Podcasts about Deference

For Part 3d of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Kagan's dissent continued from her p. 12 to p. 15 (Roman Numeral II) of that Slip Opinion. We go from p. 12 to most of the way through p. 15 stopping at Roman Numeral II of the Slip Opinion (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of Kagan's dissent. We will pick up the rest of p.15 of that dissent next time. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

IMAGE DESCRIPTION: By Pufui Pc Pifpef I - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31309211 via Wikipedia LINKS Vatican bio of Cardinal Raymond Leo BURKE https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/documentation/cardinali_biografie/cardinali_bio_burke_rl.html        Raymond Leo BURKE on FIU's Cardinals Database (by Salvador Miranda): https://cardinals.fiu.edu/bios2010.htm#Burke                             Cardinal Raymond Leo BURKE on Gcatholic.org: https://gcatholic.org/p/2334                                                Cardinal Raymond Leo BURKE on Catholic-Hierarchy.org: https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bburke.html                            Apostolic Signatura on Gcatholic.org: https://gcatholic.org/dioceses/romancuria/d13.htm   Apostolic Signatura on Catholic-Hierarchy.org: https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dbgch.html 2003 Catholic News Agency bio of Archbishop Burke: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/286/pope-appoints-bishop-raymond-burke-as-new-archbishop-of-st-louis  Merriam-Webster, “Defender of the Bond”: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defender%20of%20the%20bond#:~:text=The%20meaning%20of%20DEFENDER%20OF%20THE%20BOND,the%20marriage%20bond%20in%20suits%20for%20annulment Dead Theologians Society: https://deadtheologianssociety.com/about/  Catholic Herald analysis of Cardinal Burke's 2014 reassignment: https://web.archive.org/web/20160701214308/http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/11/10/thousands-sign-petition-thanking-cardinal-burke/  2013 National Catholic Reporter commentary- “I want a mess” -Pope Francis: https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/pope-i-want-mess  2014 CruxNow “Soap Opera” Synod on the Family coverage: https://web.archive.org/web/20141017055135/http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/10/16/synod-is-more-and-more-like-a-soap-opera/ Amoris Laetitia: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia.html  2017 Knights of Malta reshuffle: https://catholicherald.co.uk/pope-names-archbishop-becciu-as-personal-delegate-to-order-of-malta/  2018 National Catholic Register editorial Reflection on Amoris Laetitia controversy https://www.ncregister.com/news/francis-fifth-a-pontificate-of-footnotes  2016 National Catholic Register coverage of the Dubia: https://www.ncregister.com/news/four-cardinals-formally-ask-pope-for-clarity-on-amoris-laetitia Traditionis custodes: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html  Cardinal Burke's Statement on Traditionis Custodes: https://www.cardinalburke.com/presentations/traditionis-custodes The 2023 Dubia (w/Pope Francis' responses): https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-10/pope-francis-responds-to-dubia-of-five-cardinals.html  National Catholic Reporter coverage of removal of Cardinal Burke's Vatican apartment and salary: https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-news/pope-francis-remove-cardinal-burkes-vatican-apartment-and-salary-sources-say Anonymous “Cardinal Burke is my enemy” report: https://catholicherald.co.uk/pope-calls-cardinal-burke-his-enemy-and-threatens-to-strip-him-of-privileges-reports-claim/  Where Peter Is coverage of Cardinal Burke's 2024 private meeting with Pope Francis https://wherepeteris.com/cardinal-burkes-meeting-withĥhh-pope-francis/    Thank you for listening, and thank my family and friends for putting up with the time investment and for helping me out as needed. As always, feel free to email the show at Popeularhistory@gmail.com  If you would like to financially support Popeular history, go to www.patreon.com/Popeular. If you don't have any money to spare but still want to give back, pray and tell others– prayers and listeners are worth more than gold!   TRANSCRIPT Welcome to Popeular History, a library of Catholic knowledge and insights.   Check out the show notes for sources, further reading, and a transcript.   Today we're discussing another current Cardinal of the Catholic Church, one of the 120 or so people who will choose the next Pope when the time comes. The youngest of six, Raymond Leo Burke was born on June 30, 1948, in Richland Center, a small town in sparsely populated Richland County, Wisconsin.   Not too much later, the family moved north to tiny Stratford, Wisconsin, where he grew up.   We've had a *lot*, of midwestern Cardinals, in fact all but one of our 8 American Cardinals so far has been born in the midwest, a percentage I would probably consider shocking if I didn't identify as a midwesterner myself, though technically I'm about as much of a northern southerner as you can get, considering my parents basically moved to Virginia to have their kids and immediately moved back to Ohio once that was accomplished. But enough about me, this is about Raymond Leo Burke, who signed up for Holy Cross Seminary in La Crosse in 1962. Later he went to The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC, where he wound up with a masters in philosophy in 1971. After that he was sent to Rome for his theology studies, getting a second masters, this time from the Gregorian. He was ordained by Pope Paul VI–yes, *before* JPII, crazy I know, in 1975 on June 29th, which longtime listeners will probably clock as the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul and more importantly the Popeular History podcasts' official anniversary date.   Returning to Wisconsin as a priest for the Diocese of La Crosse, Father Burke served as an associate rector for the cathedral, then as a religion teacher at Aquinas High School in town.   Making his way back to Rome, Father Burke returned to the Gregorian to study Canon Law, by 1984 he had a doctorate in the topic with a specialization in jurisprudence.   He came back stateside long enough to pick up a couple diocesan roles back in La Crosse, but soon enough he went back to the Gregorian for a third time, this time not as a student but as a teacher, namely as a Visiting professor of Canonical Jurisprudence, a post which he held for nearly a decade from ‘85 to ‘94.   He wound up becoming the first American to hold the position of Defender of the Bond of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, as a reminder that's basically the Vatican's Supreme Court.   As for what being a Defender of the Bond entails, it's basically the guy in charge of proving the validity of a disputed marriage, typically–I'd imagine--oversomeone's objections, or else, you know, the case wouldn't have wound up in court.   In 1994, his white phone rang, and it was Pope John Paul II, calling to make him bishop of his home Diocese of La Crosse. Father Burke was personally consecrated by His Holiness in the Vatican.   In ‘97, Bishop Burke became a member of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre, ranking as a Knight Commander with Star automatically by virtue of his being a bishop. The Order traces its origins to the First Crusade, making it one of the oldest chivalric Orders in the world–and it's not the only such order Bishop Burke will get involved in.   In 2000, bishop Burke became National Director of the Marian Catechist Apostolate, something which certainly seems near to his heart considering he's still in the role. Well, international director now, as things have grown.   In 2002, Bishop Burke invited a fairly new apostolate named the Dead Theologians Society to the diocese, which isn't something I'd normally include, but I wanted to make sure it got a shoutout because it started at my parish. Oriented towards high school and college students, they study the lives of the saints, and Cardinal Burke is a fan, saying: “I am happy to commend the Dead Theologians Society to individual families and to parishes, as a most effective form of Catholic youth ministry.”   In 2003, Bishop Burke became Archbishop Burke when he was transferred to the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Saint Louis, where he served until 2008, when he was called up to Rome, to serve as prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, there's that Vatican Supreme Court again, and this time he's running it. And if you're making assumptions based on that appointment, yes, he's absolutely considered one of the foremost experts on canon law worldwide, having published numerous books and articles.   In 2010, Pope Benedict raised Archbishop Burke to the rank of Cardinal Deacon and assigned him the deaconry of S. Agata de 'Goti. Naturally he participated in the 2013 conclave that elected Pope Francis, where I am prepared to guess he was in the minority given subsequent events.   The next year, so 2014, Cardinal Burke was transferred from his top judicial spot to serve as the patron of the Sovereign Order of Malta, aka the Knights of Malta, a reassignment that was generally interpreted as a demotion, given he was going from his dream job for canon law geek that made him the highest ranking American in the Vatican at the time to a largely ceremonial post that was, well, not that.   [All that is nothing against the Knights of Malta, which these days are a solid humanitarian resource and quasi-state trivia machine I'll give their own episode at some point.]   The tension between Cardinal Burke and Pope Francis has been fairly clear from the start. They have fundamentally different approaches and styles, and frankly different goals. Cardinal Burke is dedicated to maintaining tradition as the safest route, while Pope Francis has famously called for shaking things up, for example saying:   “What is it that I expect as a consequence of World Youth Day? I want a mess. We knew that in Rio there would be great disorder, but I want trouble in the dioceses!”   That's Pope Francis, of course. Just before his transfer out of his top spot at the Vatican's court, Cardinal Burke noted that many Catholics, quote:   “feel a bit of seasickness, because it seems to them that the ship of the Church has lost its compass.”   End quote.   To his credit, Cardinal Burke took the move in stride, which matches up well with his general view that authority should be respected and that, as a canonist, the Pope is the ultimate authority.   Deference to such authority in the context of the Catholic Church is known as Clericalism, and being pro or anti Clericalism is another point of disagreement between Cardinal Burke and Pope Francis, who said “I want to get rid of clericalism” in the same early interview I mentioned before.   Part of what Cardinal Burke was responding to with his “lost compass” quote was the first stages of the Synod on the Family, which veteran Vatican reporter John Allen Jr described as like a “soap opera”, with working notes that were released to the public speaking positively about things like same-sex unions and other relationships the Vatican tends to describe as “irregular”. After the Synod on the Family wrapped up, in 2016 Pope Francis produced a post-synodal apostolic exhortation called Amoris Laetitia, or “The Joy of Love”, which I saw one of my sources described the longest document in the history of the Papacy, a hell of a claim I am not immediately able to refute because it sure *is* a long one, which is primarily known for the controversy of just one of its footnotes, footnote 351.   I'm still making *some* effort to make these first round episodes be brief, but it's important to keep things in context, so let's go ahead and look at the sentence the footnote is attached to, which is in paragraph 305, and Then the footnote itself. If you want even more context, the entirety of Amoris Laetitia is, of course, linked in the show notes.   Here we go:   “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God's grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church's help to this end.”   And yes, that is one sentence. Popes are almost as bad about sentence length as I am.   Without the footnote, this probably would have gone relatively unnoticed, the Church accompanying sinners is not a fundamentally revolutionary idea. But the footnote in question gets specific and brings in the Sacraments, which is where things get touchy:   “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord's mercy” I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak”.   For one thing, just to get this out of the way, some of that is in quotation marks with citations. In a document like this that's pretty normal, showing how your argument is based on precedent and authority. Except in this case the precedent and the authority being cited is literally Pope Francis himself. To be clear, this is a normal Pope thing, I found multiple examples of JPII and Pope Benedict doing the same thing, it just amuses me.   Anyways, the idea of people in objectively sinful states receiving communion is hyper-controversial. After all, even as far back as Saint Paul, receiving Communion “unworthily” is an awful thing. Of course, questions have long followed about how anyone can be truly worthy of the Eucharist, with the basic answer there being “with God's help”, but yeah, it's tricky.   We can have an educated guess how Cardinal Burke felt about all this, because he and three other Cardinals--it'll be a while before we get to any of the others–anyways Cardinal Burke and three other Cardinals asked Pope Francis some fairly pointed questions about this in a format called a dubia, traditionally a yes/no format where the Holy Father affirms or denies potential implications drawn from one of their teachings to clarify areas of doubt. In this case, there were five questions submitted, with the first and I daresay the most sincerely debated being the question of whether footnote 351 means divorced and subsequently remarried Catholics can receive communion. There's lots of subtext here, but as a reminder this is actually the *short* version of this episode, so pardon the abbreviation. The next four questions are, to put it snarkily, variations on the obviously very sincere question of “does the truth matter anymore?”   Pope Francis decided not to answer these dubia, which the Cardinals took as an invitation to make them–and his lack of a response–public. Not as a way of outing him after his refusal to answer gotcha questions with a yes/no, not by any means, but because clearly that's what not getting an answer meant Pope Francis wanted them to do.   Now, there's something of an issue here, because we're nearing record word count for Cardinal Numbers, and that's without any real long diversions about the history of Catholicism in Cardinal Burke's area or his interactions with the local secular ruler. It's all been Church stuff. And we're nowhere near the end.   The reality is that I'm painfully aware my own discipline is the only thing that keeps me from going longer on these episodes when appropriate, and the major driving force for keeping them short was to keep things manageable. But now that I'm no longer committed to a daily format, “manageable” has very different implications. And even my secondary driver, a general sense of fairness, not making one Cardinal's episode too much longer than the others, well, the other Cardinals in this batch have had longer episodes too, so it's not as much of a lopsided battle for the First Judgment, and it's not like longer automatically means more interesting.   In the end, with those inhibitions gone, and a sense that this stuff is important and it would be a shame to skip big chunks of it if Cardinal Burke *doesn't* make it to the next round, I'm going to go ahead and keep walking through this so it gets said, and let it take what time it takes. My best guess is we're about halfway through. That way there's no special pressure to make Cardinal Burke advance just to cover anything I felt was too rushed. Don't worry, there's still plenty being left out. Fair?   Fair or not, Let's resume.   In 2015, so after his relegation to the Knights of Malta but before Amoris Laetitia and the Dubia, Cardinal Burke was added to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, which is still one of his roles though like other Vatican offices it has since been rebranded as a Dicastery.   In 2017, Burke's posting as Patron of the Knights of Malta, the one I described as largely ceremonial, threatened to become interesting when Pope Francis forced the head of the order to resign over, well, condoms, basically. But as soon as things started looking interesting Pope Francis helicoptered in an archbishop to serve as his “special delegate” and more importantly his “exclusive spokesman” to the Order, which effectively sidelined Burke from a gig he had been sidelined *to* a few years earlier.   Nevertheless, 2017 also actually saw Burke start to bounce back some. I want to re emphasize this is notably *after* the Dubia, when later in the year Pope Francis picked Cardinal Burke as the judge in the case of an Archbishop who had been accused of sexully abusing his altar servers. The Archbishop was found guilty and deposed, and by the end of the year, having gotten his feet wet again, Cardinal Burke was back on as a member of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, though, notably, not as its head anymore.   The next major flashpoint came In 2021, when Pope Francis published Traditionis Custodes, a document that severely restricted the celebration of the old Latin Mass.    Long story short, what's colloquially called Latin Mass is the version of Mass that was the main liturgy for Latin rite Catholics for hundreds of years until the Second Vatican Council kicked off serious updates in the 1960s, the most obvious of which is the general shift from Latin to the use of local aka vernacular languages, and the second most obvious is the direction the priest is facing for the majority of the liturgy. There's obviously more detail available on everything I just said, and people have *opinions*, I'll tell you that for sure.   Cardinal Burke's fundamental opinion was and is that the Latin Mass is great and should be maintained and that, in short, Pope Francis may even be overstepping his bounds in restricting it as much as he is with Traditionis Custodes, which is a strong claim given the whole, you know, general idea of the Papacy.   A few weeks after the Traditionis Custodes stuff went down, Cardinal Burke was on a ventilator fighting for his life. We're only doing living Cardinals at this time, so no suspense there for us, but his bout with COVID was touch-and-go for a while there.   In June 2023, notably a few weeks before his 75th birthday and that customary retirement age, Pope Francis replaced Cardinal Burke as the Patron of the Knights of Malta with an 80 year old Jesuit Cardinal. If you're noticing that Burke was relaced by someone who was themselves a fair bit older and also well past retirement age, yeah, you're not alone in noticing that, and you wouldn't be alone in thinking that some kind of point was being made here.   Just a few weeks after that retirement, Cardinal Burke attached his name to another dubia document, this one covering a larger variety of topics and appearing and in the context of the ongoing Synod on Synodality.   Cardinal Burke was again joined by one of his fellow signers of the first dubia, the other two having passed away in 2017, may they rest in peace. They were also joined by three Cardinals who had not cosigned the previous Dubia, though all of those are over 80 and so we won't be covering them for a while.   In any event, this second set of dubia covered a wider range of topics in its five questions, including two particularly hot-button issues, namely the question of blessings for same sex unions, which is something I will refer you to my Fiducia Supplicans anniversary coverage (oops, didn't get that out yet) on for fuller detail, and notion of women serving as deacons, which is still an open question at the time of this writing: as we've discussed previously, ordination has been pretty firmly ruled out, but there may be room for an unordained diaconate. After all, Saint Paul entrusted the letter to the Romans to a woman he described as a deacon.   Pope Francis actually responded to this second dubia the day after the dubious Cardinals submitted it, giving lengthy and detailed answers to all of their questions. Naturally this seems to have annoyed Cardinal Burke and his compatriots, because remember, traditionally answers to Dubia have been yes or no, and so they reframed their questions and asked Pope Francis to respond just with “yes” or “no”. When it was evident His Holiness was not going to reply further, the Cardinals once again took the lack of an answer- or rather the lack of yes/no format answers- as encouragement to publish everything, which was an interesting move since that seems to have essentially set Fiducia Supplicans in motion, as Pope Francis indicated an openness to informal blessings for homosexuals in one of his dubia responses. All of that is in the show notes.   Later in 2023, Pope Francis stripped Cardinal Burke of his Vatican apartment and retirement salary, which I have been tempted to call a pension but everyone I've seen calls it a retirement salary so it's probably safest to follow suit. Officially no reason was given, but I mean, you've listened to this episode, take your pick of tension points and believe it or not I've skipped several chapters of drama real or alleged. Speaking of alleged, this is the Vatican, so anonymous sources are happy to weigh in, including alleging that Pope Francis straight up said “Cardinal Burke is my enemy”. I don't think I buy that he was so plain about it, but I also don't expect Cardinal Burke is Pope Francis' favorite guy.   On December 29, 2023, Cardinal Burke had a private audience with Pope Francis for the first time in over seven years. Cardinal Burke's last private audience with Pope Francis had been back in 2016, four days before the first dubia was made public.   The idea of the two having a little chat grabbed media attention more than any other meeting between a Cardinal and a Pope that I can recall. As is typical for such one-on-ones, no official reason or agenda was given, and it's not likely we'll ever know what exactly was said, but I've got to hand it to Cardinal Burke for his response when Reuters asked him about it:   ‘Well, I'm still alive.'”   Raymond Leo Cardinal BURKE is eligible to participate in future conclaves until he turns 80 in 2028. “AM I THE DRAMA”? Today's episode is part of Cardinal Numbers,  and there will be more Cardinal Numbers next week. Thank you for listening; God bless you all!

On this episode of "The Federalist Radio Hour," former federal prosecutor John O'Connor joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to break down the showdown over the deportation of El Salvador native Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, explain whether illegal aliens have due process rights, and analyze how activist judges' enabling of "court shopping" hurts the judicial system.  If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

On this episode of “The Federalist Radio Hour,” former federal prosecutor John O’Connor joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to break down the showdown over the deportation of El Salvador native Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, explain whether illegal aliens have due process rights, and analyze how activist judges’ enabling of “court shopping” hurts the judicial system. […]

Recorded March 25th, 2025. A lecture by Dr James Wood (University of East Anglia) as part of the English Staff-Postgraduate Seminar Series. English Staff-Postgraduate Seminar Series is a fortnightly meeting which has been integral to the School of English research community since the 1990s. The aim of the seminar series is to provide a relaxed and convivial atmosphere for staff and students to present their research to their peers. The series also welcomes distinguished guest lecturers from the academic community outside Trinity College to present on their work. It is a fantastic opportunity to share ideas and engage with the diverse research taking place within the School.  Learn more at www.tcd.ie/trinitylongroomhub

For Part 3c of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Kagan's dissent continued from p. 9 of the Slip Opinion. We go from p. 9 to most of the way through p. 12 of the Slip Opinion (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of Kagan's dissent. We will pick up the rest of p.12 of that dissent next time. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Former leader of the Labour party Neil Kinnock, Lord Kinnock, is the latest guest on Lord Speaker's Corner.‘I guess that's what gave me my politics basically. The idea that many people working together could produce and provide at the level of quality that would've been absolutely impossible for the individual or the family.' Lord Kinnock speaks about growing up in south Wales and what drew him to politics, his early years as an MP and the Labour party of the late 80s and early 90s. He also speaks about his regrets from his time as leader, plus how politics and public discourse has changed today: ‘I don't want deference. Deference is not part of my makeup and I don't want anybody else to show it. But respect, accommodation, compassion, those instincts are fundamental to human beings, and they're too often being discarded or suppressed.'Lord Kinnock also explains that he wished he had challenged the President of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), Arthur Scargill, more forcefully about the need to ballot its members: 'I told Scargill at the beginning of April 1984 that without a ballot, the strike would not succeed. And I said it publicly, I just wish that I'd said it more publicly (even), and repeatedly over the subsequent months as a way of simply telling the truth to men and their families who were showing superhuman loyalty to the cause and whose loyalty was being abused by someone who had a very peculiar, very odd interpretation of what he thought of as his socialist mission, which was misplaced and misleading and assisted in tragedy. I've said before that Scargill and Thatcher deserved each other. Nobody else did.'The former Labour leader also gives a rare insight into private discussions between himself and Shadow Chancellor John Smith in preparation for the 1992 general election. Watch or listen to the full episode to find out more.See more from the series https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/house-of-lords-podcast/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For Part 3b of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984). We continue with with the Democrat's dissent written by Justice Kagan defending Chevron. We into the first few pages of Roman numeral I, to the top of page 9 of the Slip Opinion 603 U.S. _____ (2024) (Kagan's dissent), which we will continue to cover next time. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

For Part 3 of this deep dive we begin the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984). We begin with the Democrat's dissent written by Justice Kagan defending Chevron. We get up to Roman numeral I, which we will cover next time. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Rosa v. Bondi, No. 24-1240 (1st Cir. Mar. 14, 2025)DHS burden to prove alienage by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence; Woodby standardWilkinson v. Att'y Gen. U.S., No. 21-3166 (3d Cir. Mar. 11, 2025)extreme and exceptionally unusual hardship; substantial evidence standard of review; psychological harm without experts Rahman v. Bondi, No. 23-3608 (6th Cir. Mar. 13, 2025)types of hardship review; Wilkinson; INA § 212(i) waiver; INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(v) waiver; unlawful presence waiver; no adverse credibility review; satisfaction of the Attorney General Dineshkumar Patel v. Bondi, No. 24-3614 (6th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025)fear of loan sharks; extortion; nexus; acquiesce; India Gulomjonov v. Bondi, No. 21-2844 (7th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025)material change exception to one year asylum filing deadline; Loper Bright; satisfaction of the attorney general; heightened deference; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii); reasonable time; Catholic converts; Uzbekistan  Singh v. Bondi, No. 23-9589 (10th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025)unable or unwilling to protect; reporting to police; State Department reports; Mann party asylum claim; Sikh; IndiaSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Click me!The Pen & Sword College (formerly The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law) Use Promo Code: ImmReview2025Link to Nonprofit: https://thepen-and-swordkc.org/ Link to books: https://www.rekhasharmacrawford.com/ Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me!Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesFeatured in San Diego VoyagerAll praise to the pod's wonderful editors!Luana Lima SerraYasmin LimaDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

For Part 2d of this deep dive we finish the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984) decision. Recall, this decision reversed the RB Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. It was itself reversed last year in 2024 by Republicans on the US Supreme Court. This in turn sets us up for Part 6, where we'll begin to look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

The Trump administration tells agencies to ignore collective bargaining agreements that interfere with the ability to conduct reductions in force, or RIFs. A new memo from the Office of Personnel Management argues that contracts with federal unions cannot supersede an agency's ability to lay off its employees. The OPM memo says agency management has the right to determine its number of employees, and make headcount adjustments as needed. The guidance comes just ahead of agencies' expected RIF plans, which are due to the White House by this Friday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Trump administration tells agencies to ignore collective bargaining agreements that interfere with the ability to conduct reductions in force, or RIFs. A new memo from the Office of Personnel Management argues that contracts with federal unions cannot supersede an agency's ability to lay off its employees. The OPM memo says agency management has the right to determine its number of employees, and make headcount adjustments as needed. The guidance comes just ahead of agencies' expected RIF plans, which are due to the White House by this Friday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is a Draft Amnesty Week draft. It may not be polished, up to my usual standards, fully thought through, or fully fact-checked.  Commenting and feedback guidelines: I'm posting this to get it out there. I'd love to see comments that take the ideas forward, but criticism of my argument won't be as useful at this time, in part because I won't do any further work on it. This is a post I drafted in November 2023, then updated for an hour in March 2025. I don't think I'll ever finish it so I am just leaving it in this draft form for draft amnesty week (I know I'm late). I don't think it is particularly well calibrated, but mainly just makes a bunch of points that I haven't seen assembled elsewhere. Please take it as extremely low-confidence and there being a low-likelihood of this post describing these dynamics perfectly. I've [...] ---Outline:(02:45) Deference is everywhere(04:39) Funders often lack information you have access to(08:29) Funders often don't share your values(09:58) Funders have experience in grantmaking. That is different from experience doing the work.(11:48) What can we do to make this better?(12:22) There are lots of issues with over-updating on this!--- First published: March 3rd, 2025 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/adZEA4SEkab4SZhTx/on-deference-to-funders --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Welcome to Walking the Way. My name is Ray, and I really want to say thank you to everyone for listening in as we share in a regular rhythm of worship and devotion together. CreditsOpening Prayerhttps://www.faithandworship.comBible versePsalm 14:3 Thought for the dayRay BorrettBible PassagePsalm 14Good News Translation® (Today's English Version, Second Edition) © 1992 American Bible Society. All rights reserved. For more information about GNT, visit www.bibles.com and www.gnt.bible.Prayer HandbookClick here to download itSupporting Walking the WayIf you want to support Walking the Way, please go to: https://ko-fi.com/S6S4WXLBBor you can subscribe to the channel: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/walkingtheway/subscribeTo contact Ray: Please leave a comment or a review. I want to find out what people think and how we make it better.www.rayborrett.co.ukray.borrett@outlook.com@raybrrtthttps://fb.me/walkingthewaypodcast

Keywords: Chevron deference, OSHA compliance, EPA enforcement, Supreme Court regulatory cases, workplace safety regulations, regulatory changes, Trump administration, Biden OSHA policy, EPA rules, workplace injuries, safety compliance, labor law interpretation, regulatory uncertainty, legal challenges in safety laws, business safety strategy, administrative law, government regulations, workplace health policies, occupational safety, EHS consultant, compliance risk management, environmental law, OSHA Heat Stress Standard, legal precedents, regulatory power shifts. In this episode of Safety Consultant with Sheldon Primus, we explore the potential reversal of the Chevron deference and what it could mean for OSHA and EPA compliance in a future Trump administration. The Chevron deference, a legal doctrine that has historically given federal agencies the power to interpret ambiguous laws, has shaped workplace safety and environmental regulations for decades. But with the Supreme Court reconsidering this principle, what happens next? We discuss: ✔️ What the Chevron deference is and why it matters ✔️ How its reversal could impact OSHA's ability to enforce new safety standards ✔️ The effects on the upcoming Heat Stress Standard and environmental regulations ✔️ What businesses can do to navigate this uncertain regulatory future This episode is essential for safety consultants, business leaders, and compliance professionals looking to stay ahead of upcoming legal and regulatory changes.

What hath Individual Liberty to do with proper and correct, univocal definitions of terms ? For Part 4 of this deep dive where we will go through the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984) Roman Numerals III through V. Recall, this decision reversed the Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. This in turn sets us up for Part 3, where we'll look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. This could be called Gorsuch v. Gorsuch, like Kramer v. Kramer but son v. Mother instead of spouses. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Are you ready to get your Separation of Powers on ? For Part 3 of this deep dive where we will go through the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984) Roman Numerals III through V. Recall, this decision reversed the Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. This in turn sets us up for Part 3, where we'll look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. This could be called Gorsuch v. Gorsuch, like Kramer v. Kramer but son v. Mother instead of spouses. Epiphany 2025 Luke, for TRP Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor

Are you ready to get your Separation of Powers on ? For Part 2 of this deep dive where we will go through the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984), which reversed the Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. This in turn sets us up for Part 3, where we'll look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. This could be called Gorsuch v. Gorsuch, like Kramer v. Kramer but son v. Mother instead of spouses. Epiphany 2025 Luke, for TRP Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor

Based on AHLA's annual Health Law Connections article, this special series brings together thought leaders from across the health law field to discuss the top ten issues of 2025. In the first episode, Hilary Isacson, Assistant General Counsel, Sutter Health, speaks with Daniel J. Hettich, Partner, King & Spalding LLP, about the impact that the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision is having on Medicare reimbursement. They discuss the impact on CMS’ approach to rulemaking and whether providers will have more opportunities to challenge CMS actions, how providers should navigate this new environment, and important cases to follow. From AHLA's Regulation, Accreditation, and Payment Practice Group.Watch the conversation here.AHLA's Health Law Daily Podcast Is Here! AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this new podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast.

Even with all the conversations and tools available to us around the subject of hospitality, it is easy to engage in the pursuit of it in a way that ends up not resonating and lacks meaning. We can go through the motions, inspired as we are by the example of others, and not see the magic we assumed would follow our efforts. So, what does running a coffee shop with meaningful hospitality look like?  Today we are going to deep dive into this subject and breakdown for you in detail the areas, levels, and methods for engaging in and cultivating meaningful hospitality both across the bar and behind it.  We cover:  How meaningful hospitality as a lifestyle and conviction. Why aligning business values with operations is crucial Recognizing and rewarding positive actions  How building trust takes time and consistent effort Every interaction should validate the customer's significance. Why protection and accountability is important in meaningful hospitality Where patience and understanding human needs is fit in effective hospitality Understanding individual needs is crucial for effective service Why systems should support the values of the business Consistent application of standards is essential for fairness Mutuality and co-creation enhance the hospitality experience Why emotional metrics are as important as numerical ones Continuous learning is vital for hospitality providers Letting go of outdated practices is necessary for growth This was originally a talk developed for a webinar put on by our coffee friend, Sarah Naylor of Day Break Coffee cart.  See the link below to learn more about what she does!  Link: www.daybreakcoffeecart.com   Related episodes:  430 : Embracing “Unreasonable Hospitality” w/ Will Guidara | Thank You NYC + The Welcome Conference 424: Developing Menu and Hospitality Guides 421: Encore Episode: Simple, Powerful, Hospitality w/ Philip Paul Turner 343 : Founder Friday! “Curated Edition” | Hospitality + Meeting People Where They Are Spiders and Customer Service 271 : Why the Cash Register Controls Everything The Broken Chair The Difference of Deference to your Staff Systems as Care   INTERESTED IN 1:1 CONSULTING AND COACHING? If you are a cafe owner and want to work one on one with me to bring your shop to its next level and help bring you joy and freedom in the process then email  chris@keystothshop.com of book a free call now:  https://calendly.com/chrisdeferio/30min  Want a beautiful coffee shop? All your hard surface, stone, Tile and brick needs!  www.arto.com Visit @artobrick The world loves plant based beverages and baristas love the Barista Series! www.pacificfoodservice.com  

This is not for the faint of heart. It's a deep dive into Chevron deference doctrine starting with Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg's DC Circuit opinion in 1982 against Anne Gorsuch, Neil Gorsuch's mother, who was at the time appointed by Republican Ronald Reagan to run the Environmental Protection Agency. We cover Ginsburg's 1982 decision here in Part 1. This sets us up for Part 2 of this deep dive where we will go through the famous Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Defense Council (1984), which reversed the Ginsburg opinion at the lower court. This in turn sets us up for Part 3, where we'll look closely at Loper Bright (2024), which in turn reversed the Republican win in 1984. This could be called Gorsuch v. Gorsuch, like Kramer v. Kramer but son v. Mother instead of spouses. Merry Christmas season to you from Trp. Luke, for TRP Donate on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor

We are off this week for EHG Prime but present you with this EHG Club unlock of EEHG 296: Showing Proper Deference To Star Maidens. We're in the doldrums of mid-May. None of the week's TV premieres lit us with a fire of passion. What better time for Dave to make us all watch Star Maidens, a mid-70s British sci-fi show about a CRAZY planet where women are in charge and men are their bitter servants. What could go wrong? For Ask EHG, we solicited your DUMBEST questions, and you came through with queries about, among others, how our pets would get in trouble if they went to school and which of the three of us would win in an EHG Thunderdome. We bring you some all-new Not Quite Top 11 Lists in lieu of the week's Winner and Loser. Then we close up with Anthobuzz's Extra Credit submission on updating a Rodman's World Tour poker segment for the decade of our choice. Get in the Hypnomat and join us! TOPICS Lead Topic:

Justices from across the ideological spectrum appeared primed to limit the scope of environmental impact reviews, but it's unclear if they need a new test to do so. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr breakdown the Dec. 10 arguments in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, an environmental case about how deep agencies must go in looking at the potential effects of new projects. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The United States Supreme Court recently overruled decades-old precedent that favored an administrative agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutes. This seismic shift in the role of the judiciary will affect every regulated industry, including healthcare and hospice in particular. In this episode, Husch Blackwell's Meg Pekarske and Bryan Nowicki discuss the implications of this decision in the hospice space.

You may not even be aware of it, but the Chevron Deference doctrine has and will continue to affect you as an investor and landlord.  Rent Perfect President David Pickron shares some insights into this important topic and how you need to be aware of your local government decisions and how they are affecting you.   

In 1966 Benedict Anderson published 'The Languages of Indonesian Politics', a seminal paper exploring the development of Indonesian as a new language for talking about national politics. In that paper Anderson underlined the contrast between the formal/official style of Indonesian news reports and the colloquial, playful speech style of ordinary Jakartans as depicted through comics. Nearly six decades on, how do we understand the 'languages' of Indonesian politics? How are figures of politics constituted through language?  Associate Professor in Indonesian Studies at The University of Sydney, Dwi Noverini Djenar, expands on these issues. She has worked on the stylistics of adolescent literature, focusing on the production and circulation of styles and their relationship to sociolinguistic change. Her current research focuses on language and relations among social actors in public spheres, particularly in broadcast settings. Novi is co-author of Style and Intersubjectivity in Youth Interaction (2018) and co-editor of Signs of Deference, Signs of Demeanour: Interlocutor Reference and Self-Other Relations across Southeast Asian Communities (NUS Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In 1966 Benedict Anderson published 'The Languages of Indonesian Politics', a seminal paper exploring the development of Indonesian as a new language for talking about national politics. In that paper Anderson underlined the contrast between the formal/official style of Indonesian news reports and the colloquial, playful speech style of ordinary Jakartans as depicted through comics. Nearly six decades on, how do we understand the 'languages' of Indonesian politics? How are figures of politics constituted through language?  Associate Professor in Indonesian Studies at The University of Sydney, Dwi Noverini Djenar, expands on these issues. She has worked on the stylistics of adolescent literature, focusing on the production and circulation of styles and their relationship to sociolinguistic change. Her current research focuses on language and relations among social actors in public spheres, particularly in broadcast settings. Novi is co-author of Style and Intersubjectivity in Youth Interaction (2018) and co-editor of Signs of Deference, Signs of Demeanour: Interlocutor Reference and Self-Other Relations across Southeast Asian Communities (NUS Press, 2023). Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/southeast-asian-studies

In 1966 Benedict Anderson published 'The Languages of Indonesian Politics', a seminal paper exploring the development of Indonesian as a new language for talking about national politics. In that paper Anderson underlined the contrast between the formal/official style of Indonesian news reports and the colloquial, playful speech style of ordinary Jakartans as depicted through comics. Nearly six decades on, how do we understand the 'languages' of Indonesian politics? How are figures of politics constituted through language?  Associate Professor in Indonesian Studies at The University of Sydney, Dwi Noverini Djenar, expands on these issues. She has worked on the stylistics of adolescent literature, focusing on the production and circulation of styles and their relationship to sociolinguistic change. Her current research focuses on language and relations among social actors in public spheres, particularly in broadcast settings. Novi is co-author of Style and Intersubjectivity in Youth Interaction (2018) and co-editor of Signs of Deference, Signs of Demeanour: Interlocutor Reference and Self-Other Relations across Southeast Asian Communities (NUS Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

In 1966 Benedict Anderson published 'The Languages of Indonesian Politics', a seminal paper exploring the development of Indonesian as a new language for talking about national politics. In that paper Anderson underlined the contrast between the formal/official style of Indonesian news reports and the colloquial, playful speech style of ordinary Jakartans as depicted through comics. Nearly six decades on, how do we understand the 'languages' of Indonesian politics? How are figures of politics constituted through language?  Associate Professor in Indonesian Studies at The University of Sydney, Dwi Noverini Djenar, expands on these issues. She has worked on the stylistics of adolescent literature, focusing on the production and circulation of styles and their relationship to sociolinguistic change. Her current research focuses on language and relations among social actors in public spheres, particularly in broadcast settings. Novi is co-author of Style and Intersubjectivity in Youth Interaction (2018) and co-editor of Signs of Deference, Signs of Demeanour: Interlocutor Reference and Self-Other Relations across Southeast Asian Communities (NUS Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

In 1966 Benedict Anderson published 'The Languages of Indonesian Politics', a seminal paper exploring the development of Indonesian as a new language for talking about national politics. In that paper Anderson underlined the contrast between the formal/official style of Indonesian news reports and the colloquial, playful speech style of ordinary Jakartans as depicted through comics. Nearly six decades on, how do we understand the 'languages' of Indonesian politics? How are figures of politics constituted through language?  Associate Professor in Indonesian Studies at The University of Sydney, Dwi Noverini Djenar, expands on these issues. She has worked on the stylistics of adolescent literature, focusing on the production and circulation of styles and their relationship to sociolinguistic change. Her current research focuses on language and relations among social actors in public spheres, particularly in broadcast settings. Novi is co-author of Style and Intersubjectivity in Youth Interaction (2018) and co-editor of Signs of Deference, Signs of Demeanour: Interlocutor Reference and Self-Other Relations across Southeast Asian Communities (NUS Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/language

In 1966 Benedict Anderson published 'The Languages of Indonesian Politics', a seminal paper exploring the development of Indonesian as a new language for talking about national politics. In that paper Anderson underlined the contrast between the formal/official style of Indonesian news reports and the colloquial, playful speech style of ordinary Jakartans as depicted through comics. Nearly six decades on, how do we understand the 'languages' of Indonesian politics? How are figures of politics constituted through language?  Associate Professor in Indonesian Studies at The University of Sydney, Dwi Noverini Djenar, expands on these issues. She has worked on the stylistics of adolescent literature, focusing on the production and circulation of styles and their relationship to sociolinguistic change. Her current research focuses on language and relations among social actors in public spheres, particularly in broadcast settings. Novi is co-author of Style and Intersubjectivity in Youth Interaction (2018) and co-editor of Signs of Deference, Signs of Demeanour: Interlocutor Reference and Self-Other Relations across Southeast Asian Communities (NUS Press, 2023).

*This is a repeat episode from July 2024* Discover how the Supreme Court's latest decision to overturn Chevron Deference is shaking up the landscape for government agencies and what it means for future regulations. Tune in for expert insights and analysis! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Get the NEW Book "Rethinking SAFETY Communications"! Join the Community of Safety Pros today! In this episode, Blaine J. Hoffmann, MS OSHM talks with attorney, Phillip Russell about the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Chevron Deference and what it might mean for the OSHA rule making process. Check it out and join the conversation by becoming a SafetyPro Community member (it's FREE to join). Premium Community members can access exclusive content like episode videos, video courses, templates/downloads, participate in live streams, and direct message/live chat with the Safety Pro.  Join the Community of Safety Pros today! Visit Mighty Line Tape for all of your facility marking needs. Order your free sample of floor tape TODAY! Visit Arrow Safety for all of your safety service needs. Remember to mention we sent you to get 25% off your estimate!

We get a question submitted via TikTok: "After Chevron has been overturned, does that mean we can delete our diesel trucks?" This question touches on a significant legal decision and its potential impact on diesel truck owners and the trucking industry at large.To give you a bit of background, the Chevron deference is a legal doctrine that originated from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The doctrine essentially states that courts should defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes that they administer. This has allowed agencies considerable leeway in creating and enforcing regulations.Recently, a decision has been made to overturn Chevron deference, which has raised questions about the future of many regulations, including those affecting diesel trucks. Specifically, regulations introduced during the Obama era mandated that diesel trucks include various emissions control technologies, such as diesel emissions fluid (DEF) systems. These regulations have been a point of contention, with many arguing that they add unnecessary costs and complications for truck owners and operators.What does overturning of Chevron deference means for these diesel emissions regulations? While the decision is significant, it is unlikely to lead to an immediate rollback of existing regulations. Regulations that have been in place since 2008 are deeply embedded in the industry, and changing them would require substantial legislative or executive action.Many truck enthusiasts and operators have resorted to "deleting" their trucks, removing emissions control systems to improve performance and reduce costs. However, this practice is technically illegal under current regulations, and the recent legal changes do not alter this fact.While the overturning of Chevron deference may curb the power of administrative agencies moving forward, existing regulations are likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future.Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2024 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Castellanos-Ventura v. Garland, No. 21-6293 (2d Cir. Sept. 13, 2024)Honduran women; harm by family as a child; failure to report as a child; unable or unwilling to protect; erroneous reliance on State Department report; failure to consider conflicting evidence Patel v. Garland, No. 23-3461 (6th Cir. Sept. 10, 2024)I-601; adjustment of status; Patel; jurisdiction; judicial bias; manner of entry; erroneous factual finding and legal error Lopez v. Garland, No. 23-870 (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2024)Reno Municipal Code § 8.10.040 petty theft; INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii); Diaz-Lizaragga and CIMT definition; Skidmore deference; availability of pardon; single scheme of criminal conduct; persecution suffered in utero as a fetusClick me to learn more about Family Action Network Movement (FANM)Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: stafi2024Get Started! Promo Code: FREEImmigration Lawyer's Toolboxhttps://immigrationlawyerstoolbox.com/immigration-reviewWant to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

While Jimmy is off having a grand ol time in Ireland, Tyler sits down and talks with Ben from Blue Ribbon Coalition! Such a huge range of topics gets covered, from updates in the Gemini Bridges/Labrynth Rim area, to the wins in Idaho, Lake Powell, the resilience of nature, 30 by 30, talking about the photography on public lands dispute, and a huge new undertaking with Chevron Deference being overturned! Check it out on this part 2 of a lengthy, information rich 2 part series! Want to win some Tires? Our friends at Yokohama are donating a set of tires for the 750 Apple Podcast reviews giveaway winner. Also, like before, we will give away swag packs every 50 until we get to the main giveaway. All reviews need to be left on Apple Podcast to be entered. Congratulations to TannerIsCooler for winning the 550 reviews swag pack. 1986Toyota4x4Pickup won 650 reviews for a SnailTrail4x4 Swag pack and an OnX off-road Elite Membership. Call us and leave us a VOICEMAIL!!! We want to hear from you even more!!! You can call and say whatever you like! Ask a question, leave feedback, correct some information about welding, say how much you hate your Jeep, and wish you had a Toyota! We will air them all, live, on the podcast! +01-916-345-4744. If you have any negative feedback, you can call our negative feedback hotline, 408-800-5169. 4Wheel Underground has all the suspension parts you need to take your off-road rig from leaf springs to a performance suspension system. We just ordered our kits for Kermit and Samantha and are looking forward to getting them. The ordering process was quite simple and after answering the questionnaire to ensure we got the correct and best-fitting kits for our vehicles. If you want to level up your suspension game, check out 4Wheel Underground. Episode 524 is brought to you by all of our peeps over at irate4x4! Make sure to stop by and see all of the great perks you get for supporting SnailTrail4x4! Discount Codes, Monthly Give-Always, Gift Boxes, the SnailTrail4x4 Community, and the ST4x4 Treasure Hunt! Thank you to all of those who support us! We couldn't do it without you guys (and gals!)! SnailSquad Monthly Giveaway July's give away is with Ultimate9!! MORRFlate has teamed up with Ultimate9 to help bring their pretty rad products to the USA. Up for grabs this month is one of their EVCX Throttle Controllers. If you want to get your name into the drawing you have to sign up for the giveaway tier over on Irate4x4. Listener Discount Codes: SnailTrail4x4 -SnailTrail15 for 15% off SnailTrail4x4 MerchMORRFlate - snailtraill4x4 to get 10% off MORRFlate Multi Tire Inflation Deflation™ KitsIronman 4x4 - snailtrail20 to get 20% off all Ironman 4x4 branded equipment!Sidetracked Offroad - snailtrail4x4 (lowercase) to get 15% off lights and recovery gearSpartan Rope - snailtrail4x4 to get 10% off sitewideShock Surplus - SNAILTRAIL4x4 to get $25 off any order!Mob Armor - SNAILTRAIL4X4 for 15% offSummerShine Supply - ST4x4 for 10% off4WheelUnderground - snailtrailBackpacker's Pantry - Affiliate Link Show Music: Midroll Music - ComaStudio Outroll Music - Meizong Kumbang

Attorney and co-host of the California Underground podcast Phil Mauriello joins Bob to explain the original Supreme Court Chevron ruling, the impact it had, and the legal rationale behind the recent overturning of the doctrine.Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:The YouTube version of this interview.The Monetary Metals 12% silver opportunity.Phil Mauriello's bio page at his podcast, "California Underground."Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

For 40 years, federal judges deferred to the expertise of government agencies to interpret ambiguous language in laws. But after a recent Supreme Court decision, that power now lies in the hands of the judiciary.

Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and Senior Editor at Lawfare, and Molly Reynolds, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and Senior Editor at Lawfare, spoke with Bridget Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, and Nick Bednar, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, about the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled the decades-long Chevron doctrine that required courts to defer to reasonable interpretations of their statutes.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

OA1050 Legal podcaster Charles Star (ALAB, Mic Dicta) joins to share his administrative law expertise as we consider the end of the Chevron doctrine and what comes next. Why is everyone so worked up about the overturning of a ruling reached by a conservative SCOTUS at the behest of Ronald Reagan, Neil Gorsuch's mom, and one of the worst polluters in world history? Why are immigration lawyers (including Matt) quietly celebrating the end of deference to administrative agencies? And how might a lesser-noticed decision from the last day of the Supreme Court's term fuel a new era of challenges to administrative regulations? Chevron v  Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (6/28/24) Corner Post v. Board of Governors (7/1/24) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

In a major decision last week, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in a 6–3 vote.Critics called Chevron the “Lord Voldemort” of administrative law. So what was Chevron deference exactly? How did it transform the federal government? And what are the implications of this recent Supreme Court decision?In this episode, I do a deep dive with constitutional law scholar and Columbia Law professor Philip Hamburger. He's the founder and CEO of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which argued the two relevant cases in front of the Supreme Court.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

The billionaires and polluters who bribed SCOTUS Republicans just legalized poisoning our children and grandchildren...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A lawsuit filed by members of the fishing industry led the Supreme Court to overturn the Chevron deference. The decision will now limit long-standing government overreach in various industries. Get the facts first on Morning Wire.Birch Gold: Text "WIRE" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation information kit.

Is the Chevron Deference case good for crypto? Is it good for the U.S.? Or is this a giant tradeoff that will lead to bad outcomes?  Crypto enthusiasts, pro-tech individuals, and those on the right say this will stop regulators from making random rules. Non-crypto sources, mainstream media, and those on the left say it will lead to chaos, unchecked corporations, and poor governance. So, what's the truth? That's what we're here to find out. Our guest today is Justin Slaughter, current policy director at Paradigm and previous senior adviser of the SEC and chief policy adviser of the CFTC.  ------ ✨ Mint the episode on Zora ✨ https://zora.co/collect/zora:0x0c294913a7596b427add7dcbd6d7bbfc7338d53f/25   ------

The Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have broad immunity, diminishing the chance of a pre-election Trump trial. The court also curtailed the power of the federal agencies by striking down the Chevron doctrine. We break it down and look at the implications of the rulings. In sports, Texas and Oklahoma have officially joined the SEC. We look at the upcoming college football season that will also feature a 12-team playoff for the first time. And after the internet attacks for minor "infractions," we find ourselves in a weird spot: defending Joe Biden and Joel Osteen.Sponsor:Sound of Hope: We want to talk to you about a wonderful new movie from Angel Studios…Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trot. Inspired by the powerful true story of Bishop and First Lady Donna Martin, and their tiny Bennett Chapel church, in the town of Possum Trot in the woods of East Texas. Twenty two families from a rural Black church linked arms and courageously adopted seventy seven of the most difficult-to-place children in the local foster care system. By doing the impossible, the first 76 kids were adopted between 1998-2000. Another was adopted in 2011. This East Texas community proved that with real, determined love, the battle for America's most vulnerable can be won as this act ignited a national movement for vulnerable children that continues today. The first step to ending the crisis is to raise awareness. We encourage you to order your tickets to see Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trot today at https://angel.com/RICKBUBBA. The fight for kids begins on July 4th when Sound of Hope opens in theaters.Shop Blaze Media: If you like what we do around here, and you want a great way to let other people know what you're watching and listening to, you're going to LOVE all the Blaze Media merchandise available at ShopBlazeMedia.com! Everything from the Blaze Heritage and Blaze Media Collections – jackets, tee shirts, hoodies, socks, mugs, candles, flags, and a whole lot more…there's so much there you're going to love! Go to https://ShopBlazeMedia.com today. Check out all the cool stuff available from Blaze Media, and be sure you use the code “BLAZE10” to get 10% off your ENTIRE order!  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have broad immunity, diminishing the chance of a pre-election Trump trial. The court also curtailed the power of the federal agencies by striking down the Chevron doctrine. We break it down and look at the implications of the rulings. In sports, Texas and Oklahoma have officially joined the SEC. We look at the upcoming college football season that will also feature a 12-team playoff for the first time. And after the internet attacks for minor "infractions," we find ourselves in a weird spot: defending Joe Biden and Joel Osteen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 3: 5:05pm- During one notable exchange at Thursday's presidential debate on CNN, Joe Biden concluded a statement by saying he had “beaten Medicare.” In response, Donald Trump hilariously noted, “well, he is right. He did beat Medicare. He beat it to death.” 5:10pm- On Thursday night, CNN hosted 2024's first presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden. Who won the debate? The New York Times polled their opinion columnists—and despite progressives greatly outnumbering conservatives, 10 of 12 columnists thought Trump won, with 2 concluding the candidates battled to a draw, and 0 choosing Biden. Similarly, CNN conducted a flash poll which indicated that 67% of debate watchers thought Trump won, with 33% selecting Biden. 5:15pm- One pre-debate poll measuring national support in the 2024 presidential election had Donald Trump at 41% and Joe Biden at 43%. That same poll now has Trump at 50% and Biden at 42% following CNN's presidential debate. 5:20pm- According to a new, shocking poll out of New Jersey, Donald Trump is now beating Joe Biden by 1% in the Garden State. 5:40pm- Zack Smith—Legal Fellow and Manager of the Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program in Heritage's Meese Center—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to examine the Supreme Court's landmark decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. The near identical cases resulted in the upending of precedent established in 1984 by the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision. Today's decision delivers a massive blow to unchecked power held by the administrative state—which will no longer be permitted to ostensibly alter Congressional acts via loose interpretations without judicial checks on that power.