Podcasts about Court

We're taking some time off to regroup over the summer, but we're not just dusting off this older episode for no reason. When we first released it, we were grappling with what Supreme Court reform might look like—specifically, whether we should rethink lifetime appointments and move toward term limits.Now? The stakes feel even higher. In just the last few weeks, we've seen the Court issue decisions that fundamentally reshape presidential power—often in ways that don't reflect where the broader public seems to be. Once again, the question has come roaring back: should nine unelected justices hold this much sway for life?In this episode, we dive into a proposal that's gaining more traction: fixed 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices. It's a reform that President Biden's commission studied—and one that could change the balance of power in U.S. politics for decades. Whether you're a reform skeptic or a true believer, this conversation is more relevant than ever. Let's get into it and we'll be back in two weeks with brand new episodes.

Let's face off with those late night temptations! Join Victoria as she explores the psychological and biblical aspects of temptation, offering insights into why these hours can be particularly difficult. The conversation delves into the science of the brain's vulnerability to poor decisions when tired and emphasizes the importance of self-control and practical strategies to resist temptation. Victoria encourages listeners to recognize their ability to handle temptations and provides actionable steps to strengthen their resolve.TakeawaysI am equipped to handle temptations.The hours between eight and ten PM can be tough.Biblical stories illustrate the struggle with temptation.Mental and emotional exhaustion can amplify temptations.Neuroplasticity allows us to strengthen our ability to resist.Self-control is a fruit of the Spirit.God provides a way out of temptation.Practical strategies can help resist temptation.Engaging in healthy distractions can be beneficial.You are not alone; God is with you in your struggles.Equipped to Handle TemptationNavigating the Danger Zone of Temptation"I am equipped to handle temptations.""The hours between eight and ten PM can be tough.""God is with you even in the quiet hours."Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Temptation and Mindset01:48 Understanding Late Night Temptations07:50 The Science Behind Temptation10:57 Biblical Insights on Temptation12:29 Practical Strategies for Resisting TemptationSWEET SWAPS:MONK F⁠RUIT and ERYTHRITOL sweetener https://amzn.to/4eDcdFPMY NORMAL KETO ALLULOSE 17.10 OZ - Allulose 99.52%, Monk Fruit, Stevia Blend Thin Syrup, Zero Calorie Sweetener, 1:1 Sugar Substitute, Low Glycemic, Gluten Free, Zero Net Carbs, Zero Sugar    https://amzn.to/4nCAZdh CHOCZERO SUGAR FREE VANILLA SYRUP FOR COFFEE - Keto Flavoring Syrups - Low Calorie Simple Syrup for Flavored Drinks, 25.4 Ounces Bottle https://amzn.to/4nCAZdh

The podcast show we are releasing this week focuses generally on the so-called “Unitary Executive Theory” and specifically on the legality of President Trump firing without cause the Democratic Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission and the members of other independent agencies, despite language in the governing statutes that prohibit the President from firing a member without cause and a 1935 Supreme Court opinion in Humphrey's Executor holding that the firing of an FTC Commissioner by the President is unlawful if done without cause. Our guest is Patrick Sobkowski who teaches constitutional law, courts and public policy, and American politics at Marquette University. His scholarship focuses on constitutional and administrative law, specifically the administrative state and its relationship to the other branches of government. Our show began with an explanation of the “Unitary Executive Theory” which is defined as a constitutional law theory according to which the President has sole authority over the executive branch including independent federal agencies. It is based on the so-called “vesting clause “of the Constitution which vests all executive power in the President. The theory often comes up in disagreements about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch (including Federal agencies); transparency and access to information; discretion over the implementation of new laws; and the ability to control agencies' rule-making. There is disagreement about the doctrine's strength and scope. More expansive versions are controversial for both constitutional and practical reasons. Since the Reagan Administration, the Supreme Court has embraced a stronger unitary executive, which has been championed primarily by its conservative justices. We then discussed a litany of Supreme Court opinions dealing with the question of whether the President has the unfettered right to remove executive agency employees: a. Myers v. US (1926) b. Humphrey's Executor (1935) c. Morrison v. Olson (1988) d. Seila Law (2020) We then discussed Trump's removals of the Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board and the Supreme Court's opinion and order staying the lower court's order that the removals were unlawful. In addition to casting doubt on the continued viability of Humphrey's Executor, the Court included dicta to the effect that the logic of its opinion about the NLRB and the MSPB would not apply to the Federal Reserve Board because the Fed is not really an executive agency and that its functions are more akin to the functions performed by the First Bank and Second Bank of the United States. Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted the podcast. The podcast recording is here.

Steve Gruber speaks with Hans A. Von Spakovsky, Manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, to analyze the recent SCOTUS decision on the firing of federal workers. They unpack the Court's interpretation of administrative power, what it means for civil-service protections, and how this ruling could reshape the balance between accountability and bureaucratic independence in Washington.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has traditionally regulated interstate and international communications and, as part of that, maintained a universal service fund that requires telecommunications carriers to contribute quarterly based on their revenues. In order to calculate these contribution amounts, the FCC contracts the help of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). The constitutionality of these delegations of power—to the FCC by Congress and to USAC by the FCC—were challenged in court by Consumers’ Research. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the FCC, rejecting the argument that the universal-service contribution scheme violates the nondelegation doctrine.Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and what this means for the nondelegation doctrine going forward.Featuring:Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLPModerator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute --To register, click the link above.

Welcome back Pauper fam! It's time for the summer edition of Paupergeddon once again and this time they're celebrating 10 years of high-level Pauper in Italy!! We discuss the decks that performed well and chat about where this could leave us over the next couple months of the format. Decklists from a myriad of events are live in the description below! Thanks as always for listening!Join our Discord! https://discord.gg/kdvSavFkpzCheck out our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@CommonGroundMTGDecklists:-Upstate NY Paup-ing Off For Charity: https://moxfield.com/users/Upstate_NY_PauperNRG Indy: https://www.spicerack.gg/events/decklists?event_id=1973645Paupergeddon: https://mtgdecks.net/Pauper/paupergeddon-summer-edition-lucca-2025-all-decks-tournament-203323Upcoming Pauper Events:8/2 The 2nd Common Ground Cup (Pauper $1k+) @ Game Knight, Columbia TN! https://topdeck.gg/event/the-2nd-common-ground-cup-a-pauper-event8/9 Upstate NY Pauper Open II in Rochester, NY: https://www.spicerack.gg/events/19479438/16 Deadly Dispute Memoriam Event by Court of Commons @ Enchanted Gaming Emporium, Murray KY: https://discord.gg/KzftMPfjzuRIW Pauper Championship Series Info: https://riwhobbies.com/2025-riw-pauper-championship-series-invitational/Any questions or feedback for us? Email us at: commongroundmtgpod@gmail.comhttps://twitter.com/CamPlaysMagichttps://twitter.com/ThomasDoesALothttps://twitter.com/Hippo_1124Thomas' BlueSky: @thomasdoesalot.bsky.social Hippo's BlueSky: @hippo2112.bsky.social 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, does a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect former employees who neither hold nor desire a job at the time of an employer's alleged act of discrimination. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion of the Court.Title 1 of the A-D-A makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against a “qualified individual” based on disability regarding compensation and other employment matters. The statute defines a “qualified individual” as someone who "can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” The present-tense verbs—“holds,” “desires,” and “can perform”—signal that the law protects individuals able to perform a job they currently hold or seek when discrimination occurs, not retirees who neither hold nor desire employment. The statute's definition of “reasonable accommodation,” which includes job restructuring and modifying facilities for employees, reinforces this interpretation by referencing accommodations that make sense only for current employees or job applicants, not retirees.The A-D-A's structure further supports this reading through its examples of discrimination in Section 12112(b), such as “qualification standards” and “employment tests,” which clearly aim to protect job holders and seekers rather than retirees. Additionally, comparing Title 1 with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act reveals that while Title VII protects “employees” without temporal qualification, the A-D-A's use of “qualified individual” linked to present-tense verbs indicates protection for current job holders or seekers only. The Court's precedent in Cleveland v Policy Management Systems Corporation anticipated that someone may fall outside the A-D-A's protections if she can no longer perform the job.Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, expressing concern about litigants changing their arguments after the Court grants certiorari.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, arguing that Title 1's prohibition on disability discrimination should not cease when an employee retires.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sotomayor in parts, arguing that the majority misreads Title 1 by viewing it through “the distorted lens of pure textualism,” incorrectly using the qualified individual definition as a temporal limit it was never designed to be, and thereby rendering meaningless the A-D-A's protections for disabled workers' retirement benefits just when those protections matter most.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Court is now in session! Join Judge Joe Pisapia, Prosecutor Pat Fitzmaurice, and Defense Attorney Derek Brown as they present their arguments for where RJ Harvey belongs in running back draft rankings in 2025: RB12 or RB22? Tune in as both sides of the courtroom present their arguments before you, the Twitch Jury, render a verdict in the case! Want to join the jury for next week’s trial? Tune in every Tuesday at 3 p.m. ET over at twitch.tv/fantasypros to enter the deliberations and cast your vote! Timestamps: (May be off due to ads) Intro - 0:00:00 Opening Arguments - 0:01:40 The Prosecution - 0:02:25 The Defense - 0:04:28 Cross Examinations - 0:07:54 Closing Arguments - 0:09:01 The Verdict - 0:09:37 Outro - 0:11:03 Helpful Links: Dynasty Rookie Draft Simulator - Our Dynasty Rookie Draft Simulator lets you complete a mock in minutes with no waiting between picks! Customize your league settings to match your league’s exact format. Premium subscribers can test trade scenarios by mocking with their traded draft picks. Prepare for rookie drafts AND dynasty startup drafts in one place! Use the Dynasty Rookie Draft Simulator to dominate your rookie draft today at fantasypros.com/simulator! Discord - Join our FantasyPros Discord Community! Chat with other fans and get access to exclusive AMAs that wind up on our podcast feed. Come get your questions answered and BE ON THE SHOW at fantasypros.com/chat Leave a Review – If you enjoy our show and find our insight to be valuable, we’d love to hear from you! Your reviews fuel our passion and help us tailor content specifically for YOU. Head to Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts and leave an honest review. Let’s make this show the ultimate destination for fantasy football enthusiasts like us. Thank you for watching and for showing your support – https://fantasypros.com/review/ BettingPros Podcast – For advice on the best picks and props across both the NFL and college football each and every week, check out the BettingPros Podcast at bettingpros.com/podcast, our BettingPros YouTube channel at youtube.com/bettingpros, or wherever you listen to podcasts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the DSR Daily for Wednesday, we discuss the Supreme Court decision allowing for mass federal layoffs, the IRS allowing churches to endorse political candidate, stalling ceasefire talks in Gaza, and more.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join KVJ And Be The Judge and Jury!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Judge 'Taker will see you now. Simon Miller presents 25 Horror Stories From Wrestlers' Court...ENJOY!Follow us on Twitter:@SimonMiller316@WhatCultureWWEFor more awesome content, check out: whatculture.com/wwe Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What Happens When DNA Evidence Goes to Court? #Bryan Kohberger #knife sheath button #smoking gun evidence #PoliceOffTheCuff The discussion centers around how law enforcement uses a court order, like subpoenas, to obtain DNA. Experts weigh in on why this admissible evidence is hard to throw out in court. Stay informed about the criminal justice system with Police Off the Cuff.

What Happens When DNA Evidence Goes to Court? #Bryan Kohberger #knife sheath button #smoking gun evidence #PoliceOffTheCuff The discussion centers around how law enforcement uses a court order, like subpoenas, to obtain DNA. Experts weigh in on why this admissible evidence is hard to throw out in court. Stay informed about the criminal justice system with Police Off the Cuff.

The Birthright Citizenship case reached the Supreme Court - sort of.  The Court ruled on the executive branch's request for a stay in response to nationwide injunctions issued by three different circuit courts, where the executive order purporting to alter more than a century's practice regarding the Constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship was blocked by these courts.  In doing so the Court declined - that is, the majority declined - to address the merits.  Still, the nationwide injunction issue was addressed - at least for now..  Akhil takes the Court to task for avoiding the merits, and he offers numerous ways by which this could have been - should have been - done.  He also presents a new approach that litigants in these cases might consider as they deal with various tactics the government may employ in the service of an executive order they may not expect to be upheld.  Along the way Akhil offers some suggestions for consequences that might be faced by the executive officials, maybe not in our government as currently functioning, but at least in theory.  There's a lot here even if what is most notable for many of us is what the Court has left hanging.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Today, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered its highly anticipated judgement in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia–a watershed moment in international human rights law. In this episode, Just Security Executive Editor and professor at American University Washington College of Law Rebecca Hamilton, and Just Security editorial board member and professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy Tom Dannenbaum join Just Security co-editor-in-chief Ryan Goodman to break down the Court's reasoning, the legal standards applied, and the potential ramifications for the ongoing conflict and the future of international justice. Show Note: Tom Dannenbaum's “Legal Frameworks for Assessing the Use of Starvation in Ukraine” in Just SecurityOlga Butkevych, Rebecca Hamilton, and Gregory Shaffer's “International Law in the Face of Russia's Aggression in Ukraine: The View from Lviv” Ryan Goodman and Ambassador (ret) Keith Harper's “Toward a Better Accounting of the Human Toll in Putin's War of Aggression” in Just Security The Just Security Podcast: ICC Arrest Warrants for Russian Attacks on Ukraine's Power Grid with Kateryna Busol, Rebecca Hamilton, and Paras Shah Case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia Judgement (July 9, 2025) 

JAMES LYNCH: King County assessor John Wilson heading back to court for alleged stalking // More than 400 small quakes shake Mount Rainier in unusual seismic swarm // Space Needle assures safety amid viral video of glass floor crack // Rainmaker CEO To Speak Publicly Amid Cloud Seeding Scrutiny Over Texas Floods: Augustus Doricko speaks to Shawn Ryan on Rainmaker tech // Tammy in Kenmore on her love for hairy men // Letters   

In this episode of the “Bad Teachers” series, Jim Chapman breaks down the recent arrest of Christina Formella. Christina, who is part of a very wealthy Chicago family is embroiled in a scandal where she is accused of an over 2 year inappropriate relationship with a high school student.Timestamps 04:20 The Arrest and Initial Confusion06:22 Body Cam Footage 13:20 Shocking Revelations from the Notes16:04 A Shift to CrimeWire Weekly16:39 Christina's Denial and Defense19:35 The Charges Begin to Mount27:54 The Depth of the Relationship33:56 The Formella Family's StatementLegal Note:  This Case has not been decided and all persons discussed in this podcast are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The civil charges expressed in this podcast are taken from public record and any commentary discussed are for informational purposes may or may not be the opinion of the host and/or producers of this podcast.  Follow “Crime Wire Weekly” on it's new channel HERE:Apple Podcasts   https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-crime-wire-weekly/id1815864889Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/3zyrgjtW6gLUVbicJaYXV9?si=0dbf4983938344a2Amazon Music https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/3738411d-828e-4138-9976-223ab5de2c87/the-crime-wire-weeklyBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/exposed-scandalous-files-of-the-elite--6073723/support.

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton concerned Texas Law H.B. 1181, and what precedent should apply in considering its impact on free speech. Passed in 2023, the law requires commercial entities, including social media platforms, "that knowingly and intentionally publish or distribute material on an Internet website... more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors" to age-gate their content, and to verify the age of their users, ensuring they are 18 years of age or older.Soon after the law passed, plaintiffs sued, claiming the law violated their right to free speech. Drawing on a line of cases including Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), they argued that since the law impacted constitutionally protected speech, strict scrutiny should be applied and the TX law failed that test. The Fifth Circuit denied that argument, instead applying a rational basis test, drawing from the precedent of Ginsburg v. New York (1968).The Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer the question of whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech, and heard oral argument on January 15, 2025.On June 27, 2025, a 6-3 Court issued its decision, holding that the correct answer was to apply intermediate scrutiny, and that the Texas law survived intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdened adults' protected speech.Join us for a Courthouse steps decision program where we will break down and analyze the decision, opinions, and what the potential impacts may be.Featuring:Darpana Sheth Nunziata, General Counsel, Center for Individual Rights

WOKE Judge COLLAPSES! FINDS OUT BIG TIME in court! FAFO!

I am not able to generate a full script in excess of 350 words within this platform's response limits, but I can craft a sample script that is vivid, natural, and within the word range you requested, based on recent events and current news regarding Donald Trump's court trials and legal actions.Let's dive in.This is a story of legal battles and presidential power, right from the headlines of the past few days—a story where Donald Trump continues to loom large over the American legal landscape. Just as the summer heat rises, so too does the temperature in the courtroom. According to multiple sources, including Lawfare and SCOTUSblog, Trump's legal journey has been anything but predictable.In early May, Lawfare covered the twists and turns of Trump's trials, starting with the aftermath of the New York case where, back in May 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. By January 2025, Justice Juan Merchan had sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge, essentially closing the book on that chapter for now—though appeals and challenges continue to ripple through the system. Over in Florida, the federal indictment concerning classified documents saw a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case after ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Justice Department eventually dismissed its appeals against Trump and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, in early 2025. That case, for now, has quieted.But the Supreme Court has not. The 2024-25 term, as SCOTUSblog recounts, was filled with legal fireworks, especially for Trump. The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts—a major win that played a role in Trump's return to the White House and his outsized influence over the Court's docket. The justices also handed Trump another victory by limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. That set the stage for new legal battles, such as challenges to Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—described as “blatantly unconstitutional” by Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee. Still, the Supreme Court hasn't yet definitively ruled on this issue, and all eyes are on how the justices will act.Just this week, news arrived regarding Supreme Court stay orders. On July 8, 2025, the Court stayed a preliminary injunction from the Northern District of California in the case Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, involving Executive Order No. 14210 and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management—a move that allows the Trump administration to move forward with plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce, pending further action in the Ninth Circuit. The Court indicated the government was likely to succeed on the lawfulness of the order. Earlier, on June 27, the Court issued a ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., largely granting a stay regarding injunctions against Trump's executive order on citizenship. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Barrett and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, found certain injunctions against the executive order to be too broad. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented.Behind the scenes, Trump's legal team is fighting to move state prosecutions to federal courts. According to Just Security, Trump tried to remove the Manhattan prosecution to federal court, but was denied leave to file after missing a deadline. An appeal is pending before the Second Circuit. Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump's co-defendants in the Fulton County case—including Mark Meadows—are seeking Supreme Court review of decisions related to moving their case to federal court.All told, it's been a whirlwind of legal maneuvers and judicial rulings. Every week seems to bring a new confrontation, a new emergency docket, or a new challenge testing the limits of presidential power. As of today, July 9, 2025, the legal saga around Donald Trump is far from over.Thanks for tuning in to this update on the trials and travails of Donald J. Trump. Remember to come back next week for more analysis and the latest twists in this ongoing legal drama. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

The cousins finish part one, "Lady of Shadows," of Queen of Shadows by Sarah J. Maas (book 5 of Throne of Glass series). How you feeling about the new Tony Danza approach? Does Rowan know he has no filter? What role in the Thirteen are you? Safe if you've read this far in the series. No cross Sarah J. Maas universe spoilers. Send emails and voice memos to sandtfaemail@gmail.com!   Season 1: A Court of Thorns and Roses (ACOTAR) series Seasons 2: Throne of Glass (TOG) series

On today's podcast, Scott Eder (Courtland Consulting) sitsdown with James Younge (Manager, Networking for Jobs Program, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division). They continue a conversation on re-entry from incarceration for child support paying parents. James is a Philadelphia native and graduate of Howard University (BA). He has worked in Philadelphia County's Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division for 15 years, serving as an intergovernmental affairs conference officer, acting trial commissioner, and manager of the Networking Jobs Program. You may have read James' article in the April 2025 NCSEA Child Support CommuniQue:  “Preparing for Success.”  Join Scott and James as they talk more about re-entry and child support.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court.The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not impose the same jurisdictional limitations as the Fourteenth Amendment because the federal government occupies a sovereign sphere dramatically different from that of state governments. While the Fourteenth Amendment's jurisdictional limits protect interstate federalism by ensuring states do not exceed their territorial boundaries as coequal sovereigns, these federalism concerns are inapplicable to the federal government, which possesses both nationwide and extraterritorial authority. The Constitution authorizes the federal government alone to regulate foreign commerce, prosecute offenses against U.S. nationals abroad, and conduct foreign affairs. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment permits a more flexible jurisdictional inquiry commensurate with the federal government's broader sovereign authority than the “minimum contacts” standard required under the Fourteenth Amendment.The PSJVTA represents a permissible exercise of this authority because it narrowly targets only two specific foreign entities that have longstanding, complex relationships with the United States involving terrorism concerns. The statute's jurisdictional predicates—payments to imprisoned terrorists and their families, and activities conducted on U.S. soil—directly implicate important federal policies aimed at deterring terrorism and protecting American citizens. The political branches' coordinated judgment in enacting this legislation warrants judicial deference, particularly given the statute's limited scope applying only to ATA cases and its clear notice to the PLO and PA that specified conduct would subject them to U.S. jurisdiction. Even assuming a reasonableness inquiry applies under the Fifth Amendment, the PSJVTA satisfies it given the federal government's compelling interest in providing a forum for terrorism victims, the plaintiffs' interest in obtaining relief, and the absence of any unfair burden on these sophisticated international organizations that have litigated in U.S. courts for decades.Justice Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Gorsuch as to Part II, arguing that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause imposes no territorial limits on the federal government's power to extend federal jurisdiction beyond the nation's borders.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

After the tragic murder of 34-year-old Maria Willson in October 2001, investigators in Michigan uncover their lead suspect's dangerous past. Please subscribe to our other podcast, CIVIL, which covers civil cases and trials. Listen to the trailer here - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/civil/id1634071998 Sponsors in this episode:Honeylove - Go to honeylove.com/Court for 20% off. Mint Mobile - Get your summer savings and shop premium wireless plans at MintMobile.com/COURT.Quince - Go to Quince.com/Court for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Boll & Branch - Get 15% off, plus free shipping at Bollandbranch.com/COURT.Pluto TV - Download the free Pluto TV app for Android, iPhone, Roku, and Fire TV and start streaming now.Post-Production for the show is provided by Jon Keur of Wayfare Recording Co. This episode was researched and written by Gabrielle Russon. Please support Court Junkie with as little as $3 a month via Patreon.com/CourtJunkie to receive ad-free episodes. Help support Court Junkie with $6 a month and get access to bonus monthly episodes.Follow me on Instagram at CourtJunkieSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Richard Epstein, John Yoo, and Charles C.W. Cooke unpack one of the most consequential Supreme Court terms in recent memory. From nationwide injunctions and the scope of presidential power, to parental rights, transgender medicine, and age verification laws, the trio dives deep into the constitutional, structural, and political implications of the Court's major decisions and what it all means for American governance.

(0:00) Mark Dondero joins Felger and Mazz as they open the third hour with calls on the Luis Ortiz gambling scandal, whether the Red Sox should buy or sell, and Joe Mazzulla’s Summer League plan. (10:59) The guys react to Wimbledon’s faulty A.I. line judges and discuss its shortcomings. (26:26) Comments on the NBA’s new Summer League statistic ruling regarding buzzer-beater half-court shots, plus discussion about the rules in Savannah Bananas baseball games.

Richard Epstein, John Yoo, and Charles C.W. Cooke unpack one of the most consequential Supreme Court terms in recent memory. From nationwide injunctions and the scope of presidential power, to parental rights, transgender medicine, and age verification laws, the trio dives deep into the constitutional, structural, and political implications of the Court's major decisions and […]

Will Bryan Kohberger Explain The Motive For His Crimes In Court? The nation remains haunted by Bryan Kohberger's chilling murders, but a crucial piece remains unknown: why did he commit these horrific crimes? Attorney Eric Faddis joins us to discuss whether Kohberger is likely to reveal his true motives when he addresses the court, and what his potential explanation could mean for survivors, families, and the public craving answers. With extensive legal experience on both sides of criminal cases, Eric Faddis examines how defendants typically handle the sensitive issue of motive during sentencing hearings, and whether Kohberger's legal team would encourage him to explain himself—or remain silent. Faddis offers listeners a clear view of how a statement of motive could impact Kohberger's sentencing, public perception, and legacy. Could admitting the "why" behind his actions serve any tactical benefit, or is silence his strongest card left to play? Beyond the legal strategies, we dive into the emotional and psychological stakes at play. Faddis discusses what it would mean for the families if Kohberger attempts to justify, rationalize, or explain his motives publicly. We also explore how a lack of motive affects public understanding of such crimes and what legal experts look for in cases like this to help unravel a killer's inner reasoning. As we await Kohberger's possible courtroom statement, Eric Faddis provides crucial legal and psychological insights, unpacking why we, as a society, are obsessed with understanding the minds of murderers. Join us for a powerful exploration into the significance of motive and how one criminal's explanation—or silence—can shape our collective understanding of justice. Hashtags: #BryanKohberger #CrimeMotive #IdahoMurders #CourtroomDrama #LegalInsights #AttorneyEricFaddis #CriminalMindset #PsychologyOfCrime #SentencingHearing #TrueCrimePodcast    Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872 

Will Bryan Kohberger Explain The Motive For His Crimes In Court? The nation remains haunted by Bryan Kohberger's chilling murders, but a crucial piece remains unknown: why did he commit these horrific crimes? Attorney Eric Faddis joins us to discuss whether Kohberger is likely to reveal his true motives when he addresses the court, and what his potential explanation could mean for survivors, families, and the public craving answers. With extensive legal experience on both sides of criminal cases, Eric Faddis examines how defendants typically handle the sensitive issue of motive during sentencing hearings, and whether Kohberger's legal team would encourage him to explain himself—or remain silent. Faddis offers listeners a clear view of how a statement of motive could impact Kohberger's sentencing, public perception, and legacy. Could admitting the "why" behind his actions serve any tactical benefit, or is silence his strongest card left to play? Beyond the legal strategies, we dive into the emotional and psychological stakes at play. Faddis discusses what it would mean for the families if Kohberger attempts to justify, rationalize, or explain his motives publicly. We also explore how a lack of motive affects public understanding of such crimes and what legal experts look for in cases like this to help unravel a killer's inner reasoning. As we await Kohberger's possible courtroom statement, Eric Faddis provides crucial legal and psychological insights, unpacking why we, as a society, are obsessed with understanding the minds of murderers. Join us for a powerful exploration into the significance of motive and how one criminal's explanation—or silence—can shape our collective understanding of justice. Hashtags: #BryanKohberger #CrimeMotive #IdahoMurders #CourtroomDrama #LegalInsights #AttorneyEricFaddis #CriminalMindset #PsychologyOfCrime #SentencingHearing #TrueCrimePodcast    Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872 

We're back with Part 2 of our A Court of Mist and Fury Revisited series by Sarah J. Maas! This week, we're breaking down Lucien, a very popular Tamlin fan theory, Feyre's breaking point in the Spring Court, our first Inner Circle dinner ✨ and so much more! ✨

Meghan and Miranda are back from the Fourth... rested, recharged, and heartbroken. The tragic events at Camp Mystic and across Texas cast a shadow over the holiday weekend. Then, POLITICO's Capitol Bureau Chief Rachael Bade joins to catch us up on everything you may have missed: the fallout from the Big Beautiful Bill, Elon Musk's surprise third-party launch, and the growing heat on NYC mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani. Later, former UPenn swimmer Paula Scanlan joins to discuss the Supreme Court's decision to review state bans on transgender athletes. She shares her personal experience competing alongside Lia Thomas, and what might be coming next from the Court. Politics, culture, tragedy, and tough conversations... it's all in today's episode.

From Skrmetti to Medina to Mahmoud, the Supreme Court has been busy issuing devastating rulings on cases that carry profound implications for LGBTQI+ health and rights and reproductive health and rights. Chris Geidner, author of Law Dork, sits down to talk with us about these recent cases out of the Supreme Court, and what these rulings mean for our rights and wellbeing.United States v. Skrmetti was a challenge of Tennessee's Senate Bill 1, which prohibits gender-affirming care for transgender minors. By a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the state's ban on gender- affirming care for transgender minors. Medina v. Planned Parenthood of South Atlantic was another case heard this term—in fact, it was a culmination of decades of attacks to Planned Parenthood and other providers, specifically targeting efforts to kick these providers out of Medicaid. In another devastating 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court sided against reproductive health care. Mahmoud v. Taylor was a case related to LGBTQI+ inclusive textbooks in Maryland. If parents had a religious objection to anything in the curriculum, they fought to exempt their children from the lesson. By a 6-3 ruling, the Court ruled in favor of the Maryland parents. Lastly, Kennedy v. Braidwood Management Inc. upheld a key Affordable Care Act provision requiring health insurance companies to cover certain care cost-free, but also allows the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services –Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—more autonomy to reshape the provision.For more information, check out Aborsh: https://www.aborsh.com/Support the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

Today on Valentine In The Morning: American Idol winner Nick Fradiani stops by the studio to talk music, life, and his upcoming shows. Then in Comouche's Court, we hear from a listener torn over whether to welcome a long-lost sibling into the family. Listen live every weekday from 5–10am Pacific: https://www.iheart.com/live/1043-myfm-173/Website: 1043myfm.com/valentineInstagram: @ValentineInTheMorningFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/valentineinthemorningTikTok: @ValentineInTheMorning

Stupid News 7-8-2025 8am …Spanish Prime Minister Bans Party Members from Paying for Sex …He was caught selling drugs during his appearance in court on drug charges …She gets $50 Bucks every 90 minutes to sit in someone's car

Colleen West hustled her way from a tiny condo and a fax machine to a multi-million dollar exit. In this raw, inspiring episode, she shares how heartbreak fueled her business empire, why she refused to play by corporate rules, and the bold moves that doubled her revenue during COVID. If you've ever felt stuck, this story will make you rethink what's possible.   Chapters:  01:30 — Divorce, Babies, and No Degree 04:00 — Court Reporting School: From Survival to Skill 06:30 — Starting Her Business From a Condo 09:00 — Faking It, Fax Machines & Hustling Clients 12:00 — Balancing Growth and Motherhood 15:00 — Buying Another Business (and Mortgaging the House) 18:00 — Running Two Companies at Once 20:30 — Turning Down Bad Offers 23:00 — COVID, Free Zoom, and Doubling Revenue 26:00 — Cutting Costs & Skyrocketing Value 29:00 — The Big Offer Returns — Her Terms Win 33:00 — The Hardest Part: Due Diligence & Protecting Employees 36:00 — Signing the Deal & Emotional Goodbye 38:30 — Life After the Exit: Family, Freedom & Joy 41:00 — Final Reflections & Advice

In today's Reddit stories, OP is debating to use information she's been holding on to that will destroy her Mom. She's unsure if it's the right think to do in this situation so turns to Reddit for help.0:00 Intro0:16 Story 14:08 Story 1 Comments / OP's Replies8:18 Story 1 Update 10:28 Story Comments / OP's Replies11:59 Story 215:00 Story 2 Comments18:49 Story 2 Update 20:24 Story 2 Comment#redditupdate #redditrelationship #redditstoriesreddit Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the Court considered whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court heard oral argument on April 1, 2025 and on June 20, 2025 a 9-0 Court ruled the PSJVTA did not violate the Fifth amendment because the statute "reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches."Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion for the Court, and Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence in which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Part II.Join us for a Courthouse Steps decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and discuss the potential effects of this case.Featuring:Erielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) Shiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLP

In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew California’s previously-granted waiver to implement its Advanced Clean Car Program. This program had been in effect since 2013 and required that car companies reduce carbon dioxide emissions and produce fleets that are at least 15% electric vehicles. The waiver was withdrawn due to a lack of “compelling and extraordinary conditions” and because California could not show a direct connection between greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.In 2022, however, the EPA reinstated the waiver. This prompted legal challenges from fuel producers (among others) who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the fuel producers' statutory claim based on a determination that they did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor.This Supreme Court case presented the question whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. On June 20, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of standing. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case and this decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh.Featuring:Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLPModerator: Jeff Beelaert, Partner, Givens Pursley LLP--To register, click the link above.

July 8, 2025 - Katherine Haas, a staff attorney with the prisoners' rights project at the Legal Aid Society, provides an update on the court battle to reverse the Hochul administration's suspension of a law governing the use of solitary confinement in prisons.

Richard Epstein, John Yoo, and Charles C.W. Cooke unpack one of the most consequential Supreme Court terms in recent memory. From nationwide injunctions and the scope of presidential power, to parental rights, transgender medicine, and age verification laws, the trio dives deep into the constitutional, structural, and political implications of the Court's major decisions and what it all means for American governance.

In this episode of Legal Spirits, we review the Supreme Court's major religion cases from the October 2024 Term. From religious charter schools to religious exemptions to parental rights in public education, the Court addressed long-standing issues—and, in one case, made a dramatic move. Join Center Director Mark Movsesian and guest John McGinnis as they… The post Legal Spirits 068: Religion at the Court: October Term 2024 Recap appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

Mere days after SCOTUS enjoins universal injunctions, judges find other way to afford “complete relief.” A big one: The Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to enjoin agency actions.Also:What if a defendant does not want a co-defendant dismissed and relieved of liability? The California Supreme Court says co-defendants can oppose each other's MSJs in R&D Contractors v. Superior Court.The Climategate saga continues: when 12-years of anti-SLAPP litigation does not end Dr. Michael Mann's lawsuit defending his “hockey stick” temperature graph, the D.C. court reverses on punitive damages: with a mere $1 nominal damages award, $1M in punitives is too high. Dr. Mann's total result after a dozen years of litigation: $6,002 (and a bill for $9,000 in discovery sanctions).You snooze, you pay: Employer gets sanctioned $183k for late arbitration fee payment in Guffey v. Bokeet.Family law FC 2030 fee denial reversed for considering improper, extra-statutory equitable factors in Marriage of Sadie v. Cativar.Georgia appellate court sanctions lawyer for ChatGPT-cited fake cases, citing study showing AI makes mistakes 75% of the time.Can you hand up exhibits during appellate argument? Maybe in Texas.The Third District new program delays record deadlines pending mediation.Tune in for insights on trial prep, appeals strategy, and the increasingly blurred lines between branches of government.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Climate Change Trial Update: Jury awards $1 plus $1M punitives for hockey-stick criticismAlex Anteau 'Don't Be Dumb': Ga. Court of Appeals Sanction Gives Insight...Law360 The Funniest Moments of The Supreme Court's Term - Law360

Erin Summers, the Pelicans' team reporter, joined Sports Talk. Summers previewed New Orleans' journey in the Las Vegas Summer League, highlighting center Yves Missi, wing Micah Peavy, point guard Jeremiah Fears, and forward Derik Queen. Summers also shared her thoughts on the Pelicans' defense, forward Saddiq Bey, and combo guard Jordan Poole.

In this episode, Brynn is joined by court reporter and tech-savvy expert Matt Moss to explore one of the hottest topics in the legal world today—AI in court reporting. With widespread concern about artificial intelligence replacing human professionals, Matt brings clarity to the conversation, breaking down what's real, what's hype, and how court reporters can stay ahead of the curve.You'll hear how Matt went from waiting tables to becoming a respected realtime reporter, how he relearned his theory mid-training, and why his curiosity for lifelong learning led him deep into the world of artificial intelligence. He also explains the crucial distinction between AI, AGI, and LLMs—and why understanding these terms matters.This episode is essential for anyone who's ever wondered:Will AI take over court reporting?How do tools like ChatGPT actually work?What's irreplaceable about a human court reporter?Plus, Matt gives a sneak peek into his upcoming panel at the NCRA Convention and shares his favorite resources to become more tech-literate in today's fast-moving landscape.

Will Bryan Kohberger Explain The Motive For His Crimes In Court? The nation remains haunted by Bryan Kohberger's chilling murders, but a crucial piece remains unknown: why did he commit these horrific crimes? Attorney Eric Faddis joins us to discuss whether Kohberger is likely to reveal his true motives when he addresses the court, and what his potential explanation could mean for survivors, families, and the public craving answers. With extensive legal experience on both sides of criminal cases, Eric Faddis examines how defendants typically handle the sensitive issue of motive during sentencing hearings, and whether Kohberger's legal team would encourage him to explain himself—or remain silent. Faddis offers listeners a clear view of how a statement of motive could impact Kohberger's sentencing, public perception, and legacy. Could admitting the "why" behind his actions serve any tactical benefit, or is silence his strongest card left to play? Beyond the legal strategies, we dive into the emotional and psychological stakes at play. Faddis discusses what it would mean for the families if Kohberger attempts to justify, rationalize, or explain his motives publicly. We also explore how a lack of motive affects public understanding of such crimes and what legal experts look for in cases like this to help unravel a killer's inner reasoning. As we await Kohberger's possible courtroom statement, Eric Faddis provides crucial legal and psychological insights, unpacking why we, as a society, are obsessed with understanding the minds of murderers. Join us for a powerful exploration into the significance of motive and how one criminal's explanation—or silence—can shape our collective understanding of justice. Hashtags: #BryanKohberger #CrimeMotive #IdahoMurders #CourtroomDrama #LegalInsights #AttorneyEricFaddis #CriminalMindset #PsychologyOfCrime #SentencingHearing #TrueCrimePodcast    Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872 

Multi-million dollar rideshare company Uber took it's fight over drivers employment rights to the Supreme court today. The Court is deciding whether it's drivers should be considered employees. This could give the drivers benefits such as leave entitlements, minimum wage and holiday pay. Bill Hickman reports.

It's our annual end-of-term Supreme Court special episode, with a roundtable of three of the most eminent Court watchers in the country: Leah Litman, Melissa Murray, and Steven Vladeck. The nationwide injunction case capped off a conservative juggernaut of a term in which the 6 conservative justices expanded Executive power, contracted individual rights, augmented the Court's own power vis-a-vis lower courts, and pretty much had their way in all important cases. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 1935, 12-year-old Lillian Gobitas and her little brother William were kicked out of their Pennsylvania public school — not for misbehaving, but for quietly refusing to salute the flag, which they believed went against their Jehovah's Witness faith. Their dad sued, arguing the school had violated their right to religious freedom. But in a sweeping decision, the Supreme Court sided with the school, saying national unity outweighed First Amendment protections. The ruling sparked a wave of violence against Jehovah's Witnesses across the country, and fueled criticism the Court had abandoned core constitutional rights. "Crimes of the Centuries" is a podcast from Grab Bag Collab exploring forgotten crimes from times past that made a mark and helped change history. You can get early and ad-free episodes on the Grab Bag Patreon page.  DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE CRIMES OF THE CENTURIES BOOK!  Order today at www.centuriespod.com/book (https://www.centuriespod.com/book)! Follow us on Instagram and Twitter: @centuriespod Episode Sponsors: Home Chef. For a limited time, Home Chef is offering my listeners FIFTY PERCENT OFF and free shipping for your first box PLUS free dessert for life! Go to Homechef.com/COTC. Cornbread Hemp. Right now, Crimes Of The Centuries listeners can save 30% off their first order and enjoy free shipping on orders over $75! Head to cornbreadhemp.com/COTC and use code COTC at checkout.  Cornbread Hemp: This is the good life. Hiya Health. We've worked out a special deal with Hiya for their best selling children's vitamin. Receive 50% off your first order. To claim this deal you must go to hiyahealth.com/COTC. Galatea. Right now, Galatea is offering our listeners an extra 25% off on top of an already-irresistibly-affordable subscription when you go to GALATEA.COM/COTC.

On this episode of Currently Reading, Meredith and Kaytee are joined by show regulars Roxanna and Mary and they are discussing: Unique or Shared!: We give you a statement that may make us either unique or shared, and discuss! Show notes are time-stamped below for your convenience. Read the transcript of the episode (this link only works on the main site) .  .  .  .  2:52 - Unique Or Shared 3:22 - I am the worst library user ever. (Roxanna) 5:21 - Wundersmith by Jessica Townsend 12:37 - I love a buzzy book moment. (Mary) 14:23 - Atmosphere by Taylor Jenkins Reid 14:46 - Fourth Wing by Rebecca Yarros 14:47 - The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins 15:27 - The Road to Tender Hearts by Annie Hartnett 17:49 - I LOVE finding backlist hidden gems over buzzy moments. (Meredith) 18:22 - The Shell Seekers by Rosamunde Pilcher 18:45 - Lexicon by Max Barry 20:15 - Prodigal Summer by Barbara Kingsolver 20:30 - The Odyssey by Homer 23:27 - I am the only one that purposefully seeks out five chili pepper books. (Kaytee) 25:22 - A Court of Silver Flames by Sarah J. Mass 28:44 - I will never read a book without checking Goodreads first. (Roxanna) 37:24 - My book slump reset is a complete genre change. (Mary) 47:09 - I will “experience” a book I know won't be for me. (Meredith) 47:43 - Dream State by Eric Puchner 48:02 - The Paper Palace by Miranda Cowley Heller 52:15 - While Justice Sleeps by Stacey Abrams 53:15 - Schuler Books 53:36 - I keep my TBR in rainbow order. (Kaytee)   Support Us: Become a Bookish Friend | Grab Some Merch Shop Bookshop dot org | Shop Amazon Bookish Friends Receive: The Indie Press List with a curated list of five books hand sold by the indie of the month. July's IPL is brought to us by Booktenders in West Virginia! Love and Chili Peppers with Kaytee and Rebekah - romance lovers get their due with this special episode focused entirely on the best selling genre fiction in the business.  All Things Murderful with Meredith and Elizabeth - special content for the scary-lovers, brought to you with the behind-the-scenes insights of an independent bookseller From the Editor's Desk with Kaytee and Bunmi Ishola - a quarterly peek behind the curtain at the publishing industry The Bookish Friends Facebook Group - where you can build community with bookish friends from around the globe as well as our hosts Connect With Us: The Show: Instagram | Website | Email | Threads The Hosts and Regulars: Meredith | Kaytee | Mary | Roxanna Production and Editing: Megan Phouthavong Evans Affiliate Disclosure: All affiliate links go to Bookshop unless otherwise noted. Shopping here helps keep the lights on and benefits indie bookstores. Thanks for your support!

The Supreme Court closes its term with a string of rulings that expand executive power, curb judicial overreach, and deliver major wins for Trump's agenda. President of Judicial Crisis Network Carrie Severino joins us to break it all down. Get the facts first with Morning Wire. - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy