, and many were elected. However, he does get into how it was a mess and how much of a mess it was.    Personally, I did vote for the 28 reformers. I have had the new EVP, Doug Hamlin, on the show (episode 213). I do believe we need to keep the NRA and make the changes necessary to maintain our Second Amendment rights. The NRA has been around for over 150 years and want to see it for another 150 years. WIth Phil and the new reformers, I think we're in good hands and onto a better and stronger NRA.  Favorite quotes: “What have they not taught me about? And it was the Second Amendment.” “The whole legislative process is to keep things from becoming law.” “It's easier to kill legislation than it is to get it passed.” “It was a cultural problem inside the organization.” National Rifle Association https://home.nra.org/   NRA ILA https://www.nraila.org/   YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/NRAVideos   X https://x.com/NRA   Instagram https://www.instagram.com/NRA/   NRA Publications YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@NRApubs Second Amendment Foundation https://secure.anedot.com/saf/donate?sc=RidingShotgun    Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms https://www.ccrkba.org/ Please support the Riding Shotgun With Charlie sponsors and supporters.    Self Defense Radio Network http://sdrn.us/   Buy a Powertac Flashlight, use RSWC as the discount code and save 15% www.powertac.com/RSWC   SABRE Red Pepper Spray  https://lddy.no/1iq1n  

BREAKING: MAJOR LAWSUIT Against Trump Bill.

More than 60 have been issued against President Trump since he took office. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

7/7/2025 PODCAST Episodes #2033 - #2035 GUESTS: Raynard Jackson, Jenny Beth Martin, Dave Brat, John Fleming, Sen. Doug Mastriano, Rob Crilly, Rabbi Yaakov Menken, Paul Teller + YOUR CALLS! at 1-888-480-JOHN (5646) and GETTR Live! @jfradioshow #GodzillaOfTruth #TruckingTheTruth   Want more of today's show? Episode #2033 Stay Focused On Our Constitutional Roots Episode #2034 Big Beautiful Bill, Tax Increase Proposal? Episode #2035 What Israel Can Gain From The Cease-Fire   https://johnfredericksradio.libsyn.com/

It's time for the third novel in the Manticore Ascendant story arc: A Call to Vengeance.Co-written with Timothy Zahn and Thomas Pope and published by Baen in March 2018, this is another of David Weber's lengthier novels, but with good reason. We're watching a more mature Travis Long (and colleagues, including Lisa Donnelly) participate in operations of the maturing Royal Manticoran Navy. The Manticoran government continues to struggle with the roles, relationships and funding competition between the RMN and MPARS. In a subplot we see the establishment of the Special Intelligence Service (known quietly but openly as Delphi) and an associated struggle in terms of roles, responsibilities and authorities between the Office of Naval Intelligence and Delphi. As those pots simmer (or boil), Elisabeth works through a potentially significant political fight that manifests as a “Constitutional crisis”. This all sounds serious, right? It is, but there are definitely a few very funny events that occur within the pages within both plot lines.Our ratings for A Call to Vengeance were a 5, 5 and 5 (out of 5), for an overall rating of 5.As always, thank you for taking this journey with us, listening, liking and commenting on the episodes, and sharing this podcast with others. Don't forget, it's never too late to comment on previous episodes either. We love your feedback and thoughts. Like the three of us, every one of you is a part of the crew!Next time we're stepping back into the main story arc as we dive into Uncompromising Honor as things get very heated between Manticore and Mesa. As always, be sure to grab your copy, invite a friend, and join us again next time.You can find us, and all our episodes at http://honorverse.net, and email us at honorverse@tpenetwork.com. We look forward to hearing from you.Now, let's be about it!

Hassan El-Tayyeb of the Friends Committee on National Legislation returns with an update on the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the growing movement to end U.S. support for the assault. Then, Mackenzie Knight Boyle from the Federation of American Scientists walks us through the scale and secrecy of the U.S. nuclear weapons program — and the risks it poses to the world. Finally, constitutional scholar Bruce Fein joins us to call out the unchecked power and ethical failures of the Supreme Court.Hassan El-Tayyab is the lead lobbyist on Middle East policy for the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Mr. El-Tayyab co-chairs the U.S. Ceasefire Coalition and leads the Friends Committee's work to end the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, advocate for Palestinian human rights, and advance diplomacy with Iran.(The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation) militarizes aid and is run by private armed contractors. It violates all these principles of neutrality, independence, impartiality. And we even saw the GHF's own executive director, Jake Wood, resign in protest in May, saying that he couldn't work in a way that didn't adhere to these humanitarian principles.Hassan El-TayyabMackenzie Knight-Boyle is a Senior Research Associate for the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, where she co-authors the Nuclear Notebook––an authoritative open-source estimate of global nuclear forces and trends.Probably the scariest false alarm was in 1979, A training cassette that was simulating a massive attack with nuclear missiles from the Soviet Union on the United States was mistakenly entered into the primary computer system of North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD. And it was then broadcast to other command centers as if it was going out in the National Command Authority alert system. And because of that, the proper procedures were followed for a situation like this, where the fighter jets took off. The nuclear bombers, carrying nuclear weapons, were put into the sky, missile crews were put on high alert, which means the missiles are ready to launch within seconds. And the president's doomsday plane, which is essentially the war room in the sky for the president in emergency situations, was also put into the air. And it took six minutes for them to realize that this was a training cassette that had been mistakenly put into the system.Mackenzie Knight-BoyleBruce Fein is a Constitutional scholar and an expert on international law. Mr. Fein was Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan and he is the author of Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy, and American Empire: Before the Fall.There can be good faith disagreements over the interpretation of the Constitution. But when you have a course of action which so systematically shows a favoritism towards limitless executive power towards corporations as well with regard to money and politics, no longer does it seem to be a matter of good faith, a disagreement, but it's a matter of advancing the partisan political interests of the president, the presidency, and that is, I think, an impeachable offense.Bruce Fein (on impeaching Supreme Court justices)News 7/4/251. The New York City Board of Elections has released the final results in the Democratic Mayoral primary – after accounting for reallocation of votes via ranked-choice tabulations. The final results are stunning. Zohran Mamdani, up by approximately seven points on election night, has emerged with a whopping 12-point victory over disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Perhaps even more impressive, Mamdani completely reshaped the electorate. According to the New York Times, he turned out young people in record numbers to the point that the largest voter bloc in this election was 18–29-year-olds, a complete reversal of usual trends.2. Speaking of reversing trends, it is worth reviewing Zohran's victory in light of the groups he won by large margins. Namely men, including young men of all backgrounds, as well as Latino and Asian voters, per Jacobin. These are groups that Democrats have notably lost ground with, including in New York City, and have devoted considerable resources to winning back to their coalition. Zohran's win therefore should give Democrats a new sense of optimism and they should seek to embrace the winning course that he has charted.3. Of course, being the Democratic Party, they are instead doing the opposite. Despite his earthquake victory, few high-profile New York Democrats have endorsed Zohran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has not, nor has Governor Kathy Hochul, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, or other powerful New York House Democrats like Gregory Meeks. The other U.S. Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, has been openly hostile, calling Zohran “permissive [of] violence against Jews,” in an interview with Brian Lehrer on WNYC. This is of course racist, inflammatory and flatly untrue. Under pressure from other Democrats, Gillibrand retracted her statement, and “apologized for mischaracterizing Mamdani's record and for her tone on the call,” according to POLITICO. This however gives us a taste of the kind of dirty tricks and defamatory rhetoric the party could deploy against Mamdani between now and November.4. That said, Zohran is picking up significant backing locally – an indication that those actually on the ground know which way the wind is blowing. On Monday, Mamdani was endorsed by the NYC Central Labor Council-AFL-CIO. The NYCCLC is “the nation's largest regional labor federation…[bringing] together 300 unions… [and representing] more than 1 million workers.” On Tuesday, he won the endorsement of New York Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, who represents Westchester, according to reporter Vaughn Golden. Zohran has already earned the endorsement of New York Attorney General Tish James. Expect this divergence between national and local Democratic figures to continue.5. In stark contrast to Zohran, whose political brand is defined by seemingly endless energy, Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman shocked observers this week when he complained about having to do the bare minimum as a U.S. Senator. According to Rolling Stone, during Senate deliberations on the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill,” Fetterman was quoted saying “I just want to go home. I've missed our entire trip to the beach.” Fetterman's comments are particularly galling seeing as he has been chronically absent from Senate hearings, committee meetings and even votes. In other words, Fetterman is complaining about doing the bare minimum for the people of Pennsylvania, but is failing to do even that.6. The bill did of course pass, with Vice-President JD Vance voting to break a 50-50 tie vote in the Senate. On Twitter, Vance justified his vote from criticism regarding its massive cuts to Medicaid by saying “The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits. The OBBB fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass.” AOC called his vote, “An absolute and utter betrayal of working families.”7. In more news related to the bill, Trump and Elon Musk have been trading threats regarding its passage. On Monday, TIME reported Elon Musk tweeted, “If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day. Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uni-party, so that the people actually have a voice.” Musk added, “Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame…they will lose their primary next year, if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.” Musk has also reportedly thrown his financial weight behind Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, perhaps the most vocal critic of Trump in the House Republican caucus. Trump is already backing a primary challenge against Massie; Musk intervening on the other side has turned this race into a climactic proxy battle between the two figures once called “co-presidents.”8. Trump, for his part, threatened to deport Elon Musk. Asked about this directly, Trump told reporters, “We'll have to take a look. We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? The monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible? He gets a lot of subsidies,” per USA Today. This is of course true. Musk's companies have received billions in corporate welfare from the federal government over the years. It is unclear how much the stock value of, for instance Tesla, would suffer from the money faucet being turned off.9. Entertaining as Trump's threats to deport Musk are however, we should not lose sight of the ever-darker reality of deportation setting in nationwide. NOLA.com reports “An Iranian woman who has lived in the United States for 47 years, has no criminal record, and is married to a US citizen was detained by ICE as she gardened outside her New Orleans home.” Expect to hear more stories of secret police rounding up law abiding Americans in the days to come.10. Finally, in more positive news, Reuters reports China is quietly moving to rebuild Cuba's energy grid. This report notes that “Officials…announced China was participating in a project to modernize Cuba's entire electrical grid, with 55 solar parks to be built in 2025, and another 37 by 2028, for a total of 2,000 MW - a massive undertaking that, when complete, would represent nearly two-thirds of present-day demand.” Cuba joined China's international infrastructure development program Belt and Road in 2018. This report notes that China is taking on the development role that Russia formerly played in Havana, but has been unable to deliver on since it embarked on its special military operation-turned-quagmire in Ukraine. Cuba's energy grid has experienced continue failures for the past several years for myriad reasons, exacerbated by Trump's increasingly draconian sanctions regime. This is just another example of a reality becoming increasingly clear to much of the world: the U.S. tears down developing countries' infrastructure, China helps build it up.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

On this Salcedo Storm Podcast:Salcedo Show Axiom #6.

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Peter & Ginger Breggin – Sheriff Richard Mack joins us to explore how America can reclaim its Constitutional foundations and protect individual freedoms. We discuss his groundbreaking Supreme Court case, his leadership in empowering sheriffs nationwide, and the vital role of Congress in declaring war. Discover how defending constitutional rights at the local level can help restore liberty across the...

Americans have the privileged God-given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

The new Supreme Court ruling on Trump's attempt to take a Sharpie and cross out the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship may involve a temporary procedure impediment to lawsuits challenging Trump's unconstitutional act. But in the end - when the merits of Trump's lawless conduct gets litigated in trial and appellate courts. Trump will lose. Glenn discusses why Trump will lose in court.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Trump Defeats Rogue Judges at Supreme Court.

“The First Amendment prohibits states from dictating which therapeutic approaches may be spoken.” Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

This Could Devastate Trump's Agenda.

Constitutional Deep Dives with Eric! Article 3 - Section 1 - Clause 1 - Inferior Courts! Powered by Buchanan and Associates: www.buchanandisability.com THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS: Nutrition World: https://nutritionw.com/ Vascular Institute of Chattanooga: https://www.vascularinstituteofchattanooga.com/ The Barn Nursery: https://www.barnnursery.com/ Optimize U Chattanooga: https://optimizeunow.com/chattanooga/ Guardian Investment Advisors: https://giaplantoday.com/ Alchemy Medspa and Wellness Center: http://www.alchemychattanooga.com/ Our House Studio: https://ourhousestudiosinc.com/ ALL THINGS JEFF STYLES: www.thejeffstyles.com PART OF THE NOOGA PODCAST NETWORK: www.noogapodcasts.com Please consider leaving us a review on Apple and giving us a share to your friends! This podcast is powered by ZenCast.fm

Elon Musk vows legal retaliation over the controversial "Big Beautiful Bill.". Logan and Will take a closer look at how Musk's actions may be part of a broader effort to fracture the Republican Party. Then, bombshell evidence reveals a smear campaign by the abortion lobby colluding with Massachusetts to target Christian Pregnancy Resource Centers. The ACLJ team exposes the implications of this collusion. Plus, Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell joins to discuss California's latest tax scheme and its potential nationwide ripple effects. All this and more on today's broadcast.

President Donald Trump's airstrikes in Iran have potentially created “opportunities” for the remaining hostages to be freed, according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Sekulow team discusses how Operation Midnight Hammer could lead to a hostage negotiation deal in Gaza, the Glastonbury Festival's antisemitic chants against the IDF, further possible additions to the Abraham Accords, the ACLJ's legal work – and much more.