Judicial institution with authority to resolve legal disputes
POPULARITY
Categories
347 episodes with courts
456 episodes with courts
387 episodes with courts
153 episodes with courts
135 episodes with courts
32 episodes with courts
24 episodes with courts
30 episodes with courts
37 episodes with courts
70 episodes with courts
80 episodes with courts
47 episodes with courts
31 episodes with courts
41 episodes with courts
78 episodes with courts
32 episodes with courts
117 episodes with courts
25 episodes with courts
16 episodes with courts
21 episodes with courts
15 episodes with courts
18 episodes with courts
19 episodes with courts
31 episodes with courts
27 episodes with courts
19 episodes with courts
26 episodes with courts
38 episodes with courts
22 episodes with courts
20 episodes with courts
86 episodes with courts
18 episodes with courts
13 episodes with courts
13 episodes with courts
13 episodes with courts
24 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
20 episodes with courts
24 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
20 episodes with courts
22 episodes with courts
23 episodes with courts
7 episodes with courts
10 episodes with courts
13 episodes with courts
7 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
10 episodes with courts
8 episodes with courts
17 episodes with courts
9 episodes with courts
9 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
Sustainability conversations usually center on ecosystems, emissions targets, and corporate pledges, but this episode makes the case that people belong at the center of that conversation too. Andrew looks at how communities living closest to refineries, extraction sites, and industrial waterfronts carry a disproportionate share of the pollution burden, often without having consented to the risk in the first place. Using a Philadelphia refinery as a case study, Andrew walks through how fenceline communities experience higher poverty rates, higher rates of residents of color, and elevated cancer and respiratory risk compared to their surrounding cities. He extends that pattern to wildfire response, contrasting how affluent California communities were able to evacuate and rebuild after the Santa Ana wind fires with how remote Northern Ontario and Arctic communities, some with only one road in and one road out, had to be airlifted out entirely. The episode also revisits New York's Hudson River, once devastated by industrial chemical runoff and now home to returning oysters, menhaden, and whales after decades of restoration work. The back half of the episode turns to policy. As federal environmental justice efforts recede in 2026, states including Minnesota, Illinois, and Massachusetts are stepping into that gap, and nonprofit legal teams are winning court challenges against federal rollbacks. Andrew closes with a reminder that protecting the environment and protecting people are frequently the same fight, and that sustainable business practices tend to protect local economies as much as they protect public health. Takeaways Communities near industrial facilities carry a disproportionate pollution burden, often without their consent Fenceline communities show higher poverty rates, higher percentages of residents of color, and elevated cancer and respiratory risk Wildfire evacuation capacity varies sharply by community resources and infrastructure The Hudson River's recovery shows environmental restoration is possible after decades of industrial damage States are advancing environmental justice policy as federal efforts recede in 2026 Courts have blocked some federal rollbacks of environmental justice funding Protecting the environment and protecting public health are frequently the same fight Support Independent Podcasts: https://www.speakupforblue.com/patreon Need help with your ocean non-profit, company, or project? Get the help you need with Pisces Oceans Inc.: https://www.piscesoceans.ca Connect with Speak Up For Blue Website: https://bit.ly/3fOF3Wf Instagram: https://bit.ly/3rIaJSG TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@speakupforblue Twitter: https://bit.ly/3rHZxpc YouTube: www.speakupforblue.com/youtube
"Mind Over Murder" hosts Bill Thomas and Kristin Dilley discuss the 1982 murder of Dominique Dunne, whose killer got off with serving only 2.5 years on a shocking reduced manslaughter charge. Her father Dominick Dunne and brother Griffin Dunne have both written about her murder and the travesty of justice in how the justice system mishandled her case.The Friday Afternoon Club: A Family Memoir by Griffin Dunnehttps://www.goodreads.com/book/show/203708995-the-friday-afternoon-clubNational Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC): https://victimsofcrime.org/CrimeCon CLUE Awards Unveil 2026 Winners:https://podnews.net/press-release/crimecon-clue-winners-2026CrimeCon Clue Awards 2026:https://www.clueawards.com/NBC: FBI Norfolk field office links deceased suspect to additional Colonial Parkway Murders In January 2026, the FBI announced Alan Wade Wilmer Sr. is responsible for the 1986 Virginia murders of Cathleen Thomas and Rebecca Dowski.https://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/cold-case-spotlight/colonial-parkway-murders-cathleen-thomas-rebecca-dowski-resolved-rcna255097American Detective TV series: Colonial Parkway Murders:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp3rNRZnL0EWashingtonian: A Murder on the Rappahannock River:https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/06/27/murder-on-the-rappahannock-river-emerson-stevens-mary-harding-innocence-project/WTKR News 3: One year after development in Colonial Parkway Murders, where do things stand?https://www.wtkr.com/news/in-the-community/historic-triangle/one-year-after-development-in-colonial-parkway-murders-where-do-things-standWon't you help the Mind Over Murder podcast increase our visibility and shine the spotlight on the "Colonial Parkway Murders" and other unsolved cases? Contribute any amount you can here:https://www.gofundme.com/f/mind-over-murder-podcast-expenses?utm_campaign=p_lico+share-sheet&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=customerWTVR CBS News: Colonial Parkway murders victims' families keep hope cases will be solved:https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/colonial-parkway-murders-update-april-19-2024WAVY TV 10 News: New questions raised in Colonial Parkway murders:https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/new-questions-raised-in-colonial-parkway-murders/Alan Wade Wilmer, Sr. has been named as the killer of Robin Edwards and David Knobling in the Colonial Parkway Murders in September 1987, as well as the murderer of Teresa Howell in June 1989. He has also been linked to the April 1988 disappearance and likely murder of Keith Call and Cassandra Hailey, another pair in the Colonial Parkway Murders.13News Now investigates: A serial killer's DNA will not be entered into CODIS database:https://www.13newsnow.com/video/news/local/13news-now-investigates/291-e82a9e0b-38e3-4f95-982a-40e960a71e49WAVY TV 10 on the Colonial Parkway Murders Announcement with photos:https://www.wavy.com/news/crime/deceased-man-identified-as-suspect-in-decades-old-homicides/WTKR News 3https://www.wtkr.com/news/is-man-linked-to-one-of-the-colonial-parkway-murders-connected-to-the-other-casesVirginian Pilot: Who was Alan Wade Wilmer Sr.? Man suspected in two ‘Colonial Parkway' murders died alone in 2017https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/01/14/who-was-alan-wade-wilmer-sr-man-suspected-in-colonial-parkway-murders-died-alone-in-2017/Colonial Parkway Murders Facebook page with more than 18,000 followers: https://www.facebook.com/ColonialParkwayCaseYou can also participate in an in-depth discussion of the Colonial Parkway Murders here:https://earonsgsk.proboards.com/board/50/colonial-parkway-murdersMind Over Murder is proud to be a Spreaker Prime Podcaster:https://www.spreaker.comJoin the discussion on our Mind Over MurderColonial Parkway Murders website: https://colonialparkwaymurders.com Mind Over Murder Podcast website: https://mindovermurderpodcast.comPlease subscribe and rate us at your favorite podcast sites. Ratings and reviews are very important. Please share and tell your friends!We launch a new episode of "Mind Over Murder" every Monday morning, and a bonus episode every Thursday morning.Sponsors: Othram and DNAsolves.comContribute Your DNA to help solve cases: https://dnasolves.com/user/registerFollow "Mind Over Murder" on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MurderOverFollow Bill Thomas on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BillThomas56Follow "Colonial Parkway Murders" on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ColonialParkwayCase/Follow us on InstaGram:: https://www.instagram.com/colonialparkwaymurders/Check out the entire Crawlspace Media network at http://crawlspace-media.com/All rights reserved. Mind Over Murder, Copyright Bill Thomas and Kristin Dilley, Another Dog Productions/Absolute Zero ProductionsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/mind-over-murder--4847179/support.
In 1867, an 8-year-old girl named Elizabeth Turner became the epicenter of a legal battle that would help define what freedom really meant after the Civil War. Days after Maryland abolished slavery, her former enslaver had her re-indentured under a sham "apprenticeship" law used to seize Black children. Elizabeth's mother—and thousands of other parents—refused to accept it. In this second episode of By the People, legal scholar Lyle Cherneff guides Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern through a Union Army general's archive of letters that documented the plight of Black parents who petitioned, marched, and filed habeas corpus claims to win their children back. These parents read the new constitutional guarantees of freedom for themselves, and demanded they be enforced, long before any Supreme Court told them what those words meant.The resulting case, In re: Turner, helped end the practice of racialized child "apprenticeship" and shaped the meaning of the 13th and 14th amendments. But the parents who fought for it were nearly written out of the story. In this episode, we seek to restore that record, tracing a direct line from their fight to ordinary Americans' resistance to ICE raids today. By the People is Slate's end-of-term project exploring how ordinary Americans have shaped the meaning of the Constitution outside the Supreme Court. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeopleThe justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Howie covers some illegals in the news, then the appeals court overturns the ruling calling for the release of Mohsen Mahdawi. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Join Locals! https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/BUY A BOOK! https://amzn.to/4qBXikSSEND ME SOMETHING! David Freiheit 20423 SR 7 Ste F6319 Boca Raton 33498TIP WITH CRYPTO! bc1qt0umnqna63pyw5j8uesphsfz0dyrtmqcq5ugwmFor advertising inquiries please email sponsorships@rumble.comTHAT IS ALL!
Six days before a federal rule was set to take effect, the courts stepped in. The Department of Education tried to redefine who counts as a professional, a move that would have capped student loans for nurse anesthetists and the advanced-practice clinicians training behind them. The courts said the challenge is likely to succeed and hit pause. This week I sat down with Tracy Young, twenty-six years in the field, and Randy Moore, who runs anesthesia at enterprise scale, to work through what the ruling actually means and what it does not. It is a win in a battle, not the war. We get into the argument a federal regulator made that landed harder than we wanted to admit, why a rule written to require supervision is now being used against us, and where the line sits between what government should decide and what the people doing the work should. Plus the student-loan fight both parties get half-right, and why credentials stopped predicting who can lead. Good information first. Then the honest conversation about where anesthesia goes next. TAKEAWAYS The court blocked the rule on a preliminary injunction, not the merits. It buys time. It does not end the fight. The professional designation fight has real money behind it. Redefining the term caps federal loans for CRNAs, PAs, and nurse practitioners. The strongest argument against us was ours to fix. A federal statute still references supervision, and that language is being used to question our standing. Both sides of the student-loan debate are right. Treat the subsidy as a return question, and CRNAs are a good bet. We pass boards 95 percent of the time. Regulators are the wrong body to design clinical practice. The people closest to the work adapt faster than any rule can. Want more Dr. Joe Rodriguez? Tik Tok: @jrodcrna21 Instagram: @jrod.crna & @abouttherestpod YouTube: @AboutTheRest Thanks for my co-hosts: Randy Moore (EVP & National Chief CRNA, NorthStar Anesthesia) Tracy Young: Incoming President of the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology To Learn More about Human Content Visit: http://www.human-content.com To Learn More about About The Rest Visit: www.abouttherest.com Got a Question? hello@abouttherest.com Part of the Human Content Podcast Network Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In the third hour of The Tara Show, host Tara Servatius covers a wide spectrum of national intelligence, entertainment, state politics, and judicial immigration policy. She begins by detailing recently declassified intelligence documents concerning Chinese operations to influence American elections, highlighting claims of altered intelligence briefings within federal agencies. Servatius then turns her attention to the entertainment industry, attributing the perceived drop in television quality to Hollywood's diversity policies while critiquing major media consolidation. Her focus shifts back to South Carolina politics as she analyzes recent GOP primary polling for the U.S. Senate seat, questioning the political legacy of the late Lindsey Graham and the prospects of potential successors. Finally, she reports on the Department of Justice's activation of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court to streamline the expedited deportation of foreign nationals deemed security threats.
July 21st 2026, Court Leader's Advantage PodcastEpisode 106AI promises greater efficiency, lower costs, and better public service—but it also raises concerns about privacy, bias, job displacement, and accountability. This panel explores where courts should draw the line.Artificial intelligence is currently having a difficult moment. Hardly a day goes by without headlines highlighting a new AI concern. Consider just a few of the issues currently dominating public conversation: • Corporate leaders are investing billions in AI while simultaneously announcing layoffs, fueling fearsabout job displacement and economic insecurity.• Communities across the country are opposing the construction of new data centers due to concernsabout their massive consumption of water and electricity.• Educators and researchers worry that AI has weakened students' critical thinking and problem-solving skills by making information and answers available almostinstantaneously.• Privacy advocates warn that AI enables governments, employers, and corporations to monitor individuals more closely than ever before, raising concerns about the emergence of a surveillance society.• Others fear that AI-generated videos, voices, images, and documents have become so convincing that distinguishing fact from fabrication is almost impossible. As a result, AImay undermine trust in elections, journalism, and public institutions. These concerns are real and deserve careful consideration.Yet they often overshadow the remarkable accomplishments AI has already achieved. Consider just three examples:• Google's DeepMind developed an AI system that analyzes mammogram images that, in some cases, detect breast cancer earlier and more accurately than expert radiologists, reducing both false positive and false negative results.•AI-powered wildfire detection systems now analyze live camera feeds, satellite imagery, weather data, and vegetation conditions to identify wildfire smoke within minutes. This saves valuable time for emergency first responders and ends up protecting lives and property.•Arizona State University has implemented AI-powered educational tools that provide personalized learning experiences through conversational tutors, simulated learning environments, and on-demand academic support. AI is also becoming increasingly embedded in courtoperations. It can summarize documents, draft reports, assist with legal research, identify patterns within large datasets, and automate a wide range of administrative tasks. Even courts that have not formally adopted AI are likely employing staff who are already experimenting with these tools in theirday-to-day work. This reality raises a number of difficult questions.As with many technological revolutions, the central challenge is not simply deciding what AI can do. The central challenge may be deciding what AI should do. How much responsibility should be delegated to algorithms? Where must human judgment remain indispensable? And how can courtsstrike the proper balance between innovation, efficiency, fairness, and accountability?Today's Panel TJ BeMent Court Administrator, 10th Judicial Administrative District in Athens, GeorgiaRick Pierce Judicial Programs Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts in Mechanicsburg, PennsylvaniaKarl Thoennes Court Administrator, 2nd Judicial Circuit Court, in Sioux Falls, South DakotaCreadell Webb Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer, 1st Judicial District of Pennsylvania, PhiladelphiaWhere should courts draw the line on AI? Email your comments or questions to CLAPodcast@nacmnet.org. Selected comments may be featured in a future episode. Become part of theConversation. Submit your comments and questions to: CLAPodcast@nacmnet.org
Hub Headlines features audio versions of the best commentaries and analysis published daily in The Hub. Enjoy listening to original and provocative takes on the issues that matter while you are on the go.0:22 - Why Canadian courts are striking down mandatory minimum sentences for some of the worst crimes imaginable, by Christine Van Geyn7:07 - The most important provincial economic reforms…are federal, by Eric LombardiThis program is narrated by automated voices. To get full-length editions of popular Hub podcasts and other great perks, subscribe to the Hub for only $2 a week: https://thehub.ca/join/hero/Subscribe to The Hub's podcast feed to get all our best content:https://tinyurl.com/3a7zpd7e (Apple)https://tinyurl.com/y8akmfn7 (Spotify)xWatch The Hub on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheHubCanadaThe Hub on X: https://x.com/thehubcanada?lang=enCREDITS:Alisha Rao – Producer & Editor Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
For the better part of two centuries of U.S. history, the American people understood that they—and not the Supreme Court—were the final arbiters of the Constitution. But in recent decades, nine unelected justices have claimed that mantle for themselves. Now, with the high court's claim of neutrality and legitimacy crumbling, an urgent question must be answered: Can "We the People" restore our power to interpret the Constitution—and if so, how?In the first installment of the series By the People, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern try to find out how and when this notion of judicial supremacy took over, with the help of Larry Kramer, legal scholar and author of The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeopleThe justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
For the better part of two centuries of U.S. history, the American people understood that they—and not the Supreme Court—were the final arbiters of the Constitution. But in recent decades, nine unelected justices have claimed that mantle for themselves. Now, with the high court's claim of neutrality and legitimacy crumbling, an urgent question must be answered: Can "We the People" restore our power to interpret the Constitution—and if so, how?In the first installment of the series By the People, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern try to find out how and when this notion of judicial supremacy took over, with the help of Larry Kramer, legal scholar and author of The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeopleThe justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The speech matters less for its facts than for its signal. Hawk reads it as telegraphing that this administration will not accept the results of the midterms, and he puts it alongside the rest of the week: Jay Clayton declining to say who won in 2020, Todd Blanche testifying the president may direct prosecutions of his enemies, and Marco Rubio and Stephen Miller announcing an expansion of groups designated as domestic terrorists under National Security Presidential Memorandum 7. His practical warning is about conspiracy charges, using a Texas ICE protest case where one participant reportedly received 30 years, and how one person's actions can be attributed to an entire group. He lays out the real timeline, the eight to ten weeks between Election Day and January when the new Congress is sworn in, notes Trump has lost roughly 15 election cases this year including before his own appointees, and asks where Democratic leadership is. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThis week: Judge Kathleen Williams' eviscerates President Trump's attorneys for their sham lawsuit that was ultimately used as a pretext to create the “weaponization fund” settlement. Her order is bracing. But what are its practical effects? Is the settlement actually void, including the part that was supposed to protect Trump from future IRS audits? Also: E. Jean Carroll finally got the smaller of her two Trump judgments paid out. And we consider the very aggressive legal theory under which Mahmoud Khalil is suing the people who advocated for him to be deported, and the Trump administration's effort to find out how The New York Times learned about security threats to the president's new Qatari jet.That's this week's free episode. For paying subscribers, we look at the Trump administration's effort to get information about how Boris Epshteyn, its own representative, communicated with law firms that settled in the face of adverse executive orders. Awkward. Plus: a defamation case that should worry New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino, at least as regards one of its claims, and we consider a bizarre episode that has Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl back in the news, pursuing their very own big-boy federal felonies. It involves a rapper named “Boosie Badazz,” whom they charged a large fee in exchange for assistance getting a pardon, and whom they did not in fact get pardoned.Upgrade your subscription now at serioustrouble.show
Aughie and Nia finish this year's big Supreme Court rulings with three cases: Chatrie v United States, Monsanto Company v Durnell, and Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety. Chatrie centered on the use of geofencing warrants under the 4th Amendment. Monsanto argued that only the EPA could label its products cancer-causing, which the EPA has declined to do. Landor centered on immunity of guards to be individually sued for violating a prisoner's religious rights.
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
Courts fast-track more immigration cases towards deportation at a SoCal facility. People living near the Lineage warehouse can apply to stay at an Airbnb. Why L-A wants to create more spaces for LGBTQ+ people. Plus, more from Evening Edition. Support The L.A. Report by donating at LAist.com/join and by visiting https://laist.comSupport the show: https://laist.com
We discuss Courts of Justice: A Life in Basketball & Activism, Unheard stories of Celtics great Red Auerbach, and we discuss Pete's favorite and most tough trades to experience
────────────────────────────────────────[00:02:15]US Strikes Iran for the Fourth Straight Day — Trump Backs Off 20% Hormuz Toll Hours Before EscalatingWall Street jokes: Trump always "chickens out taco." He threatened to destroy bridges and power plants next week while saying he's not interested in negotiating.────────────────────────────────────────[00:04:40]Threatening Civilian Infrastructure Is Not a Legitimate Military Target — Brigadier General Confirms It on CNNKimmett: bridges used primarily by civilians aren't legitimate targets; what Trump is threatening is a war crime under every legal framework.────────────────────────────────────────[00:13:00]Rubio Wants to Dismantle the ICC "Brick by Brick" — To Protect War Criminals in This AdministrationThey don't object to UN climate panels or parental rights destruction — only to the court that could issue arrest warrants for Trump, Rubio, and Hegseth.────────────────────────────────────────[00:29:02]Democrat Socialists Plan to Abolish the Senate and Subordinate President and Courts to a Single CongressMadison: accumulation of all powers in the same hands is the very definition of tyranny; the DSA model is the Soviet Politburo.────────────────────────────────────────[00:51:21]ICE Committed Two Murders in One Week — Houston and Maine — Masked Agents With No IdentificationA witness heard the Maine victim say "I tried to stop" after being shot through the windshield; experienced agents blew the whistle on 2,000-arrest-per-day quotas.────────────────────────────────────────[00:56:24]121+ Ex-Israeli Operatives Serving as ICE Agents in Chicago Alone — IDF Training Atlanta Police at Cop CityKnight: we don't want IDF tactics brought here — they have no respect for human rights or civil liberties.────────────────────────────────────────[01:01:42]Celente: Trends Journal Predicted No Peace Deal — War Escalates Because People Are in a Summer State of MindTwo months ago the Trends Journal said Trump would escalate during summer when people are "lazy, hazy, crazy"; Iran says ships are legally in their waters.────────────────────────────────────────[01:12:40]Celente: AI Bust Coming Around October — Shiller P/E Above 41, More Overvalued Than the Great Depression BubbleAI is still infant-stage like the internet in 1999; China's DeepSeek wiped out $800B of US AI value in one day with a model costing $6M to build.────────────────────────────────────────[01:19:36]Celente: A False Flag Will Unite People to Fight Iran — and It Will Go NuclearWhen all else fails they take you to war; the Ukraine war is also ramping up; not a single voice for peace is allowed in mainstream media.────────────────────────────────────────[01:28:16]Real US Debt Is $126 Trillion When Entitlements Are Included — Fortune Magazine Confirmed ItUnfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations bring the actual figure to $126-160 trillion; Celente: this will be the Greatest Depression, not just a recession. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.
Erick unloads on the online right for attacking Justice Amy Coney Barrett after her House testimony about death threats, a bulletproof vest, and a swatting incident, reminding listeners the Supreme Court's security request is unanimous and backed by Clarence Thomas. Then he takes apart New York Governor Kathy Hochul's AI data center moratorium with hard […]
────────────────────────────────────────[00:02:15]US Strikes Iran for the Fourth Straight Day — Trump Backs Off 20% Hormuz Toll Hours Before EscalatingWall Street jokes: Trump always "chickens out taco." He threatened to destroy bridges and power plants next week while saying he's not interested in negotiating.────────────────────────────────────────[00:04:40]Threatening Civilian Infrastructure Is Not a Legitimate Military Target — Brigadier General Confirms It on CNNKimmett: bridges used primarily by civilians aren't legitimate targets; what Trump is threatening is a war crime under every legal framework.────────────────────────────────────────[00:13:00]Rubio Wants to Dismantle the ICC "Brick by Brick" — To Protect War Criminals in This AdministrationThey don't object to UN climate panels or parental rights destruction — only to the court that could issue arrest warrants for Trump, Rubio, and Hegseth.────────────────────────────────────────[00:29:02]Democrat Socialists Plan to Abolish the Senate and Subordinate President and Courts to a Single CongressMadison: accumulation of all powers in the same hands is the very definition of tyranny; the DSA model is the Soviet Politburo.────────────────────────────────────────[00:51:21]ICE Committed Two Murders in One Week — Houston and Maine — Masked Agents With No IdentificationA witness heard the Maine victim say "I tried to stop" after being shot through the windshield; experienced agents blew the whistle on 2,000-arrest-per-day quotas.────────────────────────────────────────[00:56:24]121+ Ex-Israeli Operatives Serving as ICE Agents in Chicago Alone — IDF Training Atlanta Police at Cop CityKnight: we don't want IDF tactics brought here — they have no respect for human rights or civil liberties.────────────────────────────────────────[01:01:42]Celente: Trends Journal Predicted No Peace Deal — War Escalates Because People Are in a Summer State of MindTwo months ago the Trends Journal said Trump would escalate during summer when people are "lazy, hazy, crazy"; Iran says ships are legally in their waters.────────────────────────────────────────[01:12:40]Celente: AI Bust Coming Around October — Shiller P/E Above 41, More Overvalued Than the Great Depression BubbleAI is still infant-stage like the internet in 1999; China's DeepSeek wiped out $800B of US AI value in one day with a model costing $6M to build.────────────────────────────────────────[01:19:36]Celente: A False Flag Will Unite People to Fight Iran — and It Will Go NuclearWhen all else fails they take you to war; the Ukraine war is also ramping up; not a single voice for peace is allowed in mainstream media.────────────────────────────────────────[01:28:16]Real US Debt Is $126 Trillion When Entitlements Are Included — Fortune Magazine Confirmed ItUnfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations bring the actual figure to $126-160 trillion; Celente: this will be the Greatest Depression, not just a recession. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
⚖️ Can You Change How Assets Were Divided After Divorce? | Los Angeles Divorce
Sam Neill's shock death jolted our media - but they admirably honoured his depth and range. Paul Henry and Count Binface candidacies captivates media, court news in podcast form. Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details
Stay informed on current events, visit www.NaturalNews.com - Trump's Toll on the Strait of Hormuz (0:11) - Economic and Strategic Implications (4:36) - Trump's Delusional War Strategy (8:36) - The Futility of Trump's War Plans (11:55) - The Global Impact of Trump's War (44:09) - The Economic and Social Consequences of Trump's War (44:26) - The Legal and Political Challenges of Reforming the FDA (44:47) - The Role of the Courts in Reforming the FDA (45:07) - The Importance of Health Freedom (45:29) - The Legal Strategy of the Alliance for Natural Health (53:15) - The Broader Implications of Health Freedom (53:36) - Government Control and Public Access to Health Information (53:52) - Science, Probability, and Health Claims (1:28:23) - Challenges of Drug Safety vs. Natural Substances (1:31:40) - Impact of Chronic Disease on National Prosperity (1:36:34) - Health Freedom and Legal Battles (1:38:05) - After-Party Discussion on Health Freedom and AI Models (1:40:45) - Unincorporated Nonprofit Associations (UNAs) (1:48:38) - Self-Custody of AI Models (2:00:35) - Personal Stories and Lifestyle (2:06:10) Watch more independent videos at http://www.brighteon.com/channel/hrreport ▶️ Support our mission by shopping at the Health Ranger Store - https://www.healthrangerstore.com ▶️ Check out exclusive deals and special offers at https://rangerdeals.com ▶️ Sign up for our newsletter to stay informed: https://www.naturalnews.com/Readerregistration.html Watch more exclusive videos here:
American history is riddled with collisions between legally defensible rulings and morally costly outcomes. Still, "the purpose of law in any society is to embody a moral framework in practice," says Yuval Levin, who joins Mark Labberton to explore the moral architecture in the foundation of the American legal system, as they review the most recent rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has just closed one of the most consequential terms in recent memory, articulating the tension between faithfulness to the Constitution and enacting justice and morality. Together they reflect on why and how a system founded on equality must be both majoritarian and counter-majoritarian at once; why a judge's job is to articulate their legal (rather than their moral) opinion; the rise of Constitutional originalism; why pre-Trump conservative arguments win at this Court while "Trumpy" ones lose; the contemporary relevance of the Federalist Papers; what recourse citizens have when they believe the Court has done wrong; and why the American legal system's worst failures still cluster around race. They explore several of the 2025-26 rulings of the Supreme Court, including imposition of tariffs, immigration enforcement, and birthright citizenship, and the Voting Rights Act. Episode Highlights "The purpose of law in any society is to embody a moral framework in practice." "This is a very good time to get to know The Federalist Papers." "The role of the judge in the American system is to apply the law, not to find the moral answer per se. We hope the law does that, though it doesn't always and we know it." "The American system of government, very much for moral reasons, is expected to be both majoritarian and counter-majoritarian." [Regarding Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh] "They grew up in the same place. They literally went to the same high school and had the same history teacher. Their mothers knew each other … They agreed with each other 52% of the time in this last term of the Supreme Court." [Courts to Trump] "You are in charge of the executive branch, but the executive branch is not in charge of the American government." "If you come to this court with a pre-Trump conservative legal argument, you're going to win. If you come to this court with a Trumpy legal argument, you're going to lose." "We experienced the high water mark of executive power about a year ago, and it is now receding." "The areas where it has failed most are concentrated around questions of race. That has been true from the beginning. It is thankfully less true than it used to be, but it is still true, and I think we have to be uniquely sensitive to those questions for that reason." About Yuval Levin Yuval Levin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he holds the Beth and Ravenel Curry Chair in Public Policy and directs Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies. He founded and edits National Affairs, and he is a senior editor at The New Atlantis and a contributing editor at National Review. His books include "The Great Debate," "The Fractured Republic," "A Time to Build," and most recently, "American Covenant." He served on the White House domestic policy staff under George W. Bush and earned his PhD at the University of Chicago's Committee on Social Thought. Helpful Links and Resources Yuval Levin at the American Enterprise Institute: https://www.aei.org/profile/yuval-levin/ National Affairs, the publication Levin founded and edits: https://nationalaffairs.com/authors/detail/yuval-levin American Covenant, by Yuval Levin: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/yuval-levin/american-covenant/9780465040742/?lens=basic-books A Time to Build, by Yuval Levin: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/yuval-levin/a-time-to-build/9781541699281/?lens=basic-books The Federalist Papers, full text at the Library of Congress: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers Trump v. Slaughter, the decision overturning Humphrey's Executor (June 29, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-332_qn12.pdf Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the IEEPA tariffs decision (February 20, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf Louisiana v. Callais, the Voting Rights Act decision (April 29, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf Coverage of the birthright citizenship ruling in Trump v. Barbara, SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-trumps-order-ending-birthright-citizenship/ Show Notes Yuval Levin's legal/constitutional frame: The law exists to put a society's moral convictions into workable practice. On "All men are created equal": If no one has natural authority over anyone else, we decide by majority vote—but equality also means the minority keeps its rights no matter who wins The Constitution assigns those two jobs to different institutions and lets them fight: Congress and the president answer to majorities, the courts deliberately do not Life tenure and fixed salaries exist so justices can protect minority rights without fear of majority reprisal A judge's job is to say what the law is, not to reach the most just result; therefore good judges regularly land where they might wish they didn't. What citizens can do when the Court rules wrongly: If it misread a statute, Congress can rewrite it. Constitutional rulings are harder to undo, but examples include the 16th Amendment (re: income tax) and the 14th Amendment (re: black citizenship, answering the Court directly) The pro-life movement's 50-year strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade Levin on the difficulty of simply being in the political minority, and why the system tries to make everyone a winner sometimes Originalism began as a limit on judicial power and judges' preferences Legal originalism looks for original public meaning, not the drafters' intent Parallel to biblical interpretation, where faithful readers reach wildly different conclusions The challenge of interpreting and applying the Constitution to matters of freedom and democracy today With Congress mostly absent, the Court is now deciding questions of executive power the Federalist Papers were written about Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch: Same age, same hometown, same high school history teacher, agreed only 52% of the time this term Trump v. Slaughter ends the independent agency: the Court overturned Humphrey's Executor, and the president can now fire FTC-style commissioners at will 2026 Court rulings also told the president no: on tariffs, on the National Guard in Illinois without the governor's consent, and on birthright citizenship Levin's rule of thumb: Pre-Trump conservative arguments win at this Court, Trumpy arguments lose Yuval Levin: Executive power peaked about a year ago and is now receding. Louisiana v. Callais guts Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by requiring proof of racial intent A legal bind: Black voters vote Democratic by 90% in the South, so a racist map and a purely partisan map look identical Levin defends the ruling as law and grieves it as outcome—several Black-held Southern seats will likely be redistricted away Why he opposes reauthorizing the VRA with race-based set-aside districts, and where he thinks change should come from instead Software now lets parties gerrymander voter by voter—in New England, Trump won 35% and Republicans hold zero House seats The deceptions of the human heart Does constitutional structure just launder self-interest? The system's deepest failures have always clustered around race Gratitude for the Constitution in America's 250th year #SupremeCourt #Constitution #VotingRights #Originalism #ExecutivePower #FaithAndPolitics #YuvalLevin #Conversing Production Credits Conversing is produced and distributed in partnership with Comment Magazine and Fuller Seminary.
This Day in Legal History: The Sedition Act of 1798On July 14, 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act, the most notorious of the four laws known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Sedition Act made it a federal crime to write, print, utter, or publish “any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government of the United States, the Congress, or the President—with the intent to defame them or bring them into disrepute. In plain terms, it criminalized criticism of the government.The context was a Federalist administration, under President John Adams, gripped by fear of France and of domestic dissent, and eager to silence the opposition press aligned with Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. And that's exactly how it was used. Federal prosecutors went after Republican newspaper editors and even a sitting congressman, securing convictions for the crime of harsh political speech. Notably, the Act was written to expire in 1801—conveniently, the moment Adams's term would end—so that it could be wielded against his critics but would not outlive his own hold on power.The reaction was fierce and consequential. Jefferson and James Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions arguing the Act was unconstitutional, and the ensuing backlash helped sweep Jefferson into the presidency in 1800; once in office, he pardoned those convicted under it. The Sedition Act was never tested at the Supreme Court, but history rendered its verdict. More than a century and a half later, in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court looked back and declared that the Act's assault on free expression had been repudiated “in the court of history,” using it as a touchstone for modern First Amendment law. The lesson of July 14, 1798 endures: laws that punish criticism of the government are almost always tools of the powerful against their critics—and a free press is most necessary precisely when the state would prefer it silent.Federal prosecutors have issued subpoenas seeking to compel four New York Times journalists to testify before a Manhattan grand jury, part of a leak investigation into the paper's reporting on security concerns surrounding President Trump's flight on the new Qatari-donated Air Force One. Federal agents delivered some of the subpoenas to the reporters' homes. Here's the legal terrain. There is no absolute federal reporter's privilege—the Supreme Court held decades ago that the First Amendment doesn't categorically shield journalists from grand jury subpoenas—but the Justice Department has long operated under internal guidelines that made going after reporters a last resort. Those guardrails matter here, because in 2025 Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinded the Biden-era policy that had sharply limited subpoenas against journalists, restoring broader authority to pursue them. The Times says it will fight, and can ask a court to quash the subpoenas as overbroad, issued in bad faith, or violating the First Amendment. The significance is the pressure this puts on newsgathering: when the government can subpoena reporters to unmask their sources, sources stop talking, and the kind of national-security reporting at issue here gets harder to do. Press-freedom groups warn this administration has reached for subpoenas and search warrants against journalists—at the Times, the Post, and the Wall Street Journal—more freely than its predecessors.Explainer: Can prosecutors compel New York Times journalists to testify in leak probe? | ReutersA federal judge has voided President Trump's roughly $1.78 billion settlement with the IRS, delivering a scathing rebuke and referring his lawyers for possible discipline. The backstory is unusual. Trump sued his own administration in January over the leak of his tax returns, and by late May had reached a deal with the IRS to create an “anti-weaponization” fund and to “forever bar” the government from any action related to his past tax returns—protection extending to his family and businesses. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found the whole thing was a setup. The core legal defect is the absence of what courts call adverseness. Federal courts can only decide genuine “cases or controversies”—real disputes between opposing parties. Here, Judge Williams wrote, “there was never adverseness between the Parties; there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a question as to who would prevail,” because Trump was effectively suing himself, with his own Justice Department on the other side agreeing to lose. She found the case was brought for an improper purpose: to get a court's stamp of legitimacy on a settlement with no basis in law or fact. She sanctioned Trump's attorneys and referred one, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida bar, and suggested Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche should face discipline too. The significance is a court refusing to be used as a rubber stamp—insisting that its legitimacy can't be borrowed to bless a collusive deal dressed up as litigation.US judge voids Trump's settlement with IRS | ReutersA federal appeals court has revived more than 500 private lawsuits against Kenvue, the maker of Tylenol, alleging that acetaminophen use during pregnancy caused autism and ADHD in children—and here it's worth being clear about the science before the law. There is no firm scientific evidence that Tylenol causes autism or ADHD. The most rigorous recent research, including a large Swedish sibling-comparison study of millions of children, found no causal link once you control for genetic and environmental factors shared within families; mainstream medical bodies continue to regard acetaminophen as one of the safer pain and fever options in pregnancy, and untreated high fevers carry their own real risks. So this ruling is not a finding that Tylenol is dangerous. What the Second Circuit actually decided was narrower and procedural: that the trial judge had wrongly excluded the plaintiffs' expert witnesses. Under the rules governing expert testimony, judges act as “gatekeepers,” admitting expert opinion only if it rests on reliable methodology. The district court had tossed the plaintiffs' experts as unreliable; the appeals court, per Judge Guido Calabresi, said their methods reflected approaches other scientists use and amounted to “acceptable interpretations of scientific evidence where scientists may, and in fact do, disagree.” Crucially, the court stressed it was not deciding whether Tylenol actually causes these conditions. The significance is about who weighs contested science—the ruling lets juries, not just judges, hear the dispute, which is a real win for the plaintiffs procedurally even though the underlying causation case remains, on the current evidence, weak.US appeals court revives private lawsuits linking Tylenol to autism, ADHD | ReutersAnd finally, in my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I take on a counterintuitive idea: that big corporate taxpayers may come to miss the boring, predictable world of administrative tax law now that the Supreme Court has overruled Chevron deference. My argument, in short, is that a weaker IRS and Treasury is not the unalloyed win a lot of multinationals assume it is.Here's the setup. For forty years, under Chevron, courts deferred to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. With Chevron gone, courts no longer have to defer to Treasury's reading of the tax code just because the statute is vague and the agency has expertise. A lot of corporate taxpayers cheered that—less agency power sounds like more freedom. But my point is that killing Chevron did nothing to remove the underlying ambiguity in the tax code; it just moved the job of resolving that ambiguity to a different desk. And there are only two other desks it can land on, and I don't love either one for a company that wants predictability.The first desk belongs to the courts. If Treasury can't issue as many binding, prospective rules, then more of these questions get resolved through litigation—case by case, on particular records, often years after the transactions are done. Courts are built to handle controversies, not to administer a global corporate tax system. The Coca-Cola transfer-pricing fight is the stress test I point to: a company may win a great refund that way, but you can't organize a multinational's affairs around the hope that every ambiguous question turns into a bespoke judicial adventure. The second desk belongs to Congress, which is the more democratically satisfying answer—Congress writes the code and is politically accountable. But in practice Congress moves slowly and episodically, usually only when tax changes ride along on some bigger budget deal. By the time Congress fixes an international tax problem, the business model that created it has been reorganized twice and pivoted to something involving AI.So the core of my argument is that corporate taxpayers need to distinguish between a useful litigation win and a stable legal environment—those two things don't always travel together. A bad but clear rule can be modeled and planned around; an ambiguous rule, as I put it, isn't really a rule, it's a threat in the shape of a Treasury notice. My prescription is that Congress should make clearer, more deliberate delegations where technical administration is unavoidable—transfer pricing, international tax, anti-abuse rules—and that Treasury should do a post-Chevron audit of its own regulations to flag where the code is asking too much of administration and too little of legislation. Because the real choice here isn't between IRS power and taxpayer freedom. It's between prospective administration and retroactive improvisation—and multinationals may get their wish, see the IRS diminished, and then find themselves stuck with rules everyone knows are broken but no one can fix.Big Corporate Taxpayers Need More Clarity in a Post-Chevron World | Bloomberg Tax This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show, celebrating nearly 15 years broadcasting on the internet. On Tuesday's show, we visit with Leader of the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University William Yeatman about pending legislation on Capitol Hill. Boo Mortenson and I discuss an amazing list of findings in 2025 that have an impact on our lives in 2026. We visit with Young Voices Content Creator Maggie Anders about some “uncomfortable truths” about “Gen Z.” We also visit with Linda Harden about the Passing of Senator Lindsey Graham Please join us tomorrow when we visit with Chairman Emeritus of the Cato Institute Bob Levy, Professor and author Larry Bell, Collier County Clerk of Courts and Comptroller Crystal Kinzel, and VP of Landmark Legal Foundation's Michael O'Neill. Access this and past shows at your convenience on my web site, social media platforms or podcast platforms.
SummaryBroward County has 31 cities, 67+ lines of business, and 14 IT managers that CIO Domenic DiLullo has to keep in sync - while a property tax measure heading to the ballot could reshape his entire budget.Glenn Mack just took over as CTO of the North Carolina courts: 100 counties, 105 courthouses, from Murphy to Manteo. He walked in from 17 years in public safety and found the AI policy was… non-existent.And Jon Minshew spent 30 years in North Carolina state government - CIO for the governor's office, and later the state's first Chief Customer Officer - before crossing over to Dell Technologies, where he now advises the same CIOs he used to sit alongside.We put all three on one recording, and the conversation went somewhere most AI conversations never go: the invoice.At one point I said I was hoping market forces would bring AI prices down over time. Dom cut me off mid-sentence: "I disagree. I wholeheartedly disagree." When a county CIO pushes back that hard on air, you listen to why.Welcome to episode 239!Whenever you're ready, there are 3 ways you can connect with TechTables:1.
This week, we're looking at how the lower courts have handled AR-15 ban challenges in light of the Supreme Court's latest Second Amendment case. To explain the consensus that's developed across the appellate courts and provide a different perspective, we have Georgia State University Law Professor Andrew Willinger on the show. Willinger is the former executive director of the Duke University Firearms Law Center, and he teaches a class on the Second Amendment. He's also been critical of the Court's Second Amendment standard and its application at times. He noted that every appellate court to decide an "assault weapons" or "high-capacity" magazine case has upheld restrictions on the devices. He said they've largely coalesced around similar reasoning. While the Supreme Court has gone out of its way to emphasize that step one of the Bruen test is meant to be a pretty simple filter, Willinger said most lower courts have actually upheld AR bans at step two. Willinger said they've identified things like 19th-century Bowie knife bans as the core historical analogue for modern AR bans. He said courts have padded those laws with much earlier and much later weapons restrictions, such as the National Firearms Act of the 1930s. He noted some courts have also used the similarity between AR-15s and military weapons, like the M-16, to uphold the modern bans. He rejected the idea that the consensus surrounding assault weapons bans in the lower courts is primarily a product of geography. Gun-rights activists have long claimed the fact that only a handful of deep blue states have these sorts of bans means only left-leaning circuits have the opportunity to review them. But Willinger argued that the judges involved in the decisions come from a fairly diverse background, with a number of them being Republican appointees. Still, Willinger said he doubts the Supreme Court will find the same way the lower courts have. He argued we already know that four of the Republican appointees would strike down the law based on their public statements. He said Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett are the only Republican appointees who haven't directly opined on the laws, but he also said he doesn't think they'll both split from the other conservatives.Special Guest: Andrew Willinger.
Illinois State Treasurer Michael Frerichs joins Karen Conti to discuss the role of Illinois’ Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) program and its impact on people with disabilities. Michael also talks about Illinois’ state-facilitated retirement savings program, the importance of college savings accounts, Operation Purple Heart, and accessing unclaimed funds.
Lake County State’s Attorney Eric Rinehart joins Karen Conti to discuss the Gun Violence Prevention Initiative and how it has helped drastically reduce gun violence since the 2022 Highland Park parade shooting. Eric also talks about Firearm Restraining Orders, what he has done to solve domestic violence issues in Lake County, and law enforcement’s close connection with […]
Author Dennis Breo joins Karen Conti to talk about the 60th anniversary of the Richard Speck murders in Chicago, where eight student nurses were killed. Dennis discusses Speck’s family upbringing and relationships, his complicated personality, the crime scene, how one victim, Corazon Amurao, survived, Speck’s defense at trial, how he spent his time in prison, and […]
The Supreme Court just wrapped one of its most consequential terms in decades—and Amicus brought together three heavyweight legal experts to break down the damage. Their conversation centers on the biggest themes of the recent term: Congress has been sidelined completely; the Court is the final arbiter of all things; hubris has become the methodology, and the midterms should worry us all. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill, legal historian Nikolas Bowie, and Supreme Court expert Stephen Vladeck. The panel dissects a term defined by judicial supremacy: the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in Callais and Milligan, the “unitary executive” power grab in Trump v. Slaughter, the birthright citizenship fight that never should have been argued, and a shadow docket that increasingly infects the merits docket. They trace how the court has hollowed out Congress' power to legislate, rewritten the meaning of the Reconstruction Amendments, and applied its own rules with striking inconsistency—all while shrugging off any need to justify itself.The conversation closes with a hard question: What can actually be done about a court that's this unaccountable? The panel offers concrete ideas, from congressional hearings on court reform to a new Voting Rights Act—and the hosts preview Amicus' upcoming series, By the People.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Jake and Angela Wagner's sentencing will not stand after an appellate court ruled Judge Hein had no right to sentence them and go against the already agreed upon sentences between Jake, Angela, and the state. Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout - NEW STYLES Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)
The Supreme Court just wrapped one of its most consequential terms in decades—and Amicus brought together three heavyweight legal experts to break down the damage. Their conversation centers on the biggest themes of the recent term: Congress has been sidelined completely; the Court is the final arbiter of all things; hubris has become the methodology, and the midterms should worry us all. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill, legal historian Nikolas Bowie, and Supreme Court expert Stephen Vladeck. The panel dissects a term defined by judicial supremacy: the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in Callais and Milligan, the “unitary executive” power grab in Trump v. Slaughter, the birthright citizenship fight that never should have been argued, and a shadow docket that increasingly infects the merits docket. They trace how the court has hollowed out Congress' power to legislate, rewritten the meaning of the Reconstruction Amendments, and applied its own rules with striking inconsistency—all while shrugging off any need to justify itself.The conversation closes with a hard question: What can actually be done about a court that's this unaccountable? The panel offers concrete ideas, from congressional hearings on court reform to a new Voting Rights Act—and the hosts preview Amicus' upcoming series, By the People.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Learn about the New Mexico landowner facing felony charges in a river access dispute, plus learn what really works to beat the heat. Protect yourself and others during extreme summer temperatures. Join radio hosts Rebecca Wanner aka ‘BEC' and Jeff ‘Tigger' Erhardt (Tigger & BEC) with the latest in Outdoors & Western Lifestyle News! New Mexico Landowner Arrested After Alleged Armed Threats Against Fishermen A New Mexico landowner has been arrested and charged with five felony counts of aggravated assault after authorities say he repeatedly threatened anglers who were legally fishing and wading in the Pecos River. According to the New Mexico Department of Justice, Erik Briones allegedly confronted multiple fishermen over several years while carrying firearms, despite court rulings affirming the public's right to access and wade in many of the state's rivers. Witnesses reported that Briones made threats suggesting he could shoot across the river and warned anglers they would be responsible if they were hit. One widely cited incident, captured on video in 2023, allegedly shows Briones holding a shotgun and telling a fishing guide, "I'm gonna start target practicing," while the guide stood in the river. The arrest comes amid a broader legal battle over public access to New Mexico waterways. Courts, including the New Mexico Supreme Court and later federal courts, have repeatedly upheld the public's right to wade and fish in streams that cross private property, provided people do not trespass on private land to gain access. Authorities also accuse Briones of ignoring court orders by installing barbed wire fences, using heavy equipment to alter the river channel, and creating hazards that could endanger anglers. State officials say these actions were intended to discourage public use of the river. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez said the case is about enforcing both public access laws and criminal laws against threats of violence. The arrest marks the latest chapter in New Mexico's ongoing debate over private property rights and public access to rivers, with state officials emphasizing that disagreements over access laws do not justify intimidation or armed confrontations. According to KOB4 News, the New Mexico attorney general had filed a motion to keep Briones in jail until trial. A hearing on that motion was canceled, and Briones is now being released. Court records show Briones must wear an ankle monitor after release. The records also say he cannot return to his residence on the Pecos River before his trial. Reference: https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/new-mexico-landowner-arrested-threatening-anglers/ https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/pecos-landowner-charged-with-threatening-fisherman-with-shotgun-released-from-jail/ Beat the Heat: What Really Works—and What Doesn't As summer temperatures climb, staying cool becomes more than just a comfort issue—it can be a matter of safety. The best ways to beat the heat include drinking plenty of water, limiting strenuous outdoor activities during the hottest part of the day, wearing lightweight, light-colored clothing, and seeking shade or air conditioning whenever possible. Do and Don't In The Heat Don't take cold showers. This can constrict blood vessels and make one hotter after drying off from the cold shower. Don't sleep in the nude. Wearing pajamas offer an extra layer of wicking away the sweat at night from the sheets. Do drink electrolytes. These aid in staying hydrated along with drinking plenty of water. Do take a handkerchief, wet with cool water and wrap around the neck. This works well when working in the heat. Do offer fresh water daily to pets, preferably in a shaded area away from flies. Do use fans to cool off homes to shops to barns and pens. Tip: Set a bowl of ice in front of the fan so that cool air is blown. Not everything people try is effective, however. Waiting until you're thirsty to drink water can lead to dehydration, and using fans alone during extreme heat may not provide enough cooling when temperatures become dangerously high. Alcohol and excessive caffeine can also contribute to dehydration. Whether you're working outdoors, farming, fishing, or enjoying recreation, recognizing the signs of heat exhaustion and heat stroke can help prevent serious illness. OUTDOORS FIELD REPORTS & COMMENTS We want to hear from you! If you have any questions, comments, or stories to share about bighorn sheep, outdoor adventures, or wildlife conservation, don't hesitate to reach out. Call or text us at 305-900-BEND (305-900-2363), or send an email to BendRadioShow@gmail.com. Stay connected by following us on social media at Facebook/Instagram @thebendshow or by subscribing to The Bend Show on YouTube. Visit our website at TheBendShow.com for more exciting content and updates! https://thebendshow.com/ https://www.facebook.com/thebendshow WESTERN LIFESTYLE & THE OUTDOORS Jeff ‘Tigger' Erhardt & Rebecca ‘BEC' Wanner are passionate news broadcasters who represent the working ranch world, rodeo, and the Western way of life. They are also staunch advocates for the outdoors and wildlife conservation. As outdoorsmen themselves, Tigger and BEC provide valuable insight and education to hunters, adventurers, ranchers, and anyone interested in agriculture and conservation. With a shared love for the outdoors, Tigger & BEC are committed to bringing high-quality beef and wild game from the field to your table. They understand the importance of sharing meals with family, cooking the fruits of your labor, and making memories in the great outdoors. Through their work, they aim to educate and inspire those who appreciate God's Country and life on the land. United by a common mission, Tigger & BEC offer a glimpse into life beyond the beaten path and down dirt roads. They're here to share knowledge, answer your questions, and join you in your own success story. Adventure awaits around the bend. With The Outdoors, the Western Heritage, Rural America, and Wildlife Conservation at the forefront, Tigger and BEC live this lifestyle every day. To learn more about Tigger & BEC's journey and their passion for the outdoors, visit TiggerandBEC.com.
How many times have you noticed an expert witness for deposition, only to be told you've got to pay their fee in advance, failing which, they say, they aren't coming. As Jim Garrity explains, it doesn't have to be that way. Listen in and learn why prepayment isn't required and how to properly avoid advance payment. After all, those prepayment demands are often excessive, don't explain how the fee was determined, and of course don't guarantee the expert will even qualify as such, much less offer admissible testimony. And we've got a wealth of research for you in the show notes.SHOW NOTESEvans v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case no. 2:25-CV-451-SPC-KRH, 2026 WL 1837154 (M. D. Florida June 25, 2026) (plaintiff's treating doctor, a non-retained expert, was set for one hour deposition, and demanded prepayment of $3,000 for the deposition; held, prepayment is generally not required, “so lack of prepaid fees would not justify refusing to attend the deposition after proper service of a valid subpoena;” further outlining the process to address a treating physician's potential nonappearance at a deposition, asking whether the deposition was subject to the courts subpoena power, and if so, whether the defendant had issued and served the subpoena, noting that the court then need not intervene until (a) the physician seeks to quash the subpoena or fails to appear, and (b) the defendant moves to hold him in contempt for failing to appear to deposition)Johnson v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. CV 07-1874FBJO, 2008 WL 1995117, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2008) (“The pertinent rule thus teaches that once Dr. Seldes has actually “spent” time responding to Spirit's questions at the deposition, he may then bill Spirit for a “reasonable” fee for that amount of “time.” Dr. Seldes therefore may not insist on advance payment, and may not set a flat fee before he knows what he will be called upon to do; he may instead charge only a reasonable hourly fee. I will not predict in advance what reasonable hourly fee Dr. Seldes may choose to request, but should a dispute arise, I will of course defer to the persuasive authority of cases such as the Garnier decision cited above and the precedent on which it in turn relied. See id. at *3-*4 (describing a range of reasonable hourly rates below $500))Conte v. Newsday, Inc., No. CV 06-4859 JFB ETB, 2011 WL 3511071, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (“The rule and the case law makes it clear that the parties seeking court intervention to determine a reasonable fee for an expert deposition should do so retrospectively—that is, after the deposition has taken place. The rule clearly contemplates that a court order will be issued subsequent to the deposition, as it requires a court to order payment of a “reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery”)Tennant v. Handi-House Mfg. Co., Case No. 3:16-cv-1276-J-25MCR, 2017 WL 11105252 (M. D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2017) (Defendant moved for, among other things, order deferring payment for deposition of plaintiff's treating physician, who canceled the deposition because he did not receive the $3,300 payment he demanded for his two-hour deposition; held, Defendant's request to defer deposition fees of the treating physician granted, with the court “finding that prepayment of expert witness deposition fees is inappropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;” noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(E) “does not require the prepayment of expert deposition fees; further noting that the parties agreed that the issues presented are governed by the expert fee rules, implying that a treating physician may qualify as an expert under the circumstances); Court also noted that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E)(i) says that unless manifest injustice would result, the court must require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for “time spent” in responding to discovery; court noted that the deposition had not yet taken place, and so seemed to emphasize that it was premature to determine the reasonableness of payment because the provision talks about “time spent” and the doctor had not yet been deposed”)Regions Bank, etc. v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 4935694 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2025) (Bank filed Motion to Defer Payments to Experts or to Determine Reasonableness of Expert Charges, where defendants demanded that the bank pay an invoice from TASA Group in the amount of $10,325.29 in advance of the banking expert's testimony, failing which the witness would not appear; bank argued that the court should defer reimbursement obligation pending the outcome of the case, in pending submission of supporting data, arguing that the Committee Notes to the 1970 amendments to Rule 26 say that the court may issue an order to pay fees as a condition of discovery, or it may delay the order until after discovery is completed.; Court noted that “other courts have denied request for advance payment because Rule 26 (small B) (4) (E) does not require it,” citing cases from Wisconsin and California for the proposition that, unlike ordinary witness fees, no rule requires that an opposing expert deposition fees be tendered to the witness in advance)Regions' Motion to Defer on Payment of Experts, or alternatively, to Determine Reasonableness of Kaplan Parties' Expert Charges and Supporting Memorandum of Law (CM/ECF Doc. 435) Regions Bank, etc. v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 4935694 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2025)Defendant Marvin I. Kaplan's Motion for Approval of Expert Witness Fees and Expenses (CM/ECF Doc. 436), Regions Bank, etc. v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 4935694 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2025)Parkland Venture, LLC v. City of Muskego, No. 09-C-0972, 2010 WL 4723411 (E. D. Wisconsin November 15, 2010) denying plaintiff's motion requiring the defendants to pay reasonable fees to the plaintiff's experts in advance of taking their depositions; court noted that while rule 26(b)(4)(C) provides in relevant part that in less manifest justice would result, the court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent responding to discovery, rule does not say that experts fees must be paid in advance of the deposition absent agreement to do so, and pointing out that unlike ordinary witness fees, no rule requires that an opposing expert's deposition fees be tendered to the witness in advance)Kramer et al. v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, Case No. 8:12-cv-01824-T-17AEP, 2013 WL 12155927 (M. D. Florida April 30, 2013) (court granted Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Dennis James, an expert, finding “that prepayment of expert witness fees, including Mr. James' expert witness in this action, is inappropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court noted that while Rule 26(b)(4)(E)(i) says that in less manifest injustice would result, the court must require that a party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for “time spent” [emphasis added], the Advisory Committee Notes (1970 Amendment) to Rule 26(b)(4) authorize a court to require the payment of fees and expenses as a condition of discovery, and also to delay the order until after discovery is completed. Thus, the court ordered the deposition to proceed but set a payment deadline for his fees within 50 days of the date of his deposition. The court emphasized that - while rule 26(b)(4)(E)(i) “is silent as to exactly when an expert will be paid after responding to discovery, the Court finds that a degree of reasonableness is inherent in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the circumstances of this case, a payment deadline of 50 days was reasonable.)Harris v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 226 F.R.D. 675, 676–77 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (plaintiff's counsel abruptly terminated defense deposition of plaintiff's expert because Defendant would not pay expert witness fee at that time; court, rejecting the manner of termination is improper, said of Rule Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4)(C) that while experts must be paid absent manifest injustice, “The rule does not state, however, that the expert's fees must be paid in advance of the deposition absent agreement to do so. To the contrary, “[u]nlike ordinary witness fees, no rule requires that an opposing expert's deposition fees be tendered to the witness in advance… Because there is no rule allowing a party to terminate a deposition for the failure to pay opposing expert witness fees in advance, Plaintiff's counsel was wrong in doing so in the instant case)Conte v. Newsday, Inc., No. CV 06–4859 (JFB) (ETB), 2011 WL 3511071, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (ruling that a motion seeking prepayment for an expert's deposition was premature because the Rule “clearly contemplates that a court order will be issued subsequent to the deposition;” further saying “Nor, as discussed above, does the rule entitle plaintiff to payment in advance, citing Rule 26(b)(4)(E), which entitles an expert to a reasonable fee for “time spent” responding to discovery); citing Johnson v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. CV 07-1874FBJO, 2008 WL 1995117, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2008) (“[The expert] therefore may not insist on advance payment ....”). Rather, if the parties cannot agree to reasonable reimbursement for plaintiff's experts following their depositions, either party may apply to the Court for such a determination;” “Dr. Seldes therefore may not insist on advance payment, and may not set a flat fee before he knows what he will be called upon to do; he may instead charge only a reasonable hourly fee.”)Conte v. Newsday, Inc., No. CV 06-4859 JFB ETB, 2011 WL 3511071, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (citing Broushet v. Target Corp., ––– F.R.D. ––––, 2011 WL 1750753, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.3, 2011), and saying “Courts consider the following factors in determining whether a requested expert fee is reasonable: (1) the witness' area of expertise; (2) the education and training that is required to provide the expert insight that is sought; (3) the prevailing rates for other comparably respected available experts; (4) the nature, quality and complexity of the discovery responses provided; (5) the cost of living in the particular geographic area; (6) any other factor likely to be of assistance to the court in balancing the interests implicated by Rule 26; (7) the fee actually being charged to the party who retained him; and (8) fees traditionally charged by the expert on related matters”)Ratliff v. Baan Co., N.V., No. 1:99–CV–2455–WBH, 2003 WL 25774909, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 5, 2003) (concluding that after the expert's deposition, the expert can submit a bill to be paid for the deposition)Woodward v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. Civ. A. 97–2062, 1998 WL 158744, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 30, 1998) (denying the motion to set an expert's fee because the motion requests a flat fee to be paid in advance of the deposition without reference to “time spent” as enunciated in the Rule)Burdette v. Steadfast Commons II, LLC, No. 2:11–980– RSM, 2012 WL 3762515, at *4–*6 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2013) (allowing prepayment of expert fees because the parties apparently did not dispute paying the fee in advance)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(E) (payment to experts)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) (protective orders to avoid undue burden or expense)
Aughie and Nia discuss the Supreme Court opinions in Trump V Barbara, Trump v. Cook, and Trump V Slaughter. In Trump v Barbara, the justices were asked to decide whether Trump's Executive Order banning birthright citizenship was legal. In Trump v Cook, the Court decided whether Trump was allowed to fire a Federal Reserve Board Governor. In the final case of this episode, the Justices addressed whether Trump could fire a Federal Trade Commissioner.
Aughie and Nia discuss the Supreme Court decisions in Watson v RNC, National Republican Senatorial Committee v Federal Election Commission and West Virginia v BJP combined with Little v Hecox. In the first case, the Justices were asked to define "elections" in terms of mail in voting ballot acceptance. In the second, they addressed the national political parties coordinating spending with candidates. In the final two cases, combined into one decision, the Justices wrestled with questions surrounding allowing transgender female athletes to compete on women's teams.
MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas and Talking Feds host Harry Litman report on Donald Trump's Post Office plan collapses. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts:MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcastLegal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-afMissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trialThe PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcastCult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassanThe Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-showThe Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-showMajority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellmanUncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Geneva Initiative Deputy Director Tehila Wenger, Miriam Herschlag and Noah Efron talk about: 1) The Cabinet's dramatic statement implying that the government may not comply with a Supreme Court ruling, and whether it signal a constitutional crisis, and 2) The meaning of the Maccabiah, the "Jewish Olympics" underway now, with more than 8,000 competitors from around the world: What should we make today of this remnant from centuries past? For our most unreasonably generous Patreon supporters, in our extra-special, special extra discussion: It may be that one of every twenty residents of Tel Aviv-Yafo was born in an English speaking land, and the city today is lousy with young "Anglos". What is this strange hyphenate: American-Israeli? Plus: Laying to rest Supreme Court Justice Edna Arbel, Palestinian-Jewish dialogue today, the storied streets of Tel Aviv, and a new Israeli Poker champ.
"Even if you are small in this society, there is something you can do."Those are the words of Trixy Elle, a mother and a fisherwoman from the Philippines, and one of the claimants from the Odette case, named for the super typhoon she lived through. She may never win in court, but she says that isn't the point. She is one of more than 100 claimants suing the energy giant Shell, demanding justice and accountability for the losses she has experienced as a result of climate change. This week, Christiana Figueres sits down with Joana Setzer and Catherine Higham, two of the authors of the ninth annual Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation report from the Grantham Research Institute at LSE and the Sabin Center at Columbia Law School. And what they find is complex. There have been cases that have captured the world's attention. Last year's ICJ advisory opinion on the obligations of states. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights' landmark advisory opinion establishing a human right to a healthy climate. Or the 2015 case brought by the Urgenda Foundation, where a Dutch court told the government it had a legal duty to protect its citizens from climate change, and ordered it to cut emissions faster. But beneath the headlines, courts on every continent have been litigating how far that duty of care goes and what it looks like. More than 3,600 cases filed across 62 countries - last year at a rate of five a week. And of the 215 that have reached the highest national courts, more than half have gone in a direction favourable to climate action. But a maturing field cuts both ways: for every Urgenda-style case there is now a countermove - laws to shield companies from liability, suits designed to stop protest, even governments weighing whether to walk away from their commitments altogether.So what happens when the law gets ahead of the politics? And who holds the structure together when, as Christiana puts it, nobody is orchestrating the Jenga game?Learn More:
Ben Criddle talks BYU sports every weekday from 2 to 6 pm.Today's Host: Ben Criddle (@criddlebenjamin) and Co-Host: (ronthe3manweav)Subscribe to the Cougar Sports with Ben Criddle podcast: Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cougar-sports-with-ben-criddle/id99676
The Supreme Court just wrapped the term with a blitz of extremely consequential decisions, and the smoke hasn't cleared yet. (In fact, it's looming like a dark storm cloud over our Fourth of July and America 250th festivities…) In this week's episode, cohosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern focus on two of the term's bleakest legacies: first, the court's catastrophically bad use of history and second, the demise of independent agencies. They discuss the court's 6–3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which was rooted in shoddy originalism and reckless disregard for how an accountable democratic government actually functions. Meanwhile, the dissenters in Trump v. Barbara would have weaponized bogus history to end birthright citizenship for millions. To unpack this, Dahlia and Mark sit down with two law professors: Sam Bagenstos of the University of Michigan and a former general counsel at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Jed Shugerman of Boston University (whom Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson cited this week). They deconstruct the myriad ways in which the high court ultimately embarrassed itself, history, and truth, with decisions that will affect millions of Americans for years to come.Slate Plus members! Don't miss the Amicus Plus Breakfast Table on Friday, July 10th at noon EDT. Mark Joseph Stern and Dahlia Lithwick will be in conversation with Professors Steve Vladeck, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Niko Bowie. Our Pluskateers can sign up to be in the live, online audience for this special end-of-term conversation. Go to slate.com/breakfasttable to sign up for online access. (Psst: Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.com)This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
President Trump honors Theodore Roosevelt at the newly completed presidential library in North Dakota, drawing lessons from his life as America prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday. The Justice Department announces new charges against eight alleged Tren de Aragua members accused of carrying out brutal kidnappings and murders in Texas and Illinois. Former Vice President Kamala Harris reaches out to progressive leaders and Gaza activists as speculation grows that she is preparing another White House campaign. Two daredevil climbers scale the Empire State Building for a sky-high proposal that ends with a ring for her and handcuffs for them both. Supersure Insurance: Upgrade your business insurance to a year-round SuperAgency at https://Supersure.com/Megyn Cozy Earth: Visit https://www.CozyEarth.com & Use code MEGYN for up to 20% off Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
It was a weird and wild ride as the Supreme Court handed down the last decisions of the term that started all the way back in October of 2025. We were so much younger then. After 58 argued cases and a steady, sneaky stream of shadow docket orders, the court issued its final four decisions Tuesday, and one justice was retired and unretired in short, confusing order. The headline win: The court upheld birthright citizenship, but only by a 5-4 vote on the constitutional question, far closer than expected, and a sign of just how willing four justices are to rewrite the 14th Amendment to suit Donald Trump's wishes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh tried to split the baby, and Dahlia and Mark explain why his approach is more alarming than it first appears.The news doesn't get better from there. The court ruled against transgender student athletes in cases out of Idaho and West Virginia, with Kavanaugh writing for the majority and Justice Neil Gorsuch offering an unconvincing retreat from his brief moment, post-Bostock, as an LGBTQ rights ally. The court also gutted limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, opening new doors for even more big money in elections.Plus: the strange saga of Justice Alito's accidentally announced "retirement," what it reveals about the court's obsession with secrecy, and a first look at next term's blockbuster Second Amendment case on assault weapons.Don't miss the Amicus Plus Breakfast Table on July 10th at noon EDT with Steve Vladeck, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Niko Bowie. Slate Plus members can sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business. You can be part of a live taping of the show, go to slate.com/breakfasttable to sign up for online access. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Federal courts ruled this week that President Trump has a lot of power over immigration, but not over how elections are run. We discuss the impacts of these rulings. Plus, what we just can't let go of. This episode: senior political correspondent Tamara Keith, immigration policy correspondent Ximena Bustillo, voting correspondent Miles Parks and senior national political correspondent Mara Liasson.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
