Podcasts about detroit board

Audio-essay by T. Sinclaire on the takeover of the Supreme Court of the United States by far-right reactionaries and their rising threat to democracy.   Works Cited and Additional Reading: [01:05] Wikipedia contributors. (2024c, July 5). Kevin Roberts (political strategist). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Roberts_%28political_strategist%29?wprov=sfla1   [02:01] Wikipedia contributors. (2024d, July 6). The Heritage Foundation. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation?wprov=sfla1   [03:02] Wikipedia contributors. (2024b, June 5). Federalist Society. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society?wprov=sfla1   [03:34] Wikipedia contributors. (2024a, January 20). John M. Olin Foundation. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Olin_Foundation?wprov=sfla1   [05:11] Quince, P., & Rikleen, L. (2022, November 8). Federalist Society's Influence on Courts Is Bad for Democracy. Bloomberg Law. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/federalist-societys-influence-on-courts-is-bad-for-democracy   [05:37] Court, S. (2018). JANUS v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31. In SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf   [06:09] Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977). (n.d.). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/   [06:20] DOBBS, O. T. M. D. O. H. & JACKSON WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATION. (2022). DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL. In SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf   [06:38] LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES & RAIMONDO, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE. (2024). LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL. In SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf   [07:27]OHIO ET AL v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. (2024). In S. Court, Supreme Court of the United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a349new_h3ci.pdf   [07:27] CORNER POST, INC. v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. (2024). In S. Court, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf   [07:27] SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. JARKESY ET AL. (2024). In S. Court, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859_1924.pdf   [07:32] TRUMP v. UNITED STATES. (2024). In S. Court, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf   [09:24] Mierjeski, J. K. E. (2024, April 23). Clarence Thomas secretly accepted luxury trips from GOP donor. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow   [10:33] Windsor, L. W. (2024, June 10). Exclusive Undercover Audio. X (Formerly Twitter). https://x.com/lawindsor/status/1800201783945683120   [11:14] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. (2023). CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF – THE UNITED STATES. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf   [11:14] Raskin, Ocasio-Cortez introduce legislation imposing gift ban on Supreme Court justices. (2024, June 25). Congressman Jamie Raskin. https://raskin.house.gov/2024/6/raskin-ocasio-cortez-introduce-legislation-imposing-gift-ban-on-supreme-court-justices  

Detroit Board of Police Commissioners says it's under investigation Detroit Tigers suffer first Opening Day shutout since 1989 in 4-0 loss to Tampa Bay Rays

The Detroit Board of Police Commissioners held its first meeting Thursday since announcing it was under multiple investigations. Plus, U-M Dearborn is hosting a Ramadan fasting event, and more.

The Officer Tatum Show is now available on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and SalemPodcastNetwork.com.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

https://youtu.be/h2qSfKcaLEQ Dr. Edwin Vieira, PhD & JD, is one of the most important Legal Minds regarding the reality and application of the US Constitution. He's been practicing Constitutional law for 45 years and has won several important cases at the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court of the United States, he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment. We also discuss some of the most misunderstood aspects of the US Constitution & its's current status, relative to what appears to be an official selection. Is it really true that the US Constitution is a living breathing organism and should be subject to changing it's meaning?  Should it be flexible and malleable? What is Constitutional Authority and who actually has it when it comes to shutting down society? What is the Commerce Clause and what does it have to do with what's unfolding today? Can the government force you to have vaccinations? They assert that they can, but, can they? What specific powers does a president really have and what's really in and out of his or her authority? What should happen at a Constitutional level if our elected leaders are not doing their jobs? What are the remedies if elected officials and public servants are refusing to do their jobs? Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. J.D. lays out the weak links in the judiciary, including The Supreme Courts and the Judges Dilemmas and clarifies who, in fact, makes remedies for fraud if fraud is discovered.  We discuss what happens if, on January 20, 2021, no president or vice president actually is qualified to be president and vice president of The United States? Yes, we actually go there. We also cover Dr. Vieira's advice to Potus 45, as to what to do over the matter of real election fraud. He discusses the key differences between civil and criminal remedies, specific to their power and scope. Be ready to discover what exactly the President's Constitutional Function, Authority and Power really is concerning The Department of Justice, The Federal Bureau of Investigation and any other agencies including The Supreme Court. This may surprise many of you. This segment moves fast and you will find yourselves moving right into The Commerce Clause and discover how it specifically relates to what's unfolding with the loss of human rights and liberties, beginning with the arrival of Covid-19. Dr. Vieira shares how (Equal Protection under The Law) should be applied in the case of riots and damages to people, property and the operation of businesses. In more sensitive areas, he shares the Constitutionality of (Bills of Attainer), aka, Kill lists and how this matter should be dealt with. Last, but not least, Dr. Vieira addresses the specifics of what any President must do should the normal mechanisms of Constitutional Accountability are not working and those in power are not keeping their oaths of office and have in essence, gone rogue. You may find out that Marshall Law may not be the remedy you ever want invoked. Look out for an intense, fast moving ride in Calling in The Constitution in its most clear expression and marvelous foundation for securing a Free State. Edwin Vieira Jr. J.D., Phd. is the author of many landmark books & articles that you can buy right now: Constitutional Homeland Security, A Nation in Arms How to Dethrone The Judiciary Three Rights Thirteen Words Pieces of Eight, The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution Crashmaker The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “The Militia of the Several States Edwin Vieira Jr.

November 10, 2022 ~ Ken Morse, Chairman of the Mariners Church of Detroit Board of Directors tells Paul they are holding their annual "Great Lakes Memorial" service on Sunday, November 13th at 3pm to honor the victims of the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald and all those lost in shipping disasters on the Great Lakes.

In today's episode of Poetry Talks, we discuss Gary L. Cox's latest book with the author himself. Gary has published three poetry books, The Waters of Appanoose County, Beyond the Waters, and Coffee with the Bard:2020 Blues. Garry's collection of poems speaks to all readers' souls as he shares about love, loss, compassion, concern, and hope.Garry, a retired teacher, worked extensively teaching English, Reading, and Writing Proficiency at Junior High, High School, Adult Education, and Community College for both native English speakers and English as Second Language Learners.He was also a teacher, administrator, and award-winning creator of reading-based Edu-Dramas for Rio Salado College Adult Education Program and also for The Detroit Board of Education.Host Social Media@Seonthepoet (Twitter) (Instagram) (Clubhouse)______________________________________________________Guest - Social Media@garryl.cox (Instagram)@garrylcox (Twitter)Garry L. Cox (Facebook)______________________________________________________Guest - websitehttp://www.garrrycox.com______________________________________________________Guest PublicationsThe Waters of Appanoose County (Amazon) Beyond the Waters (Amazon)Coffee with the Bard:2020 Blues (Amazon)______________________________________________________MUSIC(intro / Outtro) Coffee and Herbs______________________________________________________Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE or FOLLOW so you won't miss a thing  ✌

Episode Notes Linda Bernard Candidate for Detroit Board of Police Commissioners for District 2. Riverwise Magazine & Detroit is Different 2021 Candidate Interview Series for Mayor of Detroit. This is a special election feature for the August 2021 Primary election for the City of Detroit. These interviews feature one-on-one question-and-answer content about Detroit public safety, water rights, property taxes, and visions for Detroit's future. Please share and enjoy the content of the people seeking office in Detroit. Detroit is Different is a podcast hosted by Khary Frazier covering people adding to the culture of an American Classic city. Visit www.detroitisdifferent.com to hear, see and experience more of what makes Detroit different. Follow, like, share, and subscribe to the Podcast on iTunes, Google Play, and Sticher. Comment, suggest and connect with the podcast by emailing info@detroitisdifferent.com Find out more at https://detroit-is-different.pinecast.co

Episode Notes Lavish Williams Candidate for Detroit Board of Police Commissioners for District 2. Riverwise Magazine & Detroit is Different 2021 Candidate Interview Series for Mayor of Detroit. This is a special election feature for the August 2021 Primary election for the City of Detroit. These interviews feature one-on-one question-and-answer content about Detroit public safety, water rights, property taxes, and visions for Detroit's future. Please share and enjoy the content of the people seeking office in Detroit. Detroit is Different is a podcast hosted by Khary Frazier covering people adding to the culture of an American Classic city. Visit www.detroitisdifferent.com to hear, see and experience more of what makes Detroit different. Follow, like, share, and subscribe to the Podcast on iTunes, Google Play, and Sticher. Comment, suggest and connect with the podcast by emailing info@detroitisdifferent.com Find out more at https://detroit-is-different.pinecast.co

Episode Notes Scott Boman Candidate for Detroit Board of Police Commissioners for District 4. Riverwise Magazine & Detroit is Different 2021 Candidate Interview Series for Mayor of Detroit. This is a special election feature for the August 2021 Primary election for the City of Detroit. These interviews feature one-on-one question-and-answer content about Detroit public safety, water rights, property taxes, and visions for Detroit's future. Please share and enjoy the content of the people seeking office in Detroit. Detroit is Different is a podcast hosted by Khary Frazier covering people adding to the culture of an American Classic city. Visit www.detroitisdifferent.com to hear, see and experience more of what makes Detroit different. Follow, like, share, and subscribe to the Podcast on iTunes, Google Play, and Sticher. Comment, suggest and connect with the podcast by emailing info@detroitisdifferent.com Find out more at https://detroit-is-different.pinecast.co

for more information:https://www.wmsentertainment.com/htmepodcastMatthew E. Potenza:https://www.thepotenzalawfirm.com/Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark US labor law United States Supreme Court case concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overturning the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.

for more information:https://www.wmsentertainment.com/htmepodcastMatthew E. Potenza:https://www.thepotenzalawfirm.com/Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark US labor law United States Supreme Court case concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overturning the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.

In the 2018 case, Janus v. AFSCME, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned one of its earlier decisions, the 1977 case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Ed. The 1977 Abood decision held that unions could deduct “agency fees” from union non-members without their consent. The Court in Janus, in a 5-4 decision, ended that practice as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.  The post The Law episode 53: Janus v. AFSCME appeared first on Speakeasy Ideas.

PODCAST: ATTN Whether you own Detroit property or not, here's Frankie Darcell's UNCUT conversation with Willie C. Donwell Administrator / Chair, Detroit Board of Review/ Coleman A. Young Municipal Center

Confession:  I love manufacturing. I work in the manufacturing industry, so when my travels combine both a factory and a museum – sign me up!  Have you ever watched the television show, “How Things Are Made”?  I am completely sucked in when I come across an episode – I’ve even recorded it (check my DVR if you don’t believe me.)  I’ve worked in product development at various manufacturing companies for years and I still love watching how an idea gets turned into a physical product.  Pair that with a museum that covers a niche topic like the history of Braille – something we probably all sort of learned in school, but really don’t know a lot about -- and then showcases incredible individuals that take what everyone thinks of as a life sentence and completely flips it around is a definite must-see on my travel to-do list.   So that’s how I found myself at the Museum for the American Printing House for the Blind  located in Louisville, Kentucky.  On a beautiful Friday morning, I sat down with Michael Hudson, Director of the Museum for the American Printing House for the Blind.  The organization (also referred to as APH) is a unique combination of both a printing house and a museum with a distinctive focus – preserving and presenting the remarkable contributions of people who are blind, and the history of printing materials for the blind or visually impaired community.  I’ll admit that my experience with history of Braille is sparse.  I knew Louis Braille developed it, and it was made up of different dot patterns, but really nothing beyond that.  As I talked to Michael, the whole fascinating story of “tactile” writing emerged.  The museum tour is like a 3-in-1 experience:  First, there is the museum itself, which starts with the history of tactile languages, the development of Braille and the “war of the dots,” in the 19th century and leads up to contemporary examples of people and technology impacting the blind or visually impaired community today.  Second, is the factory tour of the printing house itself – this is where you’ll see Braille books being printed, tactile graphics being made, and even the original mechanical machines (like the “old Pearl”) that are still used for specialized tasks today. Third, is a little side trip into the educational materials the APH has created to improve the lives of blind or visually impaired children.  It’s amazing the creativity and dedication of this organization as they continue to develop new products to help kids in the classroom.  Museum Tour Highlights: The museum is broken up into two galleries:  the 1883 Gallery, which focuses on the history of the APH and its contributions over the years; and the Callahan Gallery, which focuses on the history and education of blind people.  If you can’t visit the museum in person, you check out a virtual tour on their website.  Temple Entrance – as you enter the museum, there is a large covered with ancient tactile languages, I never thought about how ancient languages were designed to communicate both by touch and visually – carved into stone or tablets, these languages could be read by the eyes or by the fingers.  Fire Doors – look closely behind the exhibits as you enter the 1883 Gallery and you’ll see huge fire doors – another nod to the original 1883 factory building.  The doors have a cable attached with a weight at the end and a little metal strip that melts at 200°F.  If there was a fire in the factory, the metal strip would melt and the large metal door slides across shutting off that part of the factory.  I love seeing the old bones of a building providing hidden touches of history. Valentin Haüy – this is the man that really started it all by creating the first school for the blind and visually impaired in Paris, France.  Michael tells an incredible story of what some blind people had to do to earn a living, which stirred Haüy into deciding there had to be another option which provided opportunities and kept a person’s dignity.   Francois Lesueur – Haüy’s first student.  One of his jobs was to pick up Haüy’s mail every day.  Haüy had a side job as a translator for the King of France and would occasionally receive embossed invitations from the King.  Lesueur could “read” the embossing on the invitations, which gave Haüy the idea to developed “raised letter” books for the blind.   War of the Dots - many systems were developed in the early 19th century; even different countries had different systems.  Most initially started with just raising the letters of the existing alphabet, but the curves in writing weren’t always clear.  So then different typefaces were developed to make it easier to read the raised letters with your fingers.  Moon Type – an example of one of several different “arbitrary codes”  that were developed.  It was kind of based on the alphabet, but used different symbols for the letters.  Louis Braille – born in 1809, Louis was the son of harness maker and become blind due to an accident with his father’s tools.  Amazingly, Louis happened to live in France and was sent to Haüy’s school for the blind in Paris.  How was the Braille system developed?  It’s a fascinating story of a French soldier, a code called night writing, and a young boy with the smarts to simplify and build a new system that revolutionized communication for the blind.    Slate & Stylus – at this time, a blind person could read printed books but had no way to write notes themselves.   Another technological leap forward was the slate and stylus.  A rectangular tablet with a perforated bar that slid across the page allowed a person using a stylus – like a punch or an awl – to finally write Braille on-the-go.   Consider it kind of the first portable, personal tool for writing Braille.    Hall Braille Writer & Perkins Braille Writer – the Hall Braille writer was a mechanical device invented by an American named Frank Hall 70 years after the slate and stylus was invented.  Hall was a superintendent for the Illinois School for the Blind and developed the Hall Braille writer in 1892 in conjunction with a local typewriter company in Chicago.  The Perkins Braille Writer is really the penultimate modern Braille writer.  Solid, dependable, reliable -- the company still makes these today.  And you get to try one of these machines in the museum.  I wrote my name – totally cool!  (If you visit with kids, then check this exhibit out.) The museum has over 40 different mechanical Braille writers in their collection, but the Hall and Perkins are the iconic representatives of this technology.  30” Globe – how do you represent the world to someone who can’t see it?  Globes with raised mountains and recessed rivers can let a child explore the world with their fingertips.   Stevie Wonder’s Piano – a stage, baby grand piano, this was the piano Stevie Wonder used while attending the Michigan School for the Blind.  I had no idea that Stevie Wonder had his first hit song at the age of 12 and was touring the country, which posed a problem for the Detroit Board of Education.  Being blind posed an additional challenge.  So how could Stevie keep touring and keep up with his studies?  Listen to the episode to find the ingenious solution that really allowed Stevie Wonder to develop into the superstar of today. 1959 World Book Encyclopedia – the picture won’t do this justice, but this is a staggering display of the largest Braille project ever done.  Braille takes up more space than the same standard printed book – and this exhibit shows that.  It also shows the dedication of the APH staff to make sure that information was available to everyone.  Now, of course, all that information can be found on the cell phones in our pocket.  It’s amazing the technology that has developed over the last several decades.  Where will we go in the future?    Factory Tour Highlights: Tactile Graphics – I never thought about how blind would be able to “see” a graphic image?  Well, they’ve figured it out at APH – layers and layers and layers of a specialized ink printed on top of each other causes the ink to build up on the paper creating raised images.  How was this discovered?  Experimentation.  Another reason why manufacturing companies need to give their employees the time and freedom to play with new ideas.  Proofreading – team of two people.  A Braille reader that reads out loud every word, paragraph and punctuation mark.  The other person is a copy reader.  As the Braille reader reads the Braille text out loud, the copy reader follows along in the printed text to make sure everything matches.  Attention to accuracy is key – if there is a typographical error in the print version, then APH will reproduce it in the Braille version.  Stereograph – how Braille translation was originally by – manually, by hand – before the current digital process.  Someone sat at this machine, read printed text, and literally transcribe the text one single, Braille character at a time.  It’s sort of like play chords on a piano – the keys to form each Braille letter are pushed down at the same time.  Tip – a single Braille character is made up of a “cell” which is a combination of 6 dots – 3 high and 2 wide.  Corresponding to the letters in the standard English alphabet, it even includes ways to add punctuation and capitalization.  Correcting Tongs – made a mistake on the stereograph machine? Then you had to use a set of correcting tongs to punch the missing dot or punch out a wrong dot. Pearl – one of Michael’s favorite machines, the Pearl sort of looks and operates like a sewing machine.  Used for making tactile graphics plates, the Pearl is still great at producing volume prints of tactile graphics.   “Little Pearl Companion” – a very specialized machine for making map symbols.  Bought in July 1906, the Little Pearl still works today.  How many other machines from the turn of the century are working today?  I love seeing old machinery still functioning and still valued today.   Nemeth Code – how does Braille work for mathematics?  Well, that’s where Abraham Nemeth comes into the picture.  Hear his full story in the episode, but let’s just say he was a kid that loved math, but was told he couldn’t pursue that dream because he was blind.  Go into sociology they said, so he did.  And then couldn’t get a job.  Get an advanced sociology degree they said.  So he did, and couldn’t get a job.  Finally, he said, “I can either be an unemployed sociologist or an unemployed mathematician,” so he chose the mathematician route and adapted the existing Braille code for mathematics.  The beauty of his system is that is uses the existing Braille characters, but assigned them new mathematical meanings.  So a kid didn’t have to learn a new system, but just know the mathematical alternative for the same character.  Genius.  Heidelberg Original Cylinder Press – a recurring theme of the APH is taking an existing technology and re-purposing it to fit the needs of printing Braille.  The three Heidelberg presses are classic examples of that ingenuity.  Originally designed for traditional printing, the APH modified them so they could use embossing plates to print Braille instead.  Collator – this looks like a basic machine, but its unique skill is lifting, sorting, and collating pages without crushing the Braille text.  Think about that.  What kind of precision does it take to have mechanical “fingers” pick up and sort sensitive pages of Braille?  Listen to the episode to find out how it used to be done and why this basic-looking machine was such a revolution for the APH.   Educational Products: This whole section of education products amazed me.  As a sighted person, I take for granted being able to see everything going on in a typical classroom.  Close your eyes and imagine a classroom.  How would you learn if you couldn’t see the board, or a presentation, or a 3D model?  Luckily, the APH thinks about that every day.  Do not skip this part of the museum tour because it really makes you think how the sighted world is translated for the blind and visually impaired.   Draftsman – it kind of reminded me of an Etch-A-Sketch, but this simple tool is helping teachers create quick tactile graphics in the classroom on the fly.  Imagine the teacher drawing a symbol on the board – how would a blind student “see” it?  This tool allows the student the same access to information in real-time as everyone else in the classroom.  Lots of Dots – designed to teach kids the alphabet and punctuation.  How do you capitalize in Braille?  Find out by listening to the episode.  (By the way, I totally want a Lots of Dots for myself!)  Periodic Table – flashing back to my Chemistry days, the periodic table is a classic tool but is also a totally visual tool.  How would you translate this visual table into a tactile form?   That’s what the APH thinks about every day. (Oh, and if you really want to nerd out, there is a fascinating book about the Periodic Table called The Disappearing Spoon by Sam Kean.  In fact, all his books are excellent!) Human Anatomy Kit – 3D skeleton models have been available, but how do you connect the words with the specific bones?  This tool does that and, to quote Michael, includes a “cool” quiz kit (seriously, I had to call Michael out on that – what kid thinks quizzes are cool?) Orbit 20 – the latest product developed for both kids and adults, the “refreshable” Braille display and note taker is truly a remarkable piece of technology.  Developing a product durable enough and fast enough to translate printed text into Braille and back into printed text allows for near real-time translation.  Demand has been so great that it’s on backorder.  (Side note - as a manufacturer you always want to have products available for the people that want them, but you also know you have a good product that really serves your customers when demand exceeds supply.)    I think one of the most important things we can do as human beings is to try and see the world through someone else’s eyes.  What does the world look like to them?  What experiences shaped them?  How do they see things differently – and how do they see things the same as me?  The Museum of the American Printing House for the Blind is a great example of that philosophy.  As a sighted person, I can never fully understand what it’s like to be blind, but it gave me a small glimpse into the struggles facing blind and visually impaired and the impressive strides that have been made to overcome those obstacles.  The historical and interactive nature of the museum along with the impact the printing house has on kids today is a unique combination and is well worth a visit.  If you’re a museum nerd like me, then you have got to add this museum to your “must-see” list and tell them, “I heard about you on the Made in Museums podcast.” If you love to document your travels to off-the-beaten-path places, then show me where you're heading or where you've been by sharing your stories with me at Made in Museums on Facebook,  Twitter, and Instagram.  If you want to let me know about a curious museum that you’ve visited, and that I should cover on this show, contact me through social media or just send me an email. Resources: Museum for American Printing House for the Blind website Visiting Hours and Admissions – since this information could change, please visit the museum’s webpage to find the most up-to-date information. School & Group Tours – if you’re in the Louisville, Kentucky area, the museum can host group tours.  Contact them for more details.  Trust me – the kids will get a total kick out of writing their name in Braille.  Virtual Tour - If you can’t visit the museum in person, you check out their virtual tours on their website.  Travel Guide – I’ve created a for this museum highlighting the “must-see” items in the collection and any other information I thought might be helpful when planning your visit to this incredible museum. Kentucky School for the Blind – right next door to the museum, this organization has a long history and has made important contributions to the blind and visually impaired community.  Visit their website and find ways you can support them, or search for a school in your area (schools everywhere need our support!).

Progressive podcaster Jonathan Tasini says it's a disaster for unions and working Americans; libertarian legal scholar Eugene Volokh says it's a bad decision, but won't change much.The two-faced Roman god Janus was said to look over the beginning and end of conflicts — one face looked rearward, to the past, while the other looked ahead to the future. With the end of the Supreme Court's latest session and looming end to moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy's career, we may be witnessing the beginning of a new era of jurisprudence.Two years ago, the court decided not to hear the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, suspending the conflict between public sector unions and their opponents in the “right work” camp. Rebecca Friedrichs was a school teacher who resented paying dues, or even the less substantial non-member “agency fees” to her union. As a major political faction, public sector unions often push legislation in the interest of their members, such as increased funding for public school teachers' salaries. Friedrichs, however, was not a typical union member. A rare anti-teacher's union teacher, Friedrichs was recruited as an ideal plaintiff to go to court on behalf of the entire “right to work” movement — largely funded by conservative and libertarian interest groups — to argue that her free speech rights were being violated by the requirement to contribute financially to her union.Many thought that the Friedrichs case was doomed when Justice Scalia suddenly passed away in 2016, until Trump's election ushered in Neil Gorsuch's nomination. The issue of public sector union dues returned to the docket in the case of Janus v. AFSCME. While the details were different, the essentials of the case was the same: do forced dues to a union constitute a violation of the First Amendment, as an instance of “compelled speech?”A Precedent OverturnedJanus, a child protection specialist, contested the fees his union required him to pay. Since unions often function as a wing of the Democratic party, this seems like a reasonable complaint for public sector workers who broadly oppose the Democrats' agenda. Indeed the court had found in a previous case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1970), which determined that dues collected from non-members were constitutional as long as they were only used for the union's purposes of collective bargaining — separated from political activism funded by member dues.Allowing employees to opt out of union fees entirely, however, creates a “free rider” problem, in which the non-members receive the benefits of the union's negotiations at the expense of members. Thus, the decision in Janus — in favor of the plaintiff's right to not pay any fees — deals a hard blow to public sector unions — one of the last organized supporting wings of the Democratic Party.To understand why the case was so charged, one needs to understand the shifting political landscape — specifically, the shrinking power of unions as a check on business interests. Certain subgroups of the GOP have made it their goal to “defund and defang” public sector unions — the last bastion of organized labor — so that a free market agenda can advance with less opposition. As union membership has declined, we have seen a nearly inverted relationship with the share of income going to the top 10%. Whether the relationship is causal is hard to say, but the graphical evidence is compelling.Subscribe to Jonathan's podcast for a progressive perspective on issues related to organized labor and inequality.Jonathan Tasini, host of the progressive “Working Life” podcast, sees this outcome as the result of a highly effective coalition of right-wing interest groups — including the Koch Foundation and the Uihlein Foundation — and the network of think tanks and organizations they support. Tasini links the decline in union influence over politics with the rise in inequality, and expects the Janus decision to further erode the fabric of working-class America.However, it is not only progressives using partisan arguments for unions who are arguing against the 5–4 majority in Janus.Was the Court Wrong?Eugene Volokh, a noted libertarian legal scholar and lead blogger at Reason.com's The Volokh Conspiracy, co-authored an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief in support of a government union's constitutional right to levy fees.In her dissent, Justice Kagan quotes Volokh's brief, which offers “many examples to show that the First Amendment ‘simply do[es] not guarantee that one's hard-earned dollars will never be spent on speech one disapproves of.'”For example, when the government taxes, it often spends the money on campaigns to promote the ideology behind a given program. In a simpler case, government grants often fund causes and forms of expression that many taxpayers do not value. Kagan and Volokh suggest that we might as well think of the fee as a tax on government workers to pay for the collective bargaining that they must undertake with the union to determine fair pay and benefits.This ultimately led Volokh to conclude, in the wake of the decision, that the new precedent won't change much. After all, the government can just change its method of levying the fee to a tax — leaving union revenues unchanged.Nonetheless, the Janus decision does seem to tilt the balance a bit further away from unions, which is why many libertarians are celebrating.Bob has covered this topic several times in the past, including (most recently) his interview with Rebecca Friedrichs and her attorney. Now you can hear the other side of the debate from Jonathan Tasini.

Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31. The case turns on the question of whether “agency fee” arrangements—which require workers to pay union fees to public sector unions to cover the unions’ activities other than political action—violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court previously found such mandatory union fees to be constitutional in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977). However, in 2016, the Supreme Court split 4-4 on this question in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.L. Camille Hebert, Carter C. Kissell Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law at Ohio State UniversityWilliam L. Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right To Work Legal Defense FoundationModerator: Robert Alt, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Buckeye Institute

Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31. The case turns on the question of whether “agency fee” arrangements—which require workers to pay union fees to public sector unions to cover the unions’ activities other than political action—violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court previously found such mandatory union fees to be constitutional in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977). However, in 2016, the Supreme Court split 4-4 on this question in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.L. Camille Hebert, Carter C. Kissell Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law at Ohio State UniversityWilliam L. Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right To Work Legal Defense FoundationModerator: Robert Alt, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Buckeye Institute

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is scheduled for oral argument in the Supreme Court on February 26. This important case will determine whether it is constitutional for public sector unions to require all employees to pay union fees regardless of their membership under the First Amendment. The ruling in Janus will also clarify whether the Court’s decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education to uphold these requirements will remain good law. Ray J. LaJeunesse of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation joins us to discuss his impressions of oral argument.Featuring: Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr., Vice President and Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc. Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is scheduled for oral argument in the Supreme Court on February 26. This important case will determine whether it is constitutional for public sector unions to require all employees to pay union fees regardless of their membership under the First Amendment. The ruling in Janus will also clarify whether the Court’s decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education to uphold these requirements will remain good law. Ray J. LaJeunesse of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation joins us to discuss his impressions of oral argument.Featuring: Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr., Vice President and Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc. Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees is scheduled for oral argument in the Supreme Court on February 26. This important case will determine whether it is constitutional for public sector unions to require all employees to pay union fees regardless of their membership under the First Amendment. The ruling in Janus will also clarify whether the Court’s decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education to uphold these requirements will remain good law.Featuring:Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; Editor-In-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court ReviewWilliam Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In this fast-breaking episode, Thomas and Andrew preview a significant labor case scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court this coming Monday, Janus v. AFSCME.  You'll know all about it before the news breaks! In the initial segment, "Andrew Was Wrong" returns with listener criticism over our repetition of the common media statement that Parkland was the "18th" school shooting of 2018. After that, Andrew walks us through Janus v. AFSCME and its implications on the future of unions. Next, the guys revisit ex-Google employee James Damore and discuss the significance of a recent memorandum issued by the National Labor Relations Board regarding his termination.  Is The Most Important Lawsuit In The History of Western Civilization still on track?  Listen and find out. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #64 about criminal dog law.  You won't want to miss it!  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Check out the NEW PODCAST created by our very own Thomas Smith and friend-of-the-show Aaron Rabi, "Philosophers in Space."  You'll be glad you did! Show Notes & Links Janus is, in fact, the angry god of doorways. We covered the Parkland school shooting in Episode 148. This is the Washington Post article critical of the "Everytown for Gun Safety" statistics, and here is a link to Everytown's actual database of incidents.  Judge for yourself! Here is Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), discussed extensively during the show. You can read the NLRB memo advising dismissal here. We covered the (still-pending) James Damore lawsuit on Episode 111 of Serious Inquiries Only. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees is scheduled for oral argument in the Supreme Court on February 26. This important case will determine whether it is constitutional for public sector unions to require all employees to pay union fees regardless of their membership under the First Amendment. The ruling in Janus will also clarify whether the Court’s decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education to uphold these requirements will remain good law.Featuring:Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; Editor-In-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court ReviewWilliam Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Alicia Hickok and Eugene Volokh join National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss a major Supreme Court case about public-union dues. The Supreme Court is considering arguments in a case that could have a huge effect on public-section unions and their membership. The case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) will be heard on February 26 at the Court. The question in front of the nine Justices is if public-sector “agency shop” arrangements -- payments that workers represented by a union must pay even if they are not dues-paying members -- should be invalidated under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court said in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) that government employees who don’t belong to a union can be required to pay for union contract negotiating costs that benefit to all public employees, including non-union members. The Abood decision has been challenged in court several times, and an evenly divided Court couldn’t decide a similar case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in 2016.  This time, a full Court will consider the issue. Alicia Hickok is a Partner at the law firm Drinker Biddle and a Lecturer in law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She wrote an amicus brief in the Janus case on behalf of the Rutherford Institute, siding with Janus’s position. Eugene Volokh is Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA Law School. He co-wrote an amicus brief in Janus with Will Baude siding with the union. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org And don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/survey The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Penny Bailer retired in 2015 after 32 years of nonprofit leadership: 14yrs, Executive Director, City Year Detroit and 17yrs, CEO, Michigan Metro Girl Scout Council, receiving CRAIN’s 2nd annual “Best Managed Nonprofit” award. In 1976, Penny helped Co-Found the DPS Golightly Education Center where her children attended grades 1-8.  She served as Founding President of the Golightly Parent Organization.  Golightly was later named a National Blue Ribbon School.  In 1990-94, Penny was elected/served on the Detroit Board of Education.  She earned her Executive MBA/Advanced Management degree/1989 at MSU/Troy and a BFA in Music/Piano Performance, UGA/1962.    Penny serves on/leads several nonprofit boards, including New Detroit and the Detroit Riverfront Conservancy; Chair, Detroit Promise Zone Authority; Vice Chair, Detroit Housing Commission; Education/Co-Chair, Clark Park/Osborn Promise Neighborhood; Board/Chair, Detroit Collegiate Prep @ Northwestern HS.  She is on the boards of Detroit Rotary, City Connect Detroit and the WSU College of Education.  She served on the Governance Committee of the Coalition for the Future of Detroit Schoolchildren and is a Facilitator for Citizen Detroit.  More info: http://www.pennybailer.com Follow our hashtag #ignite2impact  Please share this podcast, *subscribe in iTunes and leave a review

On February 26, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a case that has the potential to overturn a 40-year-old precedent (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education) that allows public-sector unions to charge nonmembers “agency fees.” Currently, half the states have laws that enable such fees. Mark Janus—an Illinois state employee but not a union member—objects generally to being required to pay AFSCME, as well as to these funds being used to support the union’s ongoing legal fight against the governor’s policy reforms. Janus sued the union for violating his First Amendment rights by compelling these payments. In addition to their responses to that constitutional claim, AFSCME and Illinois have argued throughout the litigation that stare decisis—the prudential doctrine regarding judicial respect for settled precedent—demands that Abood be maintained. Cato filed a brief discussing the historical underpinnings of stare decisis and contending that a proper understanding of stare decisis actually demands that Abood be overturned. Please join us for a discussion of a case pitting workers’ rights against union rights and state powers—one that may accomplish the rare feat of reversing Supreme Court precedent. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Penny served as Executive Director of City Year Detroit (CYD) from 2001-2015, responsible for Michigan’s largest AmeriCorps program, retiring in 2015.  During that period, over 1,000 young adult “corps members” served full time with CYD for up to two years each, providing data-driven all day academic classroom tutoring, mentoring and role modeling to thousands of Detroit’s school children, keeping them “in school and on track to graduation.”  City Year also partners (in 28 cities nationally including Detroit) with Johns Hopkins University and Communities in Schools, Inc. for their U. S. Dept of Education-funded Invest in Innovation (i3) award-winning school transformation model called Diplomas Now.  Penny served for over 17 years (1983-2000) as Executive Director/CEO of the Michigan Metro Girl Scout Council in Detroit, increasing the girl membership from 21,000 to 43,000 and registered adult volunteers from 6,000 to 14,000 and proudly earning the 1992 CRAIN’s “Best Managed Non Profit Award.”  She was elected to the Detroit Board of Education (1990-94) and in 1997 was named one of of CRAIN’s Detroit Business “100 Most Influential Women.”  Since 1979, Penny has served on and led numerous non-profit and civic boards in Detroit, focused primarily on youth, education and Detroit’s revitalization.  In 2014, Mayor Mike Duggan appointed her to the Detroit Promise Zone Authority, which she chairs and which provides free college tuition to Detroit residents who graduate from Detroit high schools; the mayor also appointed her to the board of the Detroit Housing Commission, for which she was elected Vice Chair.  She currently serves on the boards of New Detroit, Detroit Riverfront Conservancy, City Connect Detroit and Detroit Rotary, of which she will become President in 2019-20.   She served on the Governance Committee of the Coalition for the Future of Detroit Schoolchildren throughout its tenure January-March 2015.  In 1976, she was a Co-Founder of the DPS Golightly Education Center (K-8)  -- which was attended by both her children and later named a National Blue Ribbon School by President Clinton.  In 2012, she was named Chair of the Self Governing School Council for Detroit Collegiate Preparatory High School @ Northwestern, a DPS/Diplomas Now High School, where she continues to serve as Chair. In June 2017, Penny proudly represented Michigan in swimming at the bi-centennial National Senior Games (aka “national senior olympics) and plans to continue to work hard to continually qualify, if so fortunate, throughout the rest of her life. Bailer earned an Executive MBA from the Advanced Management Program at the Eli Broad School of Management in 1989 from MSU’s Troy Graduate School Campus and a BFA in Music/Piano Performance in 1962 from the University of Georgia near her hometown of Atlanta, after which she did 1 year of graduate work toward a Master’s degree in Music (Piano) at Pennsylvania State University.  In July 2011, she was awarded a Harvard Business School scholarship by the HBS Detroit Alumni Club for an executive education week at HBS: Strategic Perspectives in Nonprofit Management (SPNM).   More info: www.pennybailer.com Follow our hashtag #ignite2impact  Please share this podcast, *subscribe in iTunes and leave a review

In 1977 in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that public employees, including school teachers, could legally be required to pay a fee if they refuse to join a public-sector union. According to the Detroit Board of Education, the fee was necessary to off-set the costs the union incurred while bargaining on behalf of union and non-union members alike. -- A similar case came to the Supreme Court in 2014, but the Supreme Court did not answer the primary question of Abood, instead ruling that the public employees in question were not actually public employees. Last year, the Supreme Court was left in deadlock in a similar case on the same issue after Justice Scalia’s passing. -- Janus v. AFSCME, brought by an employee of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services who does not believe he should be legally obliged to join a union, is pending cert in the Supreme Court. William Messenger, Staff Attorney at the National Right to Work Foundation, joined us to discuss the probability of Janus being heard at the Court and what that could mean for the future of public-sector employees and unions. -- Featuring: William L. Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association was anticipated to be one of the most significant cases of the Supreme Court’s term. In Friedrichs, the Court was considering whether to overrule its prior decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), which held that public employees can be required to financially support union collective-bargaining with government, but not union political activities. In 2014, the Court sharply criticized Abood’s rationales in Harris v. Quinn, but stopped short of overruling it. Friedrichs was primed to be the final word on Abood’s continuing validity. However, with Justice Scalia’s passing in February, the Court deadlocked 4-4 in Friedrichs, and Abood remains the law of land. -- This Teleforum explored the legal landscape post-Friedrichs. This includes the other cases challenging Abood that are pending in the lower courts, and the legal arguments for and against upholding Abood. It also includes cases that concern related matters, such as whether individuals can be required to affirmatively object to paying “non-chargeable” union dues under Abood, and whether individuals who are not full-fledged employees can be included in systems of exclusive representation in the wake of Harris. -- Featuring: Scott A. Kronland, Partner, Altshuler Berzon LLP and William Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

On March 29, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. A group of public school employees sued the California Teachers Association and various other entities, arguing that the agency shop arrangement itself--as well as the opt-out requirement--violated the First Amendment. The district court denied their claim and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed based on existing precedent and the 1997 Supreme Court decision Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. The two questions before the Supreme Court were (1) whether the Abood precedent should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment; and (2) whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech. -- In a one-sentence per curiam opinion, the judgment of the Ninth Circuit was affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court, a 4-4 split. -- To discuss the case, we have Richard A. Epstein, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law and Professor Emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

On January 11, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. Under California law and existing Supreme Court precedent, unions can become the exclusive bargaining representative for the public school employees of their district and establish an “agency shop” arrangement requiring public school employees either to join the union or pay a fee to support the union’s collective bargaining activities. Although the First Amendment prohibits unions from compelling non-members to support activities unrelated to collective bargaining, in California non-members must affirmatively “opt out” to avoid paying for these unrelated or “nonchargeable” expenses. -- Here a group of public school employees sued the California Teachers Association and various other entities, arguing that the agency shop arrangement itself--as well as the opt-out requirement--violated the First Amendment. The district court denied their claim and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed based on existing precedent and the 1997 Supreme Court decision Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. -- The two questions now before the Supreme Court are: (1) Whether the Abood precedent should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment; and (2) whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech. -- To discuss the case, we have Richard A. Epstein, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law and Professor Emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.