Podcasts about Earl Warren

DUKE ELLINGTON AND HIS ORCHESTRA “AND HIS MOTHER CALLED HIM BILL” New York, August 28, 1967Blood count (ct out), Upper Manhattan Medical Group, Raincheck (ct out), Lotus blossom (DE piano solo)Cat Anderson, Herbie Jones, Cootie Williams, Mercer Ellington (tp) Clark Terry (flhrn) Lawrence Brown, Buster Cooper, Chuck Connors (tb) Jimmy Hamilton (cl,ts) Russell Procope (as,cl) Johnny Hodges (as) Paul Gonsalves (ts) Harry Carney (bar,cl,b-cl) Duke Ellington (p) Aaron Bell (b) Steve Little (d) JIMMY RUSHING “AND HIS ALL STARS” Brooklyn, NY, August 16, 1955Everyday (I have the blues), Evenin', Don't cry babyJimmy Rushing (vcl) acc by Emmett Berry (tp) Lawrence Brown (tb) Rudy Powell (as,cl) Buddy Tate (ts) Pete Johnson (p) Freddie Green (g) Walter Page (b) Jo Jones (d) BUCK CLAYTON “BUCKIN' THE BLUES” Brooklyn, NY, March 14, 1957 Buck huckles, Claytonia, The queen's expressBuck Clayton (tp) Vic Dickenson (tb) Earl Warren (as) Hank Jones (p) Kenny Burrell (el-g) Aaron Bell (b) Jo Jones (d) Continue reading Puro Jazz 27 de mayo, 2025 at PuroJazz.

DUKE ELLINGTON AND HIS ORCHESTRA “AND HIS MOTHER CALLED HIM BILL” New York, August 28, 1967Blood count (ct out), Upper Manhattan Medical Group, Raincheck (ct out), Lotus blossom (DE piano solo)Cat Anderson, Herbie Jones, Cootie Williams, Mercer Ellington (tp) Clark Terry (flhrn) Lawrence Brown, Buster Cooper, Chuck Connors (tb) Jimmy Hamilton (cl,ts) Russell Procope (as,cl) Johnny Hodges (as) Paul Gonsalves (ts) Harry Carney (bar,cl,b-cl) Duke Ellington (p) Aaron Bell (b) Steve Little (d) JIMMY RUSHING “AND HIS ALL STARS” Brooklyn, NY, August 16, 1955Everyday (I have the blues), Evenin', Don't cry babyJimmy Rushing (vcl) acc by Emmett Berry (tp) Lawrence Brown (tb) Rudy Powell (as,cl) Buddy Tate (ts) Pete Johnson (p) Freddie Green (g) Walter Page (b) Jo Jones (d) BUCK CLAYTON “BUCKIN' THE BLUES” Brooklyn, NY, March 14, 1957 Buck huckles, Claytonia, The queen's expressBuck Clayton (tp) Vic Dickenson (tb) Earl Warren (as) Hank Jones (p) Kenny Burrell (el-g) Aaron Bell (b) Jo Jones (d) Continue reading Puro Jazz 27 de mayo, 2025 at PuroJazz.

Support us on Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/user?u=4279967Jack Benny TV Videocasthttps://open.spotify.com/show/6BDar4CsgVEyUloEQ8sWpw?si=89123269fe144a10Jack Benny Show OTR Podcast!https://open.spotify.com/show/3UZ6NSEL7RPxOXUoQ4NiDP?si=987ab6e776a7468cJudy Garland and Friends OTR Podcasthttps://open.spotify.com/show/5ZKJYkgHOIjQzZWCt1a1NN?si=538b47b50852483dStrange New Worlds Of Dimension X-1 Podcasthttps://open.spotify.com/show/6hFMGUvEdaYqPBoxy00sOk?si=a37cc300a8e247a1Buck Benny YouTube Channelhttps://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrOoc1Q5bllBgQA469XNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1707891281/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.youtube.com%2f%40BuckBenny/RK=2/RS=nVp4LDJhOmL70bh7eeCi6DPNdW4-Support us on Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/user?u=4279967

  Steve has been keeping busy, slowly going through the 80,000 pages from the recently declassified JFK files. Seasoned JFK researchers who know the historic material will be able to make sense of the new JFK files. Len & Steve discuss the JFK Task Force headed by Congresswoman Anna Luna & the recent hearings. Steve finds Luna as being forthcoming & capable to the task of heading this new JFK task force. Steve is proud of his friendship with JFK researcher & author, Jefferson Morley, founder of JFK Facts website. Visit here. Oliver Stone will never be forgotten by the JFK researching community. His contributions have been priceless. The JFK movie by Oliver Stone was released in 1992, 2nd documentary Destiny Betrayed was 2021. Mr. X played by Donald Sutherland was based off the personal testimony of Col. L.Fletcher Prouty. It was beneficial to the research committee to have Oliver Stone at the first JFK hearing of the Luna Committee in Congress. They murdered JFK & got away with it, with Dulles guarding all information. Earl Warren and others never wanted to head the commission, they were ordered to by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Steve discusses the importance of the cover up with Len mentioning CE #399 and that unbelievable lie. All of the new observations fail to produce any evidence of the government’s false claims that "Oswald did it". Steve met Mark Lane in 1966 shortly after the release of Rush To Judgment. Mark introduced Steve to Jim Garrison. Jim wanted to know if Steve had any skills when Steve offered to volunteer to help Jim with his JFK investigation. Steve had read all 26 volumes of Warren Commission testimony & exhibits, with experience in photography at UCLA. Overloaded with film & photographic evidence, Garrison hired Steve as a forensic investigator in charge of this material. Steve feels the biggest discovery from this photographic & video evidence is the Zapruder film! Garrison sent Steve to the National Archives to view the unedited version of the Zapruder film. It was shockingly clear. Steve was also communicating with a liason with French Intelligence SDECE & was sent to Paris in June of 1968. French Intelligence gave Steve a copy of their near perfect copy of the Zapruder film. Film was disguised for trip to USA. Steve made copies to anyone who wanted one, he sent many films to JFK assassination researchers. JFK couldn't have been shot from the front & the back, by anyone shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD building. Len believes this week there will be a release of the assassination of Robert Kennedy at the Ambassador Hotel. All photos related to the assassinations should be released for public scrutiny. These are MURDER investigations. What happened in Dealey Plaza was a highly conscious and intentional act to completely change the direction of history. Churchill called the people who really control global politics the "High Cabal". Stay tuned for a new release this fall by Steve Jaffe, he's been busy working on a new book! Stay tuned! Until you start doing the deep research, you truly have no idea have no idea of the many lies that are told by the government. JFK's assassination completely changed the course of history, We still feel these effects. Part Two Paul Bleau @ 31:45 "The JFK Assassination Chokeholds: That Prove There Was A Conspiracy". Website "The Pepe Letters" Read here. Len & Paul discuss the latest in Paul's research & the JFK document release. Paul has an interest in the Fair Play For Cuba Committee. When Oswald joined this committee, Lee was on a mission. New Orleans wouldn't have had any appetite for communist sympathy after the Cuban Missile Crisis in the summer of 1963. Despite the logical failure of such a committee, Lee opens up a public chapter of the FPFC in New Orleans. Creation of such a committee in NO could have caused Castro issues regarding trade ...

THE SOUND OF JAZZ CBS 30TH STREET STUDIOS New York, December 5, 1957Open All NightEmmett Berry, Doc Cheatham, Roy Eldridge, Joe Newman (tp) Vic Dickenson, Frank Rehak, Dicky Wells (tb) Earl Warren (as) Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young (ts) Harry Carney (bar) Count Basie (p) Freddie Green (g) Eddie Jones (b) Jo Jones (d) Pierce (arr)Wild man blues, RosettaHenry “Red” Allen (tp,vcl) Rex Stewart (cnt) Vic Dickenson (tb) Pee Wee Russell (cl) Coleman Hawkins (ts) Nat Pierce (p) Danny Barker (g) Milt Hinton (b) Jo Jones (d)I left my Baby, Dickie's Dream. Continue reading Puro Jazz 30 de diciembre, 2024 at PuroJazz.

THE SOUND OF JAZZ CBS 30TH STREET STUDIOS New York, December 5, 1957Open All NightEmmett Berry, Doc Cheatham, Roy Eldridge, Joe Newman (tp) Vic Dickenson, Frank Rehak, Dicky Wells (tb) Earl Warren (as) Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young (ts) Harry Carney (bar) Count Basie (p) Freddie Green (g) Eddie Jones (b) Jo Jones (d) Pierce (arr)Wild man blues, RosettaHenry “Red” Allen (tp,vcl) Rex Stewart (cnt) Vic Dickenson (tb) Pee Wee Russell (cl) Coleman Hawkins (ts) Nat Pierce (p) Danny Barker (g) Milt Hinton (b) Jo Jones (d)I left my Baby, Dickie's Dream. Continue reading Puro Jazz 30 de diciembre, 2024 at PuroJazz.

In this final episode of Season 2, we continue summarizing the big questions we covered this season, including: Did Lee Harvey Oswald Travel to Mexico City? What did LBJ mean when he told Earl Warren about a little incident in Mexico City? What was the role of Ruth and Michael Paine as it relates to Oswald?  Did Oswald have intelligence connections? Was Oswald impersonated? and what was Oswald up to at the end of the day? Twitter - https://twitter.com/solvingjfk Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/solvingjfk Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/solvingjfkpodcast Tik Tok - https://www.tiktok.com/@solvingjfk Transcripts and Sources - https://www.solvingjfkpodcast.com

In this special episode we hear the Hon. Jed S. Rakoff – Senior Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of New York – deliver a speech to the Association entitled "The U.S. Supreme Court's History as a Regressive Institution." Judge Rakoff's speech is part of City Bar's Benjamin N. Cardozo Lecture Series, which is inspired by the legacy of Benjamin N. Cardozo "and his love for the law, passion for justice and sympathy for humanity." First presented in 1941, previous speakers in the series have included Robert H. Jackson, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Earl Warren, William J. Brennan, Jr., Marian Wright Edelman, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, among many others. Judge Rakoff was introduced by Judge Raymond Lohier, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, after a welcome from City Bar President Muhammad Faridi.

The JFK Assassination Part Two November 22, 1963: Death of the President Shortly after noon on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated as he rode in a motorcade through Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas, Texas. By the fall of 1963, President John F. Kennedy and his political advisers were preparing for the next presidential campaign. Although he had not formally announced his candidacy, it was clear that President Kennedy was going to run and he seemed confident about his chances for re-election. At the end of September, the president traveled west, speaking in nine different states in less than a week. The trip was meant to put a spotlight on natural resources and conservation efforts. But JFK also used it to sound out themes—such as education, national security, and world peace—for his run in 1964. Campaigning in Texas A month later, the president addressed Democratic gatherings in Boston and Philadelphia. Then, on November 12, he held the first important political planning session for the upcoming election year. At the meeting, JFK stressed the importance of winning Florida and Texas and talked about his plans to visit both states in the next two weeks.  Mrs. Kennedy would accompany him on the swing through Texas, which would be her first extended public appearance since the loss of their baby, Patrick, in August. On November 21, the president and first lady departed on Air Force One for the two-day, five-city tour of Texas. President Kennedy was aware that a feud among party leaders in Texas could jeopardize his chances of carrying the state in 1964, and one of his aims for the trip was to bring Democrats together. He also knew that a relatively small but vocal group of extremists was contributing to the political tensions in Texas and would likely make its presence felt—particularly in Dallas, where US Ambassador to the United Nations Adlai Stevenson had been physically attacked a month earlier after making a speech there. Nonetheless, JFK seemed to relish the prospect of leaving Washington, getting out among the people and into the political fray. The first stop was San Antonio. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, Governor John B. Connally, and Senator Ralph W. Yarborough led the welcoming party. They accompanied the president to Brooks Air Force Base for the dedication of the Aerospace Medical Health Center. Continuing on to Houston, he addressed the League of United Latin American Citizens, and spoke at a testimonial dinner for Congressman Albert Thomas before ending the day in Fort Worth. Morning in Fort Worth A light rain was falling on Friday morning, November 22, but a crowd of several thousand stood in the parking lot outside the Texas Hotel where the Kennedys had spent the night. A platform was set up and the president, wearing no protection against the weather, came out to make some brief remarks. "There are no faint hearts in Fort Worth," he began, "and I appreciate your being here this morning. Mrs. Kennedy is organizing herself. It takes longer, but, of course, she looks better than we do when she does it." He went on to talk about the nation's need for being "second to none" in defense and in space, for continued growth in the economy and "the willingness of citizens of the United States to assume the burdens of leadership." The warmth of the audience response was palpable as the president reached out to shake hands amidst a sea of smiling faces. Back inside the hotel the president spoke at a breakfast of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, focusing on military preparedness. "We are still the keystone in the arch of freedom," he said. "We will continue to do…our duty, and the people of Texas will be in the lead." On to Dallas The presidential party left the hotel and went by motorcade to Carswell Air Force Base for the thirteen-minute flight to Dallas. Arriving at Love Field, President and Mrs. Kennedy disembarked and immediately walked toward a fence where a crowd of well-wishers had gathered, and they spent several minutes shaking hands. The first lady received a bouquet of red roses, which she brought with her to the waiting limousine. Governor John Connally and his wife, Nellie, were already seated in the open convertible as the Kennedys entered and sat behind them. Since it was no longer raining, the plastic bubble top had been left off. Vice President and Mrs. Johnson occupied another car in the motorcade. The procession left the airport and traveled along a ten-mile route that wound through downtown Dallas on the way to the Trade Mart where the President was scheduled to speak at a luncheon. The Assassination Crowds of excited people lined the streets and waved to the Kennedys. The car turned off Main Street at Dealey Plaza around 12:30 p.m. As it was passing the Texas School Book Depository, gunfire suddenly reverberated in the plaza. Bullets struck the president's neck and head and he slumped over toward Mrs. Kennedy. The governor was shot in his back.  The car sped off to Parkland Memorial Hospital just a few minutes away. But little could be done for the President. A Catholic priest was summoned to administer the last rites, and at 1:00 p.m. John F. Kennedy was pronounced dead. Though seriously wounded, Governor Connally would recover. The president's body was brought to Love Field and placed on Air Force One. Before the plane took off, a grim-faced Lyndon B. Johnson stood in the tight, crowded compartment and took the oath of office, administered by US District Court Judge Sarah Hughes. The brief ceremony took place at 2:38 p.m. Less than an hour earlier, police had arrested Lee Harvey Oswald, a recently hired employee at the Texas School Book Depository. He was being held for the assassination of President Kennedy and the fatal shooting, shortly afterward, of Patrolman J. D. Tippit on a Dallas street. On Sunday morning, November 24, Oswald was scheduled to be transferred from police headquarters to the county jail. Viewers across America watching the live television coverage suddenly saw a man aim a pistol and fire at point blank range. The assailant was identified as Jack Ruby, a local nightclub owner. Oswald died two hours later at Parkland Hospital. The President's Funeral That same day, President Kennedy's flag-draped casket was moved from the White House to the Capitol on a caisson drawn by six grey horses, accompanied by one riderless black horse. At Mrs. Kennedy's request, the cortege and other ceremonial details were modeled on the funeral of Abraham Lincoln. Crowds lined Pennsylvania Avenue and many wept openly as the caisson passed. During the 21 hours that the president's body lay in state in the Capitol Rotunda, about 250,000 people filed by to pay their respects. On Monday, November 25, 1963 President Kennedy was laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery. The funeral was attended by heads of state and representatives from more than 100 countries, with untold millions more watching on television. Afterward, at the grave site, Mrs. Kennedy and her husband's brothers, Robert and Edward, lit an eternal flame. Perhaps the most indelible images of the day were the salute to his father given by little John F. Kennedy Jr. (whose third birthday it was), daughter Caroline kneeling next to her mother at the president's bier, and the extraordinary grace and dignity shown by Jacqueline Kennedy. As people throughout the nation and the world struggled to make sense of a senseless act and to articulate their feelings about President Kennedy's life and legacy, many recalled these words from his inaugural address: All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days, nor in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this administration. Nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin. Arlington National Cemetery To learn more about President Kennedy's funeral and grave site, go to the Arlington National Cemetery website. Aftermath The Warren Commission On November 29, 1963 President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. It came to be known as the Warren Commission after its chairman, Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States. President Johnson directed the commission to evaluate matters relating to the assassination and the subsequent killing of the alleged assassin, and to report its findings and conclusions to him. The House Select Committee on Assassinations The US House of Representatives established the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976 to reopen the investigation of the assassination in light of allegations that previous inquiries had not received the full cooperation of federal agencies. Note to the reader: Point 1B in the link below to the findings of the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations states that the committee had found "a high probability that two gunmen fired" at the president. This conclusion resulted from the last-minute “discovery” of a Dallas police radio transmission tape that allegedly provided evidence that four or more shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. After the report appeared in print, acoustic experts analyzed the tape and proved conclusively that it was completely worthless—thus negating the finding in Point 1B. The committee, which also investigated the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., issued its report on March 29, 1979. Assassination Records Collection Through the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, the US Congress ordered that all assassination-related material be housed together under supervision of the National Archives and Records Administration.  

The JFK Assassination The Final Part November 22, 1963: Death of the President Shortly after noon on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated as he rode in a motorcade through Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas, Texas. By the fall of 1963, President John F. Kennedy and his political advisers were preparing for the next presidential campaign. Although he had not formally announced his candidacy, it was clear that President Kennedy was going to run and he seemed confident about his chances for re-election. At the end of September, the president traveled west, speaking in nine different states in less than a week. The trip was meant to put a spotlight on natural resources and conservation efforts. But JFK also used it to sound out themes—such as education, national security, and world peace—for his run in 1964. Campaigning in Texas A month later, the president addressed Democratic gatherings in Boston and Philadelphia. Then, on November 12, he held the first important political planning session for the upcoming election year. At the meeting, JFK stressed the importance of winning Florida and Texas and talked about his plans to visit both states in the next two weeks.  Mrs. Kennedy would accompany him on the swing through Texas, which would be her first extended public appearance since the loss of their baby, Patrick, in August. On November 21, the president and first lady departed on Air Force One for the two-day, five-city tour of Texas. President Kennedy was aware that a feud among party leaders in Texas could jeopardize his chances of carrying the state in 1964, and one of his aims for the trip was to bring Democrats together. He also knew that a relatively small but vocal group of extremists was contributing to the political tensions in Texas and would likely make its presence felt—particularly in Dallas, where US Ambassador to the United Nations Adlai Stevenson had been physically attacked a month earlier after making a speech there. Nonetheless, JFK seemed to relish the prospect of leaving Washington, getting out among the people and into the political fray. The first stop was San Antonio. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, Governor John B. Connally, and Senator Ralph W. Yarborough led the welcoming party. They accompanied the president to Brooks Air Force Base for the dedication of the Aerospace Medical Health Center. Continuing on to Houston, he addressed the League of United Latin American Citizens, and spoke at a testimonial dinner for Congressman Albert Thomas before ending the day in Fort Worth. Morning in Fort Worth A light rain was falling on Friday morning, November 22, but a crowd of several thousand stood in the parking lot outside the Texas Hotel where the Kennedys had spent the night. A platform was set up and the president, wearing no protection against the weather, came out to make some brief remarks. "There are no faint hearts in Fort Worth," he began, "and I appreciate your being here this morning. Mrs. Kennedy is organizing herself. It takes longer, but, of course, she looks better than we do when she does it." He went on to talk about the nation's need for being "second to none" in defense and in space, for continued growth in the economy and "the willingness of citizens of the United States to assume the burdens of leadership." The warmth of the audience response was palpable as the president reached out to shake hands amidst a sea of smiling faces. Back inside the hotel the president spoke at a breakfast of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, focusing on military preparedness. "We are still the keystone in the arch of freedom," he said. "We will continue to do…our duty, and the people of Texas will be in the lead." On to Dallas The presidential party left the hotel and went by motorcade to Carswell Air Force Base for the thirteen-minute flight to Dallas. Arriving at Love Field, President and Mrs. Kennedy disembarked and immediately walked toward a fence where a crowd of well-wishers had gathered, and they spent several minutes shaking hands. The first lady received a bouquet of red roses, which she brought with her to the waiting limousine. Governor John Connally and his wife, Nellie, were already seated in the open convertible as the Kennedys entered and sat behind them. Since it was no longer raining, the plastic bubble top had been left off. Vice President and Mrs. Johnson occupied another car in the motorcade. The procession left the airport and traveled along a ten-mile route that wound through downtown Dallas on the way to the Trade Mart where the President was scheduled to speak at a luncheon. The Assassination Crowds of excited people lined the streets and waved to the Kennedys. The car turned off Main Street at Dealey Plaza around 12:30 p.m. As it was passing the Texas School Book Depository, gunfire suddenly reverberated in the plaza. Bullets struck the president's neck and head and he slumped over toward Mrs. Kennedy. The governor was shot in his back.  The car sped off to Parkland Memorial Hospital just a few minutes away. But little could be done for the President. A Catholic priest was summoned to administer the last rites, and at 1:00 p.m. John F. Kennedy was pronounced dead. Though seriously wounded, Governor Connally would recover. The president's body was brought to Love Field and placed on Air Force One. Before the plane took off, a grim-faced Lyndon B. Johnson stood in the tight, crowded compartment and took the oath of office, administered by US District Court Judge Sarah Hughes. The brief ceremony took place at 2:38 p.m. Less than an hour earlier, police had arrested Lee Harvey Oswald, a recently hired employee at the Texas School Book Depository. He was being held for the assassination of President Kennedy and the fatal shooting, shortly afterward, of Patrolman J. D. Tippit on a Dallas street. On Sunday morning, November 24, Oswald was scheduled to be transferred from police headquarters to the county jail. Viewers across America watching the live television coverage suddenly saw a man aim a pistol and fire at point blank range. The assailant was identified as Jack Ruby, a local nightclub owner. Oswald died two hours later at Parkland Hospital. The President's Funeral That same day, President Kennedy's flag-draped casket was moved from the White House to the Capitol on a caisson drawn by six grey horses, accompanied by one riderless black horse. At Mrs. Kennedy's request, the cortege and other ceremonial details were modeled on the funeral of Abraham Lincoln. Crowds lined Pennsylvania Avenue and many wept openly as the caisson passed. During the 21 hours that the president's body lay in state in the Capitol Rotunda, about 250,000 people filed by to pay their respects. On Monday, November 25, 1963 President Kennedy was laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery. The funeral was attended by heads of state and representatives from more than 100 countries, with untold millions more watching on television. Afterward, at the grave site, Mrs. Kennedy and her husband's brothers, Robert and Edward, lit an eternal flame. Perhaps the most indelible images of the day were the salute to his father given by little John F. Kennedy Jr. (whose third birthday it was), daughter Caroline kneeling next to her mother at the president's bier, and the extraordinary grace and dignity shown by Jacqueline Kennedy. As people throughout the nation and the world struggled to make sense of a senseless act and to articulate their feelings about President Kennedy's life and legacy, many recalled these words from his inaugural address: All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days, nor in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this administration. Nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin. Arlington National Cemetery To learn more about President Kennedy's funeral and grave site, go to the Arlington National Cemetery website. Aftermath The Warren Commission On November 29, 1963 President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. It came to be known as the Warren Commission after its chairman, Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States. President Johnson directed the commission to evaluate matters relating to the assassination and the subsequent killing of the alleged assassin, and to report its findings and conclusions to him. The House Select Committee on Assassinations The US House of Representatives established the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976 to reopen the investigation of the assassination in light of allegations that previous inquiries had not received the full cooperation of federal agencies. Note to the reader: Point 1B in the link below to the findings of the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations states that the committee had found "a high probability that two gunmen fired" at the president. This conclusion resulted from the last-minute “discovery” of a Dallas police radio transmission tape that allegedly provided evidence that four or more shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. After the report appeared in print, acoustic experts analyzed the tape and proved conclusively that it was completely worthless—thus negating the finding in Point 1B. The committee, which also investigated the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., issued its report on March 29, 1979. Assassination Records Collection Through the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, the US Congress ordered that all assassination-related material be housed together under supervision of the National Archives and Records Administration.  

  The JFK Assassination Part One  November 22, 1963: Death of the President Shortly after noon on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated as he rode in a motorcade through Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas, Texas. By the fall of 1963, President John F. Kennedy and his political advisers were preparing for the next presidential campaign. Although he had not formally announced his candidacy, it was clear that President Kennedy was going to run and he seemed confident about his chances for re-election. At the end of September, the president traveled west, speaking in nine different states in less than a week. The trip was meant to put a spotlight on natural resources and conservation efforts. But JFK also used it to sound out themes—such as education, national security, and world peace—for his run in 1964. Campaigning in Texas A month later, the president addressed Democratic gatherings in Boston and Philadelphia. Then, on November 12, he held the first important political planning session for the upcoming election year. At the meeting, JFK stressed the importance of winning Florida and Texas and talked about his plans to visit both states in the next two weeks.  Mrs. Kennedy would accompany him on the swing through Texas, which would be her first extended public appearance since the loss of their baby, Patrick, in August. On November 21, the president and first lady departed on Air Force One for the two-day, five-city tour of Texas. President Kennedy was aware that a feud among party leaders in Texas could jeopardize his chances of carrying the state in 1964, and one of his aims for the trip was to bring Democrats together. He also knew that a relatively small but vocal group of extremists was contributing to the political tensions in Texas and would likely make its presence felt—particularly in Dallas, where US Ambassador to the United Nations Adlai Stevenson had been physically attacked a month earlier after making a speech there. Nonetheless, JFK seemed to relish the prospect of leaving Washington, getting out among the people and into the political fray. The first stop was San Antonio. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, Governor John B. Connally, and Senator Ralph W. Yarborough led the welcoming party. They accompanied the president to Brooks Air Force Base for the dedication of the Aerospace Medical Health Center. Continuing on to Houston, he addressed the League of United Latin American Citizens, and spoke at a testimonial dinner for Congressman Albert Thomas before ending the day in Fort Worth. Morning in Fort Worth A light rain was falling on Friday morning, November 22, but a crowd of several thousand stood in the parking lot outside the Texas Hotel where the Kennedys had spent the night. A platform was set up and the president, wearing no protection against the weather, came out to make some brief remarks. "There are no faint hearts in Fort Worth," he began, "and I appreciate your being here this morning. Mrs. Kennedy is organizing herself. It takes longer, but, of course, she looks better than we do when she does it." He went on to talk about the nation's need for being "second to none" in defense and in space, for continued growth in the economy and "the willingness of citizens of the United States to assume the burdens of leadership." The warmth of the audience response was palpable as the president reached out to shake hands amidst a sea of smiling faces. Back inside the hotel the president spoke at a breakfast of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, focusing on military preparedness. "We are still the keystone in the arch of freedom," he said. "We will continue to do…our duty, and the people of Texas will be in the lead." On to Dallas The presidential party left the hotel and went by motorcade to Carswell Air Force Base for the thirteen-minute flight to Dallas. Arriving at Love Field, President and Mrs. Kennedy disembarked and immediately walked toward a fence where a crowd of well-wishers had gathered, and they spent several minutes shaking hands. The first lady received a bouquet of red roses, which she brought with her to the waiting limousine. Governor John Connally and his wife, Nellie, were already seated in the open convertible as the Kennedys entered and sat behind them. Since it was no longer raining, the plastic bubble top had been left off. Vice President and Mrs. Johnson occupied another car in the motorcade. The procession left the airport and traveled along a ten-mile route that wound through downtown Dallas on the way to the Trade Mart where the President was scheduled to speak at a luncheon. The Assassination Crowds of excited people lined the streets and waved to the Kennedys. The car turned off Main Street at Dealey Plaza around 12:30 p.m. As it was passing the Texas School Book Depository, gunfire suddenly reverberated in the plaza. Bullets struck the president's neck and head and he slumped over toward Mrs. Kennedy. The governor was shot in his back.  The car sped off to Parkland Memorial Hospital just a few minutes away. But little could be done for the President. A Catholic priest was summoned to administer the last rites, and at 1:00 p.m. John F. Kennedy was pronounced dead. Though seriously wounded, Governor Connally would recover. The president's body was brought to Love Field and placed on Air Force One. Before the plane took off, a grim-faced Lyndon B. Johnson stood in the tight, crowded compartment and took the oath of office, administered by US District Court Judge Sarah Hughes. The brief ceremony took place at 2:38 p.m. Less than an hour earlier, police had arrested Lee Harvey Oswald, a recently hired employee at the Texas School Book Depository. He was being held for the assassination of President Kennedy and the fatal shooting, shortly afterward, of Patrolman J. D. Tippit on a Dallas street. On Sunday morning, November 24, Oswald was scheduled to be transferred from police headquarters to the county jail. Viewers across America watching the live television coverage suddenly saw a man aim a pistol and fire at point blank range. The assailant was identified as Jack Ruby, a local nightclub owner. Oswald died two hours later at Parkland Hospital. The President's Funeral That same day, President Kennedy's flag-draped casket was moved from the White House to the Capitol on a caisson drawn by six grey horses, accompanied by one riderless black horse. At Mrs. Kennedy's request, the cortege and other ceremonial details were modeled on the funeral of Abraham Lincoln. Crowds lined Pennsylvania Avenue and many wept openly as the caisson passed. During the 21 hours that the president's body lay in state in the Capitol Rotunda, about 250,000 people filed by to pay their respects. On Monday, November 25, 1963 President Kennedy was laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery. The funeral was attended by heads of state and representatives from more than 100 countries, with untold millions more watching on television. Afterward, at the grave site, Mrs. Kennedy and her husband's brothers, Robert and Edward, lit an eternal flame. Perhaps the most indelible images of the day were the salute to his father given by little John F. Kennedy Jr. (whose third birthday it was), daughter Caroline kneeling next to her mother at the president's bier, and the extraordinary grace and dignity shown by Jacqueline Kennedy. As people throughout the nation and the world struggled to make sense of a senseless act and to articulate their feelings about President Kennedy's life and legacy, many recalled these words from his inaugural address: All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days, nor in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this administration. Nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin. Arlington National Cemetery To learn more about President Kennedy's funeral and grave site, go to the Arlington National Cemetery website. Aftermath The Warren Commission On November 29, 1963 President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. It came to be known as the Warren Commission after its chairman, Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States. President Johnson directed the commission to evaluate matters relating to the assassination and the subsequent killing of the alleged assassin, and to report its findings and conclusions to him. The House Select Committee on Assassinations The US House of Representatives established the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976 to reopen the investigation of the assassination in light of allegations that previous inquiries had not received the full cooperation of federal agencies. Note to the reader: Point 1B in the link below to the findings of the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations states that the committee had found "a high probability that two gunmen fired" at the president. This conclusion resulted from the last-minute “discovery” of a Dallas police radio transmission tape that allegedly provided evidence that four or more shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. After the report appeared in print, acoustic experts analyzed the tape and proved conclusively that it was completely worthless—thus negating the finding in Point 1B. The committee, which also investigated the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., issued its report on March 29, 1979. Assassination Records Collection Through the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, the US Congress ordered that all assassination-related material be housed together under supervision of the National Archives and Records Administration.

Federal Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk discusses his memoir and provides priceless insights into how the Federal Circuit is operating today - 42 years after it was created in 1982 and 24 years after Dyk was confirmed to serve on it in 2000.This episode explores Dyk's perspectives on judges serving together at the Federal Circuit. His reflections and anecdotes offer a unique glimpse into the workings of the Federal Circuit, the decision-making process of a seasoned appellate judge, and various debates surrounding the Federal Circuit and judges retiring.Dyk was nominated to the Federal Circuit in 1998 by President Bill Clinton after clerking for Earl Warren at the Supreme Court and a distinguished career as an appellate attorney at the law firms of Wilmer Cutler and Jones Day. Selected Topics:* First introduction to patent law: office linoleum floors & yacht named Pat Pending* Role of chief judges setting court dynamics* Collegiality, dissents, and importance of individual personalities & relationships among judges* Judge Dyk's process for considering cases before oral arguments* Dyk's defense of Rule 36 decisions and insights into other Federal Circuit practices* Panel dependency & skepticism of empirical scholarship related to judicial decisions* Former clerks arguing cases before judges they clerked for* Providing additional jurisdiction to Federal Circuit* Cameras in federal courtrooms & privacy in intra-court deliberations* Judicial retirement decisions and importance of humility* Advice for effective oral and written advocacy before the Federal Circuit, including for amicus briefsNotable, Quotable:Biggest challenge"I think the biggest challenge for any Federal Circuit Judge in patent cases in particular is is dealing with the technology . . . getting the help that you need to understand the technology. It's really hard. And we need help from the bar, we need help from our clerks, and we need to be willing to spend a lot of time to wade through it."Role of collegiality"Collegiality makes for better decision making, first of all. And second of all, it makes it a nicer place to be. You get along with your colleagues. The job is a lot better."Qualities of best written briefs"A brief that is candid about what's going on, that recognizes that there's another side to it, that's nothing shrill, that's statesman like, that's objective. Those are the qualities that we value most."On Judge Pauline Newman“I always enjoyed sitting with Judge Newman. I enjoyed having Judge Newman as a colleague and occasionally we did panels together. I remember we went to NYU and presented ourselves as being close colleagues even though we disagreed a lot of the time. Judge Newman was a terrific colleague, and I enjoyed being her friend.”Disclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

l 22 de noviembre de 1963 John Fitzgerald Kennedy aterrizaba en Dallas durante una visita que pretendía potenciar la popularidad de los demócratas para las elecciones presidenciales del año siguiente. Pero a las 12:30 sucedió algo que cambió el rumbo de la historia. Tres disparos surgieron desde lo alto del Almacén de Libros de Texto de Texas. El primero fue desviado por un árbol e hirió a un testigo. El segundo alcanzó al presidente por la espalda y salió por su garganta. El último disparo penetró en el hueso parietal derecho de la cabeza de Kennedy. Solo una hora más tarde, los medios de comunicación de todo el mundo anunciaban su muerte. Pero, a pesar de los cientos de testigos, de la presencia de las cámaras de televisión y de los informes oficiales, lo que ocurrió aquel día sigue siendo un auténtico misterio… ¿Existió un segundo tirador? ¿Hubo una razón de peso para acabar con el presidente? ¿Ocultaron información las autoridades de la época? Para muchos expertos, las moderna teoría de la conspiración surgió con la muerte de JFK. Y es que el posterior asesinato de Lee Harvey Oswald, autor del magnicidio, mientras era trasladado a la prisión del condado, la rápida destrucción de pruebas que resultarían determinantes o la extraña trayectoria de algunas heridas de bala, levantaron serias dudas sobre la versión oficial… ¿Existió un segundo tirador? ¿Hubo una razón de peso para acabar con el presidente? ¿Ocultaron información las autoridades de la época? Hoy en día, tres de cada cuatro estadounidenses creen que el asesinato de Kennedy fue el resultado de una conspiración. Solo unas semanas después del asesinato, el presidente Lyndon B. Johnson creó una comisión de investigación a cargo del juez Earl Warren que derivó en un expediente de cinco millones de páginas. En las últimas fechas se han desclasificado cerca de 3.000 documentos que podrían esclarecer los hechos que sucedieron aquella jornada. Algunos de estos papeles hablan de periódicos que recibieron una llamada de aviso minutos antes de producirse el asesinato, o llegan a citar la posible existencia de un segundo tirador. Pero hay algo que llama aún más la atención de los investigadores: los cerca de 300 archivos que, por ahora, seguirán siendo secretos a petición de la CIA y el FBI. Los mejores expertos en Inteligencia, Geopolítica y magnicidios, arrojarán luz sobre el caso JFK en Cuarto Milenio El plató de Cuarto Milenio recibe a los mejores expertos para intentar arrojar luz sobre este enigmático crimen. Para Pedro Baños, Coronel del Elército de Tierra y especialista en Geopolítica y Estrategia, se nos sigue ocultando información; desde los errores cometidos durante la investigación hasta la falta de información en la misma redacción de algunos informes publicados. «Posiblemente Oswald fuera un conocido de los servicios secretos de EEUU y podría haber colaborado de alguna manera con ellos, lo que no implica que fuera uno de sus miembros», afirma el Coronel. Por su parte, Antonio Manuel Rodríguez, analista experto en Inteligencia, existió conspiración, pero tras la muerte del presidente: «hubo interés en que el caso se cerrase cuanto antes para evitar que pudieran salir a la luz otros asuntos que, sin conexión con el asesinato, podían poner en aprietos a más de uno». Nos acompañará también Ángel Montero Lama, periodista y autor de “JFK: 50 años de mentiras”. Para él, estos documentos no pueden contener datos especialmente reveladores ya que «la información decisiva fue destruida hace mucho tiempo». El último integrante de esta mesa de redacción es el periodista Francisco Pérez Abellán, que ha investigado a fondo la conspiración tras los grandes magnicidios que cambiaron la historia de España. Para él, el material desclasificado «ratifica que el asesinato estaba avisado de antemano», y «que Oswald, el culpable oficial, ni siquiera disparó. Fue un cabeza de turco, como ha ocurrido en otros magnicidios». Un apasionante análisis a la información de última hora de la mano de los mejores expertos, repleto de material que ayudará a despejar algunas dudas sobre la gran conspiración del siglo XX… ¿Quién mató a John Fitzgerald Kennedy? Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

La madre de todas las teorías de la conspiración es el asesinato de John Fitzgerald Kennedy. La semana pasada vimos con detalle los hechos en La ContraHistoria. El 22 de noviembre de 1963 el presidente y su esposa, Jacqueline Kennedy, viajaron a Dallas para realizar una visita oficial. Nada más descender del avión se embarcaron en una caravana por la ciudad a bordo de una limusina descapotable en compañía del gobernador de Texas, John Connally. Recorrieron el centro de Dallas, cuyas calles se habían engalanado para la ocasión y estaban repletas de gente. Ya casi al final de su recorrido, cuando la caravana atravesaba la Dealey Plaza, el vehículo presidencial fue tiroteado. La investigación realizada tras el magnicidio concluyó que un tirador llamado Lee Harvey Oswald había realizado tres disparos con una carabina Carcano desde la sexta planta del edificio que albergaba el Almacén de Libros Escolares de Texas. El presidente recibió dos impactos de bala. El primero le entró por la parte superior de la espalda y le salió por la garganta. Cinco segundos después otra bala le alcanzó en el cráneo. Kennedy ingresó aún con un hilo de vida en el Parkland Memorial Hospital donde fallecería poco después. En paralelo a su agonía la policía de Dallas detuvo a Lee Harvey Oswald, a quien los indicios apuntaban como presunto asesino, en un cine localizado en un suburbio del suroeste de la ciudad donde se había escondido tras haber matado a un agente que le acababa de dar el alto. Lee Harvey Oswald fue trasladado a comisaría y allí le interrogaron los inspectores de policía durante dos días, al término de los cuales el juez ordenó que el reo fuese llevado de las dependencias policiales a la cárcel del condado. La expectación era máxima. Los medios de comunicación se arremolinaron en la puerta de servicio de la comisaría para retransmitir en directo la salida del detenido. En ese momento el dueño de un club nocturno de Dallas llamado Jack Ruby se abalanzó sobre Oswald y le disparó a quemarropa acabando con su vida. Muerto el principal sospechoso la investigación se detuvo, la policía dio el caso por cerrado, algo que disgustó a la opinión pública que empezó a pensar que ahí había gato encerrado. Una semana más tarde y tras consultarlo con Edgar Hoover, director del FBI, el presidente Lyndon B. Johnson creo una comisión presidencial presidida por Earl Warren, presidente del Tribunal Supremo, razón por la cual pasó a ser conocida como Comisión Warren. El informe con las conclusiones de la comisión se presentó diez meses más tarde. Los comisionados resolvieron que el presidente Kennedy había sido asesinado por Lee Harvey Oswald que actuó completamente a solas y por motivos estrictamente personales. Respecto a Jack Ruby, que en esos momentos se encontraba en prisión, también determinó que actuó solo movido por el afán de vengar el asesinato de Kennedy. Con esto ya se daba completamente por cerrado el caso, pero era sólo el principio de una serie de teorías de la conspiración que no han hecho más que crecer y sofisticarse desde entonces. Las hay para todos los gustos y todas coinciden en la búsqueda e identificación de un culpable que consiguió salir indemne tras la investigación oficial. Unas apuntan hacia el propio Gobierno de Estados Unidos que conspiró contra el presidente con la colaboración de la CIA, otras señalan a la Unión Soviética, otras a la Cuba de Fidel Castro y otras a la mafia. Hay decenas de teorías, algunas sencillas de exponer y otras mucho más enrevesadas. El hecho es que un porcentaje nada despreciable (aproximadamente un 60%) de los estadounidenses siguen creyendo que Kennedy fue víctima de un complot. En La ContraHistoria de hoy, y por deseo expreso de los contraescuchas, vamos a ver las principales teorías de la conspiración de un asesinato que la opinión pública nunca considerará del todo cerrado. En El ContraSello: 0:00 Introducción 4:19 La madre de todas las conspiraciones 1:10:17 200 años de la Policía Nacional 1:15:57 El origen de Alemania Bibliografía: - "J.F. Kennedy: Una vida inacabada" de Robert Dallek - https://amzn.to/4cV55D7 - "El asesinato del presidente Kennedy" de Luciano Armas - https://amzn.to/3Yp2mNX - "John Kennedy: El sueño que transformó Estados Unidos" de Fabricio Sales - https://amzn.to/4fkd5z1 - "Conspiración Kennedy" de Andrea Larsen - https://amzn.to/4fmGQPF · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Contra la Revolución Francesa”… https://amzn.to/4aF0LpZ · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva Sígueme en: · Web... https://diazvillanueva.com · Twitter... https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva · Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/fernandodiazvillanueva1/ · Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/diazvillanueva · Linkedin… https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-d%C3%ADaz-villanueva-7303865/ · Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/147276463@N05/?/ · Pinterest... https://www.pinterest.com/fernandodiazvillanueva Encuentra mis libros en: · Amazon... https://www.amazon.es/Fernando-Diaz-Villanueva/e/B00J2ASBXM #FernandoDiazVillanueva #kennedy #oswald Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

El magnicidio más famoso de la historia tuvo lugar el 22 de noviembre de 1963 en Dallas. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, trigésimo quinto presidente de los Estados Unidos fue asesinado cuando recorría la ciudad a bordo de una limusina descapotable en una caravana presidencial junto a su esposa Jacqueline, el gobernador de Texas, John Connally y su esposa Nellie. Murió a causa de dos balazos, uno en la espalda y otro en la cabeza, disparados por Lee Harvey Oswald, un antiguo marine, que se había apostado con un rifle en el sexto piso del almacén de libros escolares de Texas. El magnicidio quedó inmortalizado en película a color gracias a que Abraham Zapruder, un vecino de Dallas que asistía al paso de la caravana, lo grabó con un pequeño tomavistas de 8mm. Tras el tiroteo el vehículo presidencial aligeró la marcha y se dirigió al Parkland Memorial Hospital, ubicado a unos seis kilómetros del lugar de los hechos. Media hora más tarde los médicos declararon la muerte del presidente de forma oficial. El gobernador Connally también resultó herido, pero se recuperó posteriormente. Se puso entonces en marcha el mecanismo sucesorio. Para evitar un vacío de poder el vicepresidente Lyndon B. Johnson juró como presidente dos horas y media después del asesinato a bordo del Air Force One, que se encontraba estacionado en el aeropuerto de Dallas Love Field. Tras atentar contra el presidente, Oswald regresó a su casa y se hizo con una pistola con la que poco después mató al policía de Dallas J.D. Tippit que le había dado el alto al verle por la calle. Pero su escapada duró poco. Una hora más tarde fue arrestado en un cine por la policía de Dallas y acusado formalmente de asesinar a Kennedy y a Tippit. Dos días después, cuando las autoridades se disponían a trasladarle desde la comisaría hasta la cárcel del condado, Oswald murió a manos de Jack Ruby, el dueño de un local nocturno dela ciudad que le disparó a quemarropa y con cámaras de televisión emitiendo en directo. Aún con vida fue trasladado al Parkland Memorial Hospital donde murió poco después. Ruby fue juzgado y condenado por el asesinato de Oswald, recurrió la condena y murió en 1967 cuando esperaba una resolución judicial. La investigación del asesinato corrió a cargo de la Comisión Warren, llamada así porque la presidía Earl Warren, un prestigioso juez del Tribunal Supremo. Warren concluyó que el único responsable del asesinato de Kennedy era Lee Harvey Oswald. No apreció conspiración alguna y declaró cerrado el caso en tanto que Oswald también había muerto. Tres años más tarde, en 1967, el fiscal de distrito de Nueva Orleans, Jim Garrison, lo reabrió llevando ante la Justicia al empresario Clay Shaw, pero fue absuelto por falta de pruebas. Investigaciones posteriores como la Comisión Rockefeller o la Comisión Church arrojaron conclusiones similares a la de Warren. No todos quedaron satisfechos con las conclusiones de las sucesivas comisiones. El asesinato de Kennedy sigue siendo objeto de un amplio debate y ha generado muchas teorías de la conspiración. De hecho, en Estados Unidos hay más gente que cree en alguna de ellas que en la denominada versión oficial. Pero, dejando a un lado un terreno tan fértil para la imaginación como el de las teorías de la conspiración, el hecho es que el asesinato de Kennedy tuvo un impacto profundo en la historia reciente de Estados Unidos. Fue el primero de una serie de atentados que conmocionaron al país. En 1965 fue asesinado Malcolm X y en 1968 Martin Luther King y Robert Kennedy, hermano menor del presidente que se había presentado como candidato en las primarias demócratas de aquel año. En La ContraHistoria de hoy vamos a ver el atentado de Kennedy. Si hay interés por parte de la audiencia, en el próximo programa abordaremos las principales teorías de la conspiración que han convertido a este magnicidio en el que más tinta ha hecho correr de toda la historia. En El ContraSello: 0:00 Introducción Historia del español Paleogenética ¿Utilizamos sólo el 10% del cerebro? Bibliografía: - "J.F. Kennedy: Una vida inacabada" de Robert Dallek - https://amzn.to/4cV55D7 - "El asesinato del presidente Kennedy" de Luciano Armas - https://amzn.to/3Yp2mNX - "John Kennedy: El sueño que transformó Estados Unidos" de Fabricio Sales - https://amzn.to/4fkd5z1 - "Conspiración Kennedy" de Andrea Larsen - https://amzn.to/4fmGQPF · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Contra la Revolución Francesa”… https://amzn.to/4aF0LpZ · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva Sígueme en: · Web... https://diazvillanueva.com · Twitter... https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva · Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/fernandodiazvillanueva1/ · Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/diazvillanueva · Linkedin… https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-d%C3%ADaz-villanueva-7303865/ · Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/147276463@N05/?/ · Pinterest... https://www.pinterest.com/fernandodiazvillanueva Encuentra mis libros en: · Amazon... https://www.amazon.es/Fernando-Diaz-Villanueva/e/B00J2ASBXM #FernandoDiazVillanueva #kennedy #oswald Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

En este episodio de #PodcastLaTrinchera, Christian Sobrino entrevista al legendario legislador Jorge "Georgie" Navarro Suárez, Representante del Distrito 5 de San Juan, Guaynabo y Aguas Buenas. Georgie Navarro comenzó su carrera legislativa en el 2005 y se ha convertido en una institución por su enfoque en la provisión de servicios a la ciudadanía. En la conversación Sobrino y Georgie discuten su desarrollo personal, su enfoque en "resolverle" a sus constituyentes, cosas que están pasando tras bastidores en el Partido Nuevo Progresista y mucho más.  Este episodio de La Trinchera es presentado a ustedes por La Tigre,  el primer destino en Puerto Rico para encontrar una progresiva selección de moda Italiana, orientada a una nueva generación de profesionales que reconocen que una imagen bien curada puede aportar a nuestro progreso profesional. Detrás de La Tigre, se encuentra un selecto grupo de expertos en moda y estilo personal, que te ayudarán a elaborar una imagen con opciones de ropa a la medida y al detal de origen Italiano para él, y colecciones europeas para ella. Visiten la boutique de La Tigre ubicada en Ciudadela en Santurce o síganlos en Instagram en @shoplatigre.Por favor suscribirse a La Trinchera con Christian Sobrino en su plataforma favorita de podcasts y compartan este episodio con sus amistades.Para contactar a Christian Sobrino y #PodcastLaTrinchera, nada mejor que mediante las siguientes plataformas:Facebook: @PodcastLaTrincheraTwitter: @zobrinovichInstagram: zobrinovichThreads: @zobrinovichBluesky Social: zobrinovich.bsky.socialYouTube: @PodcastLaTrinchera"Los legisladores representan a la gente, no arboles o cuerdas de terreno. Los legisladores son electos por votantes, no por fincas o ciudades o intereses económicos." - Earl Warren

From 1953 to 1969, the Supreme Court was a vanguard of progressive change for the United States. But then came Tricky Dick.Michael Bobelian, author of Battle For The Marble Palace: Abe Fortas, Lyndon Johnson, Earl Warren, Richard Nixon and the Forging of the Modern Supreme Court, discusses how presidential candidate Richard Nixon and senate conservatives blocked LBJ's efforts to cement a progressive court for years to come and, in 3 short years, transformed the once liberal bastion into a conservative bulwark, forever changing how justices are nominated and confirmed in the United States.Grave InjusticeThe makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court and the cases they are hearing are no...Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the Show.

This Day in Legal History: Earl Warren is BornThis day in legal history, March 19, 1891, Earl Warren was born in Los Angeles, California. Warren would go on to become one of the most influential Chief Justices in the history of the United States Supreme Court. He was appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 and served as Chief Justice until 1969.As a jurist, Warren is best known for the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which unanimously ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. His opinion in that case helped spark the civil rights movement and began the process of ending legalized racial discrimination in America.Under his leadership, the Warren Court also issued key rulings expanding civil liberties, criminal procedure rights, and the separation of church and state. Other famous cases included Gideon v. Wainwright, requiring legal representation for criminal defendants, and Miranda v. Arizona, mandating procedural safeguards for suspects interrogated while in police custody.As the head of the Warren Commission, Earl Warren played a pivotal role in investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which occurred on November 22, 1963. Under Warren's leadership, the commission conducted thorough inquiries and interviews, culminating in the 1964 Warren Report, which concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating the president. Warren's stewardship of the commission solidified his legacy in American history.Earl Warren's tenure coincided with turbulent social changes and he steered the Court in a liberal, egalitarian direction through a series of historic rulings protecting individual freedoms and equal rights. Warren passed away on July 9, 1974, but his impact on American law and society endures.The federal judiciary has introduced updated financial disclosure rules mandating justices and judges to report the value of free trips, a response partly spurred by public scrutiny over Justice Clarence Thomas' travels funded by a billionaire benefactor. This move, aimed at enhancing transparency, now classifies these travel-related gifts with their respective values, moving away from the previous categorization under "reimbursements." This change comes amid calls for ethics reform within the U.S. Supreme Court, highlighted by reports of Thomas' extravagant trips provided by real estate developer Harlan Crow. The revisions include specific guidance on reporting "transportation that substitutes for commercial transportation," which now cannot be exempted as "personal hospitality." Under the new rule, Thomas' previously listed travels as "reimbursements" will now need to be disclosed as gifts, reflecting an effort to align more closely with statutory requirements and ensuring comprehensive reporting.It is worth noting that rules such as any Supreme Court ethics guidelines, lacking enforcement mechanisms or clear consequences for violations, warrant significant skepticism. In the absence of accountability measures, the efficacy of these rules is undermined, leaving room for potential misconduct without repercussions. With impeachment as the sole remedy for addressing the actions of a rogue justice, the practicality of achieving such a recourse is exceedingly challenging. This deficiency in accountability and enforceability highlights the need for robust mechanisms to ensure judicial integrity and uphold public trust in the judiciary.Judiciary Adopts New Financial Disclosure Rules for Free TripsThe US Supreme Court has extended the temporary hold on a Texas law designed to allow the state to arrest and deport individuals entering the country illegally, without setting a definitive end date for the pause. This action underscores the ongoing legal battle between the Biden administration, which argues that the law encroaches on federal authority over immigration policy, and Texas, which claims it has the right to defend itself against illegal immigration under the Constitution.Supreme Court Extends Pause on Texas Migrant Deportation LawDraftKings Inc. has escalated its legal battle against a former executive, Michael Hermalyn, who is accused of stealing company secrets to benefit his new employer, Fanatics Inc. The allegations include the unauthorized downloading of client files and confidential marketing strategies, as well as attempts to recruit DraftKings employees, some of which reportedly occurred while Hermalyn was staying at the home of Fanatics' CEO. Despite a temporary restraining order, DraftKings is seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce Hermalyn's non-compete agreement for a full year, preventing him from working at Fanatics. The court has so far denied Hermalyn's request to loosen the restraining order, allowing him to work for Fanatics only if he refrains from using DraftKings' confidential information. DraftKings claims to have uncovered extensive evidence of Hermalyn's misconduct, including a "deletion spree" of documents and misleading statements during his deposition. Meanwhile, Hermalyn has countered with a lawsuit in California seeking to nullify his non-compete agreement, arguing that the matter should be settled there rather than in Massachusetts, where DraftKings is headquartered. The case, which has sparked significant legal and competitive controversy, is set for a hearing on April 2.DraftKings Alleges Ex-VP Stole Secrets While Houseguest of RivalThe U.S. Department of Justice, under the leadership of Ismail Ramsey, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, is intensifying its efforts to combat fraud among artificial intelligence (AI) and tech start-ups, particularly those that deceive investors in the lead-up to their initial public offerings (IPOs). Situated in the heart of Silicon Valley, Ramsey's office is taking a stance against the "fake it til you make it" mentality that has marred the tech industry, evidenced by notorious cases like Theranos and uBiome Inc., which misled investors about their technological capabilities and business prospects. Ramsey highlighted the challenges in policing private companies, which face less scrutiny compared to public entities and require investors to be more vigilant in their due diligence. With the burgeoning investor interest in AI technologies, Ramsey emphasizes that this sector is especially prone to fraudulent claims, setting the stage for a targeted crackdown. The appointment of Jina Choi, with her extensive background in corporate crime at the SEC and a law firm, to lead a team focusing on such frauds, underscores the seriousness of the Justice Department's initiative. Additionally, Ramsey has established a dedicated unit for cybersecurity and intellectual property theft, demonstrating a broadened approach to safeguarding the integrity of the U.S. financial and technological landscape.US DOJ to target pre-IPO artificial intelligence frauds, top attorney says | ReutersWashington, Colorado, and Minnesota are the latest states to announce their adoption of the Next Gen bar exam, with scheduled transitions in July 2026, July 2027, and July 2028, respectively. This move aligns them with 14 other jurisdictions preparing for a significant shift in the way future lawyers are assessed. The Next Gen bar exam represents the first substantial revision of the bar exam in a quarter-century, initiated by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) in 2021, with a goal to more accurately measure candidates' practical legal skills rather than their rote memorization capacity. Unlike the traditional bar exam, which is segmented into multiple-choice questions, essay exams, and performance tests, the Next Gen exam consolidates these elements into a unified, computer-based test, shortening the duration from 12 to nine hours. This overhaul aims to reflect a more realistic and applicable approach to evaluating readiness for legal practice. However, several key states, including California, New York, Florida, and Texas, have not yet disclosed when they will transition to this new format. The change indicates a significant shift in legal education and licensure, highlighting a move towards prioritizing functional legal knowledge and skills.Revamped bar exam gains traction as three more states sign on | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 1069, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: A Trip To The Islands 1: This 2,200-square-mile Canadian island was named for a son of George III. Prince Edward Island. 2: The "Big Island" of the Tierra del Fuego archipelago is shared between Argentina and this country. Chile. 3: The migration of the red crabs is an annual spectacle on this Indian Ocean island named for a holiday. Christmas Island. 4: An island called the Phantom Ship rises from the water inside a volcanic caldera in this Oregon national park. Crater Lake. 5: On this Greek island you can soak up the sun on Elafonisi Beach or tour the ruins of the ancient palace of Knossos. Crete. Round 2. Category: The Name Of The Board Game 1: Rhinoplasty or appendectomy, for example. Operation. 2: The USS Missouri is an Iowa-class one. Battleship. 3: The Sherman Act of 1890 was meant to combat this type of business. Monopoly. 4: Slang for a tornado. Twister. 5: Nixon's spaniel. Checkers. Round 3. Category: My Name Is Earl Warren 1: In Reynolds v. Sims I said that representation in legislatures must be based mostly on population: one man, one this. vote. 2: I am interred at this national cemetery. Arlington. 3: I was a 3-term governor of this state, 1943-1953. California. 4: On June 23, 1969 I swore in this man as Chief Justice of the U.S.. Warren Burger. 5: I ruled that public school segregation was unconstitutional in this landmark 1954 case. Brown v. Board of Education. Round 4. Category: Make Light Work 1: Around noon on some days, Germany gets close to half its power from this source. solar power. 2: The light type of this is a basic tool of cell biology, magnifying specimens hundreds of times. a microscope. 3: Take a mind-expanding journey at the live show called Paramount's Laser Spectacular, with the music of this "Dark Side" band. Pink Floyd. 4: 10 projectors show astronomical wonders in the USA's largest of these facilities, at a Jersey City science center. a planetarium. 5: John Alcott and Emmanuel Lubezki, people in this profession, are noted for creative use of natural light. cinematographers. Round 5. Category: Inca Hoots? 1: When in Peru, don't forget to check out the cute pygmy owls named for these mountains. the Andes. 2: The name of this city taken by Pizarro in 1533 is derived from Quechuan words meaning "rock of the owl". Cuzco. 3: After listening to its piercing cry, you'll know why this west Peruvian owl is so named. the screech-owl. 4: Peru's ferruginous pygmy owls are the color of this, which is formed by oxidation. rust. 5: A long-whiskered owlet was seen in Peru in 2007; it's so rare it has its own genus, Xenoglaux, meaning this "owl". foreign (or strange). Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia!Special thanks to https://blog.feedspot.com/trivia_podcasts/ AI Voices used

Episode 201 is the twelfth in a mini- series wander covering the Secret Service and  possible involvement in the coverup, or the  actual plot itself to assassinate President Kennedy.  Today's episode is part 2 related to the story surrounding the Cellar night club and Fort Worth Press Club incidents and covers the official internal investigative report issued just days after the incident by secret service inspector Gerrard McCann. The President and the  agents arrived in Fort Worth late that night of November 21st and were greeted unexpectedly by large crowds at the Fort Worth Airport. As a consequence, they arrived after hours downtown at  the hotel  where the president and his wife were staying, and some of the agents  were hungry. They had heard that there was a buffet at the Fort Worth Press Club. When they arrived around 12:30AM, they found no buffet.  And,   some of them stayed and  drank, and then a large number of  them continued on to the Cellar.  Most of them stayed at the Cellar until at least 3AM in the morning and one of them, agent Paul Landis, is believed to have been there as late as 5 or 5:30 in the morning based on  his own statements and statements of others. The story broke just three days after the assassination from a tip given to nationally known reporter Drew Pearson by a Fort Worth reporter who had heard the tale,  but was sure his editor would never run a story that would cast aspersions on the secret service in light of the tragedy that had just happened. The story ran in the Washington Post and  it  was explosive and detailed misconduct that included intoxication and staying out so late that there was no doubt that  the secret service agents involved were sleep deprived the next day. This generated the obvious question....were any of the agents involved in this incident,  a part of the detail actually guarding the president that day in Dealey Plaza.  And indeed they were. There were nine men who went to the Fort Worth Press Club and   ten who ended up at the Cellar.  Four of those men were in the presidential follow up car that day.  Did their behavior the night before (or actually the morning of) the assassination contribute to the death of the President.  That was the question. Sleep deprived agents that had been drinking  seemed like an obvious factor to consider, but would it have saved the president from his fateful end?  Earl Warren, the Chairman of the Warren Commission was incensed about the incident, and in one of the few passionate displays of his during the whole Commission review, he chastised Secret Service head James Rawley and wondered why the men were not disciplined for clearly breaking secret service rules. Not one man was fired for his behavior that night,  as secret service chief Rawley believed that the men had already suffered enough. Having lost a president. Delving deeper into the individuals involved into  the President's protection  is for the purpose of solving the perplexing  question of how men generally so loyal to the President, might have motivations to act otherwise.  It is the seminal question regarding the inner workings of the secret service and their true orientation to President Kennedy. Even as early as 1964, rumors and serious concerns over  the lone gunman theory and the evidence that might contravene it,  were becoming a major concern for the government and the commission. Conspiracy theories were contrary to the government's stated narrative from the very beginning. This  real-life story is more fascinating than fiction.  No matter whether you are a serious researcher or a casual student, you will enjoy the fact filled narrative and story as  we relive one of the most shocking moments in American History. An event that changed the nation and changed the world forever.

Episode 202 is the thirteenth in a mini- series wander covering the Secret Service and  possible involvement in the coverup, or the  actual plot itself to assassinate President Kennedy.  Today's episode is a bonus episode that finishes out our coverage of the incident at the  Cellar Coffee House and Fort Worth Press Club. Pat Kirkwood was the colorful owner of the Cellar and he was known to throw a great party. As he came to grips with his terminal cancer, he would have one more reunion of sorts with his old friends from the Cellar Club and beyond in 2000, shortly before his passing. Todays is the story recalled of that event and many of the reminiscent moments that came from it.  The Cellar has an infamous juxtaposition in the assassination of president Kennedy. Agents arrived late at the Texas hotel  and some of the agents  were hungry. They had heard that there was a buffet at the Fort Worth Press Club. When they arrived there around 12:30AM, they found no buffet.  And,   some of them stayed and  drank, and then a large number of  them continued on to the Cellar.  Most of them stayed at the Cellar until at least 3AM in the morning and one of them, agent Paul Landis, is believed to have been there as late as 5 or 5:30 in the morning based on  his own statements and statements of others. The story broke just three days after the assassination from a tip given to nationally known reporter Drew Pearson by a Fort Worth reporter who had heard the tale,  but was sure his editor would never run a story that would cast aspersions on the secret service in light of the tragedy that had just happened. The story ran in the Washington Post and  it  was explosive and detailed misconduct that included intoxication and staying out so late that there was no doubt that  the secret service agents involved were sleep deprived the next day. This generated the obvious question....were any of the agents involved in this incident,  a part of the detail actually guarding the president that day in Dealey Plaza.  And indeed they were. There were nine men who went to the Fort Worth Press Club and   ten who ended up at the Cellar.  Four of those men were in the presidential follow up car that day.  Did their behavior the night before (or actually the morning of) the assassination contribute to the death of the President.  That was the question. Sleep deprived agents that had been drinking  seemed like an obvious factor to consider, but would it have saved the president from his fateful end?  Earl Warren, the Chairman of the Warren Commission was incensed about the incident, and in one of the few passionate displays of his during the whole Commission review, he chastised Secret Service head James Rawley and wondered why the men were not disciplined for clearly breaking secret service rules. Not one man was fired for his behavior that night,  as secret service chief Rawley believed that the men had already suffered enough. Having lost a president. Delving deeper into the individuals involved into  the President's protection  is for the purpose of solving the perplexing  question of how men generally so loyal to the President, might have motivations to act otherwise.  It is the seminal question regarding the inner workings of the secret service and their true orientation to President Kennedy. Even as early as 1964, rumors and serious concerns over  the lone gunman theory and the evidence that might contravene it,  were becoming a major concern for the government and the commission. Conspiracy theories were contrary to the government's stated narrative from the very beginning. This  real-life story is more fascinating than fiction.  No matter whether you are a serious researcher or a casual student, you will enjoy the fact filled narrative and story as  we relive one of the

Episode 200 is the eleventh  in a mini- series wander covering the Secret Service and their possible involvement in the coverup, or the  actual plot itself to assassinate President Kennedy.  Today's episode  continues our coverage of the individuals in the white house detail who were in Dallas that fateful day.  In this episode, we tell the story of the impact of events which took place the night before in Fort Worth  in an edgy nightclub named the Cellar. The President and the  agents arrived in Fort Worth late that night of November 21st and were greeted unexpectedly by large crowds at the Fort Worth Airport. As a consequence, they arrived after hours downtown at  the hotel  where the president and his wife were staying, and some were hungry. They had heard that there was a buffet at the Fort Worth Press Club. When they arrived there around 12:30AM, they found no buffet.  And,  after some of them drank, a large number of  them continued on to the Cellar.  Most of them stayed at the Cellar until at least 3AM in the morning and one of them, agent Paul Landis, is believed to have been there as late as 5 or 5:30 in the morning based on various citations. The story broke just three days after the assassination from a tip given to nationally known reporter Drew Pearson by a Fort Worth reporter who had heard the tale,  but was sure his editor would never run a story that would cast aspersions on the secret service in light of the tragedy that had just happened. The story ran in the Washington Post and  it  was explosive and detailed misconduct that included intoxication and staying out so late that there was no doubt that  the secret service agents involved were sleep deprived the next day. This generated the obvious question....were any of the agents involved in this incident,  a part of the detail actually guarding the president that day in Dealey Plaza.  And indeed they were. There were nine men who went to the Fort Worth Press Club and   ten who ended up at the Cellar.  Four of those men were in the presidential follow up car that day.  Did their behavior the night before (or actually the morning of) the assassination contribute to the death of the President.  That was the question. Sleep deprived agents that had been drinking  seemed like an obvious factor to consider, but would it have saved the president from his fateful end?  Earl Warren, the Chairman of the Warren Commission was incensed about the incident, and in one of the few passionate displays of his during the whole Commission review, he chastised Secret Service head James Rawley and wondered why the men were not disciplined for clearly breaking secret service rules. Not one man was fired for his behavior that night,  as secret service chief Rawley believed that the men had already suffered enough. Having lost a president. Delving deeper into the individuals involved into  the President's protection  is for the purpose of solving the perplexing  question of how men generally so loyal to the President, might have motivations to act otherwise.  It is the seminal question regarding the inner workings of the secret service and their true orientation to President Kennedy. Even as early as 1964, rumors and serious concerns over  the lone gunman theory and the evidence that might contravene it,  were becoming a major concern for the government and the commission. Conspiracy theories were contrary to the government's stated narrative from the very beginning. This  real-life story is more fascinating than fiction.  No matter whether you are a serious researcher or a casual student, you will enjoy the fact filled narrative and story as  we relive one of the most shocking moments in American History. An event that changed the nation and changed the world forever.

It's a day ending in Y, so the left is out with a new smear against Clarence Thomas, the greatest Justice of the Supreme Court. Mark Pauletta helps Charlie strike back, and then the two react to RFK Jr's ominous choice of Earl Warren as the justice he looks to for inspiration.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Where were you when you heard news that changed the course of history?  Today is November 22nd, which marks 60 years since the tragic assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas. National tragedies are never forgotten; everyone remembers where they were when they first heard terrible news.  Alyson wasn't born yet in 1963, but she wanted to hear from a few people who remember that day vividly, and how it impacted their lives and the lives those around them.  (Episode is followed by President Kennedy's Eulogy given by Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States on November 24, 1963. Click to Watch Here) Shop New Merch: www.kennedydynasty.com/shop Recommendations: www.kennedydynasty.com/recommendations Instagram: www.instagram.com/kennedydynasty Facebook: www.facebook.com/kennedydynastypodcast Patreon: www.patreon.com/kennedydynasty Website: www.kennedydynasty.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Vous aimez l'Histoire et les récits de Virginie Girod ? Soutenez-nous en laissant étoiles et commentaires sur votre plateforme d'écoute préférée !

Con Oscar Peterson, Emmet Cohen, Donny McCaslin, Theo Croker, Mike Stern, Ron Carter, Martiro y Chano Domínguez, Samara Joy, Orquestra de Jazz de Matosinhos y Javier Vercher entre otros. 2ª entrega que dedicamos a presentar y dar cuenta del "XXXVI Festival de Jazz de Badajoz". Se celebra esta semana, del 8 al 11 de noviembre. Continuamos también acercándonos a otras citas festivaleras que cursan en estos días a lo largo y ancho de la geografía estatal. "9:20 Special" de Earl Warren en grabación de Oscar Peterson es el "Estándar de la semana" y "Ahí donde vive Joe", nuestro "Favorito". Ahora Jazz, Ed. 2236. Con Javier del Barco.

Listen to Zooming In at The UnPopulist in your favorite podcast app: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | RSSAaron Ross Powell: Welcome to Zooming In, a project of The UnPopulist. I'm Aaron Ross Powell. My guest today is George Mason University law professor and B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, Ilya Somin. Ilya recently wrote an article for The UnPopulist about the state of the Supreme Court—whether it's become more politicized than it used to be, and why many of the proposals to fix it could be counterproductive, even dangerously so.A transcript of today's podcast appears below. It has been edited for flow and clarity.Aaron Ross Powell: Is the Supreme Court more politicized than it used to be?Ilya Somin: I think it depends on your definition of politicization. I think it is more politicized in the sense that there's more polarization between Republican-appointed justices and Democratic-appointed ones than there was say 30, 40, 50 years ago. On the other hand, I don't think it's more politicized in the sense that justices' political views play a bigger role in their decisions than they did in the past. I think there's little evidence to support that. While the justices are not now, nor have they ever been completely free of political bias, I think they are much less biased than other governmental institutions are. That enables them to play a more neutral role than we would have otherwise if we weaken judicial power.“I think it is more politicized in the sense that there's more polarization between Republican-appointed justices and Democratic-appointed ones than there was say 30, 40, 50 years ago. On the other hand, I don't think it's more politicized in the sense that justices' political views play a bigger role in their decisions than they did in the past.”Aaron Ross Powell: One of the things that frustrates me about the way that a lot of people talk about the Supreme Court and its decisions is there's this sense, I think from both sides, but you see it a lot from the left that justices make a decision on what they think the right answer or the best answer or the answer they'd prefer for a given case is based on their partisan political priors. Like, I'm a conservative, therefore I want to restrict immigration. Then when there's a case in front of them about immigration, they just reason backwards from that.It's like a disingenuous legal argument effectively when in fact, as we both know, these justices usually come in with a coherent and developed jurisprudential perspective and philosophy. They're originalists or textualists or living Constitution people, and they're often fairly upfront about what has political—it is more likely if you are a progressive that you're going to find living constitutional perspectives more persuasive than strict constructionist perspectives, but they're reasoning from that articulated theory.When you talk about them becoming more politicized in the first way—the politics of the justices are diverging, are we seeing a growing divergence in the underlying judicial philosophies? The living constitutionalists are becoming more extreme in their living constitutionalism—more hardcore—and the textualists are becoming more textualist in theirs?Ilya Somin: I don't think that's necessarily what's happening. I think it's simply that what we have is a greater divergence within the Supreme Court on both political ideology and also some issues of legal methodology as well. That translates into a bigger gap between the predicted votes of a Republican appointee versus a Democratic appointee than would have existed 40 or 50 years ago. Such a divergence is not completely unprecedented in American history, but it is different from what you saw in the immediate post-World War II era where, say, from the late 1940s until perhaps the 1970s or the '80s, differences between Democratic and Republican appointees were much more modest.It's not because the justices of that era were somehow less biased or more removed from politics. It's that within the legal elite of that era, with the possible exception of southern segregationists, there was much less disagreement over big major issues, either of interpretation or of political ideology than there is now, and also I think over time, as there's been more polarization between the political parties, there's also been more in the way of divergent litmus tests on—while both Democratic and Republican presidents, they want to appoint people who have strong professional credentials, they also have a series of litmus tests on how they want the people to vote on different issues.When they vet potential nominees, particularly for the Supreme Court, they will do what they can to make sure that they get somebody who's likely to vote the way they want on these issues. Not because that person is deliberately being political but in most cases because due to their jurisprudential and other views, they will tend to come out in that direction even if their motive is not to please the president that appointed them or the political party.Aaron Ross Powell: Can you talk about this in the context of the nomination and confirmation process? Your essay at The UnPopulist begins by looking at the changes there. Can you tell us how things used to look, how they look now?Ilya Somin: Sure. Nominations and confirmations have looked different ways, different periods of American history. If you look at that period, say from the 1940s to at least the late 1960s, and even later, most nominations with rare exceptions weren't particularly controversial. Many senators from the opposing party, usually a clear majority, would still vote for the most nominees. Often the questioning of nominees was pretty perfunctory. I mentioned the example of Byron White who was only questioned for about 40 or 50 minutes, and a lot of that time was spent on questions about his football career because he had been a professional football player before he was a judge.Obviously, if you look at recent years first, almost every recent nominee in the last 15 years or so, a majority of opposing party senators have voted against the nominee. The last nominee who got a majority of opposing party senators, I think, was Chief Justice Sean Roberts when he was nominated in 2005. Even with him, there was something, I think 22 Democratic senators devoted against him. Secondly, recent confirmation hearings have featured a lot of questioning and debate about controversial legal and political issues.Obviously, this next factor is less new, but some of them have featured issues of personal scandal like accusations against Kavanaugh, though there have been cases like that in previous history as well. Those kinds of things are more charged even than they would have been 50 or 60 years ago because the fear of Republicans with Kavanaugh was not just a Kavanaugh might be defeated, but the Democrats would somehow create a situation where they could string things out until the election and then maybe the Democrats would control the Senate in its aftermath, then therefore block Republican nominees.Just as in fairness, the Republicans in 2016 were able to block the Democratic nominee, Merrick Garland, for several months until the election happened. Then they were able to get their own nominee through instead. There has been an escalation of political conflict over nominations and also of senators voting against opposing party nominations, at least in most cases.Aaron Ross Powell: I want to get to the Merrick Garland move because that's obviously quite significant in the narratives about politicization. Before that, I want to ask if it's the case that politicians are now picking judges who are more removed from what used to be a consensus center than they used to be. They look more distinct from the guys that the other party might be picking if they were in charge.That's basically a demand-side change. Does that mean that we are getting less qualified nominees than we did before? Before, the selection criteria was, "I wanted to find the best possible justice" and now it is, "I want to find the best possible justice who aligns with my more extreme politics", that's going to narrow the pool of possible nominees.Ilya Somin: It's an interesting question. A lot depends obviously on what you consider a good qualification for a Supreme Court Justice and there's not a consensus on that. If you believe that what should be a good qualification is technical expertise on legal issues with an extensive background in those kinds of things, I think the nominees in the last 20 or 30 years are actually on average somewhat better than those from earlier eras because in addition to the greater polarization and vetting, there is also emerged the norm, which some people criticize of appointing people with extensive experience in legal theory and also in appellate court judging usually at the circuit court of appeals levels.“If you believe that what should be a good qualification is technical expertise on legal issues with an extensive background in those kinds of things, I think the nominees in the last 20 or 30 years are actually on average somewhat better than those from earlier eras.”We have almost completely eliminated the previous tradition of at least sometimes appointing professional politicians to the Supreme Court. Some the most important Supreme Court justice of the past, there is Earl Warren, Hugo Black, we can name other examples, had been professional politicians, not people whose main background was as judges or legal theorists. That's almost completely gone. It's hard to even remember the last time a career politician got nominated to the Supreme Court. Maybe the last Supreme Court justice who had experience in elected office, if I remember correctly, was Sandra Day O'Connor, who had briefly been a state legislator, but even that wasn't her main thing that she had done.If you look at the purely technical professional qualifications of Supreme Court justices, they actually look more impressive for the most part in recent decades than before. Though as I mentioned earlier, there is disagreement about whether appellate court judging experience is the thing we should most look for. Some people argue that there are other kinds of experience that are undervalued. I, myself, think it might be good to appoint people with experience as state Supreme Court judges and not rely as exclusively as we seem to on people with experience as federal judges.Aaron Ross Powell: Or a hobby horse that's of a lot of people in our circles is appointing more people with defense experience to the court versus former prosecutors.Ilya Somin: Yes. My Cato Institute colleague, Clark Neely, makes a big point. I think there's some merit to it. On the other hand, it's important to remember that people who have experience as government lawyers and prosecutors nonetheless sometimes have widely divergent views even on criminal justice issues, probably the most pro-prosecution justice right now, Sam Alito and one of the two most pro-defense justices, Sonia Sotomayor had experience as prosecutors, but obviously they clearly derive very different lessons from that experience or they just took in different viewpoints even before they took those jobs.I think it is true that it would be good to have some diversification beyond people who have experience as executive branch lawyers or federal appellate judges, which is the main pipeline that we see over the last several decades, but at least in terms of conventional metrics of qualifications, these people look very impressive. You might object to him on jurisprudential grounds or in Kavanaugh's case, the accusation of sexual assault or whatnot, but it's hard to say that these people lack technical legal qualifications. They have them actually on average more than justices from past eras of American history.I would note also, of course, that women and non-whites are in the pipeline for these nominations much more in the last several decades than any time before. We now have multiple justices who are not white at the same time, three of the nine, and we also of course have more women on the Supreme Court, than ever before.Aaron Ross Powell: Was the Supreme Court historically accused of being politicized? I guess what I mean by that is one of the pieces of evidence that people give, or one of the things, the main drivers of the narrative that the Supreme Court right now is more politicized than it used to be, is that it is making controversial decisions on issues that the electorate views is like very important in their own personal lives; Abortion decisions, religious practice decisions, and so on. We had the court in the '50s and '60s, the civil rights courts were making all kinds of decisions that were wildly controversial. Were they accused of being politicized in the same way that we see the current court today?Ilya Somin: Yes, absolutely. If you look in the 1950s and '60s, critics of the Supreme Court at that time, southern segregationists, but also tough on crime advocates, they certainly accused the Supreme Court of pursuing left wing ideology of various kinds at the expense of jurisprudential values. When Roe vs Wade was issued in 1973, that accusation was also made. You can also find past eras in American history where such accusations were made. Basically, any time when there's significant conflict or controversy over Supreme Court decisions, it is likely that at least some critics will accuse the court of being political in the sense of pushing their political values rather than jurisprudential values.“Any time when there's significant conflict or controversy over Supreme Court decisions, it is likely that at least some critics will accuse the court of being political in the sense of pushing their political values rather than jurisprudential values.”If there's a difference now compared to '50s and '60s is that those disagreements fall along more clearly partisan lines because in the '50s and '60s, the southern segregationist critics, many of them were also Democrats, even as more liberal northern Democrats had a different view, and at least for a time, the tough on crime issue also cut across party lines. Though eventually beginning in the late '60s and '70s, the Republicans became more the tough on crime party.Ironically, Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968 on the slogan that he was going to restore law and order and appoint judges to the courts who would be less sympathetic to criminal defendants. Ironic because of course, later he himself got into serious legal trouble as did members of his administration and some of those same judges ruled against him when he tried to hide the Watergate tapes.Aaron Ross Powell: Let's get back to Merrick Garland then.Ilya Somin: Sure.Aaron Ross Powell: That seems to be the catalyst or precipitating event of the current wave of accusations about the Supreme Court being politicized in an unfair, corrupt way. That's an instance where the accusations of politicization, which is a word I'm sure I'm going to stumble over a few times as I try to say it in this conversation, is not so much that the person who eventually got that spot was a partisan hack, but rather that the GOP effectively cheated in order to get a guy who represented more their views than a guy who didn't into office— not into office, onto the bench. That then delegitimizes. The politicization delegitimizes a lot of these decisions because it was a cheat.Is there any validity to that argument that maybe the justices themselves aren't hacks, but it's become increasingly common and particularly common with the GOP, starting with Garland to abuse the process in order to influence the court in their direction and therefore de-legitimize the resulting decisions?Ilya Somin: You can say they cheated in the sense that it was an escalation in the conflict over judicial nominations. On the other hand, it was not cheating in the sense that they violated the law or the constitution. The Senate has the power to refuse to hold confirmation hearings on nominees just it has the power to vote them down. I would also add that, what the Republicans did in 2016 did have important precursors and things that the Democrats did. I would point to two things in that regard.One is, in the early 2000s, the Democrats in the Senate pulled off a very similar move with respect to several George W. Bush nominees to the DC Circuit, which is usually seen as the second most powerful federal court in the land. They essentially sat on the nominations for years on end until the nominees withdrew, and each of those nominees, some of them were people who are seen as highly-qualified  potential future Supreme Court appointees.Granted, the DC Circuit is still not as important and powerful a court as the Supreme Court. Doing this at the Supreme Court level, you can say is a further escalation, but it's a difference in degree more than kind. In addition, when we had the 1992 and 2008 elections, when there was a Republican president in office whom it looked like, and indeed it did happen, that he was about to replace with it by a Democrat. A number of Senate Democrats including Chuck Schumer and then-Senator Joe Biden had made noises along the lines of that they would try to block a nomination to an open Supreme Court seat until after the election happened. Now, I certainly agree there's a difference between saying you might do this, and then they never actually did do it because no seats came open and actually doing it, but what you see with a gradual process of escalation is when one side escalates in one way, the other side tends to top it in other ways.I do think the underlying dynamic here is not that GOP senators were uniquely abusive of the rules, or for that matter, the Democratic senators were, but that both sides have temptation to use the procedural weapons more in an era when the stakes of nominations are seen as higher, given that there's a bigger gap between the rulings of a likely Republican nominee versus those of a Democratic nominee.“The underlying dynamic here is not that GOP senators were uniquely abusive of the rules, or for that matter, the Democratic senators were, but that both sides have temptation to use the procedural weapons more in an era when the stakes of nominations are seen as higher, given that there's a bigger gap between the rulings of a likely Republican nominee versus those of a Democratic nominee.”In the days of Byron White, as I mentioned earlier, Republicans, most of them, didn't feel like Byron White's rulings were going to be massively different from a person that might have been nominated by a Republican president, and therefore they felt little need to complain about White or to try to block him unless it was revealed there was some kind of scandal or something like that.Aaron Ross Powell: From your perspective as someone who obviously has a lot of legal expertise, but also pays a lot of attention to the conversations happening in the broader public and the media and the chattering classes and so on, about the Supreme Court and politicization of it and so on, what are some of the things that people—one thing we can say is there's less politicization than we might think there is, but are there examples of things that people tend to view as politicization or as evidence of a politicized court that in fact just aren't, like they're mistaken about how the court works or operates, and so reading it the wrong way.Ilya Somin: I think in recent years, and you could point to conservatives making similar mistakes in past there, but in recent years, I think one big mistake that left-wing critics of the court tend to make is that they either ignore or downplay the court's fairly significant rulings in favor of various liberal causes. We may not have time to go through them all, but I'll just mention a few. Just within the last term, the court issued a six-three decision ruling against the so-called independent state legislature doctrine, which would prevent Republican, but of course, also Democratic state legislatures from monkeying around electoral votes after the fact.“One big mistake that left-wing critics of the court tend to make is that they either ignore or downplay the court's fairly significant rulings in favor of various liberal causes.”The Supreme Court has several times, including this term, turned back major Republican challenges to Biden administration immigration policies this last term in an eight to one decision, US v. Texas, and some of those were very important immigration policies. In the recent Voting Rights Act decision, Allen v. Milligan, a five to four court with the support of two conservative justices gave the Democrats a big win in a voting rights case. The result of which is likely to be the Democrats getting several additional Congressional seats in the House of Representatives over the next couple of election cycles.Of course, they turned back Donald Trump's challenges to the 2020 election. There's a number of other examples like this that I could mention. I won't go through all of them. Sometimes, the reaction is, "Well, all of these cases were easy jurisprudential issues and obviously the liberal side was right.” In one or two cases, I think that was indeed true like in the Trump election challenges, but it's still significant that Wendy Wright has a really bad legal argument. The court rules against them because when you look at how politicians behave, they're happy supporting their own side no matter how bad the argument is most of the time.Second, I think in many of these cases, the right did have at least a reasonably plausible argument. They certainly did in the Voting Rights Act case even on independent state legislature. The court got it right, but the argument that the word legislature just means the legislature narrowly defined and that therefore all the power over electoral votes and other things rest in the hands just of the people in the legislative branch of state government, that's a plausible legal argument. It's wrong in various ways we could talk about, but it's not ridiculous and stupid. Ruling against it was not just something that any minimally competent jurist would always do.You can make similar points like this about other things including for instance that the Supreme Court has already signaled that it's likely to rule against the Texas and Florida social media laws, which require social media firms to host speech of various kinds they disapprove of, and which the left is not like because it prevents the social media firms from blocking what they see as disinformation and there are other examples like this. I think ignoring all of that or downplaying it as just this are just obvious cases, I think that's a mistake. I think also when you view cases like the affirmative action case and the abortion case and the like, in every era, there are some cases where there's just deep disagreement over them.It's reasonable to expect that when you have high profile issues where there's disagreement that different justices are going to rule different ways. I think when you look at both of these areas, it is simply not the case that Roe vs. Wade was so rock solid that you couldn't reasonably reject it. On the affirmative action side, I think when you look at the types of racial preferences that were being engaged in, it is simply implausible to say those were obviously constitutional.“It's reasonable to expect that when you have high profile issues where there's disagreement that different justices are going to rule different ways. I think when you look at both of these areas, it is simply not the case that Roe V. Wade was so rock solid that you couldn't reasonably reject it. On the affirmative action side, I think when you look at the types of racial preferences that were being engaged in, it is simply implausible to say those were obviously constitutional.”Even if you believe, which I do to some extent  grant, that the constitution doesn't call for 100% colorblindness in all instances, still the rationales that were being used and the policies being adopted were sufficiently problematic and flabby that if you were going to uphold them, you would have to have either a very severe double standard between different kinds of racial preferences or you would have to have a lot of deference to government agents when they discriminate on the basis of race of a kind that many on the left would not like in almost any other context like they certainly wouldn't say that should be acceptable in areas like racial profiling and law enforcement.Aaron Ross Powell: Is there also an aspect of misreading things when it comes to the court's decisions in what cases to take in the first place? Because one thing you'll hear is when a potentially controversial, like a case that could deal with existing rights or seems to be very, very relevant to people's individual lives, gets taken up by the court, there's a sense in which they took it up in order to overrule that or change things like they're basically shopping for cases in order to advance their conservative now, in the past, maybe liberal agenda.In a lot of cases, it seems like the court faces its own set of rules for when it needs to take up a case and that sometimes feels like it gets lost in the conversation. They couldn't reasonably have turned down this case.Ilya Somin: In most cases, the critics do have a reasonable point in that unlike virtually any other federal court, the Supreme Court has enormous discretion over what cases it takes. It is true if the Supreme Court rules, there are certain guidelines they have for what cases they take, but they're not actually required to follow those guidelines with rare exceptions that we can talk about having to do with the so-called original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court is the court that hears the case in the first instance, and even that the Supreme Court has made discretionary.With the exception of that, the court has near total discretion over which cases they take. It's essentially any cases that four out of nine justices want to hear if there's a petition for certioari that's being filed, a petition to get the court to hear it. It is true that there are some cases that they take, not because they partake interest in the issue, but just because they feel this is an important disagreement in the lower courts and it has to be resolved. I think some cases in commercial or business law that they take are like that.I also think that there is a significant component of cases that they take because the Supreme Court justices themselves think the issue is important or because they see an opportunity to move the doctrine in a direction that they like. If you want to change that, the solution would be to give the Supreme Court less discretion over its jurisdiction, and there are ways Congress could potentially do that. For the last 100 years, ever since they passed a so-called “judges act” in the 1920s, which gave the court even greater control over its docket than it had before that, Congress has been unwilling to intervene in that area.That said, with these issues that people complain about, it's not easy to claim that these issues are so insignificant that the Supreme Court shouldn't have heard them. Abortion surely is an important issue and it's reasonable for the court to hear cases on that even if people don't like the results. I think the court may have over time overestimated the significance of the issue of affirmative action in higher education, which only affects selective universities, which are a minority of all universities in the country, and certainly a minority of where college students go.This may arise from the fact that the Supreme Court justices, most of them also graduated from various elite selective institutions. They travel in circles as you and I also do, where these things are considered to be very important. You could have a reasonable beef saying maybe they should have looked at more other kinds of cases. That said, the more general issue of race discrimination is certainly an important one in American society.It's not easy to argue that the Supreme Court should have just left racial discrimination issues alone, though I personally think it may be the court over the last several decades should have spent less time on affirmative action, higher education, and more on maybe some other racial or ethnic discrimination issues. I think here there's not so much an ideological bias, it's perhaps a class bias that relatively affluent, highly educated people are much more focused on what goes on in elite higher education institutions than the rest of the public may be.Aaron Ross Powell: The trendiest proposed solution to politicization is effectively court packing. There's no reason we have to only have nine justices, we can put more on there. If the court through reasonable means or through "cheating means" has become unbalanced in one direction, then the answer is the next time our guys are in control, we will simply confirm more justices to shift the balance back in the other direction. We'll add two or three or four more people to the bench. How reasonable is that?Ilya Somin: In fairness, most of the people who advocate court packing, the real problem in their mind is not so much that this will solve politicization but that this will solve, in their view, the fact that the court is making decisions in what they think is the wrong direction. If they change the balance of power and the court will make them in the right direction, it certainly will not end politicization in the sense of justices being appointed by ideology or justices voting in a polarized way because as Joe Biden, among others, has pointed out at various times, if one side packs the court, in this case in the near future more likely to Democrats, then of course the other side will do the same thing next time. They simultaneously control the presidency in both houses of Congress, and the end result will not only be further politicization but in the medium to long run, it would be the destruction of judicial review because a practical matter, the Supreme Court would then be unable to effectively make rulings that go against anything that the president and the majority party in Congress wants because, if they do do it, there'll be another round of court packing. The court either would be deterred from making such rulings or those rulings would swift we be overturned the next time there's an opportunity for court packing. If you look around the world, court packing is a standard tool of authoritarian regimes undermining democracy.You'll have cases like Turkey, Hungary, Venezuela and others where it has happened. Those who advocate it—I can understand if you just generally don't like judicial review and there are some legal scholars who have that view, then absolutely court packing then makes sense if you just want to destroy the institution of judicial review. If you're unhappy this is simply that you just don't like particular decisions that the court has made in recent years, then you should ask yourself is getting rid of those decisions really worth it if the price is destroying judicial review across the board, especially if you're talking about decisions that limit the political branches?“If you look around the world, court packing is a standard tool of authoritarian regimes undermining democracy. You'll have cases like Turkey, Hungary, Venezuela and others where it has happened.”If your goal is that you want to restore Roe v. Wade, for example, court packing is not going to do that. It might do it briefly but in the long run, it would simply destroy the ability of the judiciary to function as an effective check on the other branches of government whether it comes to abortion or anything else.I would finally add that there is a range of issues where because of polarization on things like abortion, guns, affirmative action, and some other stuff, there's a range of issues where judges do systematically check the other branches of government that is lost sight of. I mentioned before them ruling against Trump's dubious election challenges, than turning back attacks on freedom of speech including some from the right. There are other examples.If you lose that, the end result would be political branches, particularly the executive branch that is more out of control than before. Even if you, for instance, trust Joe Biden with that power, you should ask do you trust Donald Trump? Should he come back to office or whoever the next Republican president might be? Having an independent judiciary with a real power of judicial review does serve as a check on that even if the check isn't perfect. Even if obviously we wouldn't want to put all our eggs in that basket, we want to have other constraints as wellAaron Ross Powell: Then what are more reasonable, workable, advisable, solutions because we're not saying that the court hasn't become more politicized, you're saying it's not as bad as people make it out to be, but it still seems if we can have a less politicized court, that's better than having one that's more politicized both in terms of maybe the rulings that are coming out of it but also it matters a lot that the public accepts the court as legitimate and its decisions as legitimate and narratives of politicization corruption, et cetera, undermine that. Are there things that we could be doing to help right the course that don't open us up to these profound worries that you just articulated say in the instance of court packing?Ilya Somin: I don't think there's any short-term solution to the problem of, if it is a problem, of justices appointed by one party being very different from justices of the other and therefore there are being more conflict over judicial appointments. That can only be resolved if we reduce polarization in American society more generally which may be there are ways to do that. That could be a whole separate podcast but is not something that can be done quickly.“I don't think there's any short-term solution to the problem of, if it is a problem, of justices appointed by one party being very different from justices of the other and therefore there are being more conflict over judicial appointments. That can only be resolved if we reduce polarization in American society more generally.”There might be incremental reforms that can help some problems at the margin, though even those will not be easy to enact. One that is actually quite popular across the political spectrum with both experts and the general public, is term limits for Supreme Court justices. Instead of serving for life, they could serve for 18 years. That's the most common proposal but you can imagine other lengths of the term.This would reduce the extent to which the random events create opportunities for one president or another to have a lot of nominations in a short time, or on the other extreme, you end up with a president like Jimmy Carter who didn't get to make any nominations. It was kind of a bummer for him. Also, it would reduce the issue of justices staying on until senility or mental problems arise in their old age and the like.It would also regularize the process of Supreme Court appointment. Each president would get to make two appointments during their term and reduce the extent also to which a justice could enjoy vast power simply through longevity by staying on the court for 30 or 40 years. I think this reform would probably require a constitutional amendment. There are some people who think it would not but I think it likely would. We can talk about why if you're interested.In the short run, it would not change the balance of power on the court most likely. Therefore, if your main concern is simply that the current 6-3 majority is making conservative decisions or too many conservative decisions, this would not immediately fix it. It would take some time to address it. I think you could also potentially either through Congress or the justices themselves, enact some ethics code for the court to the extent that people are unhappy about things like Clarence Thomas taking a lot of expensive vacations at the expense of Harlan Crow, who's a big right of center billionaire, and you can enact limits on the gifts that they're allowed to take and other restrictions like that.I think that may be desirable to do, although Justice Alito recently said he thought Congress had no power to enact these rules, I think they do have the power. They could do it. I think it would be desirable to have some limitations there. I also, again, even if this was done and the rules were strictly enforced, it would not change the fact that the Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade or made other decisions that many people don't like.I think also it's worth noting that while the Supreme Court's approval rating has declined somewhat, that is in parallel with declining approval ratings for other governmental institutions. Even at its worst, the Supreme Court's approval rating is still a little bit better than that of Joe Biden or Donald Trump, the likely presidential candidates.If you look at Congress's approval rating, Congress could only dream of the kind of lows that the Supreme Court has when the court bottoms out at maybe a 40% approval rating with Congress, which is down most of the time in the 20s or even lower than that for the last 15, 20 years or more. The increasing level of polarization in American society and political conflict leads to bad approval ratings. If you want to call it, problematic legitimacy for a lot of institutions. Again, if there's a way to fix that, it would have to do with reducing the overall level of polarization and political conflict in society, rather with a fixed specific to the structure of the Supreme Court.Aaron: Thank you for listening to Zooming In at The UnPopulist. If you enjoy this show, please take a moment to review us in Apple Podcasts. Also check out ReImagining Liberty, where I explore the emancipatory and cosmopolitan case for radical, social, political, and economic freedom. Zooming In is produced by Landry Ayres and is a project of The UnPopulist.© The UnPopulist 2023Follow The UnPopulist on Twitter (@UnPopulistMag), Facebook (The UnPopulist) and Threads (@UnPopulistMag). This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theunpopulist.net

Before the 1950s, the Supreme Court was best known as an institution that adhered to the status quo. It often sought to protect the rights of property owners and businessmen, shying away from cases that took direct aim at controversial social or political issues.But when a popular former California governor became Chief Justice in 1953, all that changed. Earl Warren's court would take on some of the hottest issues of the times, ruling on cases where individual rights would take precedent, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Baker v. Carr, and where First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights would be strengthened, such as Engle v. Vitale and Miranda v. Arizona.For sixteen years, the Warren Court would radically reshape the legal and social landscape of America.Listen ad free with Wondery+. Join Wondery+ for exclusives, binges, early access, and ad free listening. Available in the Wondery App. https://wondery.app.link/historytellersSupport us by supporting our sponsors!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Prior to his appointment as California State Librarian in 2014, Greg Lucas was a longtime journalist, covering California politics for The Los Angeles Daily Journal, the San Francisco Chronicle and even Capitol Weekly. Much of his 20 year run at The Chron was spent in or around the Capitol, covering the legislature or the Governor, or kibitzing with other reporters. Oh, how things have changed.If the Dome is the most iconic part of the Capitol building in Sacramento, its heart was The Annex, an unfussy and businesslike addition that was begun in 1949 and completed in 1952. The Annex housed nearly all legislators' offices, the Governor's Office, and Room 1190 - where every governor from Earl Warren to Gavin Newsom has held regular Press Conferences. This month marks the end of an era as wrecking crews began the demolition of the Annex in preparation for a new, expanded Capitol Annex to be built in its place.In this episode Lucas joins us for a wide-ranging discussion that includes his memories of The Annex, the fraternal culture that prevailed in the building decades ago, the changing nature of political media coverage, the role the Schwarzeneggers played in reimagining the Capitol, and a look at the nature of Democracy itself.And, as always we tell you Who Had the Worst Week in California Politics.Episode Notes:1:27 Memories of the Annex5:27 Seating arrangements7:37 Jerry Gilliam on Pat Brown9:40 New Annex origin story: Arnold Schwarzenegger12:18 Maria Shriver's influence16:27 The Doghouse19:22 The fraternity22:30 Uncle Frank23:40 Sen. Shannon Grove and the Dolly Parton imagination Library24:27 A letter to President Gerald Ford28:46 The first draft of the Bill of Rights29:46 Why is the CA Supreme Court in San Francisco?31:13 Opposition to the Annex project32:26 The State Library's basement33:21 Last thoughts on the Annex38:10 Did people hate the Annex in 1950?40:25 What are you reading?47:11 #WWCAWant to support the Capitol Weekly Podcast? Make your tax deductible donation here: capitolweekly.net/donations/Capitol Weekly Podcast theme is "Pickin' My Way" by Eddie Lang "#WorstWeekCA" Beat provided by freebeats.io

John Yoo is away overseas this week, so Steve and Lucretia are joined by Glenn Ellmers, author of the brand new book The Narrow Passage: Plato, Foucault, and the Possibilty of Political Philosophy. Do not be intimidated by the mention of Foucault or anything else in the title, as this crispy-written and very accessible book comes in at a reader-friendly 79 pages (Glenn admits that it began as an essay that grew a little out of control). It sheds a lot of light on our current culture war, which is really a continuation of the ructions in the country from the left that began in the 1960s but fooled us by receding briefly in the shadows for a time when the Cold War ended. More than that, though, the roots of our current contentions trace all the way back to Plato, and from whom we may also find some answers. As as we say, all this in 79 pages!Steve and Lucretia also dilate the Farce of the Week in Washington, the latest lower court rulings that look like promising attacks on the administrative state, and why the Equal Protection Clause was such a mess at the Supreme Court for 150 years, contra Alan Dershowitz's argument that Earl Warren had it right all along. No sale!

Earl Warren Showgrounds CEO Ben Sprague explains the pickleball controversy currently consuming the Showgrounds and his plan to resolve the issue. Sprague opens up about the new mission of the Showgrounds and its attempt to become more financially sustainable through diverse programming. Sprague says Earl Warren is Santa Barbara's events center and he wants everyone to know it's place for them to enjoy entertainment all year. Please watch this podcast on YouTube at Santa Barbara Talks with Josh Molina. Joshua Molina is a journalist and college instructor who interviews a wide variety of people on the issues of education, housing, politics, culture and business. Molina is a former reporter at the San Jose Mercury News and teaches at Cal State University, Northridge and Santa Barbara City College. Visit SantaBarbaraPodcasts.com or SantaBarbaraTalks.com to sign up for his newsletter and make a contribution to this individually owned podcast.

On this day, June 9th, in legal history Warren Burger succeeded Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.On May 21, 1969, President Richard M. Nixon put forth the nomination of Burger to become Chief Justice of the United States. This appointment received confirmation from the Senate on this day, June 9, in 1969, and Burger assumed office on June 23, 1969. The Burger court, in addition to being the court that convicted and sentenced the Hamburgler, was the last liberal court to date. It was the court under which Roe v. Wade and the New York Times v. United States, which permitted the Pentagon Papers to be published, were decided.In July 1985, President Ronald Reagan appointed Burger to lead the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution. Throughout his tenure as Chief Justice, Burger also held the positions of Chairman of the Judicial Conference of the United States and Chairman of the Federal Judicial Center from 1969 to 1986. After serving for seventeen years, Burger retired from the Court on September 26, 1986. Even after his retirement, he continued to direct the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution from 1986 to 1992. On June 25, 1995, at the age of eighty-seven, Burger passed away.It's like Groundhog Day but way lamer, Donald Trump is indicted again.Former President Donald Trump has been indicted on seven counts in the special counsel's classified documents probe, marking the first time a former president has faced federal charges. The charges against Trump include obstruction of justice, destruction or falsification of records, conspiracy, false statements, and a charge under the Espionage Act. The investigation focuses on Trump's handling of classified documents brought to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after leaving the White House. The indictment came as a surprise to law enforcement officials, and preparations are underway for Trump's expected court appearance in Miami. This federal indictment adds to Trump's legal challenges, as he already faces criminal charges in New York. Trump's allies have rallied to his defense, while Democrats and some Republicans believe the indictment demonstrates that no one is above the rule of law. The investigation into Trump's actions regarding the classified documents began when the FBI executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago and seized thousands of documents, including some marked as classified. The probe has included the testimony of multiple witnesses before grand juries in Washington, DC, and Florida.Trump Indictment in Florida Heads Off Defense Attack on VenueDonald Trump indicted on 7 counts in classified documents probe | CNN PoliticsThe US Supreme Court has revived a lawsuit brought by Jack Daniel's Properties Inc., the maker of Jack Daniel's whiskey, in a trademark dispute over a dog toy called "Bad Spaniels" that mimics the design of the whiskey bottle. The Supreme Court's unanimous ruling is a victory for Jack Daniel's and a setback for VIP Products LLC, the company behind the toy. The case explored the boundaries of trademark rights and First Amendment claims. A federal appeals court had previously ruled in favor of VIP Products, stating that the toy was an expressive work protected by free speech. However, Justice Elena Kagan, writing the opinion for the Supreme Court, overturned that ruling and stated that the so-called Rogers test, which allows trademark use in expressive works if it is artistically relevant, did not apply in this case. The case will now go back to the lower courts, where the focus will be on whether consumers are likely to be confused by the Bad Spaniels toy and mistake it for a product of Jack Daniel's. The decision could potentially make it easier for trademark holders to sue companies that create parodies of their marks on commercial goods.Jack Daniel's Wins Supreme Court Bid to Sue Over ‘Bad Spaniels'OpenAI LLC, the organization behind the artificial intelligence program ChatGPT, is facing a defamation lawsuit filed by a Georgia radio host named Mark Walters. Walters claims that ChatGPT generated a false legal complaint through its chatbot feature, accusing him of embezzling money. The lawsuit alleges that ChatGPT provided this false information to Fred Riehl, the editor-in-chief of AmmoLand, a gun publication, who had requested a summary of a real-life legal case involving the Second Amendment Foundation. Instead, ChatGPT allegedly provided a summary falsely stating that Walters was being sued for defrauding and embezzling funds from the foundation. Walters, who is not involved in the actual case, asserts that every statement pertaining to him in the summary is false. The lawsuit highlights the growing concern over the truthfulness and reliability of AI-generated outputs, as similar cases of misinformation and fabricated information have arisen recently. OpenAI has not yet commented on the lawsuit.OpenAI Hit With First Defamation Suit Over ChatGPT HallucinationThe American Bar Association (ABA) has approved a new law school entrance exam developed by the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. The JD-Next program, which includes an eight-week online course, aims to provide prospective law students with a taste of law school and assess their ability to learn the material. The approval currently applies only to applicants to the University of Arizona law school, but other schools can seek ABA permission to use the exam. The University of Arizona was the first to incorporate the GRE alongside the LSAT for law school admissions in 2016. JD-Next seeks to address racial score disparities often observed in standardized tests like the LSAT. The Law School Admission Council, which produces the LSAT, emphasized the LSAT's effectiveness as a predictor of law school success and its role in promoting diversity. JD-Next participants have shown improvement in their first-year law school performance, with a .2 increase in grade-point averages compared to non-participants. The program is currently free, and plans are underway to establish JD-Next as a separate testing entity.New law school admissions test developed by Univ of Arizona gets ABA approval | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Lester Young left the Basie band in 1940 to try his hand at bandleading . . It didn't work well so he returned to the fold in the late fall of 1943. No commercial records were made during this period but Lang-Worth transcriptions and AFRS shows fill in the gaps - here is the band with Harry Edison, Joe Newman and Al Killian playing trumpet solos; Dicky Wells on trombone; Earl Warren, Jimmy Powell, Buddy Tate, Lester Young and Rudy Rutherford in the sax section and the Basie rhythm section of the boss, Freddy Green, Rodney Richardson and Jo Jones. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/john-clark49/support

Abe Fortas was a rising star on the Supreme Court. He argued a still-legendary case before it and then was appointed one of its justices. For many he was seen as the successor to Earl Warren. It was when he was nominated for Chief Justice that opposition cemented. He was too close to the President, too liberal on issues, and then there were disclosures of contributions he had received were revealed. After a drawn-out stalemate he withdrew his candidacy for Chief Justice. But it wouldn't stop there. Fortas also stepped down as an Associate Justice as the administration changed and political pressure increased. The Fortas case would be revealed later by insider and Watergate persona John Dean as part of an 'unpacking' plan that President Nixon had to reduce the left-lean of the Warren court, though it wasn't obvious at the time. But it's not that simple either. Fortas's case also has set a precedent for the danger of having a Justice with a close relationship to the Chief Executive. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

  How Gerry Simone got interested in the JFK case Article: A Narrative is Debunked by Gerry Simone Gerry was inspired by the late Toronto researcher Tony Centa John Mcadams - Laughing stock of the Internet? FREE Borrowable Ebook: Best Evidence by David Lifton In his article, Gerry debunks an article published on The Conversation website by Gonzalo Soltero Soltero says that most conspiracy theories surrounding JFK’s assassination have been disproven The late journalist Oscar Contreras Lartigue said he met Oswald in Mexico City In 1978, Dan Hardway of the HSCA wanted to interview Contreras but couldn't due to the CIA Article: A Cruel and Shocking Misinterpretation by Dan Hardway Blonde and short Oswald in Mexico City A 1960 memo by Hoover to the State Department warned that “there is a possibility that an impostor is using Oswald’s birth certificate” LBJ used Oswald's alleged meeting with Kostikov to convince Earl Warren and Sen Richard Russell to serve on WC Soltero doesn't mention anything about the Oswald impersonator in his article As per Hardway, Oswald was being used in an intelligence opertion as a dangle or in an attempt to discredit the Fair Play for Cuba Committee or both The Mexico City trip was either designed in advance or spun in the aftermath of the assassination to give the appearance of Cuban and Soviet collusion in the assassination Contreras was warned by Cuban consular staff to avoid Oswald as they suspected he was an infiltrator Book: The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today by Jim DiEugenio: Paperback, Kindle The Chicago Plot to Kill JFK: Read Online, Download PDF HSCA's CIA liason George Joannides was involved in psychological operations in Miami Joannides's group funded an anti-Castro group and had contact with Oswald 6 out of 7 mock trials resulted in either a hung jury or an acquital in favor of Oswald Mary Ferrell Foundation Files Lawsuit Over JFK Records Read the actual complaint here (PDF) The Conversation article was also published by other outlets Video: How Twitter Worked With The FBI To BAN Donald Trump (The Jimmy Dore Show) Video: 80 FBI Agents Monitored Jokes On Twitter Full Time! (The Jimmy Dore Show) Video: FBI Agent Planted Inside Twitter FIRED By Musk For Censorship! (The Jimmy Dore Show) Part B: Chad Nagle; beginning at 50:03 Article: A Personal Encounter with the Warren Commission by Chad Nagle Video: Tucker Carlson on JFK Assassination, Dec 15, 2022 Mary Ferrell Foundation Files Lawsuit Over JFK Records Read the actual complaint here (PDF) Chad has previously worked for Howard Willens, Assistant Counsel to the Warren Commission The WC was a template for the public "truth-seeking" panels that don't convince the people The explanation provided by the WC was a whitewash The Warren Report doesn't read like a legal opinion but rather a coherent narrative for public consumption The murders of CIA assets like Sam Giancana and Johnny Roselli during the 1970s when the HSCA was operating Video: Judge Napolitano Reveals What President Trump Told Him About The Shocking Contents of the JFK Files How Nagle got to work with Howard Willens Libby Handros's new documentary Four Died Trying; check poster here Book: Harvey and Lee (2003) (.pdf) by John Armstrong Len to record a special show with John Armstrong in March If you have any questions for John, please email Len at osanic@prouty.org  

Tom Fuentes is the former Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is currently the President of Fuentes International, L.L.C., a consulting firm based in Washington, D.C. He is a member of the U.S. State Department's Overseas Security Advisory Council and provides executive level consulting to law enforcement agencies throughout the world. Mr. Fuentes has also hosted television documentaries for National Geographic, The History Channel and Netflix. He served as Senior Law Enforcement Analyst for CNN from 2009-2019. In 2013 he joined Morris & McDaniel as Vice President for International Development. The firm specializes in Police applicant and promotional testing programs. Mr. Fuentes served as an Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. His 29-year career in the FBI included 11 years as a member of the U.S. Government's Senior Executive Service. He directed the Office of International Operations. He also served as a member of INTERPOL's Executive Committee. He was the first FBI executive on-scene commander in Iraq. He was a member and/or commander of FBI SWAT teams in Chicago, San Francisco, Indianapolis and tactical co-commander at the summer Olympics in Atlanta in 1996. He also was a police officer for six years before entering on duty with the FBI. Mr. Fuentes is a 2007 graduate of the FBI's National Executive Institute, a member of the FBI's National Academy Associates, National Executive Institute Associates, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. He received the Society of Asian Federal Officers' Lifetime Achievement Award in 2013. Mr. Fuentes was born and raised in Chicago. Topics they discuss: HUNTER BIDEN'S LAPTOP The latest with Hunter Biden's laptop. Is this a pay to play operation? Hunter received 31 million in wire transfers from China from companies related to the communist party. How's this going to end for Hunter Biden? The governor in Florida recently said there will be no Chinese activity in the state of Florida. Is China attached to our political agenda? JFK, OSWALD, JACK RUBY, & THE MAFIA'S ROLE IN JFK'S ASSASSINATION President Kennedy made a lot of powerful enemies.Tom explains how Bay of Pigs was compromised. The military asked Kennedy for air support and he refused because he didn't want to expose the US's involvement which created a bitter enemy with the Pentagon. What drove the Warren Commision? When Johnson, in those recorded phone conversations with Earl Warren, appealed to Earl Warren's patriotism to protect the country. Johnso told Warren that it was his responsibility to save the country and that this commission had to find Oswald as the lone assassin. Was the commission a ruse? Oswald's background: He was a technician at a US airbase in Japan where U-2 spy plane flights were taking off from over the Soviet Union. The CIA has a program where people pretend to defect to the Soviet Union. So Oswald pretends to defect to the Soviet Union and gets assigned by the Soviets to go to Minsk. Unbeknownst to Oswald, he meets and marries a girl who's the daughter of the head of the KGB. After a year or two in Russia Oswald returns to the United States and is reinstated as a US citizen. What happens next? How does he get involved in the plot to kill KenneIt's a crucial conversation we're going to continue every Tuesday and Thursday morning as we drop new episodes. Subscribe now wherever you get your podcasts, and find us on Youtube @OperationTruthOfficial and on Rumble @OperationTruth. Follow us on social media @OperationTruthOfficial on TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram and @OperationTruth7 on Twitter.E-mail us your listener questions and comments to OperationTruthOfficial@gmail.com.If you want to stay up to date with the truth, join the operation! Follow us on the socials and spread the word!

The Basie Bunch .. recordings for Vanguard in 1957 featuring Buck Clayton, Emmett Berry, Vic Dickenson, Benny Green, Earl Warren, Lucky Thompson, Nat Pierce, Hank Jones, Freddie Green, Kenny Burrell, Walter Page, Aaron Bell, Jo Jones, and on one number, Basie himself! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/john-clark49/support

On the last episode in our series, Momentum, Sharon ties up a few loose ends. The 1950s was a decade full of change, but the Civil Rights Movement didn't end when the calendar flipped to 1960. Most of the people we've followed throughout this series continued their crusade for–or against–civil freedoms well into the next several decades.We hear about Barbara Johns and the next steps in integrated schooling, about Earl Warren and the gains his Supreme Court made in the 60s. We also learn about the reason behind his rift with J. Edgar Hoover, and how the FBI evolved over the years. Finally, Sharon returns to a Civil Rights power player, and we visit her in a new city, and with a new approach to activism. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The show which can originally be found at kgov.com/crime [Updated June 13, 2021] - The death penalty is at the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. - Salvation is presented in terms of crime and punishment. - The Bible is a criminal justice textbook. - Five of the Ten Commandments are for criminal justice - See below our list of ways to reduce crime. Murders per Million Source: See the FBI's 2018 Homicide Data Table 6 and the simple spreadsheet calculation. While many crimes go unreported, even sexual assaults, murder is almost always reported. This chart's statistics are highly reliable. Won't vs. Can't: Public policy should prioritize deterrence over inability. Human beings are almost infinitely creative. Thus, a government's top priority should be making it so that people won't commit crime rather than that they can't commit crime. List of Ways: Don't worry! Below, in our List of Ways to Reduce Crime, of the 25 specifics, none of them say, let's just stop shooting each other; don't judge; just love everyone; love God; all sins are equal; or forgive everyone. Flashback #1: Court TV interviews Bob Enyart regarding Scott Peterson's death sentence. Flashback #2: We purchased OJ Simpson's memorabilia at auction and then burned both his Hall of Fame Award and his Heisman '68 Jersey (which had been hanging in his Brentwood mansion) to call for the installation of a new criminal justice system in America. See KGOV.com/oj. Flashback #3: Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick as documented at ShadowGov.com and as an editor of the Wall Street Journal wrote, that Bill Clinton's rape of Juanita Broaddrick was an event that "in fact took place." Hear also Bob's worldwide exclusive interview with Juanita Broaddrick and with nurse Norma Rogers, her friend who found Broaddrick wounded and in tears shortly after the assault. Flashback #4: BEL aired never-before-heard Columbine recordings and we get to the real story (i.e., one murderer's Natural Selection t-shirt) behind the massacre, the search warrant application that was squashed that may have prevented the murders, and the disgraced sheriff's refusal to let SWAT intervene. Flashback #5: Check out Bob Enyart's phone call to Michael Jackson attorney's office on the very day that Mark Geragos threatened to sue anyone who "besmirched Jackson's reputation" and see the three pieces of information on the homosexual child molester that Bob gave to the Santa Barbara District Attorney. Flashback #6: Reporters whom we identify by name from the New York Times, the LA Times, and Reuters called for comment about the Planned Parenthood shooting in Colorado Springs. But as fake news they all refused to show the petition signature or even report that the kgov.com/hero Officer Garrett Swasey who was murdered by the pothead who shot up the mill had been helping us to try to stop all killing at that abortion mill, including by the abortionist. Flashback #7: After our meager effort to get justice for JonBenet failed, we presented our Clue that Breaks the Case and our Concise List of Inculpatory Evidence Against the Ramseys including in this 200,000+ views YouTube: Five of the Ten Commandments: Five of the Bible's Ten Commandments lay the foundation for a valid criminal justice system: - Do not murder (basis for the right to life and prohibiting crimes of bodily harm crimes) - Do not steal (basis for the right to own private property and prohibiting socialism and other economic crimes)- Do not commit adultery (basis for prohibiting extra-marital intimacy, etc.) - Do not bear false witness (prohibiting of kgov.com/perjury as the basis for the right to due process) - Do not covet (goes to establishing motive in court proceedings) See kgov.com/americas-criminal-code for our one-page long proposed criminal code that can replace a million pages of the country's current codes. Death Penalty at the Heart of the Gospel of Christ: Question: Do any New Testament people or books support execution?Answer: As shown directly in the verses below, Jesus, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, Revelation, and an angel all give strong support for the death penalty. But first consider the case of an American mass murderer. Here are the New Testament scriptures this article quotes: "For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar." -Apostle Paul, Acts 25:11 "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying... 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say..." -Jesus Christ, Mat. 15:3‑4 & Mark 7:8‑11 …rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. For [the governing authority] is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. -Paul, Rom. 13:3-4 And if anyone wants to harm them… he must be killed… -Apostle John, Rev. 11:5 he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. -John, Rev. 13:10 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies (present tense) without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot. Hebrews 10:28‑29 [death penalty = deterrent for unbelief] "[we] are under the same condemnation, indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong" -repentant criminal being executed Luke 23:40-41 Here are a few Old Testament scriptures for capital punishment: Be afraid of the sword for yourselves; for wrath brings the punishment of the sword, that you may know there is a judgment. Job 19:29 The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance… So that men will say, "Surely there is a reward for the righteous; Surely He is God who judges in the earth." Ps. 58:10‑11 "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man." Gen. 9:6 'take no ransom for the life of a murderer… but he shall surely be put to death' Num. 35:31‑33 "Will you profane Me among My people… killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live…?" Ezek. 13:19 Thus the death penalty still applies for murder, kidnapping, etc. But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless... for murderers [Ex. 21:16]... for perjurers... -Paul 1 Tim. 1:8-10 Finally, KGOV's New Testament Support for Capital Punishment explains that Christians should not advocate for the death penalty for the Mosaic symbolic offenses. Why not? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law Hebrews 7:12 As of shortly after Christ's death, no government, not even Israel's, should punish, let alone execute, those who violate the symbolic ordinances which reinforced Israel's priestly role (Lev. 24:16; Mat. 15:4; etc.). Listener's Neighbors Murdered: Please pray for a BEL listener going to visit in jail a husband who turned himself in, who murdered his wife on Feb. 21, 2019. Both were Chuck's neighbors. Our listener will urge the murderer to forbid his defense attorneys from entering a not guilty plea, and even to dismiss them. Further, that he should not fight the death penalty. And, even if he asks God to forgive Him to save His soul (which would be wise, that should have no affect on the punishment that he is due in this life,

On today's episode of our special series, Momentum: Civil Rights in the 1950s, Sharon establishes the foundation of another man who played a pivotal role in Brown v. The Board of Education. Today, in 2022, the idea of someone serving as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court with no previous experience working in the Judicial Branch of government, would be unheard of. And it would certainly be unheard of for a gubernatorial candidate to win both the Republican AND Democratic primaries when running for office in California. However, that is exactly what prosecutor, turned Governor, turned Chief Justice did, in what would become a 50-year career of public service for Earl Warren. Justice Warren carried his national prominence to the Supreme Court, and was determined to have all 9 Justices agree on the Brown vs. The Board of Education decision. The makeup of the high court proved to be consequential, as the Justices brought a broad diversity of viewpoints, rather than consisting only of professional judges. While Justice Warren was ultimately successful in leading the court to making a unanimous decision, the President who appointed him – President Dwight D. Eisenhower – would come too deeply regret his decision to appoint him. How did Earl Warren and Thurgood Marshall know each other, prior to meeting in the courtroom? And how do wiretaps from the FBI tie into all of this through a secret bureau program? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On Sunday May 23rd, 1954 at 6PM Eastern, The American Forum of the Air signed on Mutual with a discussion on the Supreme Court Decision of Brown versus The Board of Education. On May 17th, The Court ruled that racial segregation within the U.S. public school system was unconstitutional. It repealed the “separate but equal” doctrine from 1896. By the early 1950s the NAACP was filing lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs in South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware, with Thurgood Marshall as attorney. In the most famous case, Oliver Brown filed suit against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas after his daughter, Linda Brown, was denied access to Topeka's all-white elementary schools. Brown claimed it violated the fourteenth Amendment. This case and four others eventually went before the U.S. Supreme court in December of 1952. At first, the justices were divided on how to rule. Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson felt the 1896 verdict should stand. But, he died in September of 1953 and President Eisenhower replaced him with California governor Earl Warren. Eisenhower knew this appointment would help overturn the nineteenth century verdict. In the decision, issued on May 17, 1954, Warren wrote that “in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal' has no place,” as segregated schools are “inherently unequal.” Days after that decision, there was considerable debate in the media over whether desegregation was fair. In this episode of The American Forum, the debate is between Democrat Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois and Democrat Senator Price Daniel of Texas. The American Forum of the Air's roots were planted in Gimbels department store in 1928. Gimbels owned WGBS. Theodore Granik, a young law student who worked for Gimbels, did continuity, wrote dialogue, and reported sports events. He had an idea for a panel discussion on all kinds of legal issues. When the station was sold, WOR gave Granik a similar job. The American Forum of the Air premiered in 1934. By 1943, it had become a staple for those looking to stay abreast of socio-economics and politics. The format was tight. Proponents and opponents were allowed an opening statement; a panel discussion followed, questions were taken from the audience, and closing summations wrapped it all up. It was the only radio show printed verbatim in the Congressional Record and won a Peabody Award in 1949.

When the father of the leading candidate for California Attorney General is killed in 1938, it becomes a sensational news story. Matt Warren, Earl Warren's father, was brutally murdered in his home on Niles Street. This is one of Bakersfield's most mysterious puzzles. If you'd like to support the Notorious Bakersfield podcast, you can buy me a coffee. Visit here to make a donation:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/NotoriousVisit the Notorious Bakersfield website: https://www.notoriousbakersfield.com/Email: notoriousbakersfield@gmail.com

Allegations of Marxism. Crazy made for TV moments...or at least something to make your latest fundraising pitch pop. Questions that no judge would ever decide. The Supreme Court confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has had its share of questionable moments by politicians trying to gin up outrage. But Bakersfield Californian columnist Robert Price has a new piece showing how one of the most famous Supreme Court justices, Earl Warren, faced many of the same challenges during his confirmation hearing.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Very few Americans have had the impact on public policy as has Joseph Califano. Though his parents only graduated high school, he went to Harvard Law  and by age 30 was working at high levels of the John F. Kennedy Administration - and shortly after was the top domestic White House aide to Lyndon Johnson. In this conversation, he talks his meteoric rise through the Kennedy / Johnson years, seeing first-hand as the LBJ “Johnson Treatment” built the Great Society, the toll that Vietnam took on President Johnson, & his work as HEW Cabinet Secretary under President Carter to start a national anti-smoking campaign that's had immeasurable benefits to public health in the US. This is a great conversation with a true American Dream success story and political dynamo.IN THIS EPISODE…Growing up as an Italian-American kid in the era of Franklin Roosevelt…How a working class Brooklyn kid makes it to Harvard Law…Why he left a lucrative private law firm to enter the Kennedy Administration…He talks working in the early days of the Kennedy Administration with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara…Memories from meetings with President Kennedy…Early impressions working up and close and personal with President Johnson…Why LBJ sequenced the 1964 Civil Rights Act ahead of other Great Society programs…Secretary Califano goes in depth describing “The Johnson Treatment”…Memories from the White House on the night Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated…The “race against expectations” that informed much of LBJ's time in office…Secretary Califano talks the difficulty in passing Fair Housing legislation…The role that Lady Bird Johnson played in helping making President Johnson more effective…The connection between Secretary Califano's son and safety caps on medicine bottles…Reflecting on a political misfire as President Johnson missed an opportunity to appoint a new Supreme Court Chief Justice…The toll that the Vietnam War took on President Johnson…President Johnson's courageous early foray for gun safety laws…The last conversation he had with President Johnson after he left office…His time in the Carter Cabinet as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare…Why Democrats couldn't secure universal healthcare during the Democratic trifecta of the late 1970s…How he came to spearhead a national anti-smoking campaign…AND the AMA, Carolyn Agger, Brooklyn Prep, McGeorge Bundy, George Christian, Sterling Cottrell, Thomas Dewey, Everett Dirksen, Dwight Eisenhower, Abe Fortas, Gerald Ford, William Fulbright, the Harvard Law Review, the Hirshhorn Museum, Holy Cross, IBM, the JAG Corps, Lady Bird Johnson, Robert Kennedy, leak central, Russell Long, Mike Mansfield, Harry Middleton, Bill Moyers, John McGillicuddy, Harry McPherson, Richard Nixon, Dick Ottinger, PS 182, Claiborne Pell, Jake Pickle, a revolving son of a bitch, the Subversive Activity Control Board, Al Smith, sugar in gas tanks, Jack Valenti, Cyrus Vance, Earl Warren, Watts riots…& more!

Ride, Red, Ride . . recordings by Henry "Red" Allen in the 1950's for Soundcraft, Verve, and Victor . .featuring J.C. Higginbotham, Buster Bailey, Sol Yaged, Earl Warren, Coleman Hawkins, Lou Stein, Marty Napoleon, Milt Hinton, Lloyd Trotman, Cozy Cole, Chubby Jackson, George Wettling, Bob Hammer and Sol Hall --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/john-clark49/support

The great Walter Dellinger, one of Professor Amar's role models in the law and one of the great lawyers of the past century, moves Professor Amar to present and review his role models and why they matter to all of us.  Dellinger's career was so enormous in its scope, so impactful in its action, that it forms a scaffolding for considering topics as varied as the most important SCOTUS footnote ever written; other momentous careers such as Earl Warren, Charles Black, and Telford Taylor; the lighter side of working for President Clinton; the last public statements of Benjamin Franklin and now Dellinger himself - and much more.  Fittingly, Dellinger's last writing has impact beyond his demise, as he provided background and perspective for the momentous nomination by President Biden of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court - and so we consider that.

"Good Morning Blues" (1937) Count Basie and His Orchestra: 1936 - 1938. The Classics Chronological Series (Classics, Ed. 1990) Count Basie, Buck Clayton, Ed Lewis, Bobby Moore, Eddie Durham, George Hunt, Dan Minor, Earl Warren, Jack Washington, Herschel Evans, Lester Young, Freddie Green, Walter Page, Jo Jones, Jimmy Rushing, Lloyd "Skippy" Martin, Harry "Buster" Smith. El tema es una composición de Eddie Durham, Count Basie y Jimmy Rushing. Tomajazz: © Pachi Tapiz, 2022 ¿Sabías que? Count Basie nació en 1904. Su padre era cochero; su madre, que era lavandera, le enseñó a tocar el piano. Aunque nació en Red Bank, New Jersey, es uno de los representantes principales del sonido Kansas City. En el año 1929 ya estaba grabando junto a Bennie Moten.  En los años 30 su orquesta, junto con las de Duke Ellington y Benny Goodman, es una de las máximas representantes del swing. Entre 1936 y 1940 actuó ininterrumpidamente en giras y actuaciones en salas de concierto o de baile, grandes hoteles y restaurantes. En la orquesta que grabó este tema en agosto de 1937 hay grandes músicos como Jimmy Rushing (que es quien canta), Lester Young, Buck Clayton, Freddie Green o Jo Jones. El tema es un clásico en cualquier recopilación de Count Basie. He elegido la incluida en la serie The Classics Chronological, pero podrían haber sido otras muchas como The Complete Decca Recordings. En anteriores episodios de JazzX5/HDO/LODLMA/Maltidos Jazztardos/Tomajazz Remembers… https://www.tomajazz.com/web/?p=23849 Más información sobre Count Basie https://www.tomajazz.com/web/?s=count+basie&submit=Search http://countbasie.com/home/ Más información sobre JazzX5 JazzX5 es un minipodcast de HDO de la Factoría Tomajazz presentado, editado y producido por Pachi Tapiz. JazzX5 comenzó su andadura el 24 de junio de 2019. Todas las entregas de JazzX5 están disponibles en https://www.tomajazz.com/web/?cat=23120 / https://www.ivoox.com/jazzx5_bk_list_642835_1.html. JazzX5 y los podcast de Tomajazz en Telegram En Tomajazz hemos abierto un canal de Telegram para que estés al tanto, al instante, de los nuevos podcast. Puedes suscribirte en https://t.me/TomajazzPodcast. Pachi Tapiz en Tomajazz https://www.tomajazz.com/web/?cat=17847

Many scholars have interrogated the incarceration of 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII – with an eye to understanding the particular type of racism that allowed the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt to punish based on heritage rather than any particular action or crime. Bradford Pearson's new book The Eagles of Heart Mountain: A True Story of Football, Incarceration, and Resistance in World War II America (Atria/Simon and Schuster, 2021) provides a political history of the incarceration of Japanese-Americans during WWII by, first, going back in time to highlight the complex history of how Japanese (and Chinese) Americans first came to the West coast in the 17th century and the nuances of the racism they encountered over the centuries. Once Pearson establishes the origins of Anti-Asian-American racism, he follows several teenagers who played football both free and incarcerated. These nisei, American citizens of Japanese heritage, had their education and participation in a sport that has come to define what is “American” interrupted by the transports, relocations, and imprisonments that placed families in concentration camps across the United States. Pearson uses their role in a football team created in one concentration camp – Heart Mountain Relocation Center in Cody, Wyoming – to document racism and discrimination but also sports competition as a means of escapism and regaining dignity. Pearson, the former features editor of Southwest: The Magazine and a journalist who has published in the New York Times, Esquire, Time, and Salon, uses foundational works in history and political science, his own oral histories, government surveillance files, and archives associated with Heart Mountain, to create a relevant history for considering how we define citizenship in the U.S., the role of the legislature and courts in establishing and maintain white supremacy, American acceptance of incarceration based on race, and the importance of fully contextualizing American public figures such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Earl Warren. Susan Liebell is an associate professor of political science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Why Diehard Originalists Aren't Really Originalists recently appeared in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage and “Retreat from the Rule of Law: Locke and the Perils of Stand Your Ground” was published in the Journal of Politics (July 2020). Email her comments at sliebell@sju.edu or tweet to @SusanLiebell. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Earl Warren currently serves as Jacksonville State's Director of Development, but he made his name as a student-athlete on the men's basketball team in the mid 80's. The Oneonta, Ala., native played four seasons, tallying 1,156 points, 461 assists and 226 steals to become the 12th Gamecock to score 1,000 points in a career. His time on the court was highlighted by the 1985 NCAA Division II National Championship, in which a pair of free throws from the senior secured the title. He was inducted into the JSU Athletics Hall of Fame in 2015.

Remember when President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace the late Antonin Scalia as a Justice on the Supreme Court in 2016 only to have that nomination complete shut down Senate Republicans? Or remember when President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Court resulting Kavanaugh's sexual history played out before the national media? My guest today writes about the Supreme Court for a living and has quite thoughtfully asked if the nomination process has always been so brutal? Michael Bobelian is the author of Battle for the Marble Palace: Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and the Forging of the Modern Supreme Court in which he identifies the 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as the turning point when what had been a mundane procedural vote became a bitter partisan feud. Michael is himself a lawyer as well as a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He covers the Supreme Court and other legal subjects for Forbe.com, and has contributed to numerous publications including Reuters, the LA Times, and NPR. Michael joined me for a fascinating Skype interview about the Fortas nomination and what that means for us today. Want to listen to new episodes a week earlier and get exclusive bonus content? Consider becoming a supporter of the podcast on Patreon! Like the podcast? Please subscribe and leave a review! Follow @CMTUHistory on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram & TikTok --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app